Reputation: 40
Q&A:
1
0
0
34
14
0
Classifieds:
0
0
|
I think there is a lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) spread about cycling with headphones. I do, regularly.
First, know your experience and acknowledge your skill level. Many states now limit new young drivers in an effort to reduce distractions, such placing age limits on passengers and limiting the times one can drive. Police yourself accordingly.
My personal habits depend on time of day, traffic level, road or trail, urban commute or long distance ride. Definitely run you headphone cord inside a shirt like Mobius suggests. Keep your mp3 player where it is secure such as in a backpack and don't fiddle with it while you're riding. The pocket on my hoodie works fine. Don't use headphones that cover your ears. I prefer junky earbuds from Radio Shack as I wear out the cable every couple of months.
For a time, I religiously only used a single ear-bud, but the conversations with drivers about how bicycles should be on the sidewalk and not in the street got boring.
The effect on your hearing obviously depends on a number of factors such as having one or two earbuds in as well as, obviously but often not noted, your volume level. It's easy to ride with a setup that allows you more hearing than you would in a car with the radio off but the windows rolled up.
At the very least, you have to be able to hear a horn for that one in a million time when someone honks to signal danger rather than their frustration, but you should be able to find a satisfactory balance between hearing most of the sounds of traffic and your music as well. You'll have no problem hearing emergency vehicles, accidents and other important audible clues at this level, and can always pull an ear-bud to discern the police officer yelling at you over his public address system from his car behind you.
Keep in mind that the most important reason for being able to hear traffic is because you need to be proactive in your safety where others fail. Are you going to hear the car approaching you from behind at three times your speed when your headphones off? Maybe, depends on the car, its acceleration, and the other sounds around you. In any case, are you going to have time to look over your shoulder, calculate a path and evade? That's totally situational. I've never had to dodge a car coming up behind me, but it may happen.
Don't worry about needing to hear the airplane that could hit you while you're listening to music on your bike, think about the situations that will engage you and act appropriately.
|
illegal (in seattle anyway) and irresponsible advice - sorry, but thumbs down.
"For a time, I religiously only used a single ear-bud, but the conversations with drivers about how bicycles should be on the sidewalk and not in the street got boring."
Oddly enough the law appears to provide you the means to ride with earphones legally only IF you ARE on the sidewalk. Fancy that. Perhaps these drivers were judges, cops, or lawyers... ;)
|
|
|
As I attempted to convey, merely stating something is "illegal" or "irresponsible" without account is rash. While your opinion is valuable, please be clear that it is such if you are unwilling to provide reason to your beliefs.
I'm still awaiting a citation that clearly states operating a non-motorized vehicle on public roads in Seattle while wearing headphones is illegal. I see no course in the city or state law, perhaps a documented court citation is available that you could provide? I'm happy to accept the legalities, my disagreement with them aside, if provided.
Your opinion of "irresponsible", the legalities aside, is fine. However, it it would be much more beneficial if you could provide reason as to why you believe it is irresponsible. I have very clearly stated my beliefs that contradict provided opinion, such as the inability to hear vehicles approaching from aft, and, however sarcastically, approached them with my opinions. It would be both appreciated and beneficial if you could do the same and state why you believe these are common dangers that can only be mitigated with acute hearing that exceeds the requirements of the driver of a motor vehicle.
The later is implied as you make no insinuations to the importance of drivers of motor vehicles operating them with the windows open and radio volume at a level reduced to not interfere with the audible reaction to road noise.
|
|
|
There may be no law titled "bicyclists cannot wear earphones", but there's also no law titled "bicyclists and car drivers cannot swing swords while operating vehicles blindfolded" either. Yet both are illegal under the spirit & word of the law.
Legal proof: As cited before,
SMC 11.44.020 :
"Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted ALL of the rights and shall be subject to ALL of the duties applicable to a driver of a vehicle..."
'ALL duties' will include vehicle and equip laws, even RCW 46.37.480's "television & earphones" law - as well as the Courtney Amisson Act (securing audio gear to the vehicle). The new cell law ? ditto.
Weasel-wording the laws' later exceptions to fit your opinions doesn't make it legal or fact. For clarity note RCW 46.81A.900, cited in 46.37
The OP question was "is there a safe way to listen to music while biking?"
