Headphones Megathread

monument

Swanner wrote: »

What does that have to do with headphones ?

I don't drive with headphones in my ears and if there isn't currently a law banning it, there should be.

Cyclists with iPods hear the same as motorists listening to nothing

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cyclists-with-ipods-hear-the-same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing/013329

Iwannahurl

In my experience of places with a strong cycling culture and a huge modal share for cycling (eg Copenhagen and the Netherlands) using headphones while on the bike is completely normal.

If there is any notable risk, it is not due to the headphones or the cycling.

I used to have a bee in my bonnet about such behaviour, but had an epiphany in Copenhagen. If motorists can listen to the radio or music while driving, why not cyclists? When cyclists using headphones becomes as unremarkable in this country as it is in Copenhagen or Utrecht, you'll know we're making progress.

JMcL

YanisK wrote: »

When you are driving a vehicle at 50-80-100 km/h, you can't just look away from the direction you're heading at.. That's why we have mirrors in cars. If u wanna look wider on your sides you lean forward - that will change the angle.

No you don't, you look around you to cover your blind spots. The Rules Of The Road (PDF) make this clear repeatedly. See examples on pages 48 (Moving Off), 49 (What to do if you need to change your position), and 51 (twice "How to change lanes safely" and "How to overtake safely")

petethedrummer

Swanner wrote: »

What does that have to do with headphones ?

I don't drive with headphones in my ears and if there isn't currently a law banning it, there should be.

By driving with your windows up and radio on, you have reduced your ability to use your ALL your senses to their MAX. In an urban environment with the windows open you may be able to hear a cyclist's shouts, if you do anything to endanger them. It would reduce your chances of having a cyclist's death on your conscience.

You set out these standards btw, not me.

petethedrummer

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If motorists can listen to the radio or music while driving, why not cyclists? When cyclists using headphones becomes as unremarkable in this country as it is in Copenhagen or Utrecht, you'll know we're making progress.

BECAUSE CYCLISTS ARE MENTALLISTS THAT GO AROUND CYCLING HEAD FIRST INTO CARS JUST TO MAKE DRIVERS FEEL BAD AND HEADPHONES MAKE THEM EVEN MENTALLER.

EDIT: And It think its bad taste to put up a picture of a suicidal, baby and dog murderer.

No Pants

petethedrummer wrote: »

BECAUSE CYCLISTS ARE MENTALLISTS THAT GO AROUND CYCLING HEAD FIRST INTO CARS JUST TO MAKE DRIVERS FEEL BAD AND HEADPHONES MAKE THEM EVEN MENTALLER.

I heard all that from my front room.

The Bishop Basher

Ah OK. I get it now.

Cyclists shouldn't have to worry about hearing what's going on around them because motorists can't hear what's going on around them.

Mature argument there folks :rolleyes:

I would have thought the fact that motorists can't hear would be all the more reason why cyclists would want to make sure they can. I understand though that it would make the morning commute a little boring so you need to fabricate all sort of arguments as to why it has no effect on safety.

Same as not wanting to have the image ruined by wearing high viz and a helmet.

I'll leave you at it...

monument

Swanner wrote: »

Ah OK. I get it now.

Cyclists shouldn't have to worry about hearing what's going on around them because motorists can't hear what's going on around them.

Mature argument there folks :rolleyes:

I would have thought the fact that motorists can't hear would be all the more reason why cyclists would want to make sure they can. I understand though that it would make the morning commute a little boring so you need to fabricate all sort of arguments as to why it has no effect on safety.

Same as not wanting to have the image ruined by wearing high viz and a helmet.

I'll leave you at it...

You claimed that: "All i'm saying is that common sense would tell you that cycling is safer when you employ both of your most important senses for this activity as opposed to deliberately employing only 1."

But you don't seem to think the same should apply to people driving a ton + of a shell around which is capable of high speeds with no effort.

Tar.Aldarion

I use them with music because I dont need them to know there are cars around and to use my eyes to look around often.

petethedrummer

petethedrummer wrote: »

EDIT: And It think its bad taste to put up a picture of a suicidal, baby and dog murderer.

And she's not wearing hi-viz or a helmet! Can a hi-viz jacket be fitted in utero?

yannakis

No Pants wrote: »

Why is anyone even responding to this poor attempt at a thread? It's not even an original topic and the motivations from bringing it up are dubious, as evidenced by the usual "I'm also a cyclist" nonsense.

Are you doubting something here?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In my experience of places with a strong cycling culture and a huge modal share for cycling (eg Copenhagen and the Netherlands) using headphones while on the bike is completely normal.

