Road issues that irritate me.......

Seth Brundle

barneygumble99 wrote: »

Bulbs can be put in arseways, a lot of them are, mainly because it's impossible to see what you are doing as regards getting the bulb seated correctly in the headlamp. Majority of dip beam bulbs are H7 and the little locator tab is usually pointing North when sitting correctly in the headlamp. After replacing the bulb you should be able to look in through the lens and see that the bulb is pointing out at 180 degrees to the ground otherwise it's in the wrong way.

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

I have indeed, mainly on Toyotas & BMW's, there is only 1 way for the bulb to go in correctly, but that doesn't mean it can't be put in arseways, and held in place by severely bending the retaining spring, all coupled with a try it out there micko, it's working, yep, grand job attitude.

Hang on, now you're referring to ramming a bulb in so that it eventually force with damage makes it fit. This is not what was posted previously. We were told of people putting the bulbs in up-side-down.
My point was that generally you can't put a bulb in up-side-down. You can however force something in up-side-down if you wish but that's not "putting" it in!

I stand by my post that lights pointing upwards are caused in the main by misaligned headlamps; not because the owner forced a bulb into it's hold and made a balls of the job.

km991148

Latatian wrote: »

Sorry, I misspoke- I am going up through the gears until it is overrevving in each gear. But if someone's doing well over the speed limit there's only a limited amount of time and distance you have to try and match that. It's not so much about merging correctly- if people are doing the speed limit I've no problem- it's about merging when people are speeding.

"Below the motorway"= "Below that of yerman who is already on the motorway, and is speeding." You get clusters of people speeding as well so it can get difficult.

Anyone doing ~120 or above should not be in the left hand lane if someone is merging. If they cannot move from the driving lane, they should not be at 120 as it is obviously too congested. If you genuinely cannot get your vehicle to 100-120 by the time you need to merge, it would suggest your car and/or your abilities are not suitable for motorways. But I doubt that is the case as it would need to be severely clapped out or a 600cc engine or something! i.e. speeders not slowing for traffic or being courteous to merging traffic.

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

Anyone doing ~120 or above should not be in the left hand lane if someone is merging. If they cannot move from the driving lane, they should not be at 120 as it is obviously too congested. If you genuinely cannot get your vehicle to 100-120 by the time you need to merge, it would suggest your car and/or your abilities are not suitable for motorways. But I doubt that is the case as it would need to be severely clapped out or a 600cc engine or something! i.e. speeders not slowing for traffic or being courteous to merging traffic.

Nonsense.
What in your view is the max speed someone should be driving at along the motorway before they should be obliged (in your view) to move to a different lane in order to allow someone to merge?
What law is your imaginary rule based on?

The onus is on the merger to ensure that they merge at a speed appropriate to traffic already on the motorway. If they cannot do merge safely then the rule is that they don't try to!

Courtesy suggests that traffic already on the motorway moves to accommodate drivers but this is not a legal requirement!

km991148

kbannon wrote: »

Nonsense.
What in your view is the max speed someone should be driving at along the motorway before they should be obliged (in your view) to move to a different lane in order to allow someone to merge?
What law is your imaginary rule based on?

The onus is on the merger to ensure that they merge at a speed appropriate to traffic already on the motorway. If they cannot do merge safely then the rule is that they don't try to!

Courtesy suggests that traffic already on the motorway moves to accommodate drivers but this is not a legal requirement!

heh - I was only saying it would be courteous. If the driving lane is packed and someone is at the matched speed and trying to merge I would move over and let them in if I could. I was generalising and typed that a bit quickly.
Generally tho' if it was that busy that it was difficult to move into it would indicate that there is a lot of traffic on the motorway and the speed wouldn't be at 120 anyway - but yes onus is on merging vehicle to match whatever speed.

AndyBoBandy

kbannon wrote: »

Hang on, now you're referring to ramming a bulb in so that it eventually force with damage makes it fit. This is not what was posted previously. We were told of people putting the bulbs in up-side-down.
My point was that generally you can't put a bulb in up-side-down. You can however force something in up-side-down if you wish but that's not "putting" it in!

