# Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?



## RedStork (14 Apr 2009)

The only thing I dislike about biking on my own is the silence... Well, actually no, I like silence. I dislike silence interrupted by engines.

What is everyone's opinion on biking with headphones in? Is it stupid to do, is it dangerous? Is it any different from driving in a car with a CD blaring?


----------



## marinyork (14 Apr 2009)

I prefer using the unique radar skills you get from your ears on the bike. It's taking away an additional skill rather than something everyone else on the road has. I don't think it's dangerous having headphones on. I use my bat radar all the time though so wouldn't .


----------



## yello (14 Apr 2009)

+1.... on all points!


----------



## Craigster (14 Apr 2009)

I use them on the cycle paths but not on the roads.


----------



## Piemaster (14 Apr 2009)

Agree with ^^ , wouldn't wear them, I prefer to hear whats happening around me.
Ever had a pedestrian step out in front of you because they either had mp3 player stuck in their ears or weren't really looking, just listening for a car and not looking for bikes?


----------



## Joe24 (14 Apr 2009)

Its all safe i think. Just have one in. But its up to you. If you think its safe, and you can still hear then do it. 
I always have one headphone in, unless im on a club ride, and i dont see a problem with it. I have it turned up, but i can still hear everything i need to. 
You will get a lot of people that havent worn headphones say that riding with them is dangerouse. I personally think its up to you.
There was a debate on this a while ago. It was nearly(ok maybe it wasnt, but it was still long) as long as the helmet debate.


----------



## hambones (14 Apr 2009)

I don't use them on my commute but early morning weekend rides it's not a big deal. I only wear in the left ear though and have the good fortune of another ear and eyesight which prevents any incidents from occurring.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (14 Apr 2009)

My choice is never to wear headphones, I like to hear what is approaching at rear!

Engine noises can be very useful....


----------



## dodgy (14 Apr 2009)

I'm confused about the 'engine noise approaching from behind' argument. What do you do when you hear an engine noise approaching?


----------



## HJ (14 Apr 2009)

If you are listening for it, you can tell a lot about what is going on behind you, changes in engine noise can tell you if the vehicle is speeding up or slowing down for instance. Franklin writes about it in Cyclecraft a fair bit...


----------



## ianrauk (14 Apr 2009)

never wear them, tried it and even at a low volume found that you lose some awareness of what is going on around you.


----------



## skrx (14 Apr 2009)

I don't listen to music when cycling, firstly because I don't own a music player, secondly because I think I'd be distracted by the music (e.g. find myself moving in time to it and not paying attention to the road)


----------



## eddiemee (14 Apr 2009)

Would not ever. As others have said, I like to have as much sensory information as possible when I'm riding, for my own and others' safety.


----------



## Joe24 (14 Apr 2009)

> You'll never hear everything that you need to, because of other things like wind noise.
> 
> Wearing headphones in one or both ears will always decrease your ability to hear, and it will always be less safe than not to. Whether or not it's an acceptable risk is the only point that can be discussed.



Now, what was the question asked on the other thread.
Oh yeh.

Whats your thoughts on deaf or patially deaf cyclists?


----------



## RedStork (14 Apr 2009)

I quite agree with the losing sensorary information... I may give it a try with just one ear-pierce in on low volume. I like fast music to bike too, makes the journey go faster which is especially useful in cruddy weather. 

Does anyone else agree that there is always an element of trust being a cyclist? Hoping that the person in a car behind you wont run you down. There's not really a lot you can do, even if you do hear a car come speeding up behind you. By the time it's audible and obvious you're about to get hit it's probably too late, surely?

Wearing headphones will handicap your senses of what's going on behind you, but the worse drivers are normally the ones dipping in front of you, or pulling out of side roads.

But like someone said, is it a risk worth taking...? Depends how much you like music really.


----------



## DJ (14 Apr 2009)

I do sometimes use them, I really enjoy pedalling along listening to something I can find it very relaxing! I know it dulls the sences, but it is my choice to take the risk! When wearing them I have to always presume there is a car behind and ride accordingly. Oh and use my eyes a lot more.


----------



## Bromptonaut (14 Apr 2009)

The hard of hearing will have developed compensatory behaviours such as better rear observation or a sense of vibration, shadow etc. 

Like others, I personally prefer to use all the senses nature gave me. One reason I won't wear a helmet is the (even if only subliminal) effect on my hearing. 

If you must listen while riding at least use open backed earphones - not the deep fitting in ear type designed to cut out external noise on trains etc.


----------



## DJ (14 Apr 2009)

> To be honest, I also like to hear my music properly. And that's not possible while riding a bike at 20mph.




That is a fAIR POINT , WHEN i DO IT i AM USUALY GOING AT MORE LIKE 10 MPH!!


----------



## Joe24 (14 Apr 2009)

> They are as capable of maximising their hearing as anyone aren't they?
> 
> You'll be careful to go down this line of argument, young joe, as you're acknowledging that having a hearing impairment will make cycling more difficult and that listening to music while riding brings you closer to this impairment.



Oh Mister P, your wrong, again. I dont think it would make cycling difficult at all. Why would it? Which is the same as if someone rides with one headphone in, they can still hear.
Yes Mister P, you casn still hear music at 20mph. I know, i rode from my house to where we store the caravan and averaged 22mph, all while listening to music. No problem there.


----------



## 4F (15 Apr 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Whats your thoughts on deaf or patially deaf cyclists?



I am sure that deaf cyclists would love the ability to hear and the ones with partial hearing would not do anything to make the situation worse.


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 Apr 2009)

First started using headphones in 1985,no problems.


----------



## Keith Oates (15 Apr 2009)

I ride my bike for the pleasure of cycling (apart for getting from A to  and don't need any other aid to enhance that pleasure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zimzum42 (15 Apr 2009)

I tend always to ride in fairly heavy traffic, and pretty much always have a headphone in my left ear, but leave ot out on the right.

I can hear what's coming from behind perfectly this way, and have had no problems with it.

Interesting that some say they will not use headphones on the road, but would on a quiet country lane or a Sustrans lane or whatever. I would think this is more dangerous, since it is so much quieter there that the headphones are more likely to block out a subtle hint.

Plus, surely one should be enjoying the sounds of the country, i only wear headphones to drown out the horrible city road noises....


----------



## zimzum42 (15 Apr 2009)

Also, I use my phone to play the music, so I can also take any calls that come in without having to stop....


----------



## Woz! (15 Apr 2009)

I've literally always worn them so maybe I've developed these compensatory skills people talk about 

Never had a problem with it to be honest but I would never wear the Shure style ear plugs that isolate you completely. I also listen at low volume so I'm still aware of most other sounds around me. One of the biggest risks with headphones is ear damage from high volume listening and there's a horrible temptation on a bike at speed to rack up the volume to very high levels.

I find I cycle faster with music on.


----------



## Auntie Helen (15 Apr 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I am sure that deaf cyclists would love the ability to hear and the ones with partial hearing would not do anything to make the situation worse.


I'm hard of hearing (and for all of you iPod lovers, it's probably because I used to listen to my iPod all the time, scarily) and I certainly wouldn't do anything to compromise my ability to hear traffic creeping up behind me, even though I have rear-view mirrors on my trike. However I can see the appeal of listening to music whilst riding, it's just that I wouldn't feel entirely safe. Also, like User, I don't think it would sound very good; however on a long journey I can see the appeal of listening to a talking book or the news or something.


----------



## eldudino (15 Apr 2009)

I use headphones on my bike but keep the volume at a lower level to allow some traffic noise in so I can hear the approaching traffic from the rear. I use my eyes a lot though, something that's left over from riding motorbikes without mirrors I think! I don't think wearing headphones is for everyone and it really is a choice, I think I'm a bit of a hypocrite the more I think about it as I don't actually think it's a great idea but it seems to work fine for me. I recently went on a ride without my ipod and ended up with ringing in my ears from the wind noise, it was most unpleasant!


----------



## zimzum42 (15 Apr 2009)

Looking over your shoulder before making any kind of a move is far more important than listening out for car engines...


----------



## dodgy (15 Apr 2009)

zimzum42 said:


> Looking over your shoulder before making any kind of a move is far more important than listening out for car engines...



+5,068,247


----------



## toontra (15 Apr 2009)

I started wearing phones when doing training laps in Richmond Park and got used to them. When I did my 6-day LEJoG last year (mainly on A roads with lots of dual carriageway) I think I would have gone mad without having loud music on for most of the day to drown out the sound of traffic.

As with helmets, it's a personal choice. If you're not confident then probably best to avoid. If I'm unsure of my route or in particularly unsafe conditions then I take the phones out. I also don't use them for commuting in London. They really come into their own on long rides to break the monotony.

As zimzum says, be prepared to make more shoulder checks.

Don't underestimate the motivational power of the right music. All my PB's have been done with phones on.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (15 Apr 2009)

I use headphones every now and again - it all depends. I didn't use them this morning because the conditions were really bad - rain and thunder and lightening - but last night on the way home it was dry and sunny and clear and I had my headphones in. 

When I cycle along the canal I always use them - cranked up really loud and often end up singing along!!!!  

... the only problem with the above is that you can't hear the angry cyclist pinging their bell behind you trying to get past!!!

... mind you they should just all be relaxing and enjoying my tuneful singing shouldn't they?!

I find that doing the same commute day in day out gets mind numbingly boring and I try to vary my route if I can and do things like listen to music etc to help relieve this!


----------



## AlexInWonderland (15 Apr 2009)

I listen to my iPod quite loudly when doing my paperround, walking to school, walking the dog, cycling as a journey. All of these are probably quite hazordous as its high traffic. But i never listen to music when im cycling for enjoyment. I suppose in my mind its worse on the country roads?
I would say though it does distract me from concentrating properly though, and maybe contributed to a few close shaves?


----------



## stoatsngroats (15 Apr 2009)

I use a MP3 player on most rides, and find that the music can allow some excellent cadence!
Regarding the loss of acoustic clarity, I don't find this. I'm not saying that there is NO loss, I'm saying I find it an acceptable loss, and compensate for it.

For conjecture, those who have mentioned that they choose not to listen to music BECAUSE of this loss of acoustic clarity - if you drive, do you always have the windows open...? I realise that in a car you would be better off in an acccident, but that, surley is after the fact?


----------



## Arch (15 Apr 2009)

Woz! said:


> I've literally always worn them so maybe I've developed these compensatory skills people talk about



Literally? Since you were born?

I rarely bother with music when I ride, maybe only on a longer solo ride. When I do, I just wear one earpiece in my left ear.


----------



## Joe24 (15 Apr 2009)

I dont bother listening to music when i commute. It is only a 10min ride, but i have no need for it. I just charge along, having fun in the traffic, and drafting cars. So i dont really need it. And when i see the person who works in a bike shop in town, well i deffinatly have no need for it, the journey time is cut down due to us both trying to race each other(well he just drafts me)


----------



## Crankarm (15 Apr 2009)

RedStork said:


> The only thing I dislike about biking on my own is the silence... Well, actually no, I like silence. I dislike silence interrupted by engines.
> 
> What is everyone's opinion on biking with headphones in? Is it stupid to do, is it dangerous? Is it any different from driving in a car with a CD blaring?



I think you've answered you own question. Of course it's not safe.
Presumably driving a car with your radio excessively loud would also be dangerous as it would compromise your awareness of other road users around you as well as compromising your ability to control your car properly and safely. Plus your gf should tell you to stop being such an embarrassing chav unless of course your gf is a chav or you don't have a gf because when driving you play your music loud frightening them away or boring them rigid .


----------



## Toby_2009 (16 Apr 2009)

personally I wear one headphone, usually left and not too loud so that I can still hear what is going o around me. I find that particularly when the going gets tough I can tune in to the music and it helps me push on.

I also always take the one earphone I wear out when I come to any junction of blind bend, i simply take it out and drop it and its caught by the straps on my helmet.

Cheers,

Toby


----------



## J4CKO (16 Apr 2009)

I would love to listen to music as I ride but find my hearing too valuable to give up for listening to some music, can do that all day at work and at night at home if I want, I am sure you can compensate to a point but to me its a constant stream of information, I can tell by engine type note and the increase in volume what is coming up behind me and the attitude to the driver (to a point), I can hear the bin wagon coming up the single track road that you cant see due to hedgerows and move in ready for him to pass and be ready with a cheery wave.

There are other signals to listen for other than cars, animals for example, hedgerow movements, barking dogs, birds and also I listen to the bike, if I had headphones on I couldnt hear any potential problem that may have me off, that rattling you dont hear may be a quick release coming loose ?

None of it is cut and dried, its just another information stream on which to base decisons on, the decisions that may make the difference between life and death, possibly wearing phones might actually improve matters for some but I dont think so.

Individual choice but I always feel a little concerned when I see a cyclist wearing headphones, not so much "Proper Cyclists" but usually teenagers on BMX's with an Ipod in, oblivious to the danger and relying on others to protect them from themselves, it usually seems to work but tragically not always.

Also, I do listen to the radio in the car, usually quietly as I like to hear what is going on, at dogy points in a journey I will turn it off and sometimes open the windows so I can hear what is going on.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

I've been using headphones since 1985.TIA

It's not a problem.The problem out there is when people don't bother looking.

*not so much "Proper Cyclists" but usually teenagers on BMX's with an Ipod in, oblivious to the danger and relying on others to protect them from themselves,*

Yes ok I bow to your superior knowledge.

*Presumably driving a car with your radio excessively loud would also be dangerous as it would compromise your awareness of other road users around you as well as compromising your ability to control your car properly and safely.*

Presumably.

Don't really have a problem with the motons with all that loud music crap but generally it's the motorists without the loud music on (who drive badly).Probably because there are more of them.


----------



## J4CKO (16 Apr 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *not so much "Proper Cyclists" but usually teenagers on BMX's with an Ipod in, oblivious to the danger and relying on others to protect them from themselves,*
> 
> Yes ok I bow to your superior knowledge.
> .




Not sure whether I made my point clearly there, what I am saying is I am more concerned when I see kids wearing headphones on a bike rather than older people who otherwise look like they take all the right precautions, have done their own thinking about the risks and made a considered decision, evolved compensation stratergies rather than relying on drivers to look after them.


----------



## bugslop (16 Apr 2009)

I tend to use mine on the way to work as i set off from home at 5.20, and there is hardly any traffic, but not on the way home. I only use the left ear piece because when i tried using both i found cars were 'creeping' up on me and making me jump, definitely not a good thing. One thing that i do wonder about is the question of being knocked off and trying to claim against the motorist.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

J4CKO said:


> Not sure whether I made my point clearly there, what I am saying is I am more concerned when I see kids wearing headphones on a bike rather than older people who otherwise look like they take all the right precautions, have done their own thinking about the risks and made a considered decision, evolved compensation stratergies rather than relying on drivers to look after them.



I know what you mean about headphones.

I think sometimes I ignore the music for two reasons:

1) I've heard the music one million times before.
2) Im concentrating.


----------



## yenrod (16 Apr 2009)

I recall once using, which I do anyway, using them (head fones supplied with a mobile) on chainy and had a touch of wheels: some on the ride blamed me for lack of concentration ie i was conectrating on the music but that was not that case AT ALL as the riders where riding nervously anyhow.


----------



## Arch (16 Apr 2009)

I reckon they should take the windows out of cars to bring them up to our level of hearing. Twice now I've stood at a certain junction, aware of an ambulance coming along the road, passing a queue and wanting to cross a red light, and seen a driver pull away from the side road light and come fast round the corner, only to find themselves face to face with the ambulance. It's true the side road lights are set back, so you can't see, but I'd have thought, if you hear a siren, you nose out carefully, not at full tilt...