I was in The Netherlands for erasmus, and also worked there for about a year. You forgot to mention 2 very important parameters - bicycles have the highest priority (even higher than pedestrians), and there are proper cycle lanes as well as bicycle traffic lights.

JMcL wrote: »

No you don't, you look around you to cover your blind spots. The Rules Of The Road (PDF) make this clear repeatedly. See examples on pages 48 (Moving Off), 49 (What to do if you need to change your position), and 51 (twice "How to change lanes safely" and "How to overtake safely")

- moving off is not driving - it's moving off :P
- a "quick sideways glance" of course is mandatory, however it doesn't require moving your torso!

No Pants

YanisK wrote: »

Are you doubting something here?

Yes. Why didn't you give your own opinion to start the discussion? So many threads on here start along the lines of "I'm a cyclist meself, but why are all cyclists moany, lawbreaking, self-righteous, red-light jumping, ****ing spandex-clad bastarding gay *****? Use the cycling path that was built just for you."

It's not a great starting point and it usually degenerates from there.

yannakis

No Pants wrote: »

Yes. Why didn't you give your own opinion to start the discussion? So many threads on here start along the lines of "I'm a cyclist meself, but why are all cyclists moany, lawbreaking, self-righteous, red-light jumping, ****ing spandex-clad bastarding gay *****? Use the cycling path that was built just for you."

It's not a great starting point and it usually degenerates from there.

Honestly, I don't care about the other threads. When riding my bike I'm using all senses with hearing at the top, and that was the reason I am wondering how others can cycle without it.

monument

YanisK wrote: »

Honestly, I don't care about the other threads. When riding my bike I'm using all senses with hearing at the top, and that was the reason I am wondering how others can cycle without it.

You use hearing "at the top"?! Over sight?

And, while cycling, you use taste, smell, and feel in some way that adds safety?

No Pants

YanisK wrote: »

Honestly, I don't care about the other threads. When riding my bike I'm using all senses with hearing at the top, and that was the reason I am wondering how others can cycle without it.

That doesn't make any sense, yet you couldn't even be bothered to state it at the beginning. :rolleyes:

SHOVELLER

No offense but if you run or cycle with headphones on and you get into an accident you cannot expect sympathy.

You need to be 100% focused on what is going on around you especially when cycling.

monument

SHOVELLER wrote: »

No offense but if you run or cycle with headphones on and you get into an accident you cannot expect sympathy.

Does the same apply to people walking along and getting hit by no fault of their own?

SHOVELLER wrote: »

You need to be 100% focused on what is going on around you especially when cycling.

That's bs - nobody can be 100% focused on everything going on around them.

SHOVELLER

monument wrote: »

Does the same apply to people walking along and getting hit by no fault of their own?

Yes if they are walking on a cycle lane.


That's bs - nobody can be 100% focused on everything going on around them.

Cycle regularly in town and you will see its not bs. Stupid drivers, potholes, motorbikes parked on cycle lanes, taxi drivers not indicating. The list goes on.......

Tar.Aldarion

SHOVELLER wrote: »

No offense but if you run or cycle with headphones on and you get into an accident you cannot expect sympathy.

You need to be 100% focused on what is going on around you especially when cycling.

Do you listen to the radio in a car, do you talk to other people in the car? Do you think?

monument

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Cycle regularly in town and you will see its not bs. Stupid drivers, potholes, motorbikes parked on cycle lanes, taxi drivers not indicating. The list goes on.......

You're not actually listening to what I'm saying: I say nobody can be 100% focused on what's going on around them all the time it's impossible!

And with all the examples you give, hearing won't help you:

Potholes -- you can't hear them.

Motorbikes parked on cycle lanes -- you can't hear them if parked and not just stopped, and you should have no issue seeing them.

Taxi drivers not indicating -- do taxis make noise when indicating?

All of this is only highlighting the irrational views about headphones.

irishmotorist

monument wrote: »

You're not actually listening to what I'm saying: I say nobody can be 100% focused on what's going on around them all the time it's impossible!

You're getting into symantecs there. Let's change the figure of "100% focused" to "as focused as possible". Lots of things happen when out on the road that will distract - other vehicles, ads, people...there are lots of things to take bits of our focus.

My view is that if you're wearing earphones (in Dublin/Galway/Cork etc., not some other cycling utopia), then you are reducing your awareness to some things that you would be aware of if you were not wearing them.