I stand by my post that lights pointing upwards are caused in the main by misaligned headlamps; not because the owner forced a bulb into it's hold and made a balls of the job.

ramming it in wrong, putting it in incorrectly, whatever,

lights that shine up due to bad alignment, thats what irritates me.


and there was me thinking this was After Hours..

arybvtcw0eolkf

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

When someone replaces a headlight bulb but puts it in upside down, so the beam is shining up at you as opposed to down on the road.

That's one of the funniest posts in this thread.

You'd have to make a massive effort & go breaking things before sitting a bulb in upside down.

You made that one up.

AndyBoBandy

I just assumed they were incorrectly installed, but as another poster pointed out, it's the alignment.

Alun

Malachi Scarce Yodeler wrote: »

That's one of the funniest posts in this thread.

You'd have to make a massive effort & go breaking things before sitting a bulb in upside down.

You made that one up.

On many cars, it is entirely possible to put bulbs in such that they're misaligned in the bulb socket without breaking anything. Not necessarily "upside down", but it is possible to have a situation in which the tab on the bulb isn't in the notch in the bulb holder, and for the clip to fasten to hold the bulb in place. I've done it myself once on a car where access was extremely difficult, but it's immediately noticeable when you test the lights after fitting, and you'd have to be a real idiot not to notice something was wrong when using such a light in real life in the dark.

railer201

The one-eyed Reillys on unlit roads, with a duff headlight or dip on the drivers side, giving the impression of a motorcycle well tucked in to the left hand side.

Only when your on top of it you realise it's a car that has just missed you by a hair

RainyDay

railer201 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29878233





Now perhaps you might understand the 'fetish' as you put it. Distance or time has to be taken into account along with the number of journeys by each mode.

Cycling is less safe than driving - simple.

The gives the game away a bit - this is some kind of game for you, some point-scoring issue. So you choose the 'per hour' or 'per mile' stats that suit your twisted arguement, even though they ignore the basic reality that;

- Vast majority of people killed on the road are motorists
- Next in overall numbers are walkists
- Finally, a very small number of cyclists

And of those cyclists that are killed, there is absolutely no evidence that their own behaviour is a significant factor in these collisions. Where formal research has been done, it shows that most of the time, the root cause is dangerous driving.

So if you really have any significant interest in safety or saving lives on the road, you need to change driver behaviours. But I'm not sure that you really are interested in that.

Frigating

Drivers who go full speed, or even speed up, through large puddles when there's a pedestrian walking along beside. I'm already wet enough, no need to soak me with muddy ground-water just to save 10 seconds.

MeatTwoVeg

People who drive while wearing hats.

It's a pretty much universal rule and covers everyone from the teenage boy racer to the 80year old senile Sunday driver, but if you see someone wearing a hat, they're most likely, a **** driver.

whoopsadoodles

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

People who drive while wearing hats.

It's a pretty much universal rule and covers everyone from the teenage boy racer to the 80year old senile Sunday driver, but if you see someone wearing a hat, they're most likely, a **** driver.

:pac:

I was in and out of the car so much over the weekend that I was wearing a hat a lot! It's a very pretty hat

BailMeOut

you indicate to park in a free spot coming up on your left, slow down and drive past the spot so you can back in to it however the person driving behind you comes right up your a$$ so you cannot reverse.

Cantona's Collars

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

People who drive while wearing hats.

It's a pretty much universal rule and covers everyone from the teenage boy racer to the 80year old senile Sunday driver, but if you see someone wearing a hat, they're most likely, a **** driver.

Nah,certain hats are OK. Its the lads who insist on driving around wearing hoodies with the hoods up. Almost zero peripheral vision to compliment the limited front vision from having the seat let down and back so far they can barely reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

astrofool

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

People who drive while wearing hats.

It's a pretty much universal rule and covers everyone from the teenage boy racer to the 80year old senile Sunday driver, but if you see someone wearing a hat, they're most likely, a **** driver.