But then, I have a brain....

I reckon, even with earphones in, I'm aware of a siren way before most drivers (and better able to look round for it)


----------



## Cking (16 Apr 2009)

I quite like listening to the tweeting of the birds and baaring of the sheep on my way to work. Mind you the clicking from that ba****d loose spoke that I can't find is driving me mad!
The car approching noise is useful too

Rgds Cking


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

Can hear car sounds but as you say tell tale bike sounds before the disaster can be missed.

*[bloodbus]i'm sure the law states you not allowed to where headphones as it effects you ability to deal with the traffic you may encounter, i.e not hearing the sirens of the fire engine etc[/bloodbus]*

Is there?


----------



## RedStork (16 Apr 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I think you've answered you own question. Of course it's not safe.
> Presumably driving a car with your radio excessively loud would also be dangerous as it would compromise your awareness of other road users around you as well as compromising your ability to control your car properly and safely. *Plus your gf should tell you to stop being such an embarrassing chav unless of course your gf is a chav or you don't have a gf because when driving you play your music loud frightening them away or boring them rigid* .



Sorry for using over-the-top adjectives. I'm 100% none-chav and I dont drive around with my windows open pumping out the basslines to the populace. I actually found this post rather insulting. I'm 21, been living with my gorgeous _*girlfriend*_ for 2 years, so yes I do have a 'gf' as you put it.

Anyway, like most people said, it appears to be mostly down to personal preference. I'm not sure what cars everyone drives by the way, but I hear virtually no outside road noise in my car. A lot of car's seem to be designed to isolate you for _comfort _or what-not.


----------



## Greenbank (16 Apr 2009)

I use them pretty much all the time; laps of Richmond Park, commuting into central London, on Audaxes when I'm not riding with anyone else. Good way to ease the passing of the miles.

I just look behind me more often, and always before changing road position. I guess this comes from the years of riding a motorbike with earplugs (even with a full face helmet and visor down the wind noise at 70mph is amazingly loud).

The new generation of hybrid and electric cars make next to no noise. If you want to be mown down by a Toyota Prius then rely on your hearing and don't look over your shoulder.


----------



## fossyant (16 Apr 2009)

I'm not going into pro's and con's..

I use hearing to judge the car speed behind (oh yes you can, even electric ones) and the attitude of the driver.... like Marinyork says, it's a bit like bat sense..... (even though I have just average hearing).

More sadly, I like to hear a perfectly tuned drive chain whirring away....... I hate rattles, cars/bikes...drives me nuts, so I ensure it all works.......


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

> Or you could use your hearing _and_ your eyes, and be even more aware.



Im aware enough thank you.


----------



## rog (16 Apr 2009)

since Bojo allowed motorbikes into the bus lanes in London I've found myself increasingly relying on my ears to let me know when some leather-clad chap on a superbike is going to come flying past...its sometimes hard to spot a fast approaching bike as they can suddenly appear out of nowhere but you can certainly hear em!


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

> I've been standing behind you for 30 minutes and you haven't noticed yet.




Yeah I thought my flat was haunted with the spirit of St Paul.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Apr 2009)

> Nice bum.


----------



## Greenbank (16 Apr 2009)

> Or you could use your hearing _and_ your eyes, and be even more aware.



If you pushed your bike along the road whilst facing backwards you'd be even more aware.


----------



## Woz! (17 Apr 2009)

fossyant said:


> I hate rattles, cars/bikes...drives me nuts



Me too. I find you can mask them with headphones


----------



## buggi (17 Apr 2009)

dodgy said:


> I'm confused about the 'engine noise approaching from behind' argument. What do you do when you hear an engine noise approaching?



i wear my headphones all the time and this is my "for" argument. i know the cars are there anyway, and just coz i can hear them behind me doesn't mean i know whether they are going to hit me, so what's the difference? i play loud music in my car and its just the same thing. so i have wing mirrors on my car?? well, i can turn my head on my bike and look behind.

my ipod is knackered now and now runs out after an hour, so i've got a bit used to cycling without music for the latter part of my journey. i don't think it makes any difference to my reactions to traffic whether i'm plugged in or not.


----------



## Grendel (20 Apr 2009)

I detest seeing anyone cycling while wearing headphones.
It's the height of ****wittery.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Apr 2009)

I detest seeinfg motorists on mobile phones while driving or the one million and one other distractions it's the height of ****wittery.


----------



## Plax (20 Apr 2009)

I've never really considered headphones whilst cycling. I don't think I would to be honest. However I do wear headphones when out running.


----------



## ultraviolet (20 Apr 2009)

non noise reduction ones are the best, if you get the volume just right you can hear both cars and music


----------



## gavintc (20 Apr 2009)

I quite like just listening to the radio in the left ear. I can hear cars coming and I do not believe it distracts or detracts.


----------



## madguern (6 May 2010)

Used to wear them all the time with little issue, however.... was a case in the local paper when a cyclist with headphones was knocked down by a car. Because the cyclist was wearing headphones he was found liable and the car driver got off scot free. The cyclist now walks with a stick ! So I ain't giving car drivers the chance to get away with it ! However now have to put up with hearing every little creak and clunk coming from the bike !! The reason I started wearing headphones in the first place


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (6 May 2010)

I can hear cars coming behind me, I can't see them, so to me I would think it dangerous


----------



## fossyant (6 May 2010)

I couldn't be ar$ed with the wires, and hook up, and worrying if the MP3/IPOD will die of sweat damage.........


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 May 2010)

madguern said:


> Used to wear them all the time with little issue, however.... was a case in the local paper when a cyclist with headphones was knocked down by a car. Because the cyclist was wearing headphones he was found liable and the car driver got off scot free. The cyclist now walks with a stick ! So I ain't giving car drivers the chance to get away with it ! However now have to put up with hearing every little creak and clunk coming from the bike !! The reason I started wearing headphones in the first place



Look on the bright side....motorists seem to do what they like anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (6 May 2010)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> I can hear cars coming behind me, I can't see them, so to me I would think it dangerous



Regardless of where you stand on the headphones/no headphones debate, this is a clear sign that you need to look behind yourself much more. It's never right to rely on your hearing, you should be looking.


----------



## psmiffy (6 May 2010)

I never wear headphones, but I am pretty deaf and therefore rely almost totally on vision anyway - the same as when my hearing was OK - there will nearly always be traffic coming from behind - relying on hearing and not looking is a recipe for hospital food


----------



## Norm (6 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Regardless of where you stand on the headphones/no headphones debate, this is a clear sign that you need to look behind yourself much more. It's never right to rely on your hearing, you should be looking.


BM, I knew that if I wanted to write something like that, then there was no way you'd be able to resist for long.  

I take it the only reason you held out for 90 minutes was that you were making tea or something.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (6 May 2010)

4F said:


> I am sure that deaf cyclists would love the ability to hear and the ones with partial hearing would not do anything to make the situation worse.


Exactly. As one with partial hearing, I can say that


I do sometimes use an iPod while cycling, but never loud enough to drown out car noise (however, see point 4 below).
I have a rear-vision mirror which I use regularly.
I supplement the rear-vision mirror by doing head-checks where required, e.g. when turning right or merging to a lane on my right.
It's always important to do visual checks, as the one approaching you from behind isn't necessarily a car; it could be another cyclist with a well-oiled silent machine, and if you decide to e.g. stick your right arm out to indicate a right turn at the wrong moment, a collision could occur.
Regards,

--- Victor.


----------



## guitarpete247 (6 May 2010)

I like to use all my senses. 
Except tasting the tarmac. 
If I can't hear I always look. If I can hear I look anyway to see what I can hear. 
Headphones must cut out some of what yo can hear, even if turned down low. 
In the car I don't rely on hearing things quite as much so have the radio on. 
As a ped. I can stop at the pavement and spend time looking for traffic much easier than I can on the bike so I sometimes listen to music on my phone (don't have MP3).


----------



## mcshroom (7 May 2010)

guitarpete247 said:


> I like to use all my senses.
> Except tasting the tarmac.



I tend to hope cars are far enough away that I can't touch them either 

I have used a radio when cycling, and it doesn't have the affect I thought it might as to reducing hearing, as long as you keep the noise down. I find that it helps me on longer solo rides.

No-one ever seems to object to car stereos which block out at least as much noise


----------



## 400bhp (7 May 2010)

> Or you could use your hearing _and_ your eyes, and be even more aware.



Absolutely.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 May 2010)

I use headphones but im tending to agree more with the dislike headphones brigade.


----------



## slowmotion (7 May 2010)

Whatever suits you and your level of risk, really, so I have no sermon to add.

Personally, riding in a big city, I come across a lot of mini-roundabouts in residential areas that have narrow streets, and four storey buildings. There is no way that I can see the approaching traffic, so I like to try and hear them coming. I would feel a bit vulnerable at all times on the bike with headphones.

On the rare times that I go skiing, I have music in my ears at all times, certainly loud enough to drown out "other traffic". 

It just boils down to what you feel comfortable with, and that is how it should be.


----------



## Jaguar (7 May 2010)

I have one earphone in (left) and listen to the radio (2 or 4 mostly), when I feel it's safe to (ie, not in busy traffic)

On the route I take to my mum's house (60mph narrow winding roads) I actually feel safer if I _can't _hear the souped-up nobmobile revving up behind me.


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

I abhore the earpiece that comes with my phone/MP3 player/whatever-else-it-does and refuse to have it anywhere near my ear. Plus, I don't think I'd get more than 50 yards without the piece of crap falling out or being uncomfortable and needing adjusting 

Having said that, I wouldn't want my hearing ability compromised at all while I'm cycling, as for me, it is an extremely important sense. So I see no reason in investing in a better earpiece anyway.

Whilst driving, yes, the radio is on, although never so loud that I couldn't hear a horn blast if I needed to.


----------



## Tinuts (7 May 2010)

fossyant said:


> I use hearing to judge the car speed behind (oh yes you can, even electric ones) and the attitude of the driver.... like Marinyork says, it's a bit like bat sense..... (even though I have just average hearing).
> 
> More sadly, I like to hear a perfectly tuned drive chain whirring away....... I hate rattles, cars/bikes...drives me nuts, so I ensure it all works.......



Yes, indeed. It's all about awareness of what's going on around you. 

I tried headphones once and found that it reduced my awareness by a worrying amount. As far as I'm concerned any reduction of awareness while on a bike (as with so many things) is unacceptable.

Consequently, I don't wear headphones and would advise any other cyclist to dispense with them unless, of course, they come from the planet Krypton and have superhuman auditory powers.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Personally, riding in a big city, I come across a lot of mini-roundabouts in residential areas that have narrow streets, and four storey buildings. There is no way that I can see the approaching traffic, so I like to try and hear them coming. I would feel a bit vulnerable at all times on the bike with headphones.



Until the day that you meet an electric vehicle that fails to give way and smashes into you. Maybe slowing down and looking would be a much more effective strategy?


----------



## nich (7 May 2010)

I'm so buzzed and full of adrenaline when I'm cycling to work that I don't mind the noise of cars and engines, along with my heavy breathing!


----------



## Ste T. (7 May 2010)

Depends where I am. On a cycle path or quiet lane I may have my lefthand earpiece in for womens hour, you and yours, from our own corrospondent ect, and yes...I confess... the Archers . I tend to listen to Radio 4 so its not very loud and stereo doesn't matter. In a built up area, in town or city, I just dont like the sensation it gives of being apart from your surroundings .There is probably a statistic some where on how many cyclists killed or injured had them on. Could make interesting reading.
The ones that amaze me are those who have them on and pull out to pass parked cars with out a glance over their shoulder first. Eeek!


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2010)

Ste T. said:


> Depends where I am. On a cycle path or quiet lane I may have my lefthand earpiece in for womens hour, you and yours, from our own corrospondent ect, and yes...I confess... the Archers . I tend to listen to Radio 4 so its not very loud and stereo doesn't matter. In a built up area, in town or city, I just dont like the sensation it gives of being apart from your surroundings .There is probably a statistic some where on how many cyclists killed or injured had them on. Could make interesting reading.
> *The ones that amaze me are those who have them on and pull out to pass parked cars with out a glance over their shoulder first. Eeek*!



They would do the same whether wearing headphones or not. They're more often seen riding BSOs.


----------



## Domeo (7 May 2010)

I've been listening to music for virtually all my (road) riding for the last 20 years. I commute daily, with a round trip of 25-30 miles into central London. I have not had any problems. Looking around and taking everything in visually is more important than sound. After all there are other users that you wouldn't hear anyway such as pedestrians, other cyclists and electric cars. I look before I make a move.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

This is a good example of not looking and just changing lanes. Was he relying on his hearing?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI62KJ4Ekw4


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

I don't think anyone is suggesting they "rely" on their hearing (are they?). Rather, it's an extremely useful additional sense that shouldn't be ignored. Obviously looking before making any manouvre is vital too


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

If you find hearing extremely useful, then you're not looking enough. I'd be willing to bet that seeing your riding on film would show that clearly.


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

I tried headphones for a few trips, but found that when in town, I couldn't hear what I was listing to properly unless I had the volume up so high as to block everything else out, and I, personally, didn't like that. When in the country I'd rather listen to the "county noises" (or lack thereof). 

That said, I'd defend anyone else's right to use headphones if they so wish.


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> If you find hearing extremely useful, then you're not looking enough. I'd be willing to bet that seeing your riding on film would show that clearly.



I know, you told me before  I am looking round more often (I think anyway)

My point is that your hearing is an additional sense that if working as expected, should not be excluded. Only people with hearing difficulties will have heightened their other senses to make allowances for their lack of hearing.

I've certainly noticed a bike behind me when preparing to turn right - I hadn't heard them but I did see them, so looking round is still vital.

Being able to hear traffic and other noises just gives you a better understanding of your environment.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

I know, I use my hearing sometimes. I do tend to feel like I've failed when I hear a vehicle near me before I've seen it. Find it quite embarassing.


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Only people with hearing difficulties will have heightened their other senses to make allowances for their lack of hearing.



Not sure about that, not in this case anyway.

Touch & Taste - Not much use on a bike unless something has gone horribly wrong.

Smell - I do occationally smell a car, but I don't think it's of much use on a bike, espeically as you're more likely to smell something you're heading towards

Sight - Is the obvious one - Do deaf people have better eye sight? And even if they do, would it make that much difference as a cyclist? I tend to think that if you can't see a car, you're in trouble anyway...


----------



## dodgy (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I know, I use my hearing sometimes. I do tend to feel like I've failed when I hear a vehicle near me before I've seen it. Find it quite embarassing.



I don't get that, it sounds like you expect to turn around enough times to see every single vehicle that passes you - before it has passed? You must have a neck like an owl's 

I have a tiny unobtrusive mirror on my road bikes, most people don't even know it's there, but it's quite handy (for seeing other riders trying to catch you  ).


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> Not sure about that, not in this case anyway.
> 
> Touch & Taste - Not much use on a bike unless something has gone horribly wrong.
> 
> ...



Well, maybe you're right there, technically, I don't know for sure as my hearing (I believe) is pretty good. I guess touch is the obvious one that's improved, but no, not much use on a bike. Sight maybe not, but ability to appreciate what can be seen rather than ignoring a quick glance - quite possibly.

My point is still valid though - hearing is a very useful additional sense


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

dodgy said:


> I don't get that, it sounds like you expect to turn around enough times to see every single vehicle that passes you - before it has passed? You must have a neck like an owl's



I reckon it all depends on the type of cycling you do, or rather, where you do it.

