Headphones Megathread

tommythecat

Swanner wrote: »

Cycling can get pretty tedious and boring.

To alleviate this, a lot of people choose to wear headphones and listen to music and they do so accepting that there is a compromise to be made between listening to music and safety on the bike. ...

They won't admit that though...

Instead they will defy reason and common sense and come up with endless spurious arguments to defend their position.

Problem is, we all wear headphones so we have all personally witnessed the impact listening to music has on our ability to hear ambient noise. I use them all the time for meditation for that specific purpose, they block out ambient noise.

I don't have an issue with people taking an informed gamble on their own safety but unfortunately this is never acceptable when it comes to road safety as it impacts everyone.

For the record, I cycle and drive. I would never wear headphones doing either.

Again let's be clear here. There are a myriad of different types of headphones the either "reduce" ambient noise or don't reduce it at all. None i have ever heard of "block out ambient noise".

So there will always be some external noise coming to your ears especially in the city.
So unless you are listening to music at ungodly levels you are going to hear everything you would have heard without the headphones at a slightly reduced level. You can still hear and react to it in the same fashion.

And again hearing is certainly not at the top of the priorities in terms of being safe on the road. Eyesight, self awareness are all far more important.
It is far from the same thing and I don't want to compare them but in your scenario are you saying that deaf people should not be allowed to cycle?

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

For the record, I cycle and drive.

You are part of a small elite with intimate knowledge of both transport modes. Very occasionally, your type visits this forum, bestowing knowledge from our Heavenly Father.

The Bishop Basher

tommythecat wrote: »

Again let's be clear here. There are a myriad of different types of headphones the either "reduce" ambient noise or don't reduce it at all. None i have ever heard of "block out ambient noise".

So there will always be some external noise coming to your ears especially in the city.
So unless you are listening to music at ungodly levels you are going to hear everything you would have heard without the headphones at a slightly reduced level. You can still hear and react to it in the same fashion.

And again hearing is certainly not at the top of the priorities in terms of being safe on the road. Eyesight, self awareness are all far more important.
It is far from the same thing and I don't want to compare them but in your scenario are you saying that deaf people should not be allowed to cycle?

Agreed. I have about 5 pairs. The more expensive ones do a better job of eliminating ambient noise. They are even marketed as such. I'm not sure how this supports your argument though ?

And the deaf argument is just nonsense. We make all sorts of allowances for people with physical or mental disabilities. It's not ideal for a deaf person to cycle but we don't regulate against them as we also seek to protect their rights and freedoms as an individual. So we accept the compromise and move on.

Now if they decide they'd like to be an airline pilot they will find that the compromise has tipped the other way and supersedes their civil liberties.

Chips Lovell

What do you think is more likely?

Knowing something is dangerous and doing it anyway? Or doing something because they you don't judge it to be dangerous?

tomasrojo

Ok, so we're in agreement that people piloting aircraft shouldn't wear headphones.

tommythecat

Swanner wrote: »

Agreed. I have about 5 pairs. The more expensive ones do a better job of eliminating ambient noise. They are even marketed as such. I'm not sure how this supports your argument though ?

And the deaf argument is just nonsense. We make all sorts of allowances for people with physical or mental disabilities. It's not ideal for a deaf person to cycle but we don't regulate against them as we also seek to protect their rights and freedoms as an individual. So we accept the compromise and move on.

Now if they decide they'd like to be an airline pilot they will find that the compromise has tipped the other way and supersedes their civil liberties.

Read my second paragraph again. I explained why it supports it.

So are you saying that Deaf people on bikes are unsafe or safe?

lennymc

So positive discrimination?

beauf

tommythecat wrote: »

Again let's be clear here. There are a myriad of different types of headphones the either "reduce" ambient noise or don't reduce it at all. None i have ever heard of "block out ambient noise"....

Some have a setting for, bus, train, office

tommythecat

beauf wrote: »

Some have a setting for, bus, train, office

I know that. They still only "reduce" the ambient noise. They can never "block" or cancel it. That was the point

beauf

Swanner wrote: »

...For the record, I cycle and drive. I would never wear headphones doing either.

Would you use a handsfree or listen to music, radio in any of the following?

Driving, cycling or walking.

The Bishop Basher

tommythecat wrote: »

Read my second paragraph again. I explained why it supports it.

