Headphones Megathread

C3PO

07Lapierre wrote: »

why? Do you have an example where hearing is vital?

I don't think I said that hearing is "vital" ... to suggest that would be to imply that people who are hard of hearing shouldn't be on the road and I certainly don't believe that! However, to deliberately reduce your ability to use one of your senses seems rediculous to me. To my mind using headphones/earbuds would be like wearing sunglasses at night to avoid the glare of oncoming headlights!
However as I said in my first post - everyone to their own! Similarly to my belief that I should wear a helmet when cycling I don't believe that other people should be obliged to do the same!

smacl

07Lapierre wrote: »

The reality is that hearing is not that important to either a motorist or cyclist.

Each to their own I guess, I find being able hear traffic approaching from behind very useful generally and important in certain situations (e.g. emergency vehicle with sirens on approaching from behind).

The sensible solution seems to be to use an ear-bud on the left side only and leave the traffic side ear uncovered.

C3PO

smacl wrote: »

The sensible solution seems to be to use an ear-bud on the left side only and leave the traffic side ear uncovered.

You should be a politician smacl!!

cdaly_

smacl wrote: »

emergency vehicle with sirens on approaching from behind

I hear them no bother. Even through Metallica...

RainyDay

smacl wrote: »

Each to their own I guess, I find being able hear traffic approaching from behind very useful generally and important in certain situations (e.g. emergency vehicle with sirens on approaching from behind).

I go through some quiet residential areas, and I use hearing when approaching junctions to decide whether I really need to stop. By the letter of the law, I should stop each time, but I know that I can safely use hearing and (as I get closer) vision to see if there is anything coming. I am conscious that hybrid cars will have no engine noise, but often tyre rumble is louder than engine noise at low speed.

BoatMad

07Lapierre wrote: »

I doubt sailors or jockeys can hear anything except wind!

Exactly , hearing the wind is a key component in sailing , listening to the boat is a major feedback.

Jockeys also listen to their animals

In cycling. Listening is a key safety feature It's a key part in being aware of your surroundings. Being aware of your surroundings is a key part in staying safe.

Your head filled with music is a distraction nothing more , it cannot in any rational argument be seen as an aide to safety.

07Lapierre

BoatMad wrote: »

Exactly , hearing the wind is a key component in sailing , listening to the boat is a major feedback.

Jockeys also listen to their animals

In cycling. Listening is a key safety feature It's a key part in being aware of your surroundings. Being aware of your surroundings is a key part in staying safe.

Your head filled with music is a distraction nothing more , it cannot in any rational argument be seen as an aide to safety.

Rubbish!

BoatMad

07Lapierre wrote: »

Rubbish!

Well argued comeback sir, fine points made, logical reasoning advanced. I'm reconsidering my views

07Lapierre

BoatMad wrote: »

Well argued comeback sir, fine points made, logical reasoning advanced. I'm reconsidering my views

There are SEVEN PAGES of points.. listening to music while cycling is not dangerous. Using some common sense, the volume control on you MP3 player and cycling in accordance with the ROTR will keep you safe.

Carawaystick

BoatMad wrote: »

In cycling. Listening is a key safety feature It's a key part in being aware of your surroundings. Being aware of your surroundings is a key part in staying safe.

You will have evidence to show deaf cyclists are less safe than cyclists with full hearing to back this point up then?

BoatMad

07Lapierre wrote: »

There are SEVEN PAGES of points.. listening to music while cycling is not dangerous. Using some common sense, the volume control on you MP3 player and cycling in accordance with the ROTR will keep you safe.

Firstky , any distraction reducres safety margins, reactions will be slower . Not to mention that common sense is rather I aptly named , often being neither common or sensicial

Driving without airbags is also " not dangerous " , and was nice the norm. Today it's a legally required safety device

Simply arguing something is " not dangerous " , is not the same as saying it's safe.

Reaction time is arguably the ONLY safety feature a cyclist has. There is little or no automatic safety features , little body protection and little energy absorption areas.

It's not a credible argument , that listening to music in your ears , a sound that by definition seeks to exclude other sounds , will not reduce reaction time

What people here are arguing, is that a " pleasure " should t be banned, like in France , and in doing so trying to dress it up. Thats not a safety argument however. It's a degree of safety argument

07Lapierre

Well don't use any Stats from the RSA!

According to RSA..if your a young male driver, inexperienced, driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs...the cause of any accident your have is worn Tyres! (no mention of loud music mind)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/defective-tyres-largest-vehicle-factor-in-fatal-road-crashes-1.2597652

BoatMad

Carawaystick wrote: »

You will have evidence to show deaf cyclists are less safe than cyclists with full hearing to back this point up then?

That's not the point.

Humans are designed to normally use all their senses to keep them safe. In extremis the body actually sharpens those senses.