There's several, but I don't believe earphones are any part of those safe solutions.
The irresponsible part is suggesting different ways to 'make it safer', as you seem to do - and ignores the fact that elected state reps, committees and the WSP already determined it isn't safe.
earphones while driving anything are illegal.
|
|
|
I disagree.
There is nothing in Chapter 46.37 that specifies it is applicable to bicycles. Chapter 46.37 requires, among other things, horns, parking brakes and mirrors. These are not required on bicycles. Chapter 46.37 is not applicable to bicycles. If it was meant to, there would be appropriate provisions.
Yes, headlights and such are required for bicycles, but that is covered in 46.61.780, which to note is in Chapter 46.61, "Rules of the Road". 46.61.755 refers to this chapter, not to every other chapter in title 46, such as Chapter 46.37 "Vehicle lighting and other equipment" and Chapter 46.16, "Vehicle licensing."
There are two separate threads here; safety and legality. I'm unconvinced of the later still, and in either case the legality of a practice does not conclusively decide its safety. Everyone can come up with their favorite illegal but safe practices here, I don't want to change the subject.
In this case of discussing safety, I would accept an argument of the data the caused the government to pass such a provision, but not the provision itself. It is important to consider the issue critically and debate it in earnest.
It may be irresponsible for me to imply that wearing headphones is inherently safe, but I believe no more so than implying the opposite.
The point is that none of us are authorities here to decide for the OP what they should be doing. We're here to give advice based on our experience, and let them decide for themselves.
As Michael Duggan asks, what exactly are the dangers that make riding with headphones unsafe? From there, the particular dangers can be discussed individually.
|
|
Furthering btm's comment, even when RCW 46.61 applies the rules of the road to bicycles, it applies "the duties applicable to a driver of a vehicle." That's not the same as "the duties applicable to the driver of a *motor* vehicle."
It's easy in our car-oriented culture to assume that any rule that applies to motor vehicles applies to all vehicles, but that's simply not so. The Legislature writes some laws to apply to all vehicles, and other laws to apply only to motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles pose dramatically higher risks, and face substantially more regulation, than vehicles in general. After all, it's motor vehicles, not bicycles or horsecarts, that kill as many Americans as 9/11 every month.
The Legislature is free to make 46.37.480 apply to bicycles, it simply hasn't done so.
|
|
|
oy! sorry for the novel - trying to put this legal/illegal BS to bed.
Jputnam: all laws under 46.37 apply to all vehicles.
I don't own a car myself (though I carshare when needed) and I actually find it easy in our bike-oriented sub-culture to assume laws about vehicles apply to all vehicles. And the law appears to back me up.
First I gotta say: death stats of horsecarts & using the Gulliani 911 Defense in a discussion about bicyclist earphones' safety is one helluva strawman combo. I applaud your audacity for damn sure.
But bikes being 'safer' vehicles does not make them immune to the laws of the state [nor the laws of physics]. Logic-fail:
1st; deLoreans and Aptera cars do not kill as many people as bikes (because, like bikes, there are fewer of them in use than general motor vehicles) yet they are not exempt from vehicle laws based on low-mortality rates.
b) old volvos would be allowed to run red lights and go 120 on the freeway if deathrates were relative to vehicle law-application.
Now, J, you're right in your first 2 paragraphs; it's not the same. "The duties applicable to a motor vehicle" often means only car/truck/motorcycle drivers need to heed it. True. And clearly "Duties applicable to a driver of a vehicle" means all of us.
Now, two things to note:
1) Bikes are specifically labeled in both city and state law as 'vehicles'.
And
2) the first part of that chapter 'scope & effect of regulations' (46.37.010) spells it out that the laws in that chapter apply to VEHICLES not motor vehicles.
"(1) It is a traffic infraction for any person to drive or move, or for a vehicle owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway ANY VEHICLE or combination of vehicles that:
(a) Is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person;
(b) Is not at all times equipped with such lamps and OTHER EQUIPMENT in proper working condition and adjustment AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER or by rules issued by the Washington state patrol;
...."
the law goes on to name the exact exemptions to this chapter SPECIFICALLY, like farm gear, tractors, certain motorcycles, etc... and in doing so doesn't once mention bicycles.
