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

Pinch Flat

CaptainR wrote: »

Now a bicycle is a different animal because they don't have mirrors (which they should)

Personal opinion or based on research? A bicycle, unlike a motorbike, has no suspension - so the mirror is going to rattle to the extent that it's rendered almost useless.

A glance over the shoulder is of more use, in my own experience.

talking_walnut

The King of Moo wrote: »

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.

That last part is definitely not true. Try and buy earphone that do (passively) block out noise and you'll see how expensive they quickly become. Most cheaper earphones don't appear to be designed at all


Are you trying to say that you can hear equally as well with and without earphones in? It's not possible. Sound is a waveform subject to interference. The very fact that you've something covering your ears is going to block some noise. By reducing the amount you can hear, you're impairing one of the senses you use to navigate the world.

You also pointed out in your earlier post that style of music affects your cycle style which shows that some part of your brain (either consciously or subconsciously) is focussed on the music and responding to it.

I sometimes cycle with one in. This does reduce my ability to hear what's going on but I've decided that it's to an acceptable level. I also stick to talk based audio as I don't have to have the volume as high.


At the end of the day, do whatever you want. Just don't be naive about the choices you make.

Colser

Pinch Flat wrote:

A glance over the shoulder is of more use, in my own experience.

I hate when cyclists look over their shoulder because they usually wobble out when they do ,maybe not all but most that I'm stuck behind anyway.

The King of Moo

talking_walnut wrote: »

That last part is definitely not true. Try and buy earphone that do (passively) block out noise and you'll see how expensive they quickly become. Most cheaper earphones don't appear to be designed at all


Are you trying to say that you can hear equally as well with and without earphones in? It's not possible. Sound is a waveform subject to interference. The very fact that you've something covering your ears is going to block some noise. By reducing the amount you can hear, you're impairing one of the senses you use to navigate the world.

You also pointed out in your earlier post that style of music affects your cycle style which shows that some part of your brain (either consciously or subconsciously) is focussed on the music and responding to it.

I sometimes cycle with one in. This does reduce my ability to hear what's going on but I've decided that it's to an acceptable level. I also stick to talk based audio as I don't have to have the volume as high.


At the end of the day, do whatever you want. Just don't be naive about the choices you make.

Which applies equally to cars.

Look, a cyclist with earphones (unless they've got noise-cancelling earbuds wedged into their ears and volume up full, which I've never heard of happening) can hear ambient noise perfectly fine, usually moreso than a driver.

I can hear traffic, I can hear voices, I can hear relevant chimes and sirens.

Of course I'm partly focused on the music, just as I am when I'm driving.
But the human brain is great at compartmentalising. I can passively listen to music while still taking in the noises around me, just as I can when I drive.

Listening to music is functionally no different to listening to music while driving, except in that it might be less of a risk as cyclists are more exposed to ambient sound.

Cyclists listening to music is simply not an issue.

NiallBoo

SixSixSix wrote: »

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!

It's especially annoying when someone with nobody/1/2 people behind them stops to let you in.

It would have been quicker for them to drive by than to wait for them to slow down and stop, just because they want to feel like they're doing you a favour.

RainyDay

talking_walnut wrote: »

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?

Thanks - so it's definitely just personal opinion then. Good to know.

Colser wrote: »

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

I suppose on that technicality, it depends who reaches the collision point first, but it is interesting to note the rush to blame the cyclist. Before we get to 'expect the unexpected', how about drivers just start to 'expect the expected' - given that it is pretty well expected that cyclists will filter up a line of slow/stopped traffic on the inside?

Colser wrote: »

I hate when cyclists look over their shoulder because they usually wobble out when they do ,maybe not all but most that I'm stuck behind anyway.

Cyclists wobble all the time for lots of reasons - wind, potholes, avoiding glass, whatever - it goes with the territory - which is why the RSA tell you to leave 1.5m passing space. I'm not quite sure why it impacts you when a cyclist in front 'wobbles' slightly? Does it bother you when a car changes their lane position slightly?

Colser

RainyDay wrote:

Cyclists wobble all the time for lots of reasons - wind, potholes, avoiding glass, whatever - it goes with the territory - which is why the RSA tell you to leave 1.5m passing space. I'm not quite sure why it impacts you when a cyclist in front 'wobbles' slightly? Does it bother you when a car changes their lane position slightly?