But it doesn't support it. Your point is that many headphones don't really block out ambient noise and are therefore perfectly safe to use. I agree, but would also point out that many headphones are designed and marketed to block out ambient noise and therefore are not safe to use.

So essentially we're in agreement. Problem then is how do you regulate who wears which headphones ? Now maybe there's a workable solution to that. Maybe we should just ban them altogether. Who knows ? I'm not suggesting I have the answer.

tommythecat wrote: »

So are you saying that Deaf people on bikes are unsafe or safe?

I'm saying it is preferable to have full use of our available senses when driving a car or cycling a bike on the road.

A deaf person has no choice and on that basis we don't discriminate either way. Everyone else has a choice as to whether they use their hearing or not. Some of us believe that shouldn't be optional.

beauf

tommythecat wrote: »

I know that. They still only "reduce" the ambient noise. They can never "block" or cancel it. That was the point

Maybe my hearing isn't great. But I find IEM's and NC earphones do exactly for that me. I actually have a pair in the office that aren't as good so I can hear the phone.

I can't remember any time some noise has alerted me to some danger on the bike. Not in the city commuting. On a quieter road, in the country, I assume you'd hear a car coming, if there was no wind. I wouldn't use earphone when cycling on the road, but I don't think its anything like as useful as is being suggested.

Its another rule that won't be enforced other than as a token gesture with no meaningful impact. Like motorists on the mobile, or speed limits. Or cyclists with no lights.

beauf

Swanner wrote: »

...I'm saying it is preferable to have full use of our available senses when driving a car or cycling a bike on the road....

Should ban all distractions in the car then also, radio/handsfree etc. Eating, smoking, etc.

CatFromHue

I find this whole argument incredibly annoying as the people who cycle recklessly with headphones on also cycle recklessly with them off. It's not the headphones that are the problem.

07Lapierre

beauf wrote: »

Should ban all distractions in the car then also, radio/handsfree etc. Eating, smoking, etc.

The Mother-In-Law! PLEASE

tomasrojo

beauf wrote: »

Its another rule that won't be enforced other than as a token gesture with no meaningful impact. Like motorists on the mobile, or speed limits. Or cyclists with no lights.

Don't think you're saying it is a rule, but just to be clear: you can wear earphones/headphones if you like while cycling, provided you aren't "inconsiderate", whatever that means.

The Bishop Basher

beauf wrote: »

Should ban all distractions in the car then also, radio/handsfree etc. Eating, smoking, etc.

Eating and smoking I would agree with. However I don't hear other traffic when in the car so it's irrelevant. I have mirrors to compensate. That said, it can be a distraction especially when trying to find a location or in fast moving city traffic. In situations like that I always turn it down.

tommythecat

beauf wrote: »

Maybe my hearing isn't great. But I find IEM's and NC earphones do exactly for that me. I actually have a pair in the office that aren't as good so I can hear the phone.

They scientifically can't "block" ambient noise entirely. Most of them use phase cancellation to do it and there will always be changes in the environment or the position of your head to make it impossible. They can however lower it significantly if they are a good pair such as yours. But signal sounds such as beeps and voices, phones will always poke through.

tomasrojo

tommythecat wrote: »

They scientifically can't "block" ambient noise entirely. Most of them use phase cancellation to do it and there will always be changes in the environment or the position of your head to make it impossible. They can however lower it significantly if they are a good pair such as yours. But signal sounds such as beeps and voices, phones will always poke through.

Yes, you can hear people talking better when wearing noise-cancellation headphones. Sudden noises would stand out better if you were using them? (Without music, I mean.)

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

Eating and smoking I would agree with. However I don't hear other traffic when in the car so it's irrelevant. I have mirrors to compensate. That said, it can be a distraction especially when trying to find a location or in fast moving city traffic. In situations like that I always turn it down.

The mirrors aren't there to compensate for your listening to the radio.

Anyway, why don't you just leave it off altogether, maximising your safety in all scenarios. I don't have an issue with people taking an informed gamble on their own safety ...

Swanner wrote: »

but unfortunately this is never acceptable when it comes to road safety as it impacts everyone.

tommythecat

Swanner wrote: »

Eating and smoking I would agree with. However I don't hear other traffic when in the car so it's irrelevant. I have mirrors to compensate. That said, it can be a distraction especially when trying to find a location or in fast moving city traffic. In situations like that I always turn it down.