In town, it's fairly easy to keep track, visually, of what's around you, but I do quite a lot of cycling on both fast A & B roads, and tiny country lanes. In both cases, I'll almost always hear a vehicle before I see it. 

On A & B roads if they're comming up behind me at 60mph, on a 100 meter striaght I'd have to look over my shoulder every ~4 seconds to see them (60mph = 27 meters/sec).

And country lanes are so twisty that 90% of the time a car isn't even visible when it's hearable (if that's a word?!).


----------



## thanos (7 May 2010)

regardless people saying they can hear fine through them (which im not going to debate) arent they illegal to have on?
in the united states it is illegal for car drivers to have headphones covering both ears.. if the same rules apply to drivers in the uk, they probably should apply to cyclists..


----------



## gaz (7 May 2010)

Depends on your deffinition of safe, i see plenty of clyclists with headphones in. They don't seam to have an issue. I did try it for a few weeks, couldn't stand it.
But i think you should take into account the enviroment your in. Cycling in rush hour in london, you always hear the sound of a car engine.


----------



## leyton condor (7 May 2010)

I tried this once and it was not for me, even though I use them for running.
I lasted about half a mile or so before stopping, I just did not feel safe at all.
Some friends of mine do 10 mile commutes daily with headphones though.
Each to his own


----------



## gavintc (7 May 2010)

dodgy said:


> I'm confused about the 'engine noise approaching from behind' argument. What do you do when you hear an engine noise approaching?




I completely agree. However, having just moved over to Italy I have not worn my ipod other than on very quiet roads as I am still getting used to the traffic and how it interacts with cyclists. In UK, I would listen to music or the radio on the commute.


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

I doubt they are illegal - I'm sure hands-free mobile usage (using a headset) is fine and it's pretty much the same thing. I had a quick scout the gov website but couldn't see anything.

Your general environment is a good point: On the busy city roads, traffic noise will be constantly with you, so visual checking is going to even more important and a mirror may be the best option - but checking over your shoulder is still important when manouvering.

Where I am, combined with the time I travel means sometimes the traffic is quite light and so audible clues can give you a good idea of what's going on.

Plus, as mentioned, on a winding country lane, you're likely to hear traffic well in advance of seeing it.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

I failed to use my sense of smell last night - diesel spill on the road. Thank goodness it was on the uphill section with me doing about 6mph, instead of the downhill twisty bit at 40mph. Only noticed when I thought that feels like a puncture.

I didn't even have to phone 999 about it, a fire engine turned up behind me to sort it out.


----------



## BigSteev (7 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> a car isn't even visible when it's hearable (if that's a word?!).



Audible.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

Funny then that I usually see emergency vehicle lights long before I can hear them. Even when you can hear them, it's no real use in a city like London, they could be anywhere in the maze of streets around you, and never come close. Even then, hearing won't help you to see the second emergency vehicle sometimes following behind, which is why it's so risky being in that second vehicle.


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

Aha! My favourite topic! How comes I never noticed this before?

I often wear headphones cycling. I wouldn't say it lessens my sensory awareness AT ALL. If at all, it's may be slightly below thinking about what I'm going to have for dinner in terms of affecting my concentration.

Make sure you do use OPEN BACKED headphones, though - these do not cut down on noise entering your ears. Closed back do cut down on external noise.

Also, foam ear pad covers are useful in cutting out wind noise. I find I can hear vehicle engines over wind noise better with my headphones on than with them off.


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

Also, riding in a busy city, I'm not sure what useful information you can draw from the surrounding noise anyway. With tall buildings either side reflecting sound around and cars being pretty quiet these days I usually just find riding in city centers a fog of noise anyway - often finding myself looking around at that car accelerating behind me to find the noise is coming from a moped crossing a junction 100m in front of me.


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

Grendel said:


> I detest seeing anyone cycling while wearing headphones.
> It's the height of ****wittery.



Sorry just wanted to quote this for absurdity.

1. The fact not only do they disagree with the idea of wearing headphones whilst cycling, they actually DETEST the experience of witnessing it. As if some how doing so was a personal affront to them and their own safety.

2. That they think it is the WORST thing you could possibly do. Far worse than say, riding at night without lights, going the wrong way down a one way street, riding with your eyes closed on flat tyres on the motorway etc.


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> Aha! My favourite topic! How comes I never noticed this before?
> 
> I often wear headphones cycling. I wouldn't say it lessens my sensory awareness AT ALL. If at all, it's may be slightly below thinking about what I'm going to have for dinner in terms of affecting my concentration.
> 
> ...



I can't see any real problem with using them in that way - it sounds like they're there for background music rather than any attempt to drown out the traffic. Where I would be concerned is when the purpose or effect of their use reduces your ability to hear road noise.


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

i posted a thread last year saying about what a lovely ride id had with radiohead blasting on the ole mp3.......... a guy replied saying pretty much what a numpty i was. this started a bit of a debate with many pepes defending my right to cycle with earphones in..................... and then this year i got hit off, from behind. the driver didnt see me, and i didnt hear him.

im not so sure now wether maybe i was being a numpty.????


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

BigSteev said:


> Audible.



Of course. Friday head on today.


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2010)

c2c said:


> i posted a thread last year saying about what a lovely ride id had with radiohead blasting on the ole mp3.......... a guy replied saying pretty much what a numpty i was. this started a bit of a debate with many pepes defending my right to cycle with earphones in..................... and then this year i got hit  *knocked* off, from behind. the driver didnt see me, and* i didnt hear him*.
> 
> im not so sure now wether maybe i was being a numpty.????



Sorry to read you were knocked off. I hope you weren't seriously hurt, but as far as this thread does it is QED.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

c2c said:


> i posted a thread last year saying about what a lovely ride id had with radiohead blasting on the ole mp3.......... a guy replied saying pretty much what a numpty i was. this started a bit of a debate with many pepes defending my right to cycle with earphones in..................... and then this year i got hit off, from behind. the driver didnt see me, and i didnt hear him.
> 
> im not so sure now wether maybe i was being a numpty.????




With a driver like that, I think that neither seeing nor hearing them would have made much difference. By the time you'd realise, chances are you wouldn't have time to react anyway.


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Sorry to read you were knocked off. I hope you weren't seriously hurt, but as far as this thread does it is QED.




pretty badly hurt, 8 weeks off work. always learn the hard way me. no helmet, no high viz, and earphones in. the car driver was utterly at fault but i have realised its best to maximise ones chances of survival...!!


----------



## Brahan (7 May 2010)

Do what you want. If you want to ride on the kerb at night with headphones in and no lights in your bike then I couldn't care less. 

Do what you bloody well want.

Just stay out of MY way.


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

psmiffy said:


> I never wear headphones, but I am pretty deaf and therefore rely almost totally on vision anyway - the same as when my hearing was OK - there will nearly always be traffic coming from behind - relying on hearing and not looking is a recipe for hospital food



completely off topic sorry............... but psmiffy, is that a wodehouse reference.....??


----------



## dodgy (7 May 2010)

c2c said:


> i posted a thread last year saying about what a lovely ride id had with radiohead blasting on the ole mp3.......... a guy replied saying pretty much what a numpty i was. this started a bit of a debate with many pepes defending my right to cycle with earphones in..................... and then this year i got hit off, from behind. the driver didnt see me, and i didnt hear him.
> 
> im not so sure now wether maybe i was being a numpty.????



That only makes sense if you take evasive action every time you hear a car behind you, and I imagine even now you don't jump off your bike if you hear a car coming from behind you?

I've used headphones in the past but find them uncomfortable and fiddly so don't bother anymore.

And presumably those vehemently against headphones also augment their senses with rear view mirrors?


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

dodgy said:


> *That only makes sense if you take evasive action every time you hear a car behind you, and I imagine even now you don't jump off your bike if you hear a car coming from behind you?*
> 
> I've used headphones in the past but find them uncomfortable and fiddly so don't bother anymore.
> 
> And presumably those vehemently against headphones also augment their senses with rear view mirrors?



yeah fair point, but as i say when you were lucky not to be maimed for life or worse, you maximise your chances.


----------



## 4F (7 May 2010)

Genuine question, why do people wear headphones when cycling ? Is it boredom or to cut out city traffic noise ?


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

I enjoy listening to music.

Sometimes I listen to relaxing stuff if I'm feeling stressed and it helps de-stress me, sometimes I listen to more energetic stuff when I'm feeling lazy and it helps motivate me. Mostly though, because I like it.


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

Brahan said:


> Do what you want. If you want to ride on the kerb at night with headphones in and no lights in your bike then I couldn't care less.
> 
> Do what you bloody well want.
> 
> Just stay out of MY way.



See the problem I have with this statement is that you are considering wearing headphones while cycling as dangerous and foolish as riding at night with no lights and on the kerb. I don't believe that it is as dangerous as those things or in fact dangerous at all.


----------



## jonny jeez (7 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> I don't believe that it is as dangerous as those things or in fact dangerous at all.



I do.

Cant be bothered to read all the posts, I am sure they represent the same comments heard before.....

but for my tuppence worth, how can we complain about ped wearing earphones and not hearing us, when we do the same. Oh and cars have rear view mirrors so listening to a stereo in a car is nothing like when riding a motor or push bike....(I'm sure someone must had made that comparrison already)


sorry if all this has been said already.

Bottom lime, we are all grown ups and can make our own choices, just so long as we accept the responsibility of those choices.

...I cant talk, I choose to ride a freakin motorcycle for Gods sake!


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 May 2010)

4F said:


> Genuine question, why do people wear headphones when cycling ? Is it boredom or to cut out city traffic noise ?



I am in the 50/50 camp I never wear them when commuting in traffic due to drivers unpredictability but wear them sometimes when leisure riding in the countryside as I like listening to music. Don't have them on too loud and have never to date touch wood missed a car approaching from behind. I think it is very much each to their own though.


----------



## dodgy (7 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Personally I think it's a bit dumb.
> 
> Average noise of traffic is 80db, so to hear what you are palying you'd have to have it at around 90-95db more then enough to some damage after prolonged use.
> 
> Next time you are out on the bike turn the volume up to the level you would normally listen to and then go into a quiet place to see how loud you really have to have the volume to listen in traffic.



Don't agree, when I did use headphones I used to have it loud enough to listen to podcasts and mainly radio. You're assuming I absolutely have to hear everything above traffic, which isn't true. I accept that I will miss some of the output when a loud car goes past - just as I have to accept that if I'm chatting with a roadie mate, I'm not going to hear his every word when cars go past.


----------



## JoysOfSight (7 May 2010)

"Headphones and cycling! Is it safe?" - the answer of course is, depends how bad your riding is. If it's good, then it makes no difference at all.

If, as many people seem to imply, you listen for reasons not to manouvre instead of using your eyes, then you definitely shouldn't have headphones in. Because although listening instead of looking is crap, it is better than not listening *or *looking!

But the consensus often seems to be that, although you can't put your finger on a situation where hearing would have made any difference to your own riding, it's better to be able to hear than not be able to hear. I think this is simply conflating the _comfort _of hearing, with some imagined safety benefit.

I ride in rush hour, mainly without headphones, but often with them. Your ears just aren't important in any imaginable way, unless your skills are weak, and you're riding wrong. (Which isn't to say that I disagree with people who find it _comforting _to be able to hear, which is quite different).

Take the post above by jonny jeez as a great example of this confusion. I can't think of any psychological explanation that not being able to hear traffic should make pedestrians *less likely* to look before stepping into the road, rather than more. What, if they switch the music off, they are more likely to think "I *can't* hear a bike, so I should look to make sure!" 

Really?

I resisted registering here for so long, but this finally won me over...


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

c2c said:


> i posted a thread last year saying about what a lovely ride id had with radiohead blasting on the ole mp3.......... a guy replied saying pretty much what a numpty i was. this started a bit of a debate with many pepes defending my right to cycle with earphones in..................... and then this year i got hit off, from behind. the driver didnt see me, and i didnt hear him.
> 
> im not so sure now wether maybe i was being a numpty.????



Sorry I'm late - left the office and've been cooking dinner 

A numpty for wearing a headset and getting run down from behind? Probably not - unless you pulled out without looking and the driver had no chance of avoiding you. But that dosen't appear to be the case here.

But generally, I think debilitating yourself by reducing 50% of your senses (taste, touch and smell are very little use here) while you are a vulnerable road user is never a good idea. It's not a good idea anyway, even when driving as your chances of not realising the presence of emergency vehicles or others trying to get your attention is also dangerous.

OK, so road noise on busy London roads is not going to give you much of a clue about what's going on around you. But think about this scenario: an ambulance on an emergency call, is approaching from a side junction with lights flashing and sirens blaring - you can't see it's lights as it's coming from a junction you've not yet crossed and the building obscure your view down that road, but you can be damned sure it's somewhere close because of the sirens. Would you cross a junction, even considering it's controlled by lights that are green and in your favour, if you knew there was an ambulance very close to your vicinity? Of course not - at the very least, you'd take a good look around before going, but I think most people would prefer to wait and see where the ambulance is coming from and going to. It's common sense isn't it?

Anyway, as mentioned before, if you want to listen to music or anything else, you can still do so, but I seriously urge you to find a headset that will still allow you to hear what's going on around you 

From a driver's point of view: I rarely see cyclists with headsets, but it does make me a little nervous as to whether they can hear me or not - making me even more cautious when passing them.


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 May 2010)

I wonder if this will end up in room 101 like all the should you shouldn't you wear a helmet threads?


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

For the many people who don't appear to have read my earlier arguments (because if they had they would obviously agree with me entirely), I have thought of a better, more easily tangible explaination for why riding with headphones is safe.

Basically, it's the same as wearing sunglasses while cycling.

No wait, it's not nearly as bad as wearing sunglasses at all.

There is a difference to wearing sunglasses and wearing a blindfold. There is a difference to adding music or additional speech to the noises you already hear. Wearing headphones does not cut out the sounds around you entirely, and with an open backed pair they don't cut them out at all. They just add to it a little bit. Like sunglasses, they also cut out unnecessary, overloading information - with sunglasses this is blinding sunlight, with foam-padded open backed headphones this is deafening wind noise.


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

In fact I think you riders NOT wearing some kind of wind filter on their ears are utterly irresponsible. How can you hear that car approaching when you are being deafened by wind blowing in your ears?


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Why would I want to read your earlier arguments when you make a point like the one above?
> 
> Have you ever had a fly/bee/wasp go into your eye when doing 20mph?




Ah but have you ever had a wasp in your ear when checking over your shoulder because you forgot to put your headphones in


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No



Damn there goes that line of argument


----------



## Bandini (7 May 2010)

I like to hear oncoming traffic. But I have bungeed my Walkman phone and tube speaker to my rack on occasion when I have fancied listening to a bit of music.


----------



## GrasB (7 May 2010)

Is it safe to ride with headphones? Yes, as long as the volume isn't to high or you don't have noise cancelling headphones that mean you won't hear sirens etc. early enough.

Can you gain extra information about what's going on if you don't have headphones in, most of the time yes but the higher density of traffic the less advantage there is. So around town at rush hour there's next to no extra benefit from using acoustic clues. That said on back roads I often find I'm shoulder checking to see when the vehicle will come round that corner, I usually identify what class it is well before I have a chance to see it.


----------



## JoysOfSight (7 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> There is a difference to wearing sunglasses and wearing a blindfold. There is a difference to adding music or additional speech to the noises you already hear. Wearing headphones does not cut out the sounds around you entirely, and with an open backed pair they don't cut them out at all.



+1 this made me chuckle.

It falls down a little though, in that while the accident rate for blind cyclists in rush hour would be pretty high, the accident rate for deaf cyclists is actually lower than average.