If you haven't got some of them by misfortune or accident of birth , that's unfortunate. To arbitrarily, restrict a sense , is however foolish and a detriment to ones safety ( and others )

Your argument is like trying to justify walking down a street blindfolded and arguing youre as safe as someone blind.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well don't use any Stats from the RSA!

According to RSA..if your a young male driver, inexperienced, driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs...the cause of any accident your have is worn Tyres! (no mention of loud music mind)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/defective-tyres-largest-vehicle-factor-in-fatal-road-crashes-1.2597652

As always with the RSA (and the further obfuscation of non-statisticians paraphrasing the RSA in the news), I'm not sure whether the collisions were caused by the defective tyres, or were *associated* with the car having defective tyres. That is, did an expert say the defective tyre caused the collision, or is there just a statistical association: people who have collisions tend to have badly maintained cars. The former is a remarkable finding (most collisions caused by defective tyres), the latter is ... well, duh.

BoatMad

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well don't use any Stats from the RSA!

According to RSA..if your a young male driver, inexperienced, driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs...the cause of any accident your have is worn Tyres! (no mention of loud music mind)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/defective-tyres-largest-vehicle-factor-in-fatal-road-crashes-1.2597652

You are aware that the reason that non hands free phones were banned was primarily based on distraction , the identical logic could be ascribed to head phone music or in factvany unwarranted distraction.

This argument is about degrees of safety. I would argue that headphones decrease the safety margin. I have no statistics to tell whether such reduction in that margin has a material effect on accidents. But the action of the French is telling.

07Lapierre

BoatMad wrote: »

That's not the point.

Humans are designed to normally use all their senses to keep them safe. In extremis the body actually sharpens those senses.

If you haven't got some of them by misfortune or accident of birth , that's unfortunate. To arbitrarily, restrict a sense , is however foolish and a detriment to ones safety ( and others )

Your argument is like trying to justify walking down a street blindfolded and arguing youre as safe as someone blind.

Do you always drive your car with the windows down, radio off and the kids under strict orders to keep quiet?

When you go to the cinema, do you find the music soundtrack to the fight/ car chase scenes distracting? Personally I find it adds to the film.

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

As always with the RSA (and the further obfuscation of non-statisticians paraphrasing the RSA in the news), I'm not sure whether the collisions were caused by the defective tyres, or were *associated* with the car having defective tyres. That is, did an expert say the defective tyre caused the collision, or is there just a statistical association: people who have collisions tend to have badly maintained cars. The former is a remarkable finding (most collisions caused by defective tyres), the latter is ... well, duh.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I read that piece wondering if defective tyres were causing accidents or were correlated and finished none the wiser.

tomasrojo

BoatMad wrote: »

But the action of the French is telling.

I don't really have an issue with anything else you've said (it's your opinion and you've argued it well, though I don't necessarily agree with most of it), but I don't personally take the passing of a law anywhere as a sign that a real issue is being tackled in a meaningful way. Laws, especially laws affecting minorities, are passed on whims and "something must be done; this is something" logic all the time.

smacl

Carawaystick wrote: »

You will have evidence to show deaf cyclists are less safe than cyclists with full hearing to back this point up then?

If being able to hear properly made no contribution to safety for road users, as you seem to be implying, by further implication your also saying that having horns fitted to cars, trucks, buses, etc.. also has no value whatsoever. This is clearly not the case, and if you look up sites for deaf cyclists you'll notice things like promoting signs to notify other roads user of this impairment.

07Lapierre

BoatMad wrote: »

You are aware that the reason that non hands free phones were banned was primarily based on distraction , the identical logic could be ascribed to head phone music or in factvany unwarranted distraction.

This argument is about degrees of safety. I would argue that headphones decrease the safety margin. I have no statistics to tell whether such reduction in that margin has a material effect on accidents. But the action of the French is telling.

Well aware thanks. that's why I listen to music with earbuds, while my phone stays safely in my pocket...handsfree and legal.

Agree..its about degrees of safety. if you cycle stupidly while listening to music, you could get hurt. I do agree with that. If you cycle sensibly and some nutter decides to run over you with their car from behind, it will make no difference if you hear the car coming or not. if they are driving towards you...you will SEE them coming.

smacl

07Lapierre wrote: »

if you cycle stupidly while listening to music, you could get hurt.

If you cycle stupidly without listening to music you could also get hurt.

simonw

smacl wrote: »

If being able to hear properly made no contribution to safety for road users, as you seem to be implying, by further implication your also saying that having horns fitted to cars, trucks, buses, etc.. also has no value whatsoever. This is clearly not the case, and if you look up sites for deaf cyclists you'll notice things like promoting signs to notify other roads user of this impairment.