So you don't need to hear in a car? But you do on a bike? What difference do you think is there between your mirrors and looking around regularly and using your peripheral view to keep an eye on whats in front and behind you on a bike

beauf

Swanner wrote: »

Eating and smoking I would agree with. However I don't hear other traffic when in the car so it's irrelevant. I have mirrors to compensate. That said, it can be a distraction especially when trying to find a location or in fast moving city traffic. In situations like that I always turn it down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594988/Cold-case-Police-fine-driver-100-taking-single-slurp-icy-Slush-Puppie-wheel-car-stuck-traffic.html

The argument seems to be zero tolerance for earphones. Why not apply that multilaterally.

The Bishop Basher

Maybe a bunch of people from the cycling forum should get together with a few off the motoring forum and put this to the test... :-)

Seriously though, the argument is not whether headphones block out 100% of ambient noise or not. Point is they reduce it and in many cases are designed to reduce it as much as possible.

beauf

CatFromHue wrote: »

I find this whole argument incredibly annoying as the people who cycle recklessly with headphones on also cycle recklessly with them off. It's not the headphones that are the problem.

+1

But then this isn't about safety. Its about tokenism.

The Bishop Basher

tommythecat wrote: »

So you don't need to hear in a car? But you do on a bike? What difference do you think is there between your mirrors and looking around regularly and using your peripheral view to keep an eye on whats in front and behind you on a bike

No. You can't hear in a car. Subtle but important difference. That and the fact that I have 2t of steel around me in the car.

The mirrors make a huge difference. I am nowhere near as aware of what's behind me on the bike as I don't have a constant visual. As a result I rely on my hearing a lot more.

I would have thought that would be a shared experience for most.

tomasrojo

Swanner wrote: »

No. You can't hear in a car. Subtle but important difference. That and the fact that I have 2t of steel around me in the car.

The mirrors make a huge difference. I am nowhere near as aware of what's behind me on the bike as I don't have a constant visual. As a result I rely on my hearing a lot more.

I would have thought that would be a shared experience for most.

I can hear a fair bit in a car if I leave the stereo off. Not as much as walking or on a bike, but can definitely hear more.

My knowledge of what's going on around me is much better on the bike. The mirrors are important in a car because looking around is such a chore, and there are blind spots. Obviously, you have to look behind you a lot on the bike, but it's the equivalent of looking in the mirror, except you get a much better picture.

(The bit about two tonnes of steel is relevant in other ways: you are in charge of a very heavy, fast object. Surely you'd want to be sure of hearing somebody's warning shout, rather than drowning it out?)

tommythecat

Swanner wrote: »

No. You can't hear in a car. Subtle but important difference. That and the fact that I have 2t of steel around me in the car.

The mirrors make a huge difference. I am nowhere near as aware of what's behind me on the bike as I don't have a constant visual. As a result I rely on my hearing a lot more.

I would have thought that would be a shared experience for most.

I use my eyesight and look around for that information a lot more than what detail your hearing is going to give you. In a noisy city it's of a lot lesser value

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, you can hear people talking better when wearing noise-cancellation headphones. Sudden noises would stand out better if you were using them? (Without music, I mean.)

That's not how mine work. They take in outside sounds, (they have mics) cancel them, and you only hear internal sounds from the MP3 player.

For me it doesn't remove them (outside sounds) entirely but drops them to an almost indistinguishable level.

tomasrojo

I only tried noise-cancellation headphones once, at a conference hall. The background hum disappeared, and I could hear what my colleagues were saying more clearly. The headphones weren't playing anything though, just doing noise cancellation.

It was more of a question than a statement; I've never used headphones on the bike or walking. Earphones very occasionally when cycling, little more often when walking, but on streets with a lot of traffic, I really can't hear anything much.

beauf

The fact is hearing as safety aid in driving, cycling is massively overstated.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/hearing.htm

https://ambulancevisibilityblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/emergency-vehicles-do-not-rely-on-sirens-for-an-effective-warning/

Swanner wrote: »

No. You can't hear in a car. Subtle but important difference. That and the fact that I have 2t of steel around me in the car.

The mirrors make a huge difference. I am nowhere near as aware of what's behind me on the bike as I don't have a constant visual. As a result I rely on my hearing a lot more.

I would have thought that would be a shared experience for most.

Not for me. You seem to be describing someone immune to wind noise, superhuman directional hearing, but immune to the Doppler effect, and at the same time incredibly poor visual awareness.