Headphones Megathread

magicbastarder

passed a cyclist this morning who had the music up so loud on his headphones that i could clearly hear he was listening to lenny kravitz.
my instant reaction was 'you idiot. you ****ing idiot. no-one listens to lenny kravitz anymore'.

magicbastarder

i'm going to ruin my own story by clarifying that when i passed the same chap on the way home this evening, i think he actually had a little speaker on his bike, rather than it being headphones.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm going to ruin my own story by clarifying that when i passed the same chap on the way home this evening, i think he actually had a little speaker on his bike, rather than it being headphones.

Anyone who listens to Lenny Kravitz should use headphones!

AndrewJRenko

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Typically a deaf person has never had the ability to hear, so its not the removal of a sense, but i'm not a doctor, so can comment on how they deal without that sense, but someone who volunteer removes it to listen to music is putting themselves and other road users at risk.

Drivers shouldn't wear them either, and pedestrians on their phones are more dangerous, but thankfully they are on footpaths most of the time...Any cyclist wearing earphones will have zero sympathy from me in case of a collision

There is no typical deaf person. Most people with hearing loss have some degree of hearing. Many people acquire hearing loss as they get older.


So presumably, drivers shouldn't have the radio or stereo on either?

Eamonnator

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no typical deaf person. Most people with hearing loss have some degree of hearing. Many people acquire hearing loss as they get older.


So presumably, drivers shouldn't have the radio or stereo on either?

Or their windows closed, or all the sound insulation that car manufacturers boast about.

ridelikeaturtle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

...
So presumably, drivers shouldn't have the radio or stereo on either?

No, because - unlike headphones - a car radio doesn't prevent the driver from hearing sounds in their environment, such as other vehicles, sirens, etc.

(I'd be very surprised this hasn't been mentioned a million times already in the past pages of this thread.)

tomasrojo

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

No, because - unlike headphones - a car radio doesn't prevent the driver from hearing sounds in their environment, such as other vehicles, sirens, etc.

(I'd be very surprised this hasn't been mentioned a million times already in the past pages of this thread.)

But earphones don't stop you hearing those things either?

I think there was a study that showed cyclists can hear more around them wearing earphones than people in cars can (without earphones, I mean). I think it's true anyway, but it might be different for full-on headphones turned up very loud. For earphones though, I can barely hear a podcast on most streets, but I can hear it fine in a car.

AndrewJRenko

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

No, because - unlike headphones - a car radio doesn't prevent the driver from hearing sounds in their environment, such as other vehicles, sirens, etc.

(I'd be very surprised this hasn't been mentioned a million times already in the past pages of this thread.)

Strange - I've found myself tapping on drivers' windows, about 50—100mm from the drivers" ears, and some don't hear a thing - and ultimately get a huge surprise when I get their attention by waving.

But yeah - let's have a go at cyclists.

tomasrojo

It is possible that there are marginal cases of very loud headphones where it's clear the cyclist would be much better off not wearing the headphones, but this is another road-safety case of straining at a gnat (earphone) and swallowing a camel (car soundproofing).

ridelikeaturtle

tomasrojo wrote: »

But earphones don't stop you hearing those things either?

I think there was a study that showed cyclists can hear more around them wearing earphones than people in cars can (without earphones, I mean). I think it's true anyway, but it might be different for full-on headphones turned up very loud. For earphones though, I can barely hear a podcast on most streets, but I can hear it fine in a car.

Headphones deliver sound directly to your ears. This is going to interfere with how you receive sounds from the environment - emergency vehicles and other vehicles around you being the most important - in relation to direction and distance. That is going to affect your ability to react.

There is a lot of research on this topic.

France has made explicitly illegal to wear earphones/headphones, for cyclists and drivers. The UK (and I presume, Ireland) will enforce the more generic "driving while distracted" laws.

ridelikeaturtle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Strange - I've found myself tapping on drivers' windows, about 50—100mm from the drivers" ears, and some don't hear a thing - and ultimately get a huge surprise when I get their attention by waving.

But yeah - let's have a go at cyclists.

Strange, I was considering only drivers using headphones, not cyclists. "But yeah", I'll "have a go" at any road user who's doing stupid things on the road. Being a cyclist doesn't absolve you of guilt if you're doing stupid things.

I find most drivers never look out the rear or side, and only occasionally out the front, of their vehicles.

Using headphones just makes it worse.

tomasrojo

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Headphones deliver sound directly to your ears. This is going to interfere with how you receive sounds from the environment - emergency vehicles and other vehicles around you being the most important - in relation to direction and distance. That is going to affect your ability to react.