It's about taking personal responsibility for your own safety. As I said before, it's a personal choice and if you choose music/podcast over some degree of safety, then fine. However, I don't think it can be denied that you are denying yourself some information about the traffic around you if you do it.

Diarmuid

Headphones are the new helmets. No wait, the new red-light-jumping.

Time to request a subforum. "Tiresome, painful cycling threads"

monument

irishmotorist wrote: »

You're getting into symantecs there. Let's change the figure of "100% focused" to "as focused as possible". Lots of things happen when out on the road that will distract - other vehicles, ads, people...there are lots of things to take bits of our focus.

So a ban on headphones and all road/street-side ads? Or just headphones?

You say symantecs but detail is important here, otherwise you're just going into broad statements -- ie "cycling is unsafe so you must do everything to protect yourself etc".

irishmotorist wrote: »

My view is that if you're wearing earphones (in Dublin/Galway/Cork etc., not some other cycling utopia),

CPH and AMS are not cycling Utopias -- calling them such is overblown to the extreme.

But maybe we should follow them for a real level of subjective safety, rather than a focus on individuals who are doing little or no harm.

irishmotorist wrote: »

then you are reducing your awareness to some things that you would be aware of if you were not wearing them.

What are these mystery "some things"?

If you're not going to answer anything else please answer that.

irishmotorist wrote: »

It's about taking personal responsibility for your own safety.

No, it's not about personal responsibility, it's about a nonsense focus on that for some road users. Otherwise we would not just be joking about where car insulation is placed or how loud car radios are.

I'm not calling for changes to car sound insulation or radios etc but it just shows how one-sided and silly this is.

irishmotorist wrote: »

As I said before, it's a personal choice and if you choose music/podcast over some degree of safety, then fine. However, I don't think it can be denied that you are denying yourself some information about the traffic around you if you do it.

We're talking headphones generally and a large bulk of people say they use one one ear bud.

You make it sound like we're all talking about noise canceling headphones on full blast.

irishmotorist

monument wrote: »

So a ban on headphones and all road/street-side ads? Or just headphones?

You say symantecs but detail is important here, otherwise you're just going into broad statements -- ie "cycling is unsafe so you must do everything to protect yourself etc".




CPH and AMS are not cycling Utopias -- calling them such is overblown to the extreme.

But maybe we should follow them for a real level of subjective safety, rather than a focus on individuals who are doing little or no harm.



What are these mystery "some things"?

If you're not going to answer anything else please answer that.



No, it's not about personal responsibility, it's about a nonsense focus on that for some road users. Otherwise we would not just be joking about where car insulation is placed or how loud car radios are.

I'm not calling for changes to car sound insulation or radios etc but it just shows how one-sided and silly this is.




We're talking headphones generally and a large bulk of people say they use one one ear bud.

You make it sound like we're all talking about noise canceling headphones on full blast.

No, I'm not saying we should ban street-side ads. I'm saying that we should take personal responsibility (no matter what we're doing). Ads, traffic etc. etc. are all potential distractions. I'm also not going into broad statements and suggesting that cycling is unsafe. I'm saying that wearing earphones is reducing your awareness of what's around you.

OK, they're not utopias, but I don't think that saying that because something is OK there means it's OK here. They are different places and can't be just broadly compared as like-with-like. When the aspiration to be the same as them becomes a reality, then it will be a more equal comparison.

The 'some things' are not a mystery. Can you not imagine what things you might want to hear when you're cycling in traffic? How's about hearing the vehicle that is closest to you? How's about hearing whether the driver sounds like he's accelerating? How's about hearing that it's a truck? How's about hearing that it's a moped that is likely trying to share your lane? Knowing this affects my choice on when to look over my shoulder (for example) or the line that I keep on the road/cycle lane (another example).

I do think it's about personal responsibility. I'm not just focusing on cyclists or any other specific road users - all road users have responsibility to themselves and those around them. This discussion is about earphones and that's what I'm trying to discuss. Car insulation, car radios etc. are different topics.

Yes - number of people say that they use one ear bud. IMO, that's less of a distraction than having two in, but it is still introducing an extra distraction on top of the other external distractions that exist. I choose not to do that because I value the information that my hearing gives me on the bike.

tomasrojo

I don't generally use earphones on the bike. I remember one occasion I did it because I had to do the weekly shop during a big Republic of Ireland qualifying soccer match and I wanted to keep up with how it was going. I usually can't hear the radio when cycling on the road in Dublin, but I could hear everything that day: streets were empty(*). So my need for Spidey sense was very low anyway.

I don't do it myself, but I can't see any harm in listening to one earphone cycling on quiet streets.


