Headphones Megathread

Lumen

Swanner wrote: »

The absolute denial by so many that wearing them will impact on their hearing

You're ignoring the effects of compensation. This is common in road safety dogma.

Just because hearing is impaired doesn't mean that the cyclist is less safe, provided that they compensate for the lack of audio cues by looking behind them more often.

All other things being equal they are less safe, but all other things are never equal.

This is similar to the helmet debate - many people would agree that if you're going to crash on your head then doing so with a helmet on will probably slightly reduce the injuries, but many people believe that (a) the absolute risk of a head injury is so tiny that the relative increase in risk is insignificant, and (b) cycling without a helmet drives compensatory safety behaviour because the cyclist feels more at risk without a magic hat.

This is where statistical studies come in - if a particular device or behaviour is significantly more or less safe then its effects ought to obvious in the statistics.

They are not for helmets and (apparently) not for headphones either.

(I'm not trying to drag this off-topic to helmets, just drawing parallels).

Chips Lovell

Hmmmm. I'm not so sure about that.

A glass of whiskey to dull the pain of getting stitches in your head and a glass of whiskey to compliment an evening by the fire with a good book don't appear like exactly the same thing. Maybe that's just me.

The Bishop Basher

Lumen wrote: »

Just because hearing is impaired doesn't mean that the cyclist is less safe, provided that they compensate for the lack of audio cues by looking behind them more often.

Well if they're looking behind them more often, they're looking forward less often which will also have an impact on safety

Seriously though, I hear you. I appreciate it's not black and white. I just feel more honesty would serve the cycling fraternity well.

You have a long commute, it's gets a little tedious, to enhance the enjoyment you decide to take a (yet to be determined) hit on safety in the interest of making the cycle a little more enjoyable.

People outside of cycling circles would find it much more difficult to argue with this position.

The "woolly hat" and whataboutery type arguments can't be taken seriously and should remain in the playground where they belong....

Lumen

Swanner wrote: »

Well if they're looking behind them more often, they're looking forward less often which will also have an impact on safety

I honestly don't know that's the case. For all I know the compensatory behaviour could increase safety overall (i.e. overcompensate), because more looking around is better, right?

07Lapierre

Swanner wrote: »

Maybe you can, maybe you can't.

It depends on numerous factors such as the headphones you're using, the volume, the content you're listening to etc etc etc.

There's no maybe about it....you can.

The Bishop Basher

Lumen wrote: »

I honestly don't know that's the case. For all I know the compensatory behaviour could increase safety overall (i.e. overcompensate), because more looking around is better, right?

It was meant in jest...

beauf

Lumen wrote: »

I disagree with this. I use the sounds of tyre and engine noise from vehicles approaching behind to plan my road position changes. Obviously I don't rely exclusively on them, but they are useful (to me).

I should have been specific, I meant for me on my commute, which is mainly city centre. For me its just a cacophony of noise, no way of knowing if a beep is for me or the guy in the next lane. You have to look. As I said earlier, if you are cycling on a quiet roads or in the country, its different, as you'll hear a car approaching. Then again perhaps my hearing is quiet poor. Most of the time I can't hear my phone ringing when I'm on the bike.

beauf

We should start a new thread. Cyclist to be fined for wooly hats.

“the eyes are more critical than the ears”, pointing out that many cyclists wear ear muffs or woolly hats in winter, which cover the ears and muffle sounds.

The Bishop Basher

07Lapierre wrote: »

There's no maybe about it....you can.

Ok. This is the kind of pointless argument i'm talking about....

Just so we're clear here, you're suggesting that you can go purchase a pair of expensive noise cancelling headphones, put them on or in your ears, switch on your music, raise the volume to your desired level and you can do all this without any effect on your ability to hear ambient noise ?

Really ? Is that honestly your position ?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I have a pair of the Plantronics on this list and while they don't completely eliminate ambient noise they reduce it to a level where it is barely audible. That's exaclty what they're designed to do, it's how they are marketed, it's why I bought them and they work very well.

Seems all these companies are just wasting their time developing this technology. Maybe you should let them know what you know and they could save themselves a lot of time, money and effort...

http://www.cnet.com/uk/topics/headphones/best-headphones/noise-canceling/

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I wear headphones sometimes when I cycle. That you can't hear anything with headphones is a myth. Unless you are at max volume or have noise canceling headphones, then there shouldn't be an issue. Impossible to police and completely bisased. FPN for wearing headphones is a joke.

The Bishop Basher

Conrad Moldy Stucco wrote: »

I wear headphones sometimes when I cycle. That you can't hear anything with headphones is a myth. Unless you are at max volume or have noise canceling headphones, then there shouldn't be an issue. Impossible to police and completely bisased. FPN for wearing headphones is a joke.