(Go on - disprove it. And it's not because they can "feel the vibration of cars" through their tyres )


----------



## slowmotion (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Until the day that you meet an electric vehicle that fails to give way and smashes into you. Maybe slowing down and looking would be a much more effective strategy?



Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I never wished to imply that I _only_ rely on hearing. I certainly slow down and look.


----------



## Happiness Stan (7 May 2010)

How we ever managed to cycle before iPods were invented I don't know. The crushing boredom without Lillie Allen warbling in the background must have been unbearable.


----------



## Mark_Robson (7 May 2010)

Happiness Stan said:


> How we ever managed to cycle before iPods were invented I don't know. The crushing boredom without Lillie Allen warbling in the background must have been unbearable.


I used to cycle one handed with a ghetto blaster balanced on my left shoulder, giving the world a treat by blasting out Boney M.


----------



## palinurus (7 May 2010)

Lilly Allen? I only listen to the most avant-gardest jazz you can get while I'm cycling.


----------



## cyberknight (7 May 2010)

Happiness Stan said:


> How we ever managed to cycle before iPods were invented I don't know. The crushing boredom_* with *_Lillie Allen warbling in the background must be unbearable.



Edited for accuracy 

And no on the road with other traffic i would not risk it.
Scenario...

You get knocked off and the offenders lawyer finds out you had headphones.
Sorry it was your fault for not being able to hear the vehicle approaching ......


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> It falls down a little though, in that while the accident rate for blind cyclists in rush hour would be pretty high, the accident rate for deaf cyclists is actually lower than average.



In all my years, I've never, ever heard of a blind cyclist being knocked down in rush hour, and yet sighted cyclists appear to get knocked down left, right and center. Therefore they must be safer.

From now on, I'm only ever going to cycle while wearing a blindfold. 

P.S, Did you know that the average person has less than two legs?


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> In all my years, I've never, ever heard of a blind cyclist being knocked down in rush hour, and yet sighted cyclists appear to get knocked down left, right and center. Therefore they must be safer.
> 
> From now on, I'm only ever going to cycle while wearing a blindfold.
> 
> *P.S, Did you know that the average person has less than two legs?*




that made i laff......but name your scource, cos i dont believe it.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (7 May 2010)

RedStork said:


> The only thing I dislike about biking on my own is the silence... Well, actually no, I like silence. I dislike silence interrupted by engines.
> 
> What is everyone's opinion on biking with headphones in? Is it stupid to do, is it dangerous? Is it any different from driving in a car with a CD blaring?



my opinion, bad idea and dangerous, others disagree.

try it and see what you think


----------



## adds21 (7 May 2010)

c2c said:


> that made i laff......but name your scource, cos i dont believe it.



It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.

Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).

Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!


----------



## c2c (7 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.
> 
> Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).
> 
> Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!



 mate you are a diamond......... sharks n ice cream.........


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.
> 
> Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).
> 
> Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!



How about chocolate - is that safe to eat? I mean I like my ice cream, but if there's a shark problem, I'll definitely switch to chocolate


----------



## JoysOfSight (8 May 2010)

cyberknight said:


> Scenario...
> 
> You get knocked off and the offenders lawyer finds out you *are deaf*.
> Sorry it was your fault for not being able to hear the vehicle approaching ......



Fixed that for you. Not sure how well it stands up though.

Having said that, there was that woman killed by a lorry which overtook and turned left too soon, where the suggestion was made that if she'd not been listening to music she might have been able to jump over the railings or something. Not convinced myself, because deaf or not, when a lorry overtakes you you'll pretty much see it, and I don't know what the sound of an HGV turning left over my body would sound like anyway.

Victim blaming is a fine art form these days. We shouldn't encourage it.


----------



## JoysOfSight (8 May 2010)

PS. (sudden random thought) - what happens if somebody is in one of those enclosed velomobiles? It's a bike, right, but you've chosen to ride something where your hearing is impaired. Would that mean any rear-ender involving a velomobile is considered to be the rider's fault?

What about if it has a removable "roof" (no idea what it's called - like a convertable). You could get a prosecution with the lid off, but not with it on?


----------



## cyberknight (8 May 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> Fixed that for you. Not sure how well it stands up though.
> 
> Having said that, there was that woman killed by a lorry which overtook and turned left too soon, where the suggestion was made that if she'd not been listening to music she might have been able to jump over the railings or something. Not convinced myself, because deaf or not, when a lorry overtakes you you'll pretty much see it, and I don't know what the sound of an HGV turning left over my body would sound like anyway.
> 
> Victim blaming is a fine art form these days. We shouldn't encourage it.



They shift blame if you do not wear a helmet so i was extrapolating, i can see it happening.In fact judges have reduced the sentences because of no helmets being a contributing factor.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...-helmet-affects-guilty-drivers-sentence-21674

Very easy to see how that could be used with headphones,i am not saying it is right just how it could be used.


----------



## Corporate Ascents (8 May 2010)

I don't cycle with head phones - just in case. Never would in London that's for sure.


----------



## Crankarm (8 May 2010)

cyberknight said:


> They shift blame if you do not wear a helmet so i was extrapolating, i can see it happening.In fact judges have reduced the sentences because of no helmets being a contributing factor.
> 
> http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...-helmet-affects-guilty-drivers-sentence-21674
> 
> Very easy to see how that could be used with headphones,i am not saying it is right just how it could be used.



At some point there must be an appeal on a point of law as judges are making it up as they go along. Parliament has not legislated that cyclists must wear helmets (Although I do did). Where does it stop? What will be the next protective item cyclists should wear as suggested by the defence for the defendant or judges on a frolic ?

Surely the legal principal that usually applies that the defendant takes the claimant/victim as he finds him should not be dispensed with just because a cyclist is the injured party? If a cyclist is not wearing a helmet or protective body armour so what? But for the moton knocking them down they would not have been injured or killed. Period.


----------



## chap (8 May 2010)

In response to the OP, and note that I have only read 5 of the replies, I would think that like wearing a helmet, it is up to you.

One ought to be mindful of their surroundings especially in busy urban surroundings; listening to music whilst cycling on the roads thus can present a risk. However, if you accept this risk, take responsibility for it, and make sure to be aware of what is happening around you then you are probably better off than some riding without earphones. 

After all, there is no law against deaf people cycling, although one would imagine that they are very much aware of their surroundings.


----------



## Globalti (9 May 2010)

I tried skiing and listening to my Walkman one and was shocked at how reckless I became.


----------



## MacB (9 May 2010)

Globalti said:


> I tried skiing and listening to my Walkman one and was shocked at how reckless I became.



that's what Eye of the Tiger does for you, get's you all manly


----------



## JoysOfSight (10 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No



Good answer. So if we don't accept that riding a velomobile is dangerous (although it is a bit odd) because you can't hear anything, how can we support the idea that cycling any other sort of bike with/without hearing is dangerous?

Myself, I think it is because velomobiles look like cars - so we magically don't consider any need for hearing to be important. Which is odd, because with the windows down drivers can hear quite well, and they have far worse situational awareness than cyclists, because they can't easily look over their shoulder and take in the world. Mirrors are not such a good substitute (and anyway, plenty of cyclists have mirrors of one form or another).


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2010)

Besides which, I should think you can hear perfectly well in a velomobile - they are not insulated from sound and vibration in the way cars are, and most have your head sticking out anyway.


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

The issue about hearing inside cars is made largely irrelevant because cars move at the same speed as other traffic. 

In my experience and where I ride, cyclists and velos, generally, move slower than other traffic. This means that they are likely to be frequently overtaken by other traffic so there is a *much* greater need for a cyclist or velo-rider to know (however the cyclist wants to gain that knowledge) what's coming up behind than there is for a car driver.

I think the whole issue of velomobiles is pretty irrelevant as well, never having seen one on the road I'm not sure that they can be used as any sort of reference point.

That said, I understand that many police motorbikes in London now carry use to move traffic, as they can be heard inside the car and over any internal distractions much easier than sirens.


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

Norm - a few issues I have with your statement which I think forms the crux of what this argument has become about:

1. What can we do with the knowledge that our hearing tells us a car is approaching behind? If we are about to pull out, we should be looking not listening.

2. In busy traffic or going fast or a windy day, even without headphones I cannot hear cars coming up behind me until they are about 10m behind me. If I needed to take evasive maneuvers based on something I hear, then it's too late anyway.

3. Would you take evasive maneuvers based purely on hearing something behind you? My first instinct would be to took. Based on point #2, this would be too late anyway - cars are mostly very quiet.

4. Again, my headphones don't negatively affect my ability to hear and in fact reduce wind noise so actually improve it, so all of this is largely moot anyway.


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

You don't actually have any issues with my statement, as I made no comment about the relative merits of looking and listening. You have issues with what you thought I had written but, if you read again, I wrote "_however the cyclist wants to gain that knowledge_".

I made no reference to whether I think that headphones are good or bad, just that I consider the reference to cars is a distraction.


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

Sorry Norm, my comments I think were directed more to the general arguments made against wearing headphones than you personally.

Sadly it seems those arguing against it appear not to be reading any of my posts on this thread anyway  (well, apart from Lee, but then he's just a troll).


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

Indeed.  I am all for personal choice and individuals making that choice based on their own circumstances and assessments.


----------



## Crankarm (10 May 2010)

One hears, one turns, one looks, one sees. Everytime. If one has got headphones stuffed in your ears, one cannot hear, turn and look, but one only sees when a vehicle is dangerously close passing along side. A strong cross / head wind means one can't often hear vehicles approaching so one has to frequently look behind to see what traffic is approaching from behind. The physical act of looking behind and making it obvious by goose necking for potentially dangerous looking drivers or their driving buys one a wide berth. Drivers are cowards. If they think you haven't seen them they WILL close pass but if you look several times you will 99.999% of time be given a lot of space and they tend to slow down as well. Wear head phones whilst cycling and you're on a definite death wish.


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

Crankarm - have you actually read any of my posts on this thread?


----------



## Crankarm (10 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> Crankarm - have you actually read any of my posts on this thread?



Nope. Well actually I read half of your last one and now this one. I sp'ose you're a headphone music listening cyclist judging by the content of your post ? What do you listen to - Stairway to Heaven?


----------



## Mark_Robson (10 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> The physical act of looking behind and making it obvious by goose necking for potentially dangerous looking drivers or their driving buys one a wide berth. Drivers are cowards. If they think you haven't seen them they WILL close pass but if you look several times you will 99.999% of time be given a lot of space and they tend to slow down as well.


I agree with your observations 100% ( minus the coward bit  ) Saying that I often use my iPod whilst cycling and I find that if I only use the left earphone and keep the volume down to a sensible level it doesn't appear to impair my ability to hear what is going on around me as traffic is bloody noisy. The main issue that I have is wind noise, it impairs my hearing much more than Jedwood.


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2010)

I really don't understand why people think you can't hear whilst wearing headphones. I can hear perfectly well, I can hear traffic approaching, the ticking of freewheels, conversation, etc. Perhaps if you wore noise cancellation headphones, or ones that block outside noise, but they don't seem to be that common. Headphones certainly intrude far less than wind noise at above 20-25mph.

None of this changes the fact that hearing isn't an important sense when cycling on the roads in traffic.


----------



## JoysOfSight (10 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> One hears, one turns, one looks, one sees. Everytime. If one has got headphones stuffed in your ears, one cannot hear, turn and look, but one only sees when a vehicle is dangerously close passing along side. A strong cross / head wind means one can't often hear vehicles approaching so one has to frequently look behind to see what traffic is approaching from behind. The physical act of looking behind and making it obvious by goose necking for potentially dangerous looking drivers or their driving buys one a wide berth. Drivers are cowards. If they think you haven't seen them they WILL close pass but if you look several times you will 99.999% of time be given a lot of space and they tend to slow down as well. Wear head phones whilst cycling and you're on a definite death wish.



The observation is good but the reasoning is cack.

Do drivers act differently when you look back at them, certainly. Therefore 
"if you wear headphones you've got a death wish"? What sort of freak you must be, to look at people with your ears 

I look with my eyes. I don't wait to hear something to look, I look every time I need to (whether I'm wearing headphones or not) because the only way to be sure about what's happening is to see it, not listen like some kind of aural water diviner to work out which wheel and engine noises require a visual check and which don't.

In fact if there is any death wish in this discussion, it's all the people who seem to be admitting that they basically whack themselves out in traffic relying on hearing something as a prompt to do a basic visual safety check. Works fine until you get nailed by something you didn't hear.

Seems like the people with headphones will be a lot better off. Remove the assumption, remove the risk.


----------



## Crankarm (10 May 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> The observation is good but the reasoning is cack.
> 
> Do drivers act differently when you look back at them, certainly. Therefore
> "if you wear headphones you've got a death wish"? What sort of freak you must be, to look at people with your ears
> ...



You've only made a few posts and you come on here calling me a freak . Is it time for your electric shocks and medication yet?


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

And 6 of the 8 posts for "JoysOfSight" have been on this thread - there seems to be a link between the user name and the agenda. 

I wonder if this is an alter ego account.


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Nope. Well actually I read half of your last one and now this one. I sp'ose you're a headphone music listening cyclist judging by the content of your post ? What do you listen to - Stairway to Heaven?



See this is why I'm finding this thread so frustrating.

I feel I'm making good and valid points, counterarguing the points of those who believe that cycling with headphones are a bad idea, and yet people keep coming out with points that I feel I have successfully refuted pages back.

Crank - if you aren't interested in the arguments presented by people who's views do not suit your own, perhaps you shouldn't be presenting your own and expecting people to take you seriously?


----------



## Shady (10 May 2010)

To try and get things away from slanging matches .. essentially I believe it comes down to personal preference.

I wear one earphone in my left ear at a fairly low volume, I haven't yet had any issues with not hearing anything (approaching traffic etc).

I have seen many cyclists with both earphones in and oblivous to the traffic around them, well that's their choice.

I tend to consider myself a careful cyclist as well as driver and I am constantly keeping an eye on the traffic around me as I cycle, i don't believe that the music takes away my concentration at all from the traffic around me as I cycle.

Given that the main part of my commute home takes me on derestricted roads where people drive past at 60mph+ about an arms length away I am always vigilant.

If people wish to have both earphones in then let them, if some people with to have one earphone in then let them, if some people wish to not have any earphones in then let them....simple.

Everyone is different and i don't believe that wearing earphones is any different to having your stereo on in your car to be honest.

Shady


----------



## JoysOfSight (10 May 2010)

Norm said:


> And 6 of the 8 posts for "JoysOfSight" have been on this thread - there seems to be a link between the user name and the agenda.
> 
> I wonder if this is an alter ego account.



I've lurked here for a while (mainly via links through youtube videos) but managed to resist having yet another forum to contribute to - until now that is.

Unfortunately the username I wanted was taken, so I chose a username based on the topic I wanted to contribute to. I don't think it's particularly strange 

However as you point out, all of my contributions have basically been ignored - I genuinely wonder why I bothered. (Well, apart from the post where I suggested anyone who looked at people with their earholes had dubious anatomy, which I stand by!).

Still, please don't worry about the actual discussion if post count top trumps is where it's at.


----------



## NigC (10 May 2010)

Just to restate my stand on this, in case anyone thinks I'm completely anti-headphones:

As mentioned, headphones may actually improve your ability to hear what's happening around you by reducing wind noise. So provided the volume of whatever being listened to is low enough so as not to drown out the outside world, I see no problem with that whatsoever. I listen to music when I'm driving (but at a low volume) - I actually believe it HELPS maintain concentration, especially on a long drive.

