Headphones Megathread

Roadhawk

Agent Smyth wrote: »

I love the way these discussions always seem to end up about helmets and headphones when the real issue is the cyclist didn't signal their intentions or bother to look where they were going. A helmet or headphones don't make an unsafe cyclist its the cyclist that makes the cycling unsafe.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Its often the cyclist with all the safety equipment that just plods along through red light. All the safety equipment in the world is not going to help you if you get a bang of a car.

endagibson

Roadhawk wrote: »

hemlet

Off topic.

Roadhawk wrote: »

hi-vis

Off topic.

Roadhawk wrote: »

lights

Off topic.

Roadhawk wrote: »

red light

Off topic.

Anything else you wish to share?

magicbastarder

Agent Smyth wrote: »

A helmet or headphones don't make an unsafe cyclist its the cyclist that makes the cycling unsafe.

guns don't kill people...

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its often the cyclist with the hemlet

at least they don't end up in hopsital.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

guns don't kill people...

Correct! It's the BULLETS that do the damage!

jon1981

So there people on here that believe wearing earphones has no bearing on the ability to be a safe cyclists? Don't get it. You often hear before you see... why on earth would you limit one of your most valuable senses in a busy city.

07Lapierre

jon1981 wrote: »

So there people on here that believe wearing earphones has no bearing on the ability to be a safe cyclists? Don't get it. You often hear before you see... why on earth would you limit one of your most valuable senses in a busy city.

Read all about it here:
http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057448720

magicbastarder

jon1981 wrote: »

So there people on here that believe wearing earphones has no bearing on the ability to be a safe cyclists? Don't get it. You often hear before you see... why on earth would you limit one of your most valuable senses in a busy city.

would you suggest all drivers should drive with the radio off and the windows down?

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you suggest all drivers should drive with the radio off and the windows down?

Can we boycott Halfords too? All those stereos, amps, sub woofers etc. Lethal they are!

Roadhawk

jon1981 wrote: »

So there people on here that believe wearing earphones has no bearing on the ability to be a safe cyclists? Don't get it. You often hear before you see... why on earth would you limit one of your most valuable senses in a busy city.

I agree.
I think they should be banned. I presume gards can still issue a fine under the "cycling without due care" penalty? that might help.

jon1981

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you suggest all drivers should drive with the radio off and the windows down?

Not a like for like argument, a driver is not a vulnerable road user

laraghrider

Roadhawk wrote: »

I agree.
I think they should be banned. I presume gards can still issue a fine under the "cycling without due care" penalty? that might help.

If an officer saw the incident he could issue a penalty for cycling without due care however cycling with earphones in does not constitute cycling would due care so nothing he can do there really.

magicbastarder

jon1981 wrote: »

Not a like for like argument, a driver is not a vulnerable road user

so the drivers should be taking even *more* care as they constitute the danger.

jon1981

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the drivers should be taking even *more* care as they constitute the danger.

Care works both ways right? You could argue without the ear phones he would have heard the car passing in the lane to the right in a safe manner (>1.5m) yet the cyclist ended up in front of the car by not looking and equally not being able to hear.

maybe I have too much common sense...

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the drivers should be taking even *more* care as they constitute the danger.

There is really only a certain amount of care you can take against idiots on the road regardless of what vehicle you are in/on. After that the road users need to display some sort savvy and not put themselves in danger. Removing the ability of such an important sense while operating a vehicle is ludicrous towards safety. It might be comforting for long cycles but is it really needed around the city?

Just because a car has the ability to cause more damage does not mean it should display a higher level of care. Each road user should be equal in my opinion.

ThisRegard

jack presley wrote: »

He made some good points but at the end SO'R asked the reporter was yer man wearing a helmet and he said that he didn't because he felt safer without one. His logic was that if cars see you with a helmet they think it'll be alright if they hit you whereas by not wearing one, cars will give him more space and be more careful around you.

I couldn't take anything he said seriously after hearing that.

What he actually did was mention research that shows that helmets aren't the panacea that people think they are.

jon1981

ThisRegard wrote: »

What he actually did was mention research that shows that helmets aren't the panacea that people think they are.