Well according to Keith Byrne on Stickybottle, wearing a woolly hat will muffle your hearing so it's a bit of a stretch to say that headphones have no effect.

Anyway, that was never the argument. The point is that all these things will at best, hamper your ability to hear what's happening around you. For some cyclists who rely on vision alone, it's not a problem.

For the rest of us who use all of our available senses, we would feel at a disadvantage without full use of our hearing.

07Lapierre

Swanner wrote: »

Ok. This is the kind of pointless argument i'm talking about....

Just so we're clear here, you're suggesting that you can go purchase a pair of expensive noise cancelling headphones, put them on or in your ears, switch on your music, raise the volume to your desired level and you can do all this without any effect on your ability to hear ambient noise ?

Really ? Is that honestly your position ?


http://www.cnet.com/uk/topics/headphones/best-headphones/noise-canceling/

No I said I can hear BOTH. That's both the music and ambient noise. if I turn up the volume I can hear more music than ambient noise. but volume also goes down. If I turned the volume up to such a level that I could only hear music it would be too loud. In fact, I would go as far as saying that even if I did have the volume up full, it still wouldn't drown out a lot of the ambient noises along my commute. Maybe that says more about the quality of my headphones (and my taste in music) . Its just a pity theres no volume control for ambient noise.

But maybe that's the problem..maybe I should wear noise cancelling headphones? The in-ear sennheisers I use at the moment are OK but at £260 for those you linked to are too rich for me.

beauf

Swanner wrote: »

Well according to Keith Byrne on Stickybottle, wearing a woolly hat will muffle your hearing ....these things will at best, hamper your ability to hear what's happening around you.....we would feel at a disadvantage without full use of our hearing.

Edited for devilment.

The Bishop Basher

07Lapierre wrote: »

No I said I can hear BOTH. That's both the music and ambient noise. if I turn up the volume I can hear more music than ambient noise. but volume also goes down. If I turned the volume up to such a level that I could only hear music it would be too loud. Its just a pity theres no volume control for ambient noise.

I can hear both too but the point is, once i put headphones on, ambient noises are reduced by default.. Add noise cancellation and they are even further reduced. If they weren't I'd want my money back. The level of reduction is dependent on various factors such as headphone type, music volume, ambient noise type etc. But no matter what way you look at it, sticking objects in your ears and playing sound through said objects will hamper your ability to hear ambient noise.

07Lapierre wrote: »

But maybe that's the problem..maybe I should wear noise cancelling headphones? The in-ear sennheisers I use at the moment are OK but at £260 for those you linked to are too rich for me.

They were an expensive treat as i wanted something really effective at noise cancellation for meditation. Although I paid considerably less then £260 :eek:

I have 4 other pairs ranging from about €10 to €100. All have the same effect when I stick them in my ears and play music through them. they block out ambient noise. Some to a greater or lesser degree but the same result regardless.

traprunner

I've headphones on right now and the volume is high yet every song I listen to has different volume levels too. I can still hear what's going on in the office around me. Even though I face a window, no one has been able to sneak up behind me.

Sure while we are banning things, we should really ban legs. Chop them off everyone. No pedestrians can risk their lives crossing the road etc.

07Lapierre

Swanner wrote: »

I can hear both too but the point is, once i put headphones on, ambient noises are reduced by default.. Add noise cancellation and they are even further reduced. If they weren't I'd want my money back. The level of reduction is dependent on various factors such as headphone type, music volume, ambient noise type etc. But no matter what way you look at it, sticking objects in your ears and playing sound through said objects will hamper your ability to hear ambient noise.



They were an expensive treat as i wanted something really effective at noise cancellation for meditation. Although I paid considerably less then £260 :eek:

I have 4 other pairs ranging from about €10 to €100. All have the same effect when I stick them in my ears and play music through them. they block out ambient noise. Some to a greater or lesser degree but the same result regardless.

Agreed! and I think we'll both agree that being able to hear what you want to listen to is what we both want? I want to listen to music..I don't want to listen to Wind noise, tyres, brakes etc.

What we don't agree on is that not being able to hear ambient noise in some way dangerous. IMO its not dangerous when driving or cycling.

But I do think that you are right....At some point a Garda is going to issue a FPN to a cyclist for cycling dangerously or whatever. If the cyclist happens to be wearing Headphones at the time, the Garda will feel even more justified.

As for banning headphones altogether? I think its pointless. The Gardaí are under resourced as it is and cant enforce the existing ROTR. Also, I doubt it would result in safer roads. A numpty is a numpy regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

The Bishop Basher

traprunner wrote: »

Sure while we are banning things, we should really ban legs.