Add people wearing headphones to that list.

Should note that this is OK in old timey open top cars, and the hat needs to be made of leather, and be brown, or black. Goggles make you a better driver in this instance.

astrofool

zerks wrote: »

Nah,certain hats are OK. Its the lads who insist on driving around wearing hoodies with the hoods up. Almost zero peripheral vision to compliment the limited front vision from having the seat let down and back so far they can barely reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Which certain hats? Pictorial evidence please.

CFlat

You're driving through a town and a line of cars are parked on your left. You can just about see the right indicator flashing on one of them, so you assume they want to pull out. Traffic is slow, you're not in a rush so you decide to be polite and flash them to merge onto the road in front of you. You wait...you wait..you wait and there is no sign of them pulling out. Frustrated you drive on, look over at the car to see what the f88k they were at and realise that they had their hazard lights on but you couldn't see the left indicator flashing as well.

If you're parked up normally and haven't been in a crash or broken down, switch off your hazards ya tool.

astrofool

CFlat wrote: »

If you're parked up normally and haven't been in a crash or broken down, switch off your hazards ya tool.

Then how would people know you're just using the disabled space to grab a coffee or newspaper?

RainyDay

astrofool wrote: »

Add people wearing headphones to that list.

Why? What's the problem with drivers listening to their own choice of music, instead of some inane DJ chatter?

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Why? What's the problem with drivers listening to their own choice of music, instead of some inane DJ chatter?

Here we go again ........... don't worry, we won't take cyclists headphones away from them ............. they're oblivious to what's going on around them anyway!

Cantona's Collars

astrofool wrote: »

Which certain hats? Pictorial evidence please.

I sometimes wear a baseball cap. Those hats that you see auld lads wear specifically for driving mean they are exempt from using indicators and can hog the white line at 60 kph. A tartan blanket on the shelf in the back window is also a clear sign they may also own said hat.

Cantona's Collars

RainyDay wrote: »

Why? What's the problem with drivers listening to their own choice of music, instead of some inane DJ chatter?

Its dangerous, you tend to concentrate on the music rather than your surroundings. By all means stick one in for the phone, I saw a guy driving one of Nolan's transport artics the other day while wearing a pair of over ear Beats.

SixSixSix

CFlat wrote: »

You're driving through a town and a line of cars are parked on your left. You can just about see the right indicator flashing on one of them, so you assume they want to pull out. Traffic is slow, you're not in a rush so you decide to be polite and flash them to merge onto the road in front of you. You wait...you wait..you wait and there is no sign of them pulling out. Frustrated you drive on, look over at the car to see what the f88k they were at and realise that they had their hazard lights on but you couldn't see the left indicator flashing as well.

If you're parked up normally and haven't been in a crash or broken down, switch off your hazards ya tool.

And if ya have right of way then take it! Beckoning to others can get you a fail in the driving test. Don't do it. By all means hold back and wait, so you don't block junctions. If there is no room for you to proceed then don't stop in traffic alongside someone waiting to pull out. Care courtesy and consideration! Forget polite - be predictable and take right of way when you have it!

OldNotWIse

People who park beside you even though there are lots of free spaces. People who drive around and around looking for a space near the entrance instead of walking twenty paces.

CFlat

SixSixSix wrote: »

And if ya have right of way then take it! Beckoning to others can get you a fail in the driving test. Don't do it. By all means hold back and wait, so you don't block junctions. If there is no room for you to proceed then don't stop in traffic alongside someone waiting to pull out. Care courtesy and consideration! Forget polite - be predictable and take right of way when you have it!

Politeness, courtesy and consideration are synonyms.

I'm not going to worry about failing my driving test at this stage as I did it a few decades ago! It's hard to believe that a driving tester would fail you on something like that. Maybe they are worried about the car behind you not knowing what's going on and rear ending you. In real life, that's what drivers do.

I'm not spiritual or anything but I believe there is 'road karma' when you let people out at junctions or trying to merge into traffic. Someone down the road will let you out or flash you if there's a traffic camera van ahead

talking_walnut

CFlat wrote: »

Politeness, courtesy and consideration are synonyms.

