In the wake of an increased number of cyclist deaths in London, Mayor Boris Johnson gave an interview on BBC Radio London 94.9 in which he suggested that part of the dangers that cyclists on London’s roads faced was not being able to hear traffic due to the use of headphones for listening to music.
He said:
“Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along unable to hear the traffic.
“You’ve got to be able to hear that car behind you or about to come out of the road in front of you.”
The comments Mr Johnson made about cyclists not being able to hear traffic were also picked up by the Independent columnist Fran Yeoman who wrote supporting Mr Johnson’s views on being able to hear and ride, citing her own experience:
She said:
It is all the more scary because I used to do it – until I realised with a fright that I was not only unable to hear everything I needed to but at times dangerously distracted.
We wanted to clarify if Mr Johnson was suggesting that the idea of deaf people cycling terrified him. A spokesman for the Mayor told us:
“I think the mayor was making a wider point on cyclists concentrating on what they’re doing while on the road. Its not about making a distinction between hearing people or deaf people, he was making a wider point about having full attention on what you’re doing. Listening to loud music is more likely to mean that a cyclists attention is not fully on the road.”
So now it’s over to you. What’s the difference between a deaf cyclist and a hearing cyclist who is listening to music? Is it that a deaf cyclist has enhanced visual awareness? Or is it not the absence of the sound of traffic, but the distraction of the music that puts hearing cyclists in danger? Does it simply depend on the person riding the bike or are deaf cyclists at an increased risk? Is this all just nonsense?
Let us know your view in the comments.
Check out what our supporters provide: Phonak: innovative technology and products in hearing acoustics. Deaf Umbrella: sign language interpreting and communications support. Ai-Live: Live captions and transcripts. 121 Captions: captioning and speech-to-text services. Signworld: online BSL learning and teaching materials. STAGETEXT: theatre captioning. Krazy Kat: visual theatre with BSL. SignHealth: healthcare support for Deaf people. Deafinitely Theatre: theatre from a Deaf perspective.Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support. SDHH: Deaf television programmes online. Sign Solutions:, language and learning. Lexicon Signstream: BSL interpreting and communication services. Action Deafness Communications: sign language and Red Dot online video interpreting. Hamilton Lodge School in Brighton: education for Deaf children. RAD Deaf Law Centre: and legal advice for Deaf people.
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: sign language interpreting - find out about listening fatigue.
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Mary Hare School: Education for deaf children and young people
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Janner
November 21, 2013
I don’t think its that a deaf person would have enhanced visual abilities so much as a hearing person still relies on noise for spacial awareness. Removing that through listening to music is dangerous.
Andy. Not him, me.
November 21, 2013
He has deeply offended me for starters. I have many times ridden a bike through central London traffic and while you need to be very alert and watchful there is no need to hear anything at all. There is so much other noise going on that sound is not really relevant. What he is saying quite plainly is that riders who cannot hear are in an inferior and dangerous position. They terrify him. He said so!
It is a scarily short step from there to restricting the rights of people who cannot hear!
Let’s compare this with vehicle drivers, who frequently smoke, eat, talk, read, listen to the radio, change CD’s, make phone calls. A driver in a vehicle with the stereo going full blast as many people do, is effectively deaf to the outside world. I don’t notice anyone getting terrified about that.
I think most of the cycle deaths are caused by bad riding. I have seen some videos of bike riders in heavy traffic and many of them take serious risks. Going up the inside of a large vehicle is very dangerous. It might pull in to the kerb or it might indicate a left turn and you wouldn’t see the indicator. If it turns left in front of a cyclist the back wheels will run over him.
Another thing bike riders do is they don’t stop. All the traffic stops but then they pull out and ride along the outside of the traffic. Very clever to steal a march on all the tin tops but also very dangerous. Another thing they do is turn left against a red light. The traffic signals apply to bikes as well!
As for cycling on the pavement, it’s illegal! When I have been walking in Bristol city centre I have many times had bikes brush past me from behond. Maybe they ping their bell, but my CI isn’t that good!
claresnews
November 21, 2013
I think being distracted is part of the reason. But also that a hearing person listening to music may well be unaware that they usually unconsciously rely on hearing traffic and now can’t. Whereas we know we can’t hear traffic so are likely to be looking around more carefully.
That said, as a pedestrian, I’m at risk from bikes coming up behind me on the canal towpath, or coming through one of the blind spots at bridges. I can hear cars on the road but I can’t hear bicycle bells.
By the way, has anyone said that a large proportion of the recent fatalities involved cyclists listening to music? Or has Boris just pulled this out to distract from how dangerous the “superhighway” may be?
Clare
Corrie
November 21, 2013
Being Dutch and having visited London last weekend, I say it is not about the cyclist but the lousy infrastructure: no cyclist paths??
Howard
November 21, 2013
Police will stop you if caught wearing headphones…so dont be startled if police trying to catch you wearing an ear implant or hearing aid by accident!
Irene Winn
November 21, 2013
Although I have hearing, I don’t rely on it. This means that I use my eyes and by frequently checking the traffic coming up behind me, I am less likely to get into difficulties. Having said that, as a car driver I am appalled at the attitudes of some drivers. They think they own the road and everyone has to make way for them, whether they be behind a wheel, on a saddle or on foot. If everyone using the road used courtesy, there probably would be far less accidents.