It bothers me because no matter what happens between a cyclist and a car the driver will always be "wrong" imo..at least with a car collision the person that IS wrong is usually deemed to be wrong.TBH cyclists make me nervous on a narrow road and don't always help when they could e.g. maybe pull in slightly when it's obviously safe for them to do so ect.

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

It bothers me because no matter what happens between a cyclist and a car the driver will always be "wrong" imo..at least with a car collision the person that IS wrong is usually deemed to be wrong.TBH cyclists make me nervous on a narrow road and don't always help when they could e.g. maybe pull in slightly when it's obviously safe for them to do so ect.

Pull in where?
As for you being nervous on a country road, have you reason to be nervous? Are you likely to encounter cyclists and if so why are you nervous? I think this is a strange emoticon to have whilst driving unless you are driving I a manner likely to hit one of them!

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks - so it's definitely just personal opinion then. Good to know.


I suppose on that technicality, it depends who reaches the collision point first, but it is interesting to note the rush to blame the cyclist. Before we get to 'expect the unexpected', how about drivers just start to 'expect the expected' - given that it is pretty well expected that cyclists will filter up a line of slow/stopped traffic on the inside?

Cyclists wobble all the time for lots of reasons - wind, potholes, avoiding glass, whatever - it goes with the territory - which is why the RSA tell you to leave 1.5m passing space. I'm not quite sure why it impacts you when a cyclist in front 'wobbles' slightly? Does it bother you when a car changes their lane position slightly?

Why is it a metre and a half for motorists but cyclists will squeeze into any gap they can?
As a cyclist, do you leave a metre and a half when passing pedestrians or vehicles?

Colser

kbannon wrote:

Pull in where? As for you being nervous on a country road, have you reason to be nervous? Are you likely to encounter cyclists and if so why are you nervous? I think this is a strange emoticon to have whilst driving unless you are driving I a manner likely to hit one of them!

Let's say a city street then..if I'm turning left at a junction I have to spend more time looking in the inside for a cyclist to come whizzing up than I do checking out pedestrians ,cars ect..I've often had to stop and wait because the cyclist didn't bother checking if anyone had an indicator on and was turning in front of them.

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

Let's say a city street then..if I'm turning left at a junction I have to spend more time looking in the inside for a cyclist to come whizzing up than I do checking out pedestrians ,cars ect..I've often had to stop and wait because the cyclist didn't bother checking if anyone had an indicator on and was turning in front of them.

I drive throughout Dublin and don't need to spend excessive amount of time looking for them (or motorcyclists or pedestrians or...).

Never once felt nervous of them whilst driving. Maybe you should reevaluate your driving skills.

Colser

kbannon wrote:

Never once felt nervous of them whilst driving. Maybe you should reevaluate your driving skills.

That's what I'll do..thanks for the advice.

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

That's what I'll do..thanks for the advice.

One down. A few million left to get off my roads!

Colser

kbannon wrote:

One down. A few million left to get off my roads!

So you agree that cyclists think they own the road..at least we have something in common.

AndyBoBandy

Taking absolutely no prisoners today.... ^^

Pinch Flat

Colser wrote: »

I hate when cyclists look over their shoulder because they usually wobble out when they do ,maybe not all but most that I'm stuck behind anyway.

I take it you cycle then and have first hand experience of the benefits of a mirror on the handle bars versus looking over your shoulder?

How long do you get stuck behind a cyclist? I take it it's a daily occurrence that eats up hours of your time? I can never understand how people will happily sit for hours in bumper to bumper traffic, yet a cyclist "holding them up" and their world collapses around them.

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

So you agree that cyclists think they own the road..at least we have something in common.

I think that there are asshole cyclists but more drivers are simply incompetent, most completely unaware of their inabilities. These are far more dangerous than any cyclist!

RainyDay

Colser wrote: »

It bothers me because no matter what happens between a cyclist and a car the driver will always be "wrong" imo..at least with a car collision the person that IS wrong is usually deemed to be wrong.TBH cyclists make me nervous on a narrow road and don't always help when they could e.g. maybe pull in slightly when it's obviously safe for them to do so ect.

Your lack of confidence is your problem, and it is not up to other road users to give you confidence. There is no 'presumed liability' in Ireland, so motorists are not always deemed to be wrong, though research into causes of car/bike collisions suggests that motorists are more often at fault than not. Cyclists won't pull in because that encourages motorists to overtake where they don't have enough room. If you can't overtake, you wait until you can.

How often do you move over in heavy urban traffic to let a fast cyclist pass through?

