Cyclist finds he’s been fined €400 for riding with headphones after having money blocked in bank account, despite French police never sending a penalty notice

No eating, applying makeup or listening to loud music

Eating a sandwich behind the wheel has become prohibited as it is deemed to prevent proper concentration by the motorist on the road. Other entertainment will also be outlawed. Putting on makeup whilst driving is also banned, as is playing your music too loud. These offences are punishable by a fine of € 75.

Headphones banned

It is now illegal to drive with any form of headsets (earphones or headphones) in a car or on a motorbike. The only form of communication allowed is through loudspeakers for cars or via specially equipped helmets for motorbikers. Fines imposed for breaking these laws will be 135 euros and 3 points taken from your license. Alternative suggestions include a handsfree speaker, handsfree radio transmitter, GPS systems & integrated phone systems already built into some cars.

Griff500 wrote:

I'm surprised by how many people seem to be expressing opinions against this law. Let's remember that this law came in specifically to stop the use of hands free kits by drivers. The law is there to protect cyclists not penalise us.  OK so its not perfect, and yes, drivers can still crank up their car stereos, but try banning those!  I'd also argue that the law came too late, as by 2015 most cars were being fitted with bluetooth systems. Nevertheless, any small step towards reducing the isolation of drivers from what is going on around them must be a good thing.  Or is it just that folk here expect an exception to be made in the case of cyclists.  (Incidentally, I live in France, and it does seem as if motorcyclists think the law doesn't apply to them, headphones integrated into helmets seem to be quite common)

I'd say that banning hands-free kits being used by drivers is more to do with the distraction caused by holding a conversation with a remote person (a person in the same vehicle knows when to stop talking when more attention is demanded of the driver) rather than the reduction in hearing ability. As far as I know, listening to music is much less distracting unless you're head-banging along to Queen or something.

I don't think that it's worthwhile trying to prosecute cyclists for not paying enough attention as they invariably are a lot more attentive due to not being shut in a metal box. Driver inattentiveness is a real problem that ruins lives, but cyclist inattentiveness is more likely to lead to some bruises and a teaching moment.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I'd say that banning hands-free kits being used by drivers is more to do with the distraction caused by holding a conversation with a remote person (a person in the same vehicle knows when to stop talking....... 

.....except that holding a conversation with a remote person is not what was banned.  It is still legal in France to hold a conversation with a remote person through the car ICE system

Griff500 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd say that banning hands-free kits being used by drivers is more to do with the distraction caused by holding a conversation with a remote person (a person in the same vehicle knows when to stop talking....... 

.....except that holding a conversation with a remote person is not what was banned.  It is still legal in France to hold a conversation with a remote person through the car ICE system

It could be that the law has been poorly targetted, or maybe it's the difficulty of policing in-car systems as an outside observer won't see anything other than the driver talking (possibly to themselves?).

https://www.rospa.com/policy/road-safety/advice/drivers/driver-distraction

hawkinspeter wrote:

It could be that the law has been poorly targetted, or maybe it's the difficulty of policing in-car systems as an outside observer won't see anything other than the driver talking (possibly to themselves?).

The only evidence I have seen quoted by countries who have imposed the ban is from the Nelson and Nilsson 1990 study, where drivers in a simulator had their performance assessed listening to music from a Walkman through headphones and a dashboard speaker (nothing to do with phone calls).  Reading through the paper, it does seem to lack scientific rigour in a few areas (too many "probably" and "likely" statements for my liking), but the quoted 14% increase in reaction time by headphone wearers to unexpected events does seem significant and worthy of further study.  It seems strange that France, Italy, and others reacted to this study 25 years later without further evaluation, and update to 2015 technology, such as wireless rather than wired headsets and phone calls in addition to music.  

You mean like this?

Driving with loud music is also illegal in France.

What is the exact law? I.e. how are headphones defined? Does it include open-ear, head-phones? I.e. the ones that are basically small speakers worn /near/ the ear, but not over it (some claim to be "bone conducting", which isn't really true).

Any form of headsets (earphones or headphones).

And are car drivers banned from having headsets?

Talking on the phone while driving, even via a hands-free earphone, is /proven/ to impair driving performance, aking to having an illegal blood alcohol level. So... that's banned too, surely? Right?

Paul J wrote:

And are car drivers banned from having headsets?

Yes. That was the whole point of bringing in the law. It applies to all road users with a few exceptions such as motorcycle instructors.

Muddy Ford wrote:

They took money directly from his bank account, for a traffic offence? [..]

Tell that to drivers here and they'll be donning hi-vis vests, blockading mayors in their city halls and probably setting fire to sheep planters, quicker than you can say ou la la 'oh I say'!

Muddy Ford wrote:

They took money directly from his bank account, for a traffic offence? It concerns me that tin foil hat wearers might not be 100% barking bonkers. Best keep some cash stuffed under the mattress, as a hedge.

It's not tin foil hat stuff. It's what quite a number of national and EU level politicians have been describing as what they want for the future - complete insight into and control over everyone's finances. All to fight the bad "terrorists" of course. Which is always how power grabs are justified (in the UK power grabs over civil liberties in anti-terror laws ended up being used widely by councils, for things like breaking bin rules).

Yup.  Where powers exist they will be used.

Now - that isn't necessarily for "no reason at all".  AFAIK the cases which have come to light more recently involved investigations in to actual crimes (albeit "low level" ones, slightly above the level of "nuisance") rather than sheer harrassment.  But of course it's simple to say "we had a duty to investigate to find out if there was a case to answer" and some of the original concerns were use of these over matters of "bending school cachement regulations" and "dogshit"...

Probably the (chance) blessing is in the UK the police tend not to regularly send in SWAT teams armed with hand-me-down military-threat-level hardware - unlike in e.g. the US.  Though of course when they do go armed sometimes people do get killed.

Muddy Ford wrote:

They took money directly from his bank account, for a traffic offence? It concerns me that tin foil hat wearers might not be 100% barking bonkers. Best keep some cash stuffed under the mattress, as a hedge.

Scrap plans to scan accounts of benefit claimants or risk new scandal, MPs told

"The Department for Work and Pensions is seeking new powers to require banks to trawl the accounts of millions of people who receive benefits in an effort to cut the £8bn currently lost annually to welfare fraud and error. The plan is close to being passed into law by parliament and will be “fully automated”, the government said. It is likely to use artificial intelligence to flag activity considered suspicious by the DWP."

I'm off to buy shares in Alcan.

Canada blocked bank accounts of protestors..

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to crack down on anti-vaccine mandate protests.

With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests.

Crikey. Have they still got their knickers in a twist about covid jabs? How long ago was that? Or is it something else now?

My daughter goes to an international school in Paris and the prices are nothing like they are in the UK. And university education is free.  Also 'le flic' are devious. Twice I've been fined for 'speeding' and going through a red light with zero evidence provided. The police surrounded me, asked for my ID and then put it in their pocket and told me I would get it back when I paid the fine. I asked for evidence that I had been speeding - a photo or a speed gun.  Nothing, so I had to pay 100 euros to get my ID back. And the same with the red light. So I believe this article on both counts. 

That's the sort of traffic policing you'd expect in the global south..

It's more like £200 a week here, and that's for a basic room with a shared bathroom and kitchen.

bensynnock wrote:

It's more like £200 a week here, and that's for a basic room with a shared bathroom and kitchen.

But mould and dodgy electrics are included in the price, so it's a better deal than it looks.