I'm not going to worry about failing my driving test at this stage as I did it a few decades ago! It's hard to believe that a driving tester would fail you on something like that. Maybe they are worried about the car behind you not knowing what's going on and rear ending you. In real life, that's what drivers do.

I'm not spiritual or anything but I believe there is 'road karma' when you let people out at junctions or trying to merge into traffic. Someone down the road will let you out or flash you if there's a traffic camera van ahead

The reason it's an instant fail in the driving test is because you're changing the right-of-way of the whole road when you so this. It's a disruption to the flow of traffic, causing tailbacks to start which is the ultimate in bad 'road karma'.

Just keep going and they'll get out in the normal flow of traffic.

astrofool

talking_walnut wrote: »

The reason it's an instant fail in the driving test is because you're changing the right-of-way of the whole road when you so this. It's a disruption to the flow of traffic, causing tailbacks to start which is the ultimate in bad 'road karma'.

Just keep going and they'll get out in the normal flow of traffic.

This is predicated on the road design being optimised for traffic flow, which in most cases it isn't (especially a single lane road with multiple turn-offs), and allowing one person to take their turn unblocks a giant queue of traffic instead.

CFlat

talking_walnut wrote: »

The reason it's an instant fail in the driving test is because you're changing the right-of-way of the whole road when you so this. It's a disruption to the flow of traffic, causing tailbacks to start which is the ultimate in bad 'road karma'.

Just keep going and they'll get out in the normal flow of traffic.

Ah come on t_w, I'm not talking about letting 10 cars out and backing up a load of traffic, I'm talking about one lowly driver trying to squeeze out of a parking space/side road and you let them out because you've been that person yourself many times.

Anyway my original irritation was people parked up with hazard lights still switched on.

talking_walnut

astrofool wrote: »

This is predicated on the road design being optimised for traffic flow, which in most cases it isn't (especially a single lane road with multiple turn-offs), and allowing one person to take their turn unblocks a giant queue of traffic instead.

Kind of, but it doesn't have to be optimised. Roads have priorities. Roads of lower priority are supposed to have to wait until there's space on the higher priority road. That's the whole point. Traffic lights are used to control the access from lower priority roads in situations that the flow is too one-sided.

Moving cars around is about keeping the flow going. Anything that interrupts that flow is feeding into traffic jams.

talking_walnut

CFlat wrote: »

Ah come on t_w, I'm not talking about letting 10 cars out and backing up a load of traffic , I'm talking about one lowly driver trying to squeeze out of a parking space/side road and you let them out because you've been that person yourself many times.

Anyway my original irritation was people parked up with hazard lights still switched on.

Neither am I. That's the point. Of course it doesn't really matter if there's nobody behind you on the main road. But just keep the flow of traffic you're in in mind.

MeatTwoVeg

talking_walnut wrote:

The reason it's an instant fail in the driving test is because you're changing the right-of-way of the whole road when you so this. It's a disruption to the flow of traffic, causing tailbacks to start which is the ultimate in bad 'road karma'.

Absolutely, there's nothing worse than driving behind someone who's constantly stopping on the main road to beckon people out of driveways and side roads.
They probably think they're great too as opposed to annoying and borderline dangerous.

I once witnessed a potentially very dangerous situation involving one of these 'good Samaritans'.

Was a dual carriageway in an urban zone. He was in the inside lane. There was a signaled controlled pedestrian crossing at which a number of small children were waiting for the green man. I was on the other side. This guy decides to stop and beckon the kids to go ahead and cross. The kids are a bit confused but he beckons them again enthusiastically. They start to walk across.

I wasn't really paying attention until I notice a couple of these kids confusedly wandering across the road. There's another guy approaching the junction in the outside lane at speed and just seeing a greenlight. Good Samaritan is blocking the view of the kids about to walk out in front of this guy.