There is a lot of research on this topic.

France has made explicitly illegal to wear earphones/headphones, for cyclists and drivers. The UK (and I presume, Ireland) will enforce the more generic "driving while distracted" laws.

France has made some questionable evidence-free road-safety decisions in the last few years.

If I didn't have direct experience of using earphones and being in a car and the contrast between them, I might find your argument plausible, but earphones just don't drown everything out. As I said, *headphones* might make a big difference, as it's a bigger speaker, and there's a seal around your ears, but earphones don't even drown out wind noise.

EDIT: actually, if you have a link to the "lot of research" you might as well post it here. I think most of the more famous stuff is here, but perhaps you have something worth a look.

tomasrojo

I think this is the study that was mentioned upthread:
https://www.bikebiz.com/business/cyclists-with-ipods-hear-the-same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing

"We quickly established that cars are remarkably soundproof. We measured the average peak of ambient traffic noise inside the car (with the motor running) to be 54dB, which is 26dB quieter than outside the car. We rang a bike bell right outside an open car window and measured it from in the car at 105dB. With the window closed, the same bell registered just 57dB."

Furthermore, "a bike rider with in-ear earphones playing music at a reasonable volume hears about the same outside noise as a car driver with no music playing, but more than a car driver playing music."

What's described there coincides exactly with my experience of sound perception inside and outside cars.

AndrewJRenko

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Headphones deliver sound directly to your ears. This is going to interfere with how you receive sounds from the environment - emergency vehicles and other vehicles around you being the most important - in relation to direction and distance. That is going to affect your ability to react.

There is a lot of research on this topic.

This research seems to have come to a different conclusion - that cyclists wearing earphones hear MORE than drivers with their windows up and no audio.


https://www.bikebiz.com/business/cyclists-with-ipods-hear-the-same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Strange, I was considering only drivers using headphones, not cyclists. "But yeah", I'll "have a go" at any road user who's doing stupid things on the road. Being a cyclist doesn't absolve you of guilt if you're doing stupid things.

Given the forum that we're in, it's not unreasonable to assume that the discussion centres around cycling and cyclists, where not otherwise specified.

ridelikeaturtle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This research seems to have come to a different conclusion - that cyclists wearing earphones hear MORE than drivers with their windows up and no audio.

https://www.bikebiz.com/business/cyclists-with-ipods-hear-the-same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing

A lot of interesting, unscientific phrasing in that article: "Using our own taste as a guide, we established that a reasonable volume for listening to music through our earphones while riding at our location was three clicks down from the maximum volume of our iPod..."

Oh c'mon. And from a bike magazine, so the "conclusions" aren't so surprising.


This looks a bit more controlled and evidence-based.

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/03/injuryprev-2011-040161

"Conclusions The use of headphones with handheld devices may pose a safety risk to pedestrians, especially in environments with moving vehicles."

Extending such findings to operating a bicycle in traffic, is obvious.


As always, if there's peer-reviewed and unbiased research to contradict my beliefs, I'll happily accept it.

tomasrojo

They haven't even done any stats in that (I mean correlations, significance tests and the like). And in particular they don't seem to have done any relative risk calculations comparing pedestrians without headphones. It just seems to be "sometimes pedestrians wearing headphones get struck by vehicles." Even the basic statistics question isn't addressed: "The number is this. But is that a lot?"

There are other issues with it, which this person looks at:
https://www.treehugger.com/health/new-study-confirms-pedestrians-wearing-headphones-are-killer-car-magnets-who-deserve-what-they-get.html

There is another point to be gleaned from this table in the study. While the number of people getting killed by cars while wearing headphones had tripled in six years, the actual number of people wearing MP3 players has quadrupled. So in fact, the rate at which pedestrians wearing headphones are being killed is actually going down.

The authors of the study list a number of limitations, including that "since this is a retrospective case series, neither causation nor correlation can be established between headphone use and pedestrian risk."