Where I DO see a problem is when the headphones make it difficult to hear emergency vehicles approaching from a blind side road or a vehicles horn warning of impending danger. These are by far the most dangerous scenarios and a reason I strongly suggest people don't deliberately drown out their environment.

Personally, I prefer to avoid them altogether as 1. They're uncomfortable and 2. I prefer to hear what's going on around me - my choice.

But it's all down to you to make your own choices based of what you think is right for you


----------



## Glow worm (10 May 2010)

I always have headphones in during my commute and never have any problems hearing traffic. I guess the trick is to have the music on at a fairly low volume which is what I do, so you don't have any problem hearing. My iPod vol goes up to 24 and I keep it between 14 and 17. (24 for Pogues of course- that's the law). Been doing it for 20 odd years now and no worries so far! 

This debate's a bit meaningless in some ways as everyone's different with different competancies and preferences, so it's each to their own really and leave it at that.


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Where I DO see a problem is when the headphones make it difficult to hear emergency vehicles approaching from a blind side road or a vehicles horn warning of impending danger. These are by far the most dangerous scenarios and a reason I strongly suggest people don't deliberately drown out their environment.



I don't think there are any headphones on the market capable of delivering a signal loud enough or to attenuate external noise sources sufficiently the prevent the listener from hearing sirens or horns!


----------



## chevron (10 May 2010)

Just strap speakers to your bike. I think one person suggested this so far. It's clearly the best of both worlds!

I use these - http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=97922
They go surprisingly loud, and as there is a gap in the middle you can just thread some cable ties through the middle and strap it onto your handlebars.

Great for social rides as well.


----------



## NigC (10 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> I don't think there are any headphones on the market capable of delivering a signal loud enough or to attenuate external noise sources sufficiently the prevent the listener from hearing sirens or horns!



You may well be right - I have no idea. But if the volume is loud enough, these vital external noises may not be as prominent to the wearer and could possibly get ignored. But I have no knowledge from which to draw any conclusions, so I could be wrong here


----------



## Jezston (10 May 2010)

Oh no it's a fair point, and I think anyone listening to incredibly loud music on headphones (or indeed a car stereo) are being foolish whatever they happen to be doing at the time, but it's a point I feel is overemphasised and needs to be countered


----------



## JoysOfSight (10 May 2010)

chevron said:


> Just strap speakers to your bike. I think one person suggested this so far. It's clearly the best of both worlds!



Doesn't this cause a danger for other cyclists, who have to flog it past you to escape a bombardment of Cliff Richard (or whatever is being played?) 

Although I suppose nobody'll bother reading this, I've often fancied doing some sort of test where you get people to ride a given route (involving lots of right turns, lane changes, parked cars) using a headcam to see how much observation they do. You make them repeat with / without clinical earplugs that block all sound, and see which is safer (by counting the number of observations that are made).

My hypothesis would be that when you don't rely on hearing hazards there'd be a significant increase in looking around, and so in reality, make the rider a lot safer.

The problem is finding victims for such a study and then blinding it properly. How would you take into account that people know their observations are being observed?


----------



## chevron (10 May 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> Doesn't this cause a danger for other cyclists, who have to flog it past you to escape a bombardment of Cliff Richard (or whatever is being played?)



Well I see it as an incentive for cyclists to try and overtake me; or as a deterrent to cyclists drafting me ;-)

Of course in reality I only play good music like reggae & classic rock that everyone can enjoy.


----------



## MacB (10 May 2010)

I've just bought my first ever MP3, tiny little Sansa Clip thing and a set of Seinnheiser earphones. These are the ones that hook over the ears rather than being shoved into the ear canal. Only been round the block as a test and I can still hear fine with them on.

My 'spidey' sense still works fine and it also tells me that Cranky is an ex cyclist and is therefore out of touch with the realities of road riding


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 May 2010)

chevron said:


> Just strap speakers to your bike. I think one person suggested this so far. It's clearly the best of both worlds!
> 
> I use these - http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=97922
> They go surprisingly loud, and as there is a gap in the middle you can just thread some cable ties through the middle and strap it onto your handlebars.
> ...



I had that with a motorcyclist recently...and I have it on film...It must have distracted him because he was signaling left for about a mile without actually realising.


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> However as you point out, all of my contributions have basically been ignored - I genuinely wonder why I bothered. (Well, apart from the post where I suggested anyone who looked at people with their earholes had dubious anatomy, which I stand by!).


I don't think that they were ignored, JoS. After all, I read enough of them to realise that you were mainly posting on this thread. 

Apologies if you are a newcomer to CC, though, I certainly didn't mean to put you off.


----------



## JoysOfSight (10 May 2010)

It's ok. I did register mainly because I wanted to contribute to this topic, but no doubt I'll find it impossible to go back to lurking (my better half already hates the amount of time I spend on forums, disaster!)


----------



## Downward (28 Aug 2010)

I have just changed phones and this one has a Radio. The boredom of the commute has meant this past week I have started listening to the radio on the way to work.


----------



## Tinuts (28 Aug 2010)

Jezston said:


> I don't think there are any headphones on the market capable of delivering a signal loud enough or to attenuate external noise sources sufficiently the prevent the listener from hearing sirens or horns!


I think you may be mistaken. I have in-ear phones with moulded inserts which are extremely good at blocking out most sound. These are very similar to those used by performers on-stage for their in-ear monitors and are very effective! Quite honestly I wish more people would use them. If they did we wouldn't have to suffer the awful tinny noise emanating from cheap earbud type phones used by those trying to destroy their hearing on public transport. Not only are they supremely effective at not letting extraneous sound in but they also ensure no sound gets out. They also help save what hearing you may have left as, in my experience when, say, travelling on the tube, you don't have to turn up music to the deafeningly loud in order to block out the din of the train.

Of course, I wouldn't dream of wearing these, or any other headphones whilst cycling. It's just too damned dangerous for my liking!


----------



## Spokesmann (28 Aug 2010)

Headphone whilst riding?:

NO... NO... NO.


----------



## EssexRider (28 Aug 2010)

No way, sometimes you can't see cars but can hear them so if i ever want music on... i have my phone on loud speaker in my jersey pocket.. but thats very rare i do that anyway.


----------



## DrSquirrel (28 Aug 2010)

RedStork said:


> The only thing I dislike about biking on my own is the silence... Well, actually no, I like silence. I dislike silence interrupted by engines.
> 
> What is everyone's opinion on biking with headphones in? Is it stupid to do, is it dangerous? Is it any different from driving in a car with a CD blaring?



Sometimes the wind noise passing my ears makes hearing useless, so on part of that then not so bad.

I used to use an earplug in just one ear, to cut out the wind noise. I could hten turn my head slightly with the ear plugged ear into the wind and would give me a differential sound without me having to check every few seconds wondering where on earth that "car" I can hear is.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (28 Aug 2010)

I don't bother since my direct commute is too short for boredom to become an issue, and if I was bored doing a detour then I wouldn't be enjoying it so I wouldn't be doing it.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Aug 2010)

You guys should be looking, not listening. Far too many cyclists out there can be seen to be relying on their hearing when pulling out around parked cars and other such manoeuvres.


----------



## HLaB (28 Aug 2010)

Its probably already been said by other folks, I prefer to have that extra sense available. It can be useful to hear a muppet behind before having to turn your head.

Edit: Grammar


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Aug 2010)

What often gets missed here is the poor bike!

Personally I think that the sounds of a bike are important....

The little creak that signifies a loose bolt, that the chain needs oiling etc.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Aug 2010)

No 5h1t Sherlock.


----------



## ian_uk (29 Aug 2010)

I usually ride with my headphones in and on and I know it is said to be dangerous, but in my short time being a cyclist. I have never encountered a situation which would be easier if I could hear fully or where it would be more dangerous to not be able to hear fully, and I struggle to think of a situation where audible warnings would precede visual warnings or where the ability to hear would be beneficial. The only thing I can think of is that you can tell from the engine behind you whether you have a kind and considerate driver following you or a impatient and potentially dangerous driver there instead. Furthermore, it's not like I have lost all of my hearing I can still detect when there is car and when there are emergency vehicles coming up from behind or from side roads. Although I should point out that I don't ride in London or a large city environment which might be radically different with respect to a cyclist's reliance on their hearing.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (29 Aug 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> What often gets missed here is the poor bike!
> 
> Personally I think that the sounds of a bike are important....
> 
> The little creak that signifies a loose bolt, that the chain needs oiling etc.



+1

I'd rather just listen to what the bike is doing*, as I can listen to my music ANY time,* but that subtle noise the bike makes might only be heard the once before something bad happens. I don't want to miss it and end up hitting the road with my chin because I'm listening to my Ipod Nana or whatever they are called this week.

Tell me, why do people seem to think that listening to music is VITAL as though their life somehow depends on it?? do you REALLY have the attention span of a flee with ADHD?? do you REALLY have such a lack of imagination that you have to rely on others to get you through the day lest you get bored by a bit of silence?? are you REALLY incapable of doing anything without the radio on??

Music is nice, yes, but I don't HAVE to RELY on it like I have seen with some people in the my time.


----------



## Bill Gates (29 Aug 2010)

You can have a bit of fun with another rider who's wearing headphones. Shout out "Pillock!"

When they then say "what was that?" You can reply with "where's the nearest hillock?"

(What's that Rumpole?- I said where's the nearest hillock m'lud.)


----------



## Tinuts (29 Aug 2010)

Mad Doug Biker said:


> +1
> 
> I'd rather just listen to what the bike is doing*, as I can listen to my music ANY time,* but that subtle noise the bike makes might only be heard the once before something bad happens. I don't want to miss it and end up hitting the road with my chin because I'm listening to my Ipod Nana or whatever they are called this week.
> 
> ...


Hear Hear!


----------



## BentMikey (29 Aug 2010)

My point is not that you have to listen to music, it's that relying on your hearing will likely show that you're simply not looking enough. Rely on your looking, not on your hearing if you want to be a safe rider.Your hearing can only tell you if there is a noisy vehicle nearby. It's not very good at direction, and it can't tell you that there's definitely no vehicle there.


----------



## Downward (29 Aug 2010)

Tinuts said:


> Hear Hear!




Well you can't really listen anytime - The only time I get to is on the commute. Once your home it's kids and mayhem !!


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Aug 2010)

HLaB said:


> Its probably already been said by other folks, I prefer to have that extra sense available. It can be useful to hear a muppet behind before having to turn your head.
> 
> Edit: Grammar



I ride a lot with my Ipod. I always know when there's a vehicle approaching from behind, because I use a mirror. It helps me see them long before I hear them, with or without headphones on. I find having a mirror is like having eyes in the back of my head.


----------



## Chamfus Flange (29 Aug 2010)

No. Unless there are no other road users.


----------



## MrGrumpy (29 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You guys should be looking, not listening. Far too many cyclists out there can be seen to be relying on their hearing when pulling out around parked cars and other such manoeuvres.



+1 for me as well.

Although to clarify a bit further, in busy cities I think I might not be as blaze about headphones like I am just now. However my brief forays in motorcycling have taught me how important your eyes are!


----------



## martynjc1977 (29 Aug 2010)

I find that above 18mph all i can hear is wind noise, I use my music to cancel that out. I always use my eyes and have never had a problem caused by my headphones.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> You can have a bit of fun with another rider who's wearing headphones. Shout out "Pillock!"
> 
> When they then say "what was that?" You can reply with "where's the nearest hillock?"
> 
> (What's that Rumpole?- I said where's the nearest hillock m'lud.)



Similar - a friend of mine resorts to sign language when he gets verbal abuse. I have tried it - Look vague, wave hands accordingly and watch numpty's face..... excellent fun


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (29 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> My point is not that you have to listen to music, it's that relying on your hearing will likely show that you're simply not looking enough. Rely on your looking, not on your hearing if you want to be a safe rider.Your hearing can only tell you if there is a noisy vehicle nearby. It's not very good at direction, and it can't tell you that there's definitely no vehicle there.



No but it CAN tell you if something unusual is going on behind you the second after you last looked. A skid, a screech of brakes, or a siren, anything which might signify something going on that might need reacting to before you next look ver your shoulder, even it fhat is only 5-6 seconds away.

I don't get how listening = relying upon your hearing


----------



## Tinuts (29 Aug 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> I don't get how listening = relying upon your hearing


Exactly. It should be *listening* & *looking,* not one at the expense of the other.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Aug 2010)

Except that hearing can't tell you when there's a silent vehicle behind you, or more likely a normal vehicle whose approach is hidden by wind noise. You need to look anyway, so the very fact that you're so keen on relying on your hearing implies that you're not looking sufficiently.


----------



## Bill Gates (29 Aug 2010)

You're all missing the point. If a driver uses a hand held mobile phone while driving it's not the lack of control of the vehicle that's the danger but the lack of concentration. hence the same danger if a hands free is used. Reaction times are shown to be less, and potential hazards go unnoticed.

In the same way, I wouldn't use a headset when riding a bike on the road. Not because I wouldn't be able to hear, although that could be dangerous, but because of the lack of concentration.

I listen to music when riding on the turbo but that's because I want to lose concentration so the time doesn't drag. Think about it.


----------



## Dirk Zodiac (29 Aug 2010)

Slipstreamz are what you need,minimal and light they suspend the speakers away from the inner ear,they cut out wind noise but not traffic,
music,podcasts etc come through loud and clear,got them from a internet headphone site[dont recall name]downside is you have to wear them
with a helmet..........oh god wot have I said now!


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

Just back form my sunday ride and enjoyed a good 3hrs of radio 1 today... I'm still alive to tell the tale too!!!!! Its only dangerous if you have it on LOUD... I have mine purely as background noise so you can barely hear it.. i can still hear approaching traffic at all times....


----------



## Jezston (29 Aug 2010)

Mad Doug Biker said:


> +1
> 
> I'd rather just listen to what the bike is doing*, as I can listen to my music ANY time,* but that subtle noise the bike makes might only be heard the once before something bad happens. I don't want to miss it and end up hitting the road with my chin because I'm listening to my Ipod Nana or whatever they are called this week.
> 
> ...





I don't HAVE to, I just like to. And I know that I am perfectly safe doing so.


----------



## Jezston (29 Aug 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> No but it CAN tell you if something unusual is going on behind you the second after you last looked. A skid, a screech of brakes, or a siren, anything which might signify something going on that might need reacting to before you next look ver your shoulder, even it fhat is only 5-6 seconds away.
> 
> I don't get how listening = relying upon your hearing



I can still hear all those things with headphones on.

Some people seem to be under the impression that headphones to your ears are like blindfolds to your eyes. Unless you are wearing heavy duty noise-cancellation or deep in-ear headphones, your typical 'open backed' headphones don't cut out external sound at all, they just add some music on top of it, at a level you feel comfortable with. Also, the foam pads reduce wind noise.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Aug 2010)

Music/radio in a car is not generally considered to be distracting, and is normal practice. It's not comparable with the distraction of a mobile phone call, so that analogy is not a very good one, IMO.


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Music/radio in a car is not generally considered to be distracting, and is normal practice. It's not comparable with the distraction of a mobile phone call, so that analogy is not a very good one, IMO.



+1...... Very good point well made....


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Aug 2010)

Would the people vilifying the use of earphones please say whether they use a mirror on their bike?

If not, then why not? 

After all you are reducing the effectiveness of your rearwards vision, no?

Do you drive a vehicle or ride a motorbike?

Does it have a mirror fitted, and do you find it useful?


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> Would the people vilifying the use of earphones please say whether they use a mirror on their bike?
> 
> If not, then why not?
> 
> ...