Luckily I wake up to what's happening just in time and shout out to the kids to stop and go back.
Good Samaritan shrugs his shoulders and drives off.

Fcuking moron nearly killed those kids.

OldNotWIse

There is a road I take in the mornings that is busy in both directions. Occasionally there will be someone coming the other direction waiting to turn into an estate and they can't get through because the traffic on my side just keeps whizzing by. As a result, the traffic is building behind that person all the time. It takes no more than 3 seconds for me to slow enough for them to execute their turn and then keep driving, and it prevents a backlog of traffic on that side. I fail to see how that would contribute to congestion issues.

OldNotWIse

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Absolutely, there's nothing worse than driving behind someone who's constantly stopping on the main road to beckon people out of driveways and side roads.
They probably think they're great too as opposed to annoying and borderline dangerous.

I once witnessed a potentially very dangerous situation involving one of these 'good Samaritans'.

Was a dual carriageway in an urban zone. He was in the inside lane. There was a signaled controlled pedestrian crossing at which a number of small children were waiting for the green man. I was on the other side. This guy decides to stop and beckon the kids to go ahead and cross. The kids are a bit confused but he beckons them again enthusiastically. They start to walk across.

I wasn't really paying attention until I notice a couple of these kids confusedly wandering across the road. There's another guy approaching the junction in the outside lane at speed and just seeing a greenlight. Good Samaritan is blocking the view of the kids about to walk out in front of this guy.

Luckily I wake up to what's happening just in time and shout out to the kids to stop and go back.
Good Samaritan shrugs his shoulders and drives off.

Fcuking moron nearly killed those kids.

Ridiculous thing to do but in fairness beckoning kids across a dangerous road is not quite the same as slowing to allow someone coming from the other direction to execute a turn.

CFlat

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Absolutely, there's nothing worse than driving behind someone who's constantly stopping on the main road to beckon people out of driveways and side roads.
They probably think they're great too as opposed to annoying and borderline dangerous.

I once witnessed a potentially very dangerous situation involving one of these 'good Samaritans'.

Was a dual carriageway in an urban zone. He was in the inside lane. There was a signaled controlled pedestrian crossing at which a number of small children were waiting for the green man. I was on the other side. This guy decides to stop and beckon the kids to go ahead and cross. The kids are a bit confused but he beckons them again enthusiastically. They start to walk across.

I wasn't really paying attention until I notice a couple of these kids confusedly wandering across the road. There's another guy approaching the junction in the outside lane at speed and just seeing a greenlight. Good Samaritan is blocking the view of the kids about to walk out in front of this guy.

Luckily I wake up to what's happening just in time and shout out to the kids to stop and go back.
Good Samaritan shrugs his shoulders and drives off.

Fcuking moron nearly killed those kids.

Hardly comparable to a driver letting someone out of a parking space or a side road.

MeatTwoVeg

CFlat wrote:

Hardly comparable to a driver letting someone out of a parking space or a side road.

It's obviously not remotely the same as regards the potential danger, but it's the same kind of mind frame at play.

I've absolutely no problem with letting someone out of a side road if traffic is stopped or moving slowly, but you should not be stopping on a lightly trafficked main road to let people out of minor roads. It leads to confusion.

OldNotWIse

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

It's obviously not remotely the same as regards the potential danger, but it's the same kind of mind frame at play.

I've absolutely no problem with letting someone out of a side road if traffic is stopped or moving slowly, but you should not be stopping on a lightly trafficked main road to let people out of minor roads. It leads to confusion.

I disagree that it's the same kind of mindset. I would never beckon a child (or any pedestrian for that matter) across a road as I don't want to be liable for what happens to them if there is a car coming the other way however I do stop to let drivers out occasionally. In the example I provided the driver was not attempting to turn from a minor to main road, nor was the main road "lightly" trafficked.

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Here we go again ........... don't worry, we won't take cyclists headphones away from them ............. they're oblivious to what's going on around them anyway!