Therefore laws applying to vehicles - like the earphone law, apply to bikes.
Note: "as applicable". (earphones are possible to use on bikes, whereas ebrake or tire tread depth or three-rear-brake lights aren't practical/applicable . . . and horns may not be required but audio alerts when passing ARE, and working headlighting IS required by law when biking in the dark. Likewise if you somehow bike while watching a TV, you're damn right you can get a ticket for violating 46.37.480).
Bike are vehicles required to follow all but 3 chapters of WA state vehicle law, even if every single section of every chapter hasn't specified "bikes too". (in this way, the state congress isn't mired in revision of every standing law when one new law or vehicle technology appears).
The law defaults to inclusivity. The best proof of argument: this is why it's legal to bike on Interstates that have don't have a "motor vehicles only" or "no bikes" sign on the onramp (as used to be the case on I-90 all the way into seattle, back in the day). By omission, bikes are IMPLIED - the right to bike is allowed, since all other laws on the books say bikes can use 'public roadways'.
When the law uses a vague term it defaults to be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE. (not unlike our Bill of Rights: not just speech, but music, internet and art are protected under the 1st Amendment).
However, 46.37.010 makes the distinction that all the #37 chapter's laws apply to all vehicles. And 46.37.080 even elaborates which vehicles are exempt.
Fnarf provided this excellent link - http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/safety.htm - and the first two sentences are clear, but for those still looking for 'provisions': Please see 46.04.670:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.04.670
Note: Only in 46.12, 16 and 70 (registration, licensing, and dealership laws) are bikes mentioned as exempted - ALL OTHER USES of the word vehicle, whether next to the word motor or not, is INCLUSIVE of bikes and the law cannot be better worded here.
This is why "Vehicle" in the laws we've cited under CrazyCatLady's Q means bikes too, and why I'll stand by my opinion as fact that biking-while-wearing-earphones (in the ear) is Actually Illegal
- and I reiterate that encouraging criminal behavior is ethically irresponsible (as well as irresponsible safety-wise: since distractions=accidents as cited elsewhere).
I hope CCL and other bikers keep those earphones out and use some of these other brilliant ideas mentioned in other posts to still enjoy music AND ride legally/safer.
|
|
|
The Legislature has very clearly and intentionally defined "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" to mean different things as used in Title 46. These are in the "definitions" for Title 46.
When a word is given a specific statutory definition, you can't just apply a common English definition to get around the meaning of the law. You have to use the definition written specifically for that law.
Vehicle -- RCW 46.04.670
1 "Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a
2 public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or
3 may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.
4 The term does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than
5 bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon
6 stationary rails or tracks. Mopeds shall not be considered vehicles or
7 motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.70 RCW. Bicycles shall
8 not be considered vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, or
9 46.70 RCW. Electric personal assistive mobility devices are not
10 considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter
11 46.12, 46.16, 46.29, 46.37, or 46.70 RCW. A golf cart is not
12 considered a vehicle, except for the purposes of chapter 46.61 RCW.
Motor vehicle -- RCW 46.04.320
8 "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and
9 every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from
10 overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. "Motor vehicle"
11 includes a neighborhood electric vehicle as defined in RCW 46.04.357.
12 "Motor vehicle" includes a medium-speed electric vehicle as defined in
13 RCW 46.04.295. An electric personal assistive mobility device is not
14 considered a motor vehicle. A power wheelchair is not considered a
15 motor vehicle. A golf cart is not considered a motor vehicle, except
16 for the purposes of chapter 46.61 RCW.
You may wish that all laws in 46.37 applied to all vehicles, but that's not your call, it's the Legislature's decision, and they have specifically drafted many of the provisions to apply only to "motor vehicles" rather than "vehicles".
The plain language of RCW 46.37.480 says it applies to "motor vehicles." The Legislature has defined "motor vehicles" in a manner that excludes bicycles. RCW 46.37.480 does not apply to bicycles.
Don't like it? Lobby the Legislature for a change.
|
|
|
46.37.480 "as applicable" to bicycles applies to any bicycles that meet the requirements of 46.37.480 -- that is, bicycles which are "motor vehicles" as specified in the law.