No i don't use a mirror on my bike... I have this useful built in aid called my neck which can turn around when needed!!!! And to be honest you only have to ask most people who commute to work in a city on here to tell you that 90% of drivers fail to use their mirrors in the correct fashion anyhow.... 
Bike mirrors are for old people with arthritus in their neck...lol


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Aug 2010)

Fair do's, but my mirror enables me to see EVERYTHING behind me, with no need to constantly take all my vision off the road in front. 

My eyes can roll in their sockets to see the mirror, and also afford me peripheral vision of the road in front (where, incidently I'm heading). Looking back over the shoulder affords me a rearward glance, but no forward vision whatsoever. 

As a vehicle gets closer I will do a quick 'lifesaver' over my shoulder. This will do 2 things: confirm the vehicles proximity, and let the driver know I know they are there.

.................................And I get to listen to Take That greatest hits at the same time - bonza!


----------



## Jezston (29 Aug 2010)

I tried a mirror once, but found it shook around too much to be useful. Unless I just had a rubbish one?


----------



## ComedyPilot (29 Aug 2010)

Jezston said:


> I tried a mirror once, but found it shook around too much to be useful. Unless I just had a rubbish one?



Rubber sleeving in the mount.

You get a bit of shake off-road, but tarmac roads are fine.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Aug 2010)

I rather think mirrors are a red herring too - to me they're an aid to looking, and don't replace the looking however it's done. As for all the drivers not using their mirrors, sure, I agree, but the same goes for the many cyclists not looking behind enough either.I use mirrors on the recumbent, but don't need them on my upright fixed wheel.


----------



## Norm (29 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I rather think mirrors are a red herring too - to me they're an aid to looking, and don't replace the looking however it's done. As for all the drivers not using their mirrors, sure, I agree, but the same goes for the many cyclists not looking behind enough either.I use mirrors on the recumbent, but don't need them on my upright fixed wheel.


+1 to all of that, other than the bit about the 'bent but only because I don't have one! 

The action of using a mirror also isn't seen be drivers around you, whereas a driver seeing you looking over your shoulder might turn you from a cyclist into a human and might also be interpreted as a precursor to another action, such as moving across your lane.


----------



## Bill Gates (29 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Music/radio in a car is not generally considered to be distracting, and is normal practice. It's not comparable with the distraction of a mobile phone call, so that analogy is not a very good one, IMO.



.......and if the music was exceptionally loud? Like wearing headphones so that you couldn't hear anything else?.......and this wouldn't affect your concentration. Try typing at the keyboard or reading a book whilst wearing headphones and then without. If there's a difference then it's down to concentration. Same happens on a bike.

Sh!t happens enough on the road as it is without adding to the danger of tilting the odds against safety. Personally I like to control all things controllable. Using my ears is controllable.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Aug 2010)

I do it quite easily thankyou...but as I have heard these songs so many times I find it easy to switch off to them and easy to listen to when things aren't so hectic.Check out my videos if you doubt my concentration.

Not that I really want you to or care if you do but I was just trying to put through a point.


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Aug 2010)

Oh yeah...I don't have the music loud as I don't want to go deaf....Pardon?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 Aug 2010)

Jezston said:


> I tried a mirror once, but found it shook around too much to be useful. Unless I just had a rubbish one?




you did. Zefal Spy mirror for any bike type or Zefal Doobck for flat/slightly moustachioed bars - no arms between clamp/plug and mirror to shake about so both are remarkably stable even on the worst roads that I've been on & over 1/4 mile of cobbles.

I've not read this through from the start and might even have posted way back when on this, but on impairments: 

I ride with previously broken vertibrae & significant muscle damage in my neck and turn my head very rarely because of the rotational problems this still gives, so I can sympathise with the 'compensatory sense' argument of long term headphone wearers because I am a perfectly safe rider with mirrors - 10 years since I broke it, no accidents or near misses down to me / not seeing something behind. I use my ears far more and to far better effect since my accident that ever before it.

I don't wear headphones because I've already got one impaired sense in my rearward vision and don't want to make things any worse by deliberately hamstringing another one. I've got headphones galore of many types which I use when hill & dog walking and indoors but never as a pedestrian as all of them cut out noise to some degree or another & all by too much for my personal comfort zone with cars around.
Radio on my desk at work and someone wanders up behind me = I hear them, headphones in = it takes a tap on the shoulder to get my attention. Translate that to the roads and the thing tapping me on the shoulder will be a ton and a half and doing 30 odd mph.

Also the distraction of music piped direct into your head is more akin to a mobile phone pressed to your ear than ambient speakers otherwise car stereos would be prohibited and there'd be plenty of the grumpy rider types haranguing motorists over their radios in the same way they do their mobiles. 

Would any of the pro-headphoners ever dare to cycle with one eye taped shut or with something cutting out half the vision in both of them, or a virtual reality goggle on, playing a film you really like direct into one eye or partly into both?

but going back off topic, bringing (decent) mirrors into the argument is spurious as they enhance what you're seeing by giving you simultaneous front and rear vision, or compensate for a physical failing in my case, rather than being used to block part of your sensory arsenal.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 Aug 2010)

Norm said:


> +1 to all of that, other than the bit about the 'bent but only because I don't have one!
> 
> The action of using a mirror also isn't seen be drivers around you, whereas a driver seeing you looking over your shoulder might turn you from a cyclist into a human and *might also be interpreted as a precursor to another action, such as moving across your lane.*



I tend to *indicate this* by sticking my arm out before I change lane or direction. far more definite (no might caveat needed with an arm stuck out) and visible than a head turn, which would last for less time than an outstretched arm and which is far more easily missed by the driver or misinterpreted as a routine backward glance just to see whats there (as per most decent motorists who use their car mirrors at other times than when executing a change manouvre)


----------



## Bigsharn (30 Aug 2010)

On regards to the original topic, what's wrong with mounting a set of battery powered speakers on the handlebars and just using them? Surely they're better (and somewhat safer) than headphones


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2010)

No, Norm is absolutely right. Just indicating is nowhere near as good as a proper look back for interacting with drivers and getting them to treat you a little more nicely. Many drivers *hate* cyclists that are not seen to be looking back. For those that can't look back, this is a disadvantage. I'm closer to this than you might think given that it's hard to look back on the bent, so I compensate with better signalling.

Again, the mobile phone analogy is rubbish. Taping up one eye is also unrealistic. You need vision to ride P1, you don't need hearing.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2010)

@Sean, I don't see why headphones or speakers are any different really?


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Aug 2010)

I see plenty of cyclists moving out/going righ without looking back...I take it they are relying on their hearing.

Bank junction is a good example of this.


----------



## Alien8 (30 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> ... and I'm closer to this than you might think given that it's hard to look back on the bent, so I compensate with better signalling.



Does this, the restricted ability to look behind, make you feel more vulnerable when manoeuvring on your bent compared to when you're riding an upright?

I think I would find it very disturbing if I couldn't physically turn to look behind when manoeuvring in traffic.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2010)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I tend to *indicate this* by sticking my arm out before I change lane or direction. far more definite (no might caveat needed with an arm stuck out) and visible than a head turn, which would last for less time than an outstretched arm and which is far more easily missed by the driver or misinterpreted as a routine backward glance just to see whats there (as per most decent motorists who use their car mirrors at other times than when executing a change manouvre)


I see that you are responding to something in your reading, something which was specifically not in what I wrote. Moving across a lane is not the same as changing lane. As BM says, there are also benefits of being seen to take some personal responsibility.

If there is traffic around which could benefit from my signalling, I will signal appropriately when changing lanes.

When I'm moving around within the lane, to overtake parked vehicles, move to primary etc, I usually don't signal.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2010)

Alien8 said:


> Does this, the restricted ability to look behind, make you feel more vulnerable when manoeuvring on your bent compared to when you're riding an upright?<br /><br />I think I would find it very disturbing if I couldn't physically turn to look behind when manoeuvring in traffic.<br /><br /><br />



I take it that you drive, and I assume you don't find it very disturbing to use the mirrors in your car?

I can look behind if I want to, it's just much easier to use mirrors and blind spot checks like I would when driving. So, no, I don't feel more vulnerable, in fact I feel considerably safer on the bent than on an upright.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2010)

Norm said:


> When I'm moving around within the lane, to overtake parked vehicles, move to primary etc, I usually don't signal.<br />



Is that best practice though, assuming there is another vehicle behind you, for example?


----------



## Alien8 (30 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> ... in fact I feel considerably safer on the bent than on an upright.




Why's that then?

Having never ridden a bent I'm just interested in the differences between upright and bent riding - both physical and behavioural.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Is that best practice though, assuming there is another vehicle behind you, for example?


Well, obviously I think so or I wouldn't do it. 

It's something I was advised for motorbike training, signal to change lanes, life-saver to check that the tarmac is clear when moving within your lane. 

I wouldn't advise / expect everyone to do it, even though it serves me well. You need to be pretty confident, possibly assertive but, hey, some people think that Cyclecraft is the cure to all cycling problems.  None of this stuff can be considered a blanket approach.

Sometimes, I do signal when moving within my lane, but it's often with only one or two fingers and that's also not something you'll find in the Highway Code.


----------



## Jezston (30 Aug 2010)

shouldbeinbed said:


> you did. Zefal Spy mirror for any bike type or Zefal Doobck for flat/slightly moustachioed bars - no arms between clamp/plug and mirror to shake about so both are remarkably stable even on the worst roads that I've been on & over 1/4 mile of cobbles.



I shall check these out. Would certainly be handy.



shouldbeinbed said:


> I've not read this through from the start and might even have posted way back when on this, but on impairments:
> 
> Also the distraction of music piped direct into your head is more akin to a mobile phone pressed to your ear than ambient speakers otherwise car stereos would be prohibited and there'd be plenty of the grumpy rider types haranguing motorists over their radios in the same way they do their mobiles.
> 
> Would any of the pro-headphoners ever dare to cycle with one eye taped shut or with something cutting out half the vision in both of them, or a virtual reality goggle on, playing a film you really like direct into one eye or partly into both?



I shall give you the benefit of the doubt as you haven't read the rest of this lengthy thread so won't have seen my rebuffals to such statements! But, I shall quote an earlier answer I gave:



> Some people seem to be under the impression that headphones to your ears are like blindfolds to your eyes. Unless you are wearing heavy duty noise-cancellation or deep in-ear headphones, your typical 'open backed' headphones don't cut out external sound at all, they just add some music on top of it, at a level you feel comfortable with. Also, the foam pads reduce wind noise.


----------



## nilling (31 Aug 2010)

Only tried it once on my commute, but found it all too distracting. Ear piece kept falling out then couldn't FF past duff tracks. Much prefer my own karaoke 'internal jukebox'


----------



## Jezston (31 Aug 2010)

nilling said:


> Only tried it once on my commute, but found it all too distracting. Ear piece kept falling out then couldn't FF past duff tracks. Much prefer my own karaoke 'internal jukebox'



Get a pair of these then like me 
http://www.jabra.com...abrabt620s.aspx
(WARNING - website blasts out loud music without warning after a few seconds)

Bluetooth so no cables, controls on the headphones themselves, fit well with helmets!


----------



## Bigsharn (31 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> @Sean, I don't see why headphones or speakers are any different really?



In my opinion, there is no difference but in the eyes of the law you can legally have AN earpiece, but not two. Speakers on the other hand are completely legal to have either side of you, as long as they're not in direct contact with the body... Depending on the type of headphone (be it noise cancelling, in-ear, over the ear making a vacuum so only the sound from the speaker goes in)


----------



## Ravenbait (31 Aug 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> In my opinion, there is no difference but in the eyes of the law you can legally have AN earpiece, but not two. Speakers on the other hand are completely legal to have either side of you, as long as they're not in direct contact with the body... Depending on the type of headphone (be it noise cancelling, in-ear, over the ear making a vacuum so only the sound from the speaker goes in)


Which piece of legislation? I was unaware of there being a legal aspect.

Sam


----------



## ian_uk (31 Aug 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> In my opinion, there is no difference but in the eyes of the law you can legally have AN earpiece, but not two. Speakers on the other hand are completely legal to have either side of you, as long as they're not in direct contact with the body... Depending on the type of headphone (be it noise cancelling, in-ear, over the ear making a vacuum so only the sound from the speaker goes in)






Ravenbait said:


> Which piece of legislation? I was unaware of there being a legal aspect.
> 
> Sam




I don't think there is a specific law against the use of headphones, but in the UK, they can prosecute you for 'riding without due care and attention' since a bicycle is considered a vehicle.


----------



## Jezston (31 Aug 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Which piece of legislation? I was unaware of there being a legal aspect.
> 
> Sam



+1

You aren't confusing some piece of legislation regarding handsfree phone headsets in cars are you?


----------



## Bigsharn (31 Aug 2010)

Nope, working in PCV you learn stupid, petty bits of legislation that people can (and do) lose their licenses over, and one of them is having two earpieces in at once.


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> Nope, working in PCV you learn stupid, petty bits of legislation that people can (and do) lose their licenses over, and one of them is having two earpieces in at once.



But it's not against said legislation to do so on a bicycle.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2010)

Soul Cycle:


----------



## Crankarm (31 Aug 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> Nope, working in PCV you learn stupid, petty bits of legislation that people can (and do) lose their licenses over, and one of them is having two earpieces in at once.



It would be most helpful if you could quote the relevant piece of legislation or secondary legislation to which you refer.


----------



## stevieboy378 (1 Sep 2010)

I wear headphones while cycling, but only in one ear - I like to be able to hear whats happening around me. 
I don't listen to loud music, but have my iPod loaded with lots of audiobooks. I find it very relaxing to listen to a good book on a long ride, and it helps on those inevitable dull sections that all long distance rides tend to have . . . .


----------



## Jezston (1 Sep 2010)

stevieboy378 said:


> I wear headphones while cycling, but only in one ear - I like to be able to hear whats happening around me.
> I don't listen to loud music, but have my iPod loaded with lots of audiobooks. I find it very relaxing to listen to a good book on a long ride, and it helps on those inevitable dull sections that all long distance rides tend to have . . . .



You should try both ears - it'll sound much better and you'll still be able to hear around you 

It's made me think, though - are audiobooks perhaps more distracting than music?


----------



## Norm (1 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> What often gets missed here is the poor bike!
> 
> Personally I think that the sounds of a bike are important....
> 
> The little creak that signifies a loose bolt, that the chain needs oiling etc.


Or, as I found this morning, the noise of a pannier strap which has come loose and is hitting a spoke. 

If I hadn't heard that clicking, it might have got caught up and locked the rear wheel, which isn't something that I'd recommend for a rush-hour commute, even in rural Buckinghamshire.


----------



## Leah (1 Sep 2010)

I use earphones, but only with the music on quietly and to be honest, I concentrate so much on cycling and whats around me that I rarely remember what I have been listening to. I find they actually cancel out wind noise and often help me to pick up on engine noise behind me better.


----------



## Ravenbait (1 Sep 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> Nope, working in PCV you learn stupid, petty bits of legislation that people can (and do) lose their licenses over, and one of them is having two earpieces in at once.



Could you please advise as to which piece of legislation this would be?

I went googling and couldn't find anything. There are certainly laws in some of the US States regarding headphones while driving, but I've found nothing to indicate there is anything in UK legislation banning the use of headphones. It would be necessary to prove "driving without due care and attention".

Sam


----------



## Bigsharn (1 Sep 2010)

gaz said:


> But it's not against said legislation to do so on a bicycle.





Crankarm said:


> It would be most helpful if you could quote the relevant piece of legislation or secondary legislation to which you refer.




Less so illegal, but you can be done for Driving without care and attention. If you're in a crash and it's the third party's fault they can do you on that for having headphones in, whereas one headphone makes no difference, apparently.