Funnily enough, a cyclist with earphones in, listening to music STILL hears more about what's going on around them than a motorist with the windows up and no audio playing, according to some Australian research. But hey, keep up the vendetta if it makes you feel superior to other people simply based on their choice of mode of transport.

zerks wrote: »

Its dangerous, you tend to concentrate on the music rather than your surroundings. By all means stick one in for the phone, I saw a guy driving one of Nolan's transport artics the other day while wearing a pair of over ear Beats.

No more dangerous than listening to music on the radio or CD or MP3 player. If music is the problem, you need to take out all audio systems, not take away earphones.

The King of Moo

Style of music is just as important, if not moreso, as volume. Fast, heavy music will make you cycle/drive aggressively, whereas with Lyric FM you'll take it much easier.

But I do find the ire directed towards cyclists with earphones strange when one considers that a driver listening to music at the same volume will hear much less. I suppose the earphones are a more visible indicator that someone's hearing is impeded.

talking_walnut

RainyDay wrote: »

Funnily enough, a cyclist with earphones in, listening to music STILL hears more about what's going on around them than a motorist with the windows up and no audio playing, according to some Australian research. But hey, keep up the vendetta if it makes you feel superior to other people simply based on their choice of mode of transport.



No more dangerous than listening to music on the radio or CD or MP3 player. If music is the problem, you need to take out all audio systems, not take away earphones.

Your awareness is more impaired when you use headphone than when you use speakers. There's no doubt about that (unless your headphones are pure sh1te). Granted a modern car might be sound-proofed enough to make this point moot, but at the end of the day, you're the one out there on the bike, with nothing between you and the multi-tonne cars/trucks/buses except for your lycra. Being in the right isn't going to help you when you're under a truck.

At least leave one ear out if you're going to wear headphones. For your own sake.

RainyDay

talking_walnut wrote: »

Your awareness is more impaired when you use headphone than when you use speakers. There's no doubt about that (unless your headphones are pure sh1te).

Is this personal opinion, or do you have any source for this?

The King of Moo

talking_walnut wrote: »

Your awareness is more impaired when you use headphone than when you use speakers. There's no doubt about that (unless your headphones are pure sh1te). Granted a modern car might be sound-proofed enough to make this point moot, but at the end of the day, you're the one out there on the bike, with nothing between you and the multi-tonne cars/trucks/buses except for your lycra. Being in the right isn't going to help you when you're under a truck.

At least leave one ear out if you're going to wear headphones. For your own sake.

Here's a pretty simple survey to test decibel levels of noise heard by drivers with and without music on the stereo, and cyclists with ear buds and with in-ear earphones.

https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/

Conclusions

Based on these relatively simple tests, it is fair to conclude that:

A bike rider with ear-bud earphones playing music at a reasonable volume hears much more outside noise than a car driver, even when that driver has no music playing.
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.
Ear-bud earphones set at a reasonable volume still allow riders to clearly hear the warning sounds of other riders.

Also, they defined "a reasonable volume" as 3 clicks below the maximum on an iPod, which is pretty loud to me.

CaptainR

If you're relying on hearing to keep you aware of your surroundings while you're on the road then youre doing it wrong. I wear a motorcycle helmet with ear plugs and have never had a case of a car sneaking up on me because I couldn't hear it. Its why deaf people drive and blind people dont.

I've also read that deaf people are no more likely to be in an accident than someone with hearing.

Now a bicycle is a different animal because they don't have mirrors (which they should) so they have to rely on sound which is an awful idea in my opinion because you can't hear a car and gauge just how close they are to you by ear.

Bit of a ramble I admit but I have had a few people with full car licenses saying my ear plugs are dangerous because you won't hear any cars near you.

Fratton Fred

I have just seen it again this evening. Some gormless ****wit who manages to park their nissan micra in such a way that it takes up two parking bays.

I mean, how the **** do people do that, it must take a lot of skill to squeeze a small car in to two parking bays.

Or ignorance/stupidity.

SixSixSix

CFlat wrote: »

Politeness, courtesy and consideration are synonyms.

Synonyms of what? I don't follow what point you are making.