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

Why is it a metre and a half for motorists but cyclists will squeeze into any gap they can?
As a cyclist, do you leave a metre and a half when passing pedestrians or vehicles?

Because they are two different manoevres, with different levels of risk involved! Do I really need to spell that out, or do you go by some kind of childish tit-for-tat rule on the roads?

StewartGriffin

Colser wrote: »

It bothers me because no matter what happens between a cyclist and a car the driver will always be "wrong" imo..at least with a car collision the person that IS wrong is usually deemed to be wrong.TBH cyclists make me nervous on a narrow road and don't always help when they could e.g. maybe pull in slightly when it's obviously safe for them to do so ect.

kbannon wrote: »

Pull in where?
As for you being nervous on a country road, have you reason to be nervous? Are you likely to encounter cyclists and if so why are you nervous? I think this is a strange emoticon to have whilst driving unless you are driving I a manner likely to hit one of them!

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.
And he never said anything about a country road.
And it's obvious to any one reading this that he is nervous because the cyclist might do something unpredictable, thereby causing an incident.

kbannon wrote: »

Maybe you should reevaluate your driving skills.

Maybe you should re evaluate your reading comprehension skills?

NiallBoo

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.

It's worth noting that the cyclist will have a much better view of the road, road surface and traffic, and so be in a much better position to judge what's safe.

It's also worth noting that a road surface that's safe for a car might not be safe for a bike - surface is usually worst at the edges.

Seth Brundle

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.
And he never said anything about a country road.
And it's obvious to any one reading this that he is nervous because the cyclist might do something unpredictable, thereby causing an incident.



Maybe you should re evaluate your reading comprehension skills?

I interpreted narrow road as a country road (not sure why).
However at least my comprehension skills are not likely to kill someone!

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Because they are two different manoevres, with different levels of risk involved! Do I really need to spell that out, or do you go by some kind of childish tit-for-tat rule on the roads?

Cyclist have just as much of a right to be on the roads as motorists. That means they obey the same rules too.

Colser

Pinch Flat wrote:

How long do you get stuck behind a cyclist? I take it it's a daily occurrence that eats up hours of your time? I can never understand how people will happily sit for hours in bumper to bumper traffic, yet a cyclist "holding them up" and their world collapses around them.

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

RainyDay

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As he clearly stated above: pull in slightly where it's safe to do so.
And he never said anything about a country road.
And it's obvious to any one reading this that he is nervous because the cyclist might do something unpredictable, thereby causing an incident.

Once he gives the cyclist plenty of room, the chances of the cyclist causing an incident are minimal. Nervous drivers are another matter entirely.

pablo128 wrote: »

Cyclist have just as much of a right to be on the roads as motorists. That means they obey the same rules too.

Actually, it doesn't. The rules are different for cyclists. There is no speed limit for cyclists, believe it or not. And I'm sure there are other differences too.

When a car passes a bike and the motorist screws up, somebody dies or gets injured. When a cyclist filters past a car and screws up, somebody gets a broken wing mirror or a scratch on their door. I presume you can see the difference in these two scenarios, and the different guidance attached. I presume you understand that the stopping distance for a HGV is different to the stopping distance for a Micra and is different to the stopping distance for a bike. Of course there are different expectations for drivers of different vehicles.

RainyDay

Colser wrote: »

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

Interesting - and what proportion of your time do you spend stuck behind a cyclist vs time spent stuck behind a car? And how often do you hold up cyclists behind you in heavy urban traffic - just to get the full picture of these issues.

Pinch Flat

Colser wrote: »

It happens most days tbh but no doubt you'll say that's not true. I'm not going to discuss it further because obviously we have different opinions on the matter and there's no point in getting personal.

It's not a case of getting personal - I'm just curious that you're faced by cyclists who'd be better off having mirrors because they're wobbly that "hold you up" for lengthy periods on a daily basis.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Once he gives the cyclist plenty of room, the chances of the cyclist causing an incident are minimal. Nervous drivers are another matter entirely.


Actually, it doesn't. The rules are different for cyclists. There is no speed limit for cyclists, believe it or not. And I'm sure there are other differences too.

So they would be prosecuted for a different offence if caught speeding, and..... is that it? My point stands. Same rules for all.

Colser

Pinch Flat wrote:

It's not a case of getting personal - I'm just curious that you're faced by cyclists who'd be better off having mirrors because they're wobbly that "hold you up" for lengthy periods on a daily basis.