He also points out that relying on the media for an unbiased account of who is and isn't wearing headphones isn't that good an idea. As he hints, you can usually tell someone was wearing a bicycle helmet in a media report of a fatality, because helmets aren't mentioned.

magicbastarder

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Extending such findings to operating a bicycle in traffic, is obvious.

ah here; you're going on about scientific rigour in one post and then claiming 'it's obvious' to apply one piece of research to a cohort which was not included in that research, in another.

i don't wear headphones cycling, but as pointed out above, it's not fair to compare cyclists wearing headphones to drivers listening to the radio. they're listening to the radio and (for most of the time anyway) doing so with the windows closed.

random aside - a colleague's father has done the cycle against suicide a few times, and his main issue on the bike is wind noise in his hearing aids...

magicbastarder

some commentary from vox on the topic. conclusions are ambivalent.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5956899/bike-headphones-safe-dangerous-riding

tomasrojo

Also, right out of the gate: city cycling isn't dangerous, unless you classify city walking as dangerous.

tomasrojo

I agree with using just one bud. It's much better than wearing two, i find.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, right out of the gate: city cycling isn't dangerous, unless you classify city walking as dangerous.

actually, i was going to comment on that bit, but forgot. what a silly thing to say.

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

I agree with using just one bud. It's much better than wearing two, i find.

Don't call me bud, bud.

ridelikeaturtle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, right out of the gate: city cycling isn't dangerous, unless you classify city walking as dangerous.

Both are only dangerous if you're not paying attention.

ridelikeaturtle

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah here; you're going on about scientific rigour in one post and then claiming 'it's obvious' to apply one piece of research to a cohort which was not included in that research, in another.
...

Do you not think it is a reasonable extension? Both groups are navigating urban traffic conditions which require a high level of attention, and environmental and spatial awareness. If anything, the cyclist would require higher levels of attention as they are moving at a much greater speed than a pedestrian.

07Lapierre

I agree with this:


"If we held all drivers to the standard of being able to hear as well as a bicyclist, the only street-legal motor vehicles would be quiet, slow, unenclosed ones such as golf carts"


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

tomasrojo

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Do you not think it is a reasonable extension? Both groups are navigating urban traffic conditions which require a high level of attention, and environmental and spatial awareness. If anything, the cyclist would require higher levels of attention as they are moving at a much greater speed than a pedestrian.

You don't really need any of that. You need to be calm and alert and, in the case of a cyclist, need a machine in reasonable working order. It's not an extreme sport.

There are *some* streets where you might need much more care, but most streets aren't like that.

It occurs to me, in passing, with reference to the paper above, that perhaps there's a doctor in 1979 plotting a graph showing an alarming rise over the previous decade in the number of pedestrians dying in collisions with cars while wearing flares.

Weepsie

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Do you not think it is a reasonable extension? Both groups are navigating urban traffic conditions which require a high level of attention, and environmental and spatial awareness. If anything, the cyclist would require higher levels of attention as they are moving at a much greater speed than a pedestrian.

So long as you can use your eyes, your fine. Noise in an urban area is coming from everywhere. Noise waves will bounce off hard surfaces, of which there are a lot in urban areas. Wind again will shift the direction of where noise travels and is coming from. It is very, very, very easy to think noise is coming from behind you when it is in fact ahead of you or from somewhere afar. You can be very easily distracted by ambient noise. If you're relying on your hearing as a chief tool then you're doing it wrong.

So long as you are aware enough to look ahead, and either side /behind you will be fine, headphones or not.

magicbastarder

ridelikeaturtle wrote: »

Do you not think it is a reasonable extension? Both groups are navigating urban traffic conditions which require a high level of attention, and environmental and spatial awareness. If anything, the cyclist would require higher levels of attention as they are moving at a much greater speed than a pedestrian.

but a significant difference is that - in ireland, anyway - cyclists are grouped with the cars from a traffic flow point of view, not segregated from car traffic the way pedestrians are.
either pro or anti headphones, my point is that you can't automatically make an assumption about one group from the other.

i've never actually cycled with headphones, but have cycled on very windy days where i suspect a similar impairment on hearing occurs.

magicbastarder

maybe at root my issue is that it's another example of the idea that the group which creates the danger, is not expected to conform to the same behavioural checks as the group which suffers from it.
why are we talking about the vulnerable road user being the one who should not impair their hearing, rather than the road user who creates the danger who should not impair their hearing?

07Lapierre

Weepsie wrote: »

So long as you can use your eyes, your fine. Noise in an urban area is coming from everywhere. Noise waves will bounce off hard surfaces, of which there are a lot in urban areas. Wind again will shift the direction of where noise travels and is coming from. It is very, very, very easy to think noise is coming from behind you when it is in fact ahead of you or from somewhere afar. You can be very easily distracted by ambient noise. If you're relying on your hearing as a chief tool then you're doing it wrong.

So long as you are aware enough to look ahead, and either side /behind you will be fine, headphones or not.

+1 it's like creaking noises from your bikes BB. The BB is never the cause of the creaking noise!