Your sophistry does not change the law, "vehicles" and "motor vehicles" are separately defined terms of law.
|
|
|
"You may wish that all laws in 46.37 applied to all vehicles, but that's not your call, it's the Legislature's decision,"...
No doubt that it's not my call.
But I read 46.37.010 and likewise think "your sophistry does not change the law" about the pro-earphone folks here...
"RCW 46.37.010
Scope and effect of regulations — General penalty.
*** CHANGE IN 2010 *** (SEE 6207-S.SL) ***
(1) It is a traffic infraction for ANY person to drive or move, or for a VEHICLE owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway ANY VEHICLE or combination of vehicles that:
(a) Is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person;
(b) Is not at all times equipped with such lamps and other equipment in proper working condition and adjustment AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER or by rules issued by the Washington state patrol;
(c) Contains any PARTS in violation of THIS CHAPTER or rules issued by the Washington state patrol.
(2) It is a traffic infraction for ANY person to do ANY ACT forbidden or fail to perform any act required under this chapter or rules issued by the Washington state patrol.
(3) Nothing contained in this chapter or the state patrol's regulations shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional parts and accessories on any VEHICLE not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter or the state patrol's regulations.
(4) The provisions of the chapter and the state patrol's regulations with respect to EQUIPMENT ON VEHICLES shall not apply to implements of husbandry, road machinery, road rollers, or farm tractors except as herein made applicable."
|
|
|
46.37.10 saves the Legislature the need to write a penalty clause and all that into each provision of the chapter. It's a blanket statement: IF a provision applies to your vehicle, THEN it's illegal to operate your vehicle in violation of that requirement.
It also lists a few categories of vehicles for which NONE of the chapter applies. Bicycles are not on that list, they are not exempt from 46.37, and it's illegal to operate a bicycle in violation of any provisions of the chapter that apply to "vehicles" rather than only "motor vehicles".
Besides the ban on headphones that muffle sound, other provisions of the chapter that do not apply to bicycles include:
RCW 46.37.040 Head lamps on motor vehicles.
(1) Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with at least two head lamps ....
46.37.070 Stop lamps and electric turn signals required.
(1) After January 1, 1964, every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer ....
RCW 46.37.220 Multiple-beam road-lighting equipment.
Except as hereinafter provided, the head lamps or the auxiliary driving lamp or the auxiliary passing lamp or combination thereof on motor vehicles shall be so arranged ....
RCW 46.37.410 Windshields required, exception — Must be unobstructed and equipped with wipers.
(1) All motor vehicles operated on the public highways of this state shall be equipped with a front windshield ....
Now, do you really believe that bicycles are required to have two multi-beam headlamps, electric turn signals, and tempered glass windshields?
When the Legislature says "motor vehicle," it means "motor vehicle", not "vehicle."
|
Enter your comment or ask a new question
|
Bicycles
Cars & Motorcycles
Public Transportation
Other Transportation
Arts & Music
Books & Writing
Cars, Bikes & Transit
Celebrations & Gatherings
Entertainment & Film
Family & Kids
Finance/Insure/Legal
Food & Drink
Gardening
Government Services
Health & Fitness
House & Home
Jobs & Education
News & Politics
Pets
Questionland FAQs
Science & Technology
Sex & Relationships
Sports & Recreation
Style & Beauty
Trips & Travel
Whatever
Reputation: 1178Follow 1
Reputation: 579Follow 1
Reputation: 6000Follow 6
Reputation: 9Follow 0
Reputation: 3752Follow 4
Reputation: 10Follow 0
Reputation: 1Follow 0
Reputation: 25Follow 0
Reputation: 27Follow 0
Reputation: 37Follow 0
Reputation: 252Follow 0
Kevin Shurtluff
Juliette at Hub and Bespoke
Serena Lehman, Cascade Bicycle Club
Davey Oil, of Bike Works and the Bikery
Qamuuqin Maxwell
Griffin
LMNOP
O my captain
Steven Gomez
ozchick
Kip Waddle
kitschnsync
Greg Barnes
Kristin Bell
stinkbug
Mahtli69
Gitai Ben-Ammi
freikja
Jon
David
Aislinn
Little Red Ryan Hood
Geni