It's more that I'm cautious about passing cyclists unless it's very safe.If I tip off a car the chances of someone being hurt is minimal but with a cyclist it's likely to be very different.I'm sure that a lot of drivers would pass them much quicker than I do but as I said I'm nervous in that situation..BTW I don't think that means I need to improve my driving skills but better safe than sorry imo.

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

So they would be prosecuted for a different offence if caught speeding, and..... is that it? My point stands. Same rules for all.

Eh no, they wouldn't be prosecuted for any offence if caught speeding, because there is no offence related to speeding for cyclists. Your point fails - different rules for all, because cyclists are not 'motor vehicles' under the Road Traffic Acts.

Are you really having difficulty in understanding different passing spaces for road users of different sizes/speeds/momentum?

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Eh no, they wouldn't be prosecuted for any offence if caught speeding, because there is no offence related to speeding for cyclists. Your point fails - different rules for all, because cyclists are not 'motor vehicles' under the Road Traffic Acts.

Are you really having difficulty in understanding different passing spaces for road users of different sizes/speeds/momentum?

Yes. I give the same amount of room to all other road users to be honest.

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

Yes. I give the same amount of room to all other road users to be honest.

Do you expect the same amount of passing space from a cyclist with a 10 kg bike doing 10 kmph and a HGV weighing 10 tonnes or more doing 80 kmph?

Latatian

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you expect the same amount of passing space from a cyclist with a 10 kg bike doing 10 kmph and a HGV weighing 10 tonnes or more doing 80 kmph?

Passing space, yes. Filtering up the inside, no. However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book. Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

RainyDay

Latatian wrote: »

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

pablo128 wrote: »

Passing space, yes. Filtering up the inside, no. However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book. Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

Your book is not the Rules of the Road, as it happens. Go back and check the Rules of the Road and you'll see that you're wrong on two counts.

railer201

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

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

Quote:

Starting with distance travelled, a cyclist travelling a mile in Great Britain is 15 times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver going the same distance.

Quote:
Based on the time spent travelling, a cyclist is five times more likely to have a fatal accident than a car driver.

That's how you compare modes statistically but clearly it doesn't fit in with your cycling creed of blaming the motorist for everything. Better to stick to the totals eh !!! :rolleyes:

RainyDay

railer201 wrote: »

That's how you compare modes statistically but clearly it doesn't fit in with your cycling creed of blaming the motorist for everything. Better to stick to the totals eh !!! :rolleyes:

If you want to save lives on the road, do you reckon that focus on the 95% of deaths involving motorists or the 5% of deaths involving cyclists would give the best return?

maudgonner

RainyDay wrote: »

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

Where in that post did it mention that the person pulled over was a cyclist?

Pinch Flat

pablo128 wrote: »

However full on cycling up the inside in slow moving or stopped traffic is utterly stupid in my book.

Clearly cycling at full speed - with the risk of being "doored" or a car deciding to turn left suddenly - is something that would be front if my mind, but filtering on the left of slow moving or stationary cars is perfectly legal.

pablo128 wrote: »

Just as a cyclist will cycle in the middle of the lane to stop cars overtaking dangerously, if I'm turning left I will hug the kerb to prevent cyclists undertaking me dangerously. I think that's fair.

No issue with cycling or driving defensively. Cars turning left in front of me is one of my pet hates and high up the list of idiotic behaviour you'll experience on a daily basis. As long as a motorist is exceecosong due care and attention and a cyclist is paying attention to motorists indicting and turning left, this manoeuvre should be easy to execute by both groups of road users.

pablo128

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Clearly cycling at full speed - with the risk of being "doored" or a car deciding to turn left suddenly - is something that would be front if my mind, but filtering on the left of slow moving or stationary cars is perfectly legal.



No issue with cycling or driving defensively. Cars turning left in front of me is one of my pet hates and high up the list of idiotic behaviour you'll experience on a daily basis. As long as a motorist is excercising due care and attention and a cyclist is paying attention to motorists indicting and turning left, this manoeuvre should be easy to execute by both groups of road users.

I can't argue with that.

StewartGriffin

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

But this thread is not about a competition of who gets killed most on the roads, it's about "Road issues that irritate."

Cyclists irritate a lot of drivers.
Because drivers have to look after their welfare, have to anticipate their poor road sense, so as to avoid hurting them.