After asking my work manager, professional drivers (PCV, LGV and HGV) aren't allowed to use dual earpieces, but as I say if you're in an accident on another vehicle you can be held liable because of it


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2010)

SeanLawrence said:


> Less so illegal, but you can be done for Driving without care and attention. If you're in a crash and it's the third party's fault they can do you on that for having headphones in, whereas one headphone makes no difference, apparently.
> 
> After asking my work manager, professional drivers (PCV, LGV and HGV) aren't allowed to use dual earpieces, but as I say if you're in an accident on another vehicle you can be held liable because of it



I ask again if you could please link to the legislation you are seeking to rely on, otherwise one can only conclude that your posts are purely anecdotal. It might well be that what you have been told is merely the policy of your organisation and has no basis in law.


----------



## Bromptonaut (1 Sep 2010)

ian_uk said:


> I don't think there is a specific law against the use of headphones, but in the UK, they can prosecute you for 'riding without due care and attention' since a bicycle is considered a vehicle.



Is there an example of conviction for riding without due care and attention? My understanding was that the only option for the prosecutor was 'riding furiously' or some such thing.


----------



## Bromptonaut (1 Sep 2010)

and on an allied subject - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11153918 (MP3 players banned in Truro half marathon)


----------



## Bigsharn (2 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554499"]
Correct, another piece of legislation that is slightly different is (correct me if I'm wrong) in a car you can be by the side of the road speaking on the phone with the handbrake applied in neutral with the engine still running. However in a PSV you have to turn the engine off.
[/quote]

Sorry to tell you but you've been misinformed. As long as a bus is waiting at a stop or on a stand the driver can talk on a phone, open and close doors and adjust signage on his vehicle (the glowing thing on the front, back and sides showing the route number and destination)




Crankarm said:


> I ask again if you could please link to the legislation you are seeking to rely on, otherwise one can only conclude that your posts are purely anecdotal. It might well be that what you have been told is merely the policy of your organisation and has no basis in law.



It's a potential question on the PCV theory test, I can't find a link but you can ask any local bus operator registered with the CPT and they'll tell you the same. The easiest way to combat it is to allow a wireless earpiece and not permit personal media equipment in the cab at all (which is our company policy), but even then there are workarounds (playing music via a bluetooth phone for instance).


----------



## Ravenbait (2 Sep 2010)

Could be part of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 [PPVA]. It's certainly not listed under the "rules for drivers" in the Highway Code, so I don't think it's from the Road Traffic Act.

Sam


----------



## adscrim (2 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Could be part of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 [PPVA]. It's certainly not listed under the "rules for drivers" in the Highway Code, so I don't think it's from the Road Traffic Act.
> 
> Sam




The rules for motorcyclists suggest the rider "Consider wearing ear protection". Surely such protection would be little better that wearing headphones.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2010)

adscrim said:


> The rules for motorcyclists suggest the rider &quot;Consider wearing ear protection&quot;.  Surely such protection would be little better that wearing headphones.



Nah, it's fine for motor vehicle operators to block their hearing like this, or with closed windows and radio in the car. It's only cyclists that aren't allowed to do this, that or someone is talking bollocks.


----------



## Jezston (3 Sep 2010)

Well, I think we can safely say, in response to the OP:

"Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?"

YES!

The End.


----------



## Norm (3 Sep 2010)

adscrim said:


> The rules for motorcyclists suggest the rider "Consider wearing ear protection". Surely such protection would be little better that wearing headphones.





BentMikey said:


> Nah, it's fine for motor vehicle operators to block their hearing like this, or with closed windows and radio in the car. It's only cyclists that aren't allowed to do this, that or someone is talking bollocks.


You really can't see the difference between a motorcyclist wearing ear plugs and a rider wearing headphones?

Let me help you with a couple:

Motorbikes travelling over about 50mph for a sustained period will create enough wind noise to damage hearing. Cyclists don't have that problem.
Motorbike ear protection is designed to work most on the dangerous frequencies. In other words, it reduces the wind noise but has less effect on sound frequencies in the range of the human voice or sirens. Motorcyclist ear protection improves the ability to hear other noises around the rider.
Motorcyclist earplugs do not introduce another noise which may itself be a distraction.
Motorcyclists are more likely to be travelling at the same speed as the traffic around them, so they are less vulnerable to unseen traffic coming up behind them.
None of that distracts from your earlier point, Mike, that listening is *not* a 100% substitute for looking, but I do think that someone is indeed talking bollocks.


----------



## ian_uk (4 Sep 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> Is there an example of conviction for riding without due care and attention? My understanding was that the only option for the prosecutor was 'riding furiously' or some such thing.



I'm not a lawyer or anything but the Road Traffic Act 1988 definitely cites the whole due care and attention thing, 



> *29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling *
> 
> If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
> In this section “road” includes a bridleway.



This is the problem we these sort of laws, they are very subjective, in some cases and to some people the wearing of headphones wouldn't affect your ability to give 'due care and attention', while in other cases and to other people, it would. In response to your earlier question. I honestly don't know, I just knew that you could get done for it. It's just one of those things I guess, you either feel comfortable running the risk or you don't. 

PS, I am a headphone wearer usually.


----------



## Tinuts (4 Sep 2010)

Jezston said:


> Well, I think we can safely say, in response to the OP:
> 
> "Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?"
> 
> ...


In your dreams!


----------



## BentMikey (4 Sep 2010)

The bollocks bit is thinking that you need hearing to be safe on a bicycle.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Sep 2010)

_*29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling *

If a person rides a cycle on a road *without due care and attention*, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence. 
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.
_ 

I was done for this in 1976. It was while I was on holiday in Devon. I lived in London and the cost of going back down to Devon to defend it outweighed the severity of the fine.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Sep 2010)

Listening to music affects your mood. I know that if I had rock music on the car stereo I drove more aggressively than if I listened to classical. Just a point


----------



## palinurus (4 Sep 2010)

I only ever listen to free jazz on the bike. Sharpens you up it does.

****s your rhythm up though.


----------



## potsy (4 Sep 2010)

Jezston said:


> Well, I think we can safely say, in response to the OP:
> 
> "Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?"
> 
> ...



Why is this thread continuing? It has been officially closed by Jezston





I used to wear them 75% of the time,now maybe 25% as I stay 'on road' most of the time now,avoiding the shared paths wherever I can.


----------



## ComedyPilot (4 Sep 2010)

Yeah, close this thread, then another will open in a few weeks and we'll all go round the houses..................again.


----------



## potsy (4 Sep 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> Yeah, close this thread, then another will open in a few weeks and we'll all go round the houses..................again.



Yes but we could get Jez to 'end' the thread earlier than page 28 next time


----------



## MacB (12 Sep 2010)

Well I went out for 24miles yesterday and finally tried out my new, had them a few months, Salsa clip MP3 and Seinnheiser earphones. these are the type that hook over your ear and sit on the outside rather than insert into ear canal. I'd like to report that there were good, bad and embarrassing results:-

Good - could still hear traffic, really enjoyed the experience and didn't feel at all cut off from reality, possibly did even more shoulder checks than normal, no bad thing. Some of the tracks seemed to have some interesting accompaniment until I realised it was wind noise.

Bad - I'd bunged on(proper way of saying ripped) all music in the house and haven't organised proper playlists etc yet. There was some pretty dire stuff of which the worst was suddenly listening to a song from an old western musical about Liberty Valance. This was followed by some of my eldests heavy thrash metal, not a good mix.

Embarrassing - bit of Motown came on as I approached some lights and, before I knew it, I was doing a semi track stand(ie rolling very slowly) while jigging on the pedals. Not known for my dancing or rythm I can only apologise to the motorists who had to witness this. A fat bloke in red Spanish national team bib shorts, brown fleece, blue socks and black trainers. I may even having been singing along, badly, at one point as well  

So I pronounce cycling with headphones as safe though I may be risking arrest by the fashion, and good taste, police.


----------



## karlos_the_jackal (13 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> So I pronounce cycling with headphones as safe though I may be risking arrest by the fashion, and good taste, police.




I wear one ear phone in my left ear at low volume. 

I'm a CIRM which means chartered member on the institute of risk management. You are not minimising the risk but i would rather do that and not run red lights. Risk v Reward. 

the only really question is the playlist and the fact that i have one ear in but everybody else at traffic lights can hear the other ear.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Sep 2010)

That's assuming you are incurring additional risk by listening to music. I don't believe so, since you need to look to be safe. Hearing can't prove that another vehicle is not there, so you always need to look.


----------



## bryce (13 Sep 2010)

I have used one headphone in my left ear commuting through London for a few years and it's never caused me any problems. It's never loud and the right ear compensates and there's usually more 'danger noise' from the right. I can't think of a situation where it would cause an issue (if someone said something to me from the left I would still hear them).


----------



## Camgreen (13 Sep 2010)

Recently experienced blocked ears, more so in my right. Personally for me cycling at the time was a really unnerving as I struggled to hear the traffic noise around me that I'd previously been used to.

I've never tried earphones while riding and based on my experiences from above, probably not likely to. Down to personal preference I guess.


----------



## Moodyman (13 Sep 2010)

I think headphones are safe if you, the wearer, feel safe.

I don't feel safe using my eyes alone so don't wear them. But I know others who've been wearing them for years with no probs.


----------



## Bromptonaut (13 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The bollocks bit is thinking that you need hearing to be safe on a bicycle.




You can be quite safe on bicycle without hearing but you're a bit safer with it. Eyes are primary tool but ears are an important secondary.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Sep 2010)

I don't think hearing is an important secondary. It doesn't help your safety at all, and for a rider to think so is IMO almost always showing up a weakness of their riding.


----------



## Sittingduck (13 Sep 2010)

Why on Earth would I want to limit or block a key sense by sticking headphones on?
It's a no-brainer IMHO


----------



## BentMikey (13 Sep 2010)

The point is that it's not a key sense for riding or for your safety. You have to look anyway in order to be safe, so hearing isn't required, even if you like hearing stuff.


----------



## davefb (13 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The point is that it's not a key sense for riding or for your safety. You have to look anyway in order to be safe, so hearing isn't required, even if you like hearing stuff.



might not be primary skill,, but hearing can be handy..


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DATtvvo-kTw


----------



## Jezston (13 Sep 2010)

Sittingduck said:


> Why on Earth would I want to limit or block a key sense by sticking headphones on?
> It's a no-brainer IMHO



I suggest you read the rest of this thread and consider revising that statement


----------



## BentMikey (13 Sep 2010)

davefb said:


> might not be primary skill,, but hearing can be handy..
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DATtvvo-kTw





How did my sense of hearing help me there? I expect that he was relying on his sense of hearing a little, or he'd have taken more than a fraction of a second and actually looked properly.


----------



## Sittingduck (13 Sep 2010)

Jezston said:


> I suggest you read the rest of this thread and consider revising that statement



Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

As with all these questions: I don't think it is a safe/not safe answer. But are there occasions when hearing can help you out. 

Last week on a single track road in the middle of nowhere (south of Silloth if you are interested). High hedges, so completely blind, a 90 degree right bend in the road. A cart track leads off to the left (ie straight ahead for anyone coming down the road in the opposite direction. It is early in the morning, not seen any traffic for the last two or three miles. approaching the bend I slow up &amp; keep wide so that if anything appears coming the other way (unlikely as it would seem) I can dive left into the farm track. I hear something coming and at the last moment realize that it is coming too fast to be turning the corner. Hit the brakes as a farmer in his 4x4 shoots straight across the junction and into the farm track. If I hadn't heard him coming he would have taken me out.<br>That doesn't mean it is 'unsafe' to wear headphones


----------



## marzjennings (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554531"]
What? Sorry (what am I on about I'm not sorry) the above is rubbish.

Traffic coming up behind you, do you see them first or hear them first? You may argue that you can check behind you at regular intervals to mitigate this but I'd be more concerned what is in front of me and only check when I need to i.e when I HEAR traffic approaching.

If you want to test this BM, tape up your ears so you can't hear anything then go out for a ride and then tell me you don't think 'it is an importnant secondary.'
[/quote]


I don't think it's rubbish at all and I'll even go as far to say what you hear can be misleading. People become dependent on hearing what dangers may be at hand and forego looking. How many times has a ped stepped out in front of you because they didn't hear you coming? They may have been listening out for a car, didn't hear one, didn't both to visually look to see if the road as clear and just stepped out. I've seen cyclists do the same thing at Give Way signs, they've rolled up to the junction, not heard a car coming and just rolled on through almost colliding with another equally silent bike already on the road.

The only way to be safe on the road is to look and then look again. To use you equal test, folks should learn to ride a bike without hearing anything to get into the habit of using vision as their first and seconday awareness tools.

I've heard the same reasoning before that riders wish to hear cars approaching from the rear. Why, what's that going to do for you? Tell you there's a car on the road behind you. You're on the road, you should always assume there's a car behind and only ever look to see if it's clear. What are you going to do if all cars go electric?


----------



## MacB (13 Sep 2010)

I think that leads nicely into the helmet debate:-

we need a full head helmet with external sensors for sound, vision and motion, the results to be projected on an internal heads up display. Further supported by a 'sat nav voice' giving general instructions and the odd reassurance like 'you're a man not a machine'.


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

& seeing for some reason I can't get this link to work in my original post here is where it all happened 
My link


----------



## davefb (13 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> How did my sense of hearing help me there? I expect that he was relying on his sense of hearing a little, or he'd have taken more than a fraction of a second and actually looked properly.




sorry,

yes meant his .

just seems hipocritical for riders to not worry about it,, but at the same time complaining about peds who walk out with earphones on..


----------



## Norm (13 Sep 2010)

marzjennings said:


> What are you going to do if all cars go electric?




[QUOTE 554538"] Your third paragraph is meaningless bearing in mind that there are no electric cars on the road at the moment and there probably won't be either for the foreseeable future. [/quote]
And, even if there were, have a good listen (without headphones  ) to the next few cars which pass you, Marz, and you may change that line of reasoning. 

I think that most of the noise that you will hear from a modern car, unless it is accelerating, is the tyres on the tarmac which still happens, even with electric cars.


----------



## Arfcollins (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554364"]
>>Don't agree, when I did use headphones I used to have it loud enough to listen to podcasts and mainly radio. You're assuming I absolutely have to hear everything above traffic, which isn't true. I accept that I will miss some of the output when a loud car goes past - *just as I have to accept that if I'm chatting with a roadie mate, I'm not going to hear his every word when cars go past*.<<
_*
Why not? Because of a loud car? I suggest you go down the ENT clinic and request an audiogram*_.
[/quote]

That's ridiculous Lee. I too listen to 'talk radio' when cycling, adjusted to a comfortable level for the mostly quiet route to work, and I put up with some of it being drowned out on the main road. The fact that it is drowned out means I'm hearing the traffic!

In reply to others, we seem to have only one admitted example of a SMIDHY in this string, and even he has this refuted by another poster. Those who think we should be analysing accident statistics for the use of headphones will need to ensure that deaf casualties are included. I'm not aware of any of the cycling or safety organisations suggesting that deaf cyclists should stick to the turbo trainer. Go figure.


----------



## Bromptonaut (13 Sep 2010)

Mikey, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree over this.

If you feel safe without hearing fair enough. I'd rather have the clues it gives me. Not just on the stuff I might see if I had constant 360degree vision but the ambulance round the corner and the motorbike behind the bus. Anyway, my commute is too short for music to add anything.


----------



## marzjennings (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554538"]
You're first two paragraphs have no bearing on what I wrote (and the example I gave).

Your third paragraph is meaningless bearing in mind that there are no electric cars on the road at the moment and there probably won't be either for the foreseeable future.