Robert Mandara
November 21, 2013
I’m with Boris on this. It makes sense to me in theory that you’re less likely to have an accident the more aware of your surroundings you are. Let’s not misconstrue this as deaf-bashing.
I’ve had plenty of surprises on a bike when the first I know of a large lorry approaching from behind is when it appears alongside me. If I could hear vehicles approaching from behind then I would certainly feel safer. Similarly, being able to hear sirens, horns, bells etc ought to be safer than not hearing them.
James
November 21, 2013
City streets should not have been made so dangerous for cycling and walking in the first place. Sort it out Boris!
With hearing aids, most of the sounds I hear while cycling is basically a meaningless jumble of rushing wind, a low rumble of traffic and miscellaneous streetscape noise. This is not much help in terms of avoiding being squashed by the HGV behind you (which is probably driving all over the cycle lane anyway). Also, I think people forget that a lot of cars are actually very quiet these days too.
The one sound that I can generally pick out over all this, which *is* important to hear, are emergency sirens. Having said that, even when I can hear the siren I still have difficulty in working out which direction it is coming from. This is doubly confusing with all the unmarked police cars that go whizzing about all over the place. Oi! Police! Put some flashing lights on it!
Deafnotdaft
November 21, 2013
I think it’s quite simple. A deaf cyclist is doing his best to hear the traffic for the sake of his own safety. A hearing cyclist with an MP3 player is doing his best to hear his music above the background noise of the traffic. So it boils down to what the cyclist is trying to hear – the traffic if he’s deaf, or his music if he’s got an MP3. That’s why a deaf cyclist is often safer on the roads than a hearing cyclist listening to music.
sammmymack
November 22, 2013
Without statistics, Boris has no evidence either way, he just has his opinion. Mine is that Deaf cyclists instinctively look behind them more frequently. These backward glances are called “lifesavers” for a reason. The sounds heard by hearing cyclists are hardly helpful in terms of safety anyway, especially when muffled by a helmet or hat.
Sensorineural Blues
November 22, 2013
There’s a worrying trend where more and more cyclists are involved in road accidents, often fatal ones. There are lots of reasons for this, not least the sheer stupidity of some cyclists who ignore red lights, ride the wrong way down one-way streets and cycle on the pavement. Deaf cyclists are at a disadvantage because they struggle to hear danger-signs. So I think it’s essential that they ride with extra care and obey the rules of the road. The fact is, they are less likely than hearing cyclists to get away with riding dangerously. Let’s remember. A deaf cyclist is only a small typo away from a dead cyclist.
Editor
November 22, 2013
The end of that comment left me open-mouthed.
I’m pretty sure deaf cyclists make up for their lack of hearing by using their visual senses more – we have better peripheral vision apparently.
Sensorineural Blues
November 22, 2013
Not as open-mouthed as I was when I read about the latest spate of cycling accidents in London. Fourteen cyclists have been killed so far this year. And 6 in the last 2 weeks. Yes, good peripheral vision might help deaf cyclists but surely they’re still more vulnerable than hearing folk.
Andy. Not him, me.
November 22, 2013
If lack of hearing made deaf people more vulnerable then surely we would be seeing a string of deaf casualties?
The fact that all the casualities to date are apparently hearing would indicate quite the opposite.
Sensorineural Blues
November 23, 2013
Hi Andy. My point is that, although deaf cyclists are vulnerable, they will be safe if they ride carefully and obey the rules of the road – as per the post below.
Paul Redfern
November 22, 2013
I cycle into central London and I always obey the rules of the road. I also have a mirror to check up constantly what is behind me. My accident record is excellent – that is to say, I’ve never had one. And I am – for the purposes of this – completely deaf. As far as I’m concerned it’s about recognising the risk and riding sensibly accordingly. And if that adds five minutes to my journey, so what?
angel sign
November 24, 2013
Travelling no matter what vehicle be a cycle, motorcycle, car, lorry, bus etc in my opinion is down to the rider/driver’s common sense and concentration around them. Just 1 second of distraction no matter what it be sight/hearing/smell can change the course for the journey and be dangerous. The comment up for debate has come from a person who has a rep for saying things in the wrong context and making it sound offensive when really it is up to us as the individuals not to take offense. Having said that I believe it is the actual music on the ear piece that is the cause for danger not the person’s own senses.
Hartmut
November 26, 2013
Problem here is the use of audistic language. Here the Mayor used the word ‘hear’ in the sense of aural reception of danger signals. Non-audistic use of the word would be the general perceiving of signals, be it through eyes, ears, or skin.
The defense of the Major’s Aide ,as he said about paying attention is what matters, is correct. However, only the complete absence of sound and relying solely on eyes guarantees undivided attention to the traffic.
With this, the best recommendation for safety in traffic is shielding your ears from sounds completely.
Hartmut
Mike
January 2, 2016
Comments from Lord Mayor of London offend me as a motorcyclist with 40 years experience as well as an experienced cyclist despite being profoundly deaf from birth myself! I don’t bother wearing hearing aids since leaving school but if you have good road sense with peripheral vision, you will be fine wherever you go riding. What is most important in the art of defensive riding is your position and line of command. The same applies to riding a motorcycle. You will learn something from standard motorcycle lessons and advanced motorcycle test! Occassionally I find myself riding better than my fellow club cyclists in tricky road situations due to my natural instinct developed from years of riding two-wheeled.