CFlat wrote: »

I'm not going to worry about failing my driving test at this stage as I did it a few decades ago!

Ah I see! One of those that believe you learned so you could pass a test only. You did pass a test?

CFlat wrote: »

It's hard to believe that a driving tester would fail you on something like that.

Well if you go about "Beckoning others" during a driving test the tester has it specified as a point on his marking sheet - including Grade 3 option - immediate fail.

CFlat wrote: »

Maybe they are worried about the car behind you not knowing what's going on and rear ending you. In real life, that's what drivers do.

And you're not worried about such a situation? That was why I suggested you be predictable - if you have the right of way you SHOULD take it! It is expected of you.

CFlat wrote: »

In real life, that's what drivers do.
I'm not spiritual or anything but I believe there is 'road karma' when you let people out at junctions or trying to merge into traffic. Someone down the road will let you out or flash you if there's a traffic camera van ahead

Yes unfortunately I see it day in day out - gobsh1tes stopping for no good reason other than to give away their right of way! Stuff the queue of vehicles following behind. Where's the politeness to those following behind?
Karma working to increase the number of those said gobsh1tes doesn't really fit with my definition of karma!

talking_walnut

RainyDay wrote: »

Is this personal opinion, or do you have any source for this?

Really? Is that a serious question? One is a set of speakers jammed against your ears and the other is a set of speakers not jammed against your ears.

Can you hear more ambient noise in a sound proof room or with ear plugs in?

Veloce150

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Occasionally there will be someone coming the other direction waiting to turn into an estate and they can't get through ...It takes no more than 3 seconds for me to slow enough for them to execute their turn and then keep driving,

And for the driver to t-bone a cyclist coming up your inside in the bicycle lane...

Colser

Veloce150 wrote:

And for the driver to t-bone a cyclist coming up your inside in the bicycle lane...

Wouldn't it be the cyclist hitting the car in that situation?Not saying its right but "expect the unexpected" and all that...

talking_walnut

The King of Moo wrote: »

Here's a pretty simple survey to test decibel levels of noise heard by drivers with and without music on the stereo, and cyclists with ear buds and with in-ear earphones.

https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/



Also, they defined "a reasonable volume" as 3 clicks below the maximum on an iPod, which is pretty loud to me.

It's not about how much you can hear compared to how much a person in a car can hear. A car driver can afford to hear less because they're in a car. You're on a bike. Use every advantage you can.

CaptainR wrote: »

If you're relying on hearing to keep you aware of your surroundings while you're on the road then youre doing it wrong. I wear a motorcycle helmet with ear plugs and have never had a case of a car sneaking up on me because I couldn't hear it. Its why deaf people drive and blind people dont.

I've also read that deaf people are no more likely to be in an accident than someone with hearing.

Now a bicycle is a different animal because they don't have mirrors (which they should) so they have to rely on sound which is an awful idea in my opinion because you can't hear a car and gauge just how close they are to you by ear.

Bit of a ramble I admit but I have had a few people with full car licenses saying my ear plugs are dangerous because you won't hear any cars near you.

I didn't mean you should rely on sound/hearing. I mean that you should take advantage of the sense and use it to help you stay safe.


As I said before, it doesn't matter how "in the right" you a car is hitting you at 40+kmph.

The King of Moo

talking_walnut wrote: »

It's not about how much you can hear compared to how much a person in a car can hear. A car driver can afford to hear less because they're in a car. You're on a bike. Use every advantage you can.



I didn't mean you should rely on sound/hearing. I mean that you should take advantage of the sense and use it to help you stay safe.


As I said before, it doesn't matter how "in the right" you a car is hitting you at 40+kmph.

And the study shows that you can still hear a person shout pretty clearly: what more do you need to hear than that? Even if one were to put the volume to the maximum, you can still hear engines and traffic light chimes. I've just cycled home with the volume on my iPod at the level they recommended, out of curiosity. It was higher than I usually have it and I could still hear everything around me. Most earphones, apart from noise-cancelling ones, are specifically designed not to filter out ambient sound.