((*)This was obviously back when we didn't expect to fail to qualify for everthing.)

rainbow kirby

I run with headphones all the time, but never cycle with them. Too many idiots on the roads in London to risk lowering my awareness in any way, and if I'm cycling somewhere quieter I kinda like the headspace that the silence gives me.

mal1

YanisK wrote: »

When you are driving a vehicle at 50-80-100 km/h, you can't just look away from the direction you're heading at.. That's why we have mirrors in cars. If u wanna look wider on your sides you lean forward - that will change the angle.

YanisK wrote: »

- moving off is not driving - it's moving off :P
- a "quick sideways glance" of course is mandatory, however it doesn't require moving your torso!

Your posts seem conflicting on checking blind spots. A sideways glance is definitely a look away from the direction you're heading.

Iwannahurl

YanisK wrote: »

You forgot to mention 2 very important parameters - bicycles have the highest priority (even higher than pedestrians), and there are proper cycle lanes as well as bicycle traffic lights.

I didn't forget:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there is any notable risk, it is not due to the headphones or the cycling.

petethedrummer wrote: »

And she's not wearing hi-viz or a helmet! Can a hi-viz jacket be fitted in utero?

Her bump is highly visible. Does that count?


.

monument

irishmotorist wrote: »

No, I'm not saying we should ban street-side ads. I'm saying that we should take personal responsibility (no matter what we're doing). Ads, traffic etc. etc. are all potential distractions. I'm also not going into broad statements and suggesting that cycling is unsafe. I'm saying that wearing earphones is reducing your awareness of what's around you.

If we should take personal responsibility, surely we collectively should ban ads which are a distraction? (Clearly I'm using this as an example and don't think we should)

But you're not talking about "all potential distractions", you're overly focused on one type of road user only.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I'm also not going into broad statements and suggesting that cycling is unsafe. I'm saying that wearing earphones is reducing your awareness of what's around you.

OK, they're not utopias, but I don't think that saying that because something is OK there means it's OK here. They are different places and can't be just broadly compared as like-with-like. When the aspiration to be the same as them becomes a reality, then it will be a more equal comparison.

If cycling is not unsafe, what's the difference between Dublin and Amsterdam?

I'd say mostly perceived safety.

irishmotorist wrote: »

The 'some things' are not a mystery. Can you not imagine what things you might want to hear when you're cycling in traffic? How's about hearing the vehicle that is closest to you? How's about hearing whether the driver sounds like he's accelerating? How's about hearing that it's a truck? How's about hearing that it's a moped that is likely trying to share your lane? Knowing this affects my choice on when to look over my shoulder (for example) or the line that I keep on the road/cycle lane (another example).

Ok -- if you want to talk about your choice, that's fine and I'd leave you to it, but you're not. You're prescribing things to other people -- that's what you're doing on this thread.

How's about hearing the vehicle that is closest to you? Headphones most often won't block out such sounds and if you're talking about vehicles behind you, that's their business. With so much noise from traffic it likely won't make a difference one way or another.

How's about hearing whether the driver sounds like he's accelerating? Easier again to hear, but I'm still not clear as to what the accelerating driver is doing that hearing them a little more would change things.

How's about hearing that it's a truck? Why, will you be mounting the footpath or what if it is?

How's about hearing that it's a moped that is likely trying to share your lane? Far more mopeds in Amsterdam, legally (for now) on cycle paths.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I do think it's about personal responsibility. I'm not just focusing on cyclists or any other specific road users - all road users have responsibility to themselves and those around them. This discussion is about earphones and that's what I'm trying to discuss. Car insulation, car radios etc. are different topics.

You're trying to discuses headphones alone because you are focusing just on cyclists.

Or maybe you think drivers should use more personal responsibility and always have their window rolled down and radio off and never talk to a passenger?

irishmotorist wrote: »

Yes - number of people say that they use one ear bud. IMO, that's less of a distraction than having two in, but it is still introducing an extra distraction on top of the other external distractions that exist. I choose not to do that because I value the information that my hearing gives me on the bike.

Again: If you want to talk about your choice, that's fine and I'd leave you to it, but you're not. You're prescribing things to other people -- that's what you're doing on this thread.

Just as I say with helmets: Some people are better off with helmets because they are wobbly or prone to collisions etc.

Some people get distracted easily or can't focus etc and I'm sure even among most headphone wearers, sometimes headphones are not a good idea.

yop

Spotted these on the kickstarter website Best of both worlds!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1714346163/revolutionary-bone-conducting-heaphones-deliver-gr?ref=category