In Defence of Headphone Dodging

Anyone who has travelled on public transport in the UK has experienced it. Someone blasting music or a TikTok clip from their smartphone for all to hear. This has become so common that this week the Liberal Democrats proposed fining so-called “headphone dodgers” £1,000 for doing so. The experience is also so annoying that it is likely to gain vocal supporters. I am not one of them.

To be clear, it is extremely annoying. In the same way that a delayed train will turn even the most mild-mannered of people into little fascists, so too will having to listen to Skibidi Toilet emanating from a tween’s smartphone after a long day at work. It is a problem that should be solved. Commuting is hardly pleasant in the UK. For some of us, it can be an important opportunity to get some work done. The audio pollution of others is rarely welcome. But a fine, in this instance, is hardly a solution, because policymakers and the public fail to understand the problem.

In 2016, Apple controversially announced that the iPhone 7 would not feature a headphone, the socket into which one could plug wired headphones. At the time, the company made overtures of pushing design and technology into the future. Wires, they said, were out of date. It also presented Apple with a fantastic new business opportunity--selling wireless headphones. Being the first to remove the aux port--but by no means the last--Apple was able to create a new market for its AirPods wireless headphones out of its infamously loyal customer base. In 2023, Apple sold $18bn worth of AirPods, with two-thirds of American Gen Zers owning a pair.

Today, the iPhone 7 is nine years old. Earlier models, with the headphone jack, are even older. Few modern devices have a headphone jack and rely instead on wireless headphones, be them AirPods or any number of competing brands. Few people are like me, still eking life out of their 2007 iPod classic (which, of course, does not have speakers). And this is a problem. Or, more, it is the cause of the problem of headphone dodging. Whereas a decade ago, one could buy a pair of headphones for tens of pounds--they were even, frequently, a complimentary gift at conferences and corporate events--a basic pair of AirPods retail for £129. Rivals often charge similar prices.

People aren’t headphone dodging because of some degeneration of culture. It’s not just ‘kids these days.’ We really must stop yelling at clouds. Headphone dodging is the natural result of a design decision taken a decade ago to deny customers a cheap option (wired headphones) and push them towards a much more expensive option (wireless headphones). Yes, adapters exist--but c’mon, did you really know that? For the typical person--polite commuter or annoying public DJ--the cost of headphones has increased dramatically in the past decade. This is compounded by the fact that wireless headphones are easier to lose.

Fining people for not using headphones on public transport is a crude solution because it fails to tackle the actual problem, which is cost. Someone who lacks the disposable income to readily buy a new pair of AirPods is hardly the kind of person who can take a £1,000 fine on the chin. It is a policy that reeks of middle-class reaction and succumbs to the creeping tendency in the UK to police by default, from the raise of dashcams on the road to the complaints of gentrifiers that long-established nightclubs are too noisy.

There are better solutions. For instance, force companies to supply consumers with headphone jacks. The EU has recently demanded Apple install a USB-C charging port on its devices, creating universality across manufacturers to the benefits of consumers. Apple charges £9 for an adapter, allowing one to use wired headphones on its devices. Requiring Apple and others to ship adapters with their products--as they used to ship headphones a decade ago--would be an easy, pro-consumer policy. This could be coupled with simple nudges, such as signs, prominent quiet zones, and mini book exchanges on trains.

When trying to foster a better public experience, policies which seek to expand choices, rather than impose behaviours, should always be favoured. Fining people for annoying public acts forecloses questioning why someone would choose to be annoying in the first place. Most of us would not. We should always seek to understand what might have driven people to do things we ourselves would not, rather than ignorantly penalise them.