If you have headphones on to a volume where you can't hear a horn or a siren, it won't be long before you need to invest in one of the signs in your link.

I have a set of these lads http://aftershokz.com/ (bone conducting headphones so your ears are still free) but they are much more useful for running than cycling. I don't think I've encountered any scenario on the bike where they have been beneficial over normal earbuds tbh.

HugoRune

"You delegate basically your own safety to everyone else," said somebody earlier. And this is a reasonable point, though I would say "delegate more of your safety to everyone else". Anyway I'm in the "no headphones" camp, so agree/disagree with the statement as you see fit.

The references to banning deaf people thereby implying some sort of equivalence is unfortunate. Deaf people presumably never intended being deaf and have adapted as well as they can to living with one of the senses severely impaired, and will therefore have become used to concentrating on inputs from the other senses. Listening to headphones while cycling is a choice made by people who in everyday life do not need to be mindful of managing without hearing. Also, the very act of listening while cycling is a task carried out by a hearing cyclist that a deaf person doesn't do, so if you accept that listening to something on headphones has any value at all (i.e. does your mind ever notice the sounds) the argument cannot really apply.

Maybe sometimes music (perhaps music familiar to the cyclist, perhaps 80s!) is such that the cyclist is not "really" listening and can focus on the surroundings. However, when I'm in charge I WILL ban the use of audio books (and perhaps all spoken audio, I'll have to consider that further!) from people in charge of transportation devices, particularly cars due to the increased danger to others on the road. Narrated novels for example are either actively listened to, or nothing is retained. If actively listened to, then everything else fades into the background. If nothing is retained, what are you doing playing the audiobook? Listen to undemanding chatter on one of the talk radio stations instead. What I think happens is that sometimes the listening is active and sometimes not, depending on -- I'm going to spuriously claim -- what the brain considers a priority at the time. As long as the brain gets the assessment right every single time then happy days. If not, then there might come a day that's somewhat less happy.

As an aside, driving in the city must now be incredibly stressful with the number of cyclists on the roads. I cycle most days, and feel really sorry for drivers -- of larger vehicles in particular -- when there are clouds of cyclists at junctions all nipping around each other jockeying for position, or trying to squeeze up the inside oblivous to the lights sequence. Say a bus driver taking off, trying not to hit any dozing cyclists in front, watching for cyclists popping up out of nowhere on the inside lane, hoping (in vain probably) that nobody is going to zoom up on the right or that pedestrians aren't going to incorrectly assess that they can dash across in time and beat the bus.

smacl

simonw wrote: »

If you have headphones on to a volume where you can't hear a horn or a siren, it won't be long before you need to invest in one of the signs in your link.

No argument there, or to sensible use of headphones while cycling at all for that matter. My point was simply that we do use our sense of hearing on the road, and thus blocking it out entirely for whatever reason isn't clever.

OleRodrigo

Has anyone disagreeing with earphones while cycling actually cycled with earphones?

Or is it more of ' I would imagine '., probably ' and other prefaces to unqualified waffle.

Carawaystick

BoatMad wrote: »

That's not the point.

Humans are designed to normally use all their senses to keep them safe. In extremis the body actually sharpens those senses.

I'm struggling to see how I'd use my sense of smell or taste to keep me safe on a bike.

I also note you haven't stated how being less distracted by wind noise at speed, i.e. by useing headphones, is less safe.

simonw

smacl wrote: »

No argument there, or to sensible use of headphones while cycling at all for that matter. My point was simply that we do use our sense of hearing on the road, and thus blocking it out entirely for whatever reason isn't clever.

but that's an argument against earplugs rather than earbuds surely!

All My Stars Aligned

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Has anyone disagreeing with earphones while cycling actually cycled with earphones?

I have tried it a couple of times and found it very unnerving.

After reading this thread this morning I tried to be more aware of the surrounding noise on my cycle into town and found my sense of hearing to be particularly useful, especially when in a bus lane as I could easily hear buses coming behind me and so was able to ensure that I held a good road position (this generally involved me moving out slightly to the right). This was on a very bust road (main Drumcondra Rd) and at a very bust time 8.30).

As with driving a car I find when cycling I am far more confidant on the bike when I'm actually concentrating on what I'm doing and so no headphones for me!

HugoRune

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Has anyone disagreeing with earphones while cycling actually cycled with earphones?

/Raises hand.


I didn't like it. I enjoyed listening to the music, hated feeling divorced from my environment. In fairness, I didn't stick with it. Maybe after a few days or weeks I would have adjusted, but the initial feeling of not been aware of my surroundings was enough to put me off.

smacl

simonw wrote: »

but that's an argument against earplugs rather than earbuds surely!

Not sure whether the terminology gets used interchangeably by different manufacturers. Personally, I wouldn't be into cycling around in something like these;