A friend came off descending at 60kph, lambasted his head off the ground, he had a helmet on and was walking around 4 days later. Instead of ending up in hospital ward it most likely would have been a morgue if he had no helmet.

p.s. take it to the helmet thread.

Fuzzytrooper

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you suggest all drivers should drive with the radio off and the windows down?

It's a lot easier to see whats going on around you in a car what with wing and rear view mirrors. A quick flick of the eyes is easier/safer/quicker than having to look over your shoulder.

magicbastarder

jon1981 wrote: »

A friend came off descending at 60kph, lambasted his head off the ground, he had a helmet on and was walking around 4 days later. Instead of ending up in hospital ward it most likely would have been a morgue if he had no helmet.

p.s. take it to the helmet thread.

what gets peoples back up is the constant fallback to helmets and headphones as the main discussion point on cyclist safety.
the main issues facing cyclists are poor facilities and the behaviour of other road users - as well as in many instances, their own behaviour.

helmets and headphones are just a small part of the debate but you'd swear it was all that stood between us and a cycling utopia at times.

eeeee

Mod Note: Threads merged. This has been done before.

There are already helmet and Hi viz megathreads, if you want to discuss those issues off to the relevant megathread with you.

dreamerb

Roadhawk wrote: »

Just because a car has the ability to cause more damage does not mean it should display a higher level of care.

?? That's exactly what it should mean.

It's to do with risk mitigation. That's why some different laws apply, for example, to drivers of large vehicles such as HGVs - there's a requirement for the driver to hold a different category of driving licence, and restrictions on where they may travel and the speed at which they may travel.

As a cyclist, the risk I pose to other road users is pretty low even when I make a mistake (in fact, even if I flouted the rules in the way lots of muppets do). The risk any driver poses is higher (that's physics for you. Very inegalitarian), and substantially higher if flouting the rules in the way many muppets do.

That's not an argument to disapply the rules of the road generally to cyclists, but if the aim of those rules is to mitigate risk generally, then more rigorous enforcement for drivers is probably a more effective strategy. Enforcing for cyclists has a lower real risk reduction return, but may be useful in getting more cyclists to behave more predictably.

doozerie

Well, if we are talking common sense…

Maybe his MP3 player got stuck on repeat on a Westlife track and his only option really was to throw himself under a car for some relief. The glaringly obvious solution is to ban Westlife.

…I’m full of common sense me.

Trojan

Having no headphones does not magically give cyclists superpowers. In city traffic it's nigh on impossible to distinguish where vehicles are by sound.

What's far more important is to look around regularly and know where cars are and where they're going in relation to your bike. Whether a cyclist is listening to headphones or not is irelevant.

Drivers, heal thyself: turn off your blaring radio, open your windows, stop doing 31km/h in a 30 zone, stop encroaching on yellow boxes, and parking in bike lanes. Do all that before you even consider coming after me for listening to a goddamn business podcast while I'm cycling.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Just because a car has the ability to cause more damage does not mean it should display a higher level of care.

i missed this first time round.
good god.

ThisRegard

07Lapierre wrote: »

Correct! It's the BULLETS that do the damage!

Nope, Welsh rap supremo Goldie Looking Chain clarified it was rappers that did the killing, not the guns. **** da rappers.

Cienciano

jon1981 wrote: »

Hearing is equally as important as seeing when i cycling IMO

Equally? Cycling with either ear plugs or a blindfold, which would you choose?
Hearing is way, way down from sight when it comes to importance to cycling.

07Lapierre

ThisRegard wrote: »

Nope, Welsh rap supremo Goldie Looking Chain clarified it was rappers that did the killing, not the guns. **** da rappers.

Nope it the Bullets!

https://youtu.be/V4DnNKKIfrM

tomasrojo

Quarantine-style megathreads are a great idea.

I guess this one could be mentioned in the charter with the hi-viz and helmet ones?

doozerie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nope it the Bullets!

https://youtu.be/V4DnNKKIfrM

No, no, no. It's the wabbits, as per this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQ0gkOqJOI

Roadhawk

dreamerb wrote: »

It's to do with risk mitigation.

Nicely put. reduce the risk of an accident.