I don't mind if it's a kid cycling to school who crosses the road in front of me without looking, although I wonder if the parents should be aware I have saved their childs life by braking early in anticipation and they almost got their child killed by sending him/her out on a bike without enough knowledge to stay safe, but the adults in lycra who expect me to accommodate their sometimes suicidal actions in traffic, do irritate me.

MadDog76

Latatian wrote: »

Came across someone today doing 10kph on a small, windy road where it was impossible to overtake, and braking rhythmically, every 3 seconds or so. There did not seem to be any connection between the braking and the road conditions- it was as if they were listening to a song and braking in time with it or something, it was that regular and monotonous.

The traffic warden came and pulled them over.

RainyDay wrote: »

And then the pig flew overhead!

Traffic wardens have nothing to do with cyclists. They deal with parking.

Typically aggressive/defensive cyclist quick to point the finger of blame elsewhere (anywhere in fact!) ........... that post never mentioned a cyclist at all.

MadDog76

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But this thread is not about a competition of who gets killed most on the roads, it's about "Road issues that irritate."

Cyclists irritate a lot of drivers.
Because drivers have to look after their welfare, have to anticipate their poor road sense, so as to avoid hurting them.

I don't mind if it's a kid cycling to school who crosses the road in front of me without looking, although I wonder if the parents should be aware I have saved their childs life by braking early in anticipation and they almost got their child killed by sending him/her out on a bike without enough knowledge to stay safe, but the adults in lycra who expect me to accommodate their sometimes suicidal actions in traffic, do irritate me.

That sums it up perfectly ........... cyclists do irritate a lot of drivers, and with good reason, whether cyclists like/accept that fact or not is really irrelevant.

coolbeans

MadDog76 wrote: »

... cyclists do irritate a lot of drivers, and with good reason, whether cyclists like/accept that fact or not is really irrelevant.

And in other news, water is wet. Thanks for that Captain Obvious.

Page 40 like...

NiallBoo

One thing that irritates me is how any discussion of cycling and motoring always turns into some weird battle.

Nobody ever seems to learn anything from them and everybody comes away even more polarised in their opinions.

(It also ruins perfectly nice rant threads)

talking_walnut

NiallBoo wrote: »

One thing that irritates me is how any discussion of cycling and motoring always turns into some weird battle.

Nobody ever seems to learn anything from them and everybody comes away even more polarised in their opinions.

(It also ruins perfectly nice rant threads)

It's like you're born one or the other and must defend it above all else, until your untimely death on the road

Biggest personal peeve on the road is how long it takes people to start moving when the lights turn green. Get off your Facebook! And don't wait until the car in front of you has left before putting your own car in gear.

whoopsadoodles

I was crossing a road in a town last night, a very nice man coming from one direction stopped completely and waited until my way was clear the other direction to allow me to cross. It was over a minute that he sat there holding up traffic going through the town, at 5.15 in the evening!

It was very kind of him, but if I'd been behind him in the car I'm not sure I would have been quite so impressed :P

OldNotWIse

Veloce150 wrote: »

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

It's not my responsibility to make sure other drivers don't hit cyclists. When you put yourself behind a wheel, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you don't hit a cyclist. I can see someone standing up in court and successfully arguing that another driver "made them" do it...

talking_walnut

RainyDay wrote: »

Thanks - so it's definitely just personal opinion then. Good to know.

No dude. It's basic physics.

talking_walnut

The King of Moo wrote: »

Which applies equally to cars.

Look, a cyclist with earphones (unless they've got noise-cancelling earbuds wedged into their ears and volume up full, which I've never heard of happening) can hear ambient noise perfectly fine, usually moreso than a driver.

I can hear traffic, I can hear voices, I can hear relevant chimes and sirens.

Of course I'm partly focused on the music, just as I am when I'm driving.
But the human brain is great at compartmentalising. I can passively listen to music while still taking in the noises around me, just as I can when I drive.

Listening to music is functionally no different to listening to music while driving, except in that it might be less of a risk as cyclists are more exposed to ambient sound.

Cyclists listening to music is simply not an issue.

Seriously. Stop fooling yourself. You're impeding one of your primary senses when you wear headphones. Whether car drivers are more impaired or not doesn't matter. You're the one on the bike. Again, wear your headphones if you want, but don't pretend it doesn't impede your senses.


You also have an incorrect understanding of noise-cancelling headphones. They cancel out continuous, repetitive noise. They don't cancel out "one-shot" noises such as talking, beeps, shouts, etc.