No paywall and let's keep it that way. Support reader-funded journalism, subscribe today.

Newsflash: Using headphones while cycling is not banned in Ireland

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: “Cyclists face €40 spot fines for using earphones, says minister” was the  claim in a headline yesterday. Understandably, people online both from Ireland and abroad took this to mean that the Irish government had banned use of headphones while cycling. 

The problem, however, is that no minister had said what the headline in the claimed. There is no law in place and no public plan to fine or ban headphones while cycling.

We know that the Herald were warned that this was the case, but yet still went ahead with the misleading story and headline or have made no attempt to correct it.

What did the minister say? Responding to somewhat the same parliamentary questions on the use of headphones while cycling — first by former Labour minister Ruairi Quinn and then current junior Labour minister Kevin Humphreys — the minister gave what looks to be a stock answer. We already reported on Ruairi Quinn’s question back on November 6.

​The minister said: “The use of headphones by cyclists is not a specific offence under road traffic legislation.”

He added: “I have however made the offence of driving a pedal cycle without resonable consideration a fixed charge offence. All road users have a responsibility to behave in a way which is conductive to their safety and that of other road users. A cyclist that puts themselves or other road users at risk, by the use of headphones for example, could be considered to be driving without reasonable consideration. The enforcement of this fixed charge offence would be a matter for An Garda Siochána.”

Driving a pedal cycle without resonable consideration

The minister’s phrasing muddled the waters a bit, the wearing of headphones alone is not an offence. While “driving a pedal cycle without resonable consideration” is a broad offence, we understand that it can’t be used for things which just look like they could be dangerous.

So, it’s hard to understand how wearing headphones alone could be covered under even the broad “driving a pedal cycle without resonable consideration” offence. Wind or traffic noise can be so loud that hearing makes little difference and the audio in the headphones can be at such a volume where you can still hear what’s going on around you. As well as using low volume, many people also keep one ear clear.

It would be a different matter if the headphone wearing could be linked to other wrongdoing — for example, wearing headphones and not looking around you while cycling past a junction. But, in such a case, it’s really the not looking part which is the issue. 

“Eyes are more critical than the ears”

Campaigners say that the issue isn’t as clear cut as some people think. Colm Ryder of the Dublin Cycling Campaign said: “Overall we encourage safe cycling, as much as we also like to see safe driving! Some cyclists, of all ages, wear headphones when cycling. It has been anecdotally pointed out to us in Dublin Cycling Campaign, that it is the volume level that people use on their headphones that is critical. It is possible to cycle safely with headphones, once the cyclist is sure that traffic sounds are audible. In essence the eyes are more critical than the ears, and in particular the ability to turn and look behind when moving out of your regular stream of traffic, as well as being aware of what is ahead. Many cyclists wear ear muffs or woolly hats in winter, which cover the ears. These also muffle sounds.”

He added: “Compare this to car drivers listening to radios in cars at various volumes, and getting distracted by various items or pieces of music!? As both a driver and a cyclist I realise how easily this can occur. The same of course applies to the use of phones and handsets in cars.”

Too broad?

The question of what “driving a pedal cycle without resonable consideration” actually means is likely to drag on and on. will hopefully be looking at what the district courts have accepted it to be before on-the-spot fines were introduced, but that’s another article. 

There is a question as to whether the offence is too broad or not to be left up to Garda discretion. Many people who cycle who we have talked to have encountered Gardai who do not know traffic law very well; for example, some think helmets and high-via are mandatory, when that’s not the case. Should this vague offence be left out of the on-the-spot fines system? Could it be one of the cycling-related offences left up to district courts? is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

September subscription drive update: has reached its target of 270 subscribers by the end of August -- thank you to all who have helped! Our new target is to have 300 subscribers by the end of 2022 -- originally this was hoped to be exceeded by the first year of running the site full time (end of October), but this is unlikely and so the new target is the end of the year.

If you can help push above 300 subscribers, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Please remember, every month there's a natural drop-off in subscriptions due to people getting new cards, cards stolen, Revolut not topped up etc.

*** is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.

There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.

I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.

The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of June 2022, 250 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!

But currently, it's only around 1.6% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via

Cian Ginty


  1. This is not really a pressing road safety issue in the same way that ‘distracted driving’ most certainly is.
    Many older citizens out riding their bikes would have age-related hearing attenuation in any event, so why are the proponents who seem to think ear-pod wearing is a very dangerous practice not seeking hearing tests for all cyclists?

  2. As a person who cycles daily I’d personally advise against the use of headphones by other cyclists. But not because I think they pose any risk to others, just that it might give them that extra edge when a car comes towards them. It’s vehicles that cause all the deaths and overwhelming majority of road-related injuries. What’s with this tiresome victim-blaming by the Herald.

    And of course, how about all the people in their almost sound-proof metal boxes listening to music. Are they not also to be considered driving without due care and attention?

    What utter claptrap this sort of thing is by the Herald. They ought to be vilified for this type of divisive sensationalism. SMH :(


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.