And woolly hats obviously

The Bishop Basher

07Lapierre wrote: »

What we don't agree on is that not being able to hear ambient noise in some way dangerous. IMO its not dangerous when driving or cycling.

Fair enough. In the absence of conclusive proof either way i'm happy to agree to disagree.

07Lapierre wrote: »

But I do think that you are right....At some point a Garda is going to issue a FPN to a cyclist for cycling dangerously or whatever. If the cyclist happens to be wearing Headphones at the time, the Garda will feel even more justified.

If the cyclist is acting like a muppet I would have zero sympathy. Same for any driver. Headphones or no headphones. There are plenty of both varieties out there.

07Lapierre wrote: »

As for banning headphones altogether? I think its pointless. The Gardaí are under resourced as it is and cant enforce the existing ROTR. Also, I doubt it would result in safer roads. A numpty on a bike is a numpy regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

Agreed. I think we've already dealt with all the low hanging fruit in regard to road safety and so it's inevitable that we start to clutch at straws a little to eek out the remaining safety gains.

Unless conclusive proof can be produced to show that wearing headphones represents a significant risk (which I agree is unlikely) then the effort involved will outweigh the gains and cyclists will be free to roam the streets listening to Newstalk, Daniel O'Donnell, Megadeath or whatever else tickles their fancy :-)

beauf

I'm still worried about the hats and doo dahs

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/fat-lad-at-the-back/snicket-lightweight-neck-doo-dah-ec067043

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Swanner wrote: »

Well according to Keith Byrne on Stickybottle, wearing a woolly hat will muffle your hearing so it's a bit of a stretch to say that headphones have no effect.

Anyway, that was never the argument. The point is that all these things will at best, hamper your ability to hear what's happening around you. For some cyclists who rely on vision alone, it's not a problem.

For the rest of us who use all of our available senses, we would feel at a disadvantage without full use of our hearing.

Not sure where I stated "wearing headphones have no effect". They sure do have an effect, and in my case, it's a positive effect.

There's only one way to put this, you are completely wrong. Listening to music doesn't make me less safe on the roads. If anything, the ear buds help me as I am regularly traveling at 30Kmph ore more. The wind, especially along the coast where I do most of my cycling, is a real problem when it comes to hearing, but you couldn't possible agree to that as it doesn't suit your agenda.

Why is it ok for a deaf person to cycle a bike? Based on your logic, they should be prohibited from doing so, or how do you imply it's ok for them to cycle?

I have said this multiple times before. I hear much less in my car than I do on my bike with headphones on.

OleRodrigo

Cyclists shouldn't wear earphones in case they miss the sound of a speeding motorist who isn't paying attention to the road. Without them, they would have a few extra seconds to get out of the way and avoid causing a terrible accident. They might also hear a motorist running through a red light, performing a dangerous overtake or not bothering to stop at a roundabout. Coming up to xmas, it is also important to hear the sound of a motorist who has had ' one or two ' ..

In any such case, leaving the earphones at home is clearly the safest option on Irish roads.

radia

Relax lads. Problem solved.

buffalo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Coming up to xmas, it is also important to hear the sound of a motorist who has had ' one or two ' ..

What does a drunk driver sound like, compared to a sober one? Do they emit an audible 'hic' as they approach?

OleRodrigo

buffalo wrote: »

What does a drunk driver sound like, compared to a sober one?

Daft question for a daft thread.

Rapid acceleration, deceleration, zig-zagging, stopping & starting abruptly, hitting off the curb, unable to overtake.

buffalo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Daft question for a daft thread.

Rapid acceleration, deceleration, zig-zagging, stopping & starting abruptly, hitting off the curb, unable to overtake.

I encounter most of those behaviours on my daily commute. I didn't realise all those drivers were drunk!

Besides, everyone's missing the real danger: falling helicopters.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

se_of_media_devices_cyclists.pdf[/URL]

Interesting also to note that the top 2 reasons given by cyclists in the study for listening to music while cycling were "fun" and "boredom" which ties in with my earlier post.

Look, we all know cycling can get tedious and boring. We all know that you can't and won't admit that. We all know that you know that blocking your ears is neither sensible nor safe but you choose to do it regardless as it beats the monotony of cycling.

Boring? Monotony? We must live in different universes.

endagibson

330 posts in and I'm still not clear what the exact danger caused by wearing earphones/headphones while cycling is.

RobertFoster

endagibson wrote: »

330 posts in and I'm still not clear what the exact danger caused by wearing earphones/headphones while cycling is.

Permanent hearing damage from prolonged use?

dub_skav

endagibson wrote: »

330 posts in and I'm still not clear what the exact danger caused by wearing earphones/headphones while cycling is.

Trip hazard?

beauf

Threads like this.