As for the bit in bold, by hearing and not looking (for example) I can tell how fast the car is being driven, how fast it is approaching and where it is in relation to me and the time before it passes me. I then take this information and use it to assess my position, the traffic in front which may affect the line of the car who will overtake. If you take that away and just rely on your sight then you are just making riding a bike that little bit harder.
[/quote]

The first two paragraphs were in reference to my counter theory that being able to hear traffic can be misleading and possibly not of a benefit to a rider. 

My third paragraph was a silly hypothetical.

To your last paragraph all I read is that you're being distracted by attempting to assess traffic conditions behind you by listening to engine noises. If you're in traffic then the assumption is there will be a car behind you and if you know there's a car behind you should have already looked back and assessed its risk. If you're coming up to a line of traffic you should again look to see where that car is positioning themselves and sometimes a look back and catching that drivers eye stops them doing something stupid.

Now out in the county on quiet lanes you may get super chav come revving up behind you in some pimped out Fiat. Now you'd have heard them coming and what are you going to do? Move over, close to the hedge and allow them to squeeze past or maintain the legal position you were already in before you heard their car. If you're not looking over your shoulder frequently you're not riding safely and if you don't like looking over your shoulder, get a mirror. 


The only noise that is important to hear is that of a siren and you have to have some pretty good earphones and some loud music not here a siren.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Sep 2010)

davefb said:


> sorry,
> 
> yes meant his .
> 
> just seems hipocritical for riders to not worry about it,, but at the same time complaining about peds who walk out with earphones on..



I agree about the hypocrisy. I don't mind peds wearing earphones or not, I only prefer them to look before crossing the road. Even then I'm not massively bothered, because I'm looking for pedestrians and allowing for their mistakes. They're not going to hear me on a bicycle anyway.

It's a bit like how I'm not worried about drivers with their windows up (much worse than earphones), or even *gasp* playing the radio.


----------



## Jezston (14 Sep 2010)

I'm not sure how many times I've said this already, but I feel I need to say it again.

*A conventional pair of open-backed head/earphones do not restrict your ability to hear loud noises.

Even with your music turned up to hearing-damaging levels, it will still be quieter than a close accellerating engine or a siren.*

Most MP3 players are currently limited to 80-90dB, which is 'very loud' in real terms. Typical listening volume that could be considered 'loud' would be around 72dB

An ambulance siren is a shocking 123dB at 3 meters, decreasing in a non-linear rate (inverse square) over distance - reflective surfaces such as buildings making it carry even further. The ambulance would half to be _several hundred meters_ away (approx half a kilometer!), if in the countryside, before the volume decreased to a level where someone listen to white noise at full volume might not be able to hear it.

A typical car engine when accellerating will produce 90dB at 3 meters. When listening to music at a typical volume it would only be totally masked out at 20m away - and again that's if you are listening to white noise. The sound of a car engine is a broadband noise sound - listening to typical music you will still hear it at 50m away.


----------



## JoysOfSight (14 Sep 2010)

It's funny how many people confuse the fact that they *like* to be able to hear what's going on with not being safe if they *can't* hear what is going on...

I completely understand *liking* to hear stuff; but the bottom line is that if I lost my hearing, I would be able to keep on riding just the way I do now and not be any the worse off, because I use my eyes to check what is going on.

It's not hard. Assume that you are always about to be overtaken unless you've physically checked that it's not the case. Then, no matter whether you are being passed by an HGV, electric car, electric scooter (getting pretty quiet) or just a faster cyclist than you (silent) you won't be caught out.

If you're not going to bother looking, then you *can* use your ears to make you a little safer. But admitting that is admitting that the way you ride is fundamentally not safe, because not everything that will hit you can be guaranteed to be heard over ambient noise.

Interestingly I lost my iPod for a few months (damn winter jacket pocket!) so have been riding without it. I'm concerned that I'm starting to get the sort of bad habit listening problems people describe above.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think hearing is an important secondary. It doesn't help your safety at all, and for a rider to think so is IMO almost always showing up a weakness of their riding.



Not since Cab's last post have I ever read such rubbish.


----------



## JoysOfSight (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554549"]If I'm going down a road which has no traffic am I not riding safely by not looking over my shoulder frequently?[/quote]

How do you know there's no traffic unless you look? 

Having said that, I think the whole "coming up behind" thing is a bit of a red herring. On the open road the moment you need to commit to diving onto the verge is earlier than you can tell whether they're going to hit you or skim past. But do people dive off all the time? No. You have to take it on trust that you're not going to get nailed, whatever your eyes or ears are telling you.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> How do you know there's no traffic unless you look?
> 
> Having said that, I think the whole "coming up behind" thing is a bit of a red herring. On the open road the moment you need to commit to diving onto the verge is earlier than you can tell whether they're going to hit you or skim past. But do people dive off all the time? No. You have to take it on trust that you're not going to get nailed, whatever your eyes or ears are telling you.



I think that a lot depends on the type of road you are riding on. On my commute half of them are very rural and I would say that hearing is important as I can factor in my road position accordingly. 

If I hear a car / tractor behind me and I also note that ther is a car / corner also approaching from the opposite direction then I would take a strong primary to control the situation, if there was no such hazard then I would continue in secondary. There is no point on this part of the journey to make constant shoulder checks as at times I can go 20 minutes between seeing a car.

In the urban part of the journey then I would carry out a lot more shoulder checks as the traffic volume blends into one.

However not once have I ever thought that wearing anything that would restrict my hearing a good idea much along the lines of deciding that cycling with one eye closed would be a bad idea.


----------



## Jezston (14 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> However not once have I ever thought that wearing anything that would restrict my hearing a good idea much along the lines of deciding that cycling with one eye closed would be a bad idea.



My argument is that wearing headphones is more akin to wearing sunglasses in terms of it's affect on your senses.


----------



## marzjennings (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554549"]
Not distracted at all, I am just trying to give an example of where hearing as well as seeing can benefit.

As for the other bits in bold you are trying to teach the teacher. I would say though that the bit in italics is a bit far fetched and perhaps you can elaborate? If I'm going down a road which has no traffic am I not riding safely by not looking over my shoulder frequently?
[/quote]

Apologies if I'm trying to delivery coals to newcastle. I constantly check behind me, some of which comes from advanced driver training where I'd get asked constantly during training to confirm the make, model and number plate of the car behind and buzzing through London on the bike where I'd be checking every direction cars could be coming from. Even riding the small country roads around Cornwall, where you don't see a car for miles I'd still be checking every dozen or so pedal revolutions. I guess I like to know what's behind me and I'm surprised others may be depending on, what I consider to be, poor information from their ears.

Therefore, no, I don't think you're riding safely by not looking your shoulder frequently, even on roads with no traffic.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

Jezston said:


> My argument is that wearing headphones is more akin to wearing sunglasses in terms of it's affect on your senses.



Then your argument is flawed.


----------



## Jezston (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554557"]
Not quite sure how you can compare having headphones in your ear to wearing sunglasses?
[/quote]

It was a poor analogy, but I feel the impression many people seem to have of the affect of wearing headphones on your ability to hear the world around you is hugely exaggerated. I believe using headphones no more leaves you deaf to the world as sunglasses leave you blind.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554557"]
Not quite sure how you can compare having headphones in your ear to wearing sunglasses?
[/quote]

To to be fair wearing headphones would stop flies flying into your ear


----------



## JoysOfSight (14 Sep 2010)

The problem with the sunglasses analogy is that you can't ride safely if you're blind, whereas you can ride safely if you can't hear, as in fact you can easily demonstrate to yourself by buying a pair of cheap earplugs and riding to work. The world will shockingly fail to end and those who are inclined to lane change by sound will probably (hopefully!) notice their observation skills getting a better workout, with a corresponding improvement in life expectancy...


----------



## marzjennings (14 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> There is no point on this part of the journey to make constant shoulder checks as at times I can go 20 minutes between seeing a car.




See this is what I don't get, by listening out for cars you've cut down your awareness distance to 10s of metres (unless it is a noisy car) instead of 100s of metres if you were looking over your shoulder. Even if it is just one car every ten miles I'd still like to know where it is as soon as possible.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> Not since Cab's last post have I ever read such rubbish.



If you really believe hearing is so important to you, my challenge is this: Present us with some youtube footage, helmet camera mounted, of your own riding, and let us take a look and see just how well you're looking around yourself.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> If I hear a car / tractor behind me and I also note that ther is a car / corner also approaching from the opposite direction then I would take a strong primary to control the situation, if there was no such hazard then I would continue in secondary. There is no point on this part of the journey to make constant shoulder checks as at times I can go 20 minutes between seeing a car.



To me that's an admission of less than perfect riding practice. Not looking is a fail because your hearing can't tell you that there's no vehicle behind you.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> To me that's an admission of less than perfect riding practice. Not looking is a fail because your hearing can't tell you that there's no vehicle behind you.



You did not read my post correctly. I said "There is no point on this part of the journey to make *constant* shoulder checks as at times I can go 20 minutes between seeing a car"

I did not say I did not make checks, I make allowances for the conditions accordingly.
The busier the road the more lifesaver checks I would make.


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> If you really believe hearing is so important to you, my challenge is this: Present us with some youtube footage, helmet camera mounted, of your own riding, and let us take a look and see just how well you're looking around yourself.



I have no intention of becoming a helmet cam warrior and the only time I will wear a helmet is on the track.


----------



## Moodyman (14 Sep 2010)

23 pages and still going strong.

Let's see if we can make this is the longest thread.

I've done my bit with this post. 

I'll be back in a week. Don't want you to let me down now.


----------



## Bromptonaut (14 Sep 2010)

marzjennings said:


> See this is what I don't get, by listening out for cars you've cut down your awareness distance to 10s of metres (unless it is a noisy car) instead of 100s of metres if you were looking over your shoulder. Even if it is just one car every ten miles I'd still like to know where it is as soon as possible.




I think the point you’re missing is the vision and hearing are *not* proposed as alternatives. 



Vision is the primary sense and (most of my riding is in London traffic) I'm constantly looking behind - glancing over alternate shoulders. Hearing augments vision and fills gaps - I cannot swivel my head like an owl!!. One can hear an ambulance in the next block or a motorbike concealed behind a bus. Noise detects from the booma-booma noise that the Saxo behind is a chavmobile or, filing in the gaps between the 'life savers', ascertains that the revving wvm behind is a twonk and will probably push through. 

If others feel safe with anything from a single open backed earpiece to full on sealed ANR headphones that's fair enough. But don't label me a poor cyclist because I'd prefer not to.


----------



## JoysOfSight (14 Sep 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> One can hear an ambulance in the next block



OK. So, suppose you and I are riding along when you hear the sound of an ambulence, somewhere, but I am a deaf person. What is it that you do that makes you safer, at that point, than I am? 

This is the presumption that I don't get. Quite understandable that people *like* to hear far-off ambulences, or even nearby motorbikes. But when it comes down to it, what do you *do* about the ambulence that makes you safer, if you can't actually see it?



Bromptonaut said:


> If others feel safe with anything from a single open backed earpiece to full on sealed ANR headphones that's fair enough. But don't label me a poor cyclist because I'd prefer not to.



How these things turn around. I don't think anyone is making the argument that riding without headphones is unsafe (!!), only that if you are observing correctly, it is not necessary to be able to hear (notwithstanding that significant noise can be heard over music anyway).

If you look up the thread there are no shortage of comments that if you ride with headphones in, bad things are bound to happen.


----------



## Bromptonaut (14 Sep 2010)

@joys of sight

Hearing the ambulance (or police car) converging from the next block tells me I may need to move over (this is London - emergency vehicles often pass wrong side of traffic islands etc. 

BM and possibly Marz seem to suggest that somehow using my hearing makes me less observant; I reject that proposition.


----------



## marzjennings (14 Sep 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> I think the point you’re missing is the vision and hearing are *not* proposed as alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No the problem is hearing *is* being proposed as an alternative to frequent checks over the shoulder. 

The only way hearing could augment your vision is if you incorporated what you heard with what you've seen. For example seeing the car behind you and by its engine noise determine it's a diesel.

That actually may be a good reason to be able to hear a car, to augment what you've seen. For example, if you see a car waiting to pull out from a junction AND you can hear that the engine's being gunned you can assume the driver's going to jump into traffic as soon as possible and as a rider you may take additional care as you approach them. Whereas if you're unable to hear the engine note, you will be unaware of the potential urgency by which the car will try join the road. Hmmmm.


----------



## Arfcollins (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554543"]
Can you quote what I actaully said rather then try and merge mine and some other persons post.
[/quote]

Sorry Lee, I'm not very experienced in the art of posting/quoting and I was trying to put your post into context. Hopefully most people got my gist and understood I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth.


----------



## Norm (14 Sep 2010)

marzjennings said:


> No the problem is hearing *is* being proposed as an alternative to frequent checks over the shoulder.


Was it? Any chance you could find that as I've just skimmed the thread and didn't see it myself.


----------



## fossyant (14 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> I have no intention of becoming a helmet cam warrior and the only time I will wear a helmet is on the track.



That's only cos you have to  , and someone DID do......  (i.e. ride over 4F's head) heh heh...no names.............  (not me) PS anyway...get back up here for a spin mate on your next "business visit".....


----------



## iAmiAdam (14 Sep 2010)

I wear headphones and can hear perfectly well, I will continue to do so as long as I have my ipod and heaphones.

tbh, it doesn't distract me either, it stops my mind wandering after 20 miles. So surely this is a good thing?


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2010)

fossyant said:


> That's only cos you have to  , and someone DID do......  (i.e. ride over 4F's head) heh heh...no names.............  (not me) PS anyway...get back up here for a spin mate on your next "business visit".....




Foss, you were on your arse the other side of the track  I am looking at getting up for the November session


----------



## BentMikey (15 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> I have no intention of becoming a helmet cam warrior and the only time I will wear a helmet is on the track.



That's OK, I understand if you don't have the courage of your convictions. Just don't expect to get much credence to your views on hearing vs. looking.


----------



## 4F (15 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That's OK, I understand if you don't have the courage of your convictions. Just don't expect to get much credence to your views on hearing vs. looking.




So you expect me to go out and buy a headcam just to prove to you my viewpoint ? FFS mate you need to get a grip on reality.


----------



## JoysOfSight (15 Sep 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> @joys of sight
> 
> Hearing the ambulance (or police car) converging from the next block tells me I may need to move over (this is London - emergency vehicles often pass wrong side of traffic islands etc.



Thanks for the info! Perhaps we have it worse here, as traffic on the wrong side of islands is not limited to the emergency services... 

But the crucial point is - do you move over and stop before you see the ambulence?

When I'm in the car (or on the bike), whether I hear a siren or not I wouldn't do anything differently until I had established where the vehicle is and where it needs to go (by seeing it). Otherwise, for example, I might pull into the bus lane and end up obstructing an ambulence coming up it. Or vice versa.

I don't think it can be denied that hearing an ambulence at least prepares you for the possibility that you might need to manouvre, but I'm not convinced that it is giving you anything more than a sort of comfort blanket. The exact same argument applies to in-car radios, to convertibles with the roof up (or any car which doesn't have its windows down). And of course, in most urban environments the average speed of a cyclist is as high (if not higher) than motorists, so there's no real argument that they don't need to hear because they are going faster or whatever. The reason they don't *need* to hear is simply because they don't *need* to hear.

(And for what it's worth, I quite like having the windows down when I drive in town, because it's sometimes nice to hear what's going on. I don't feel unsafe when I roll them up & put on the radio though!)


----------



## marcw (15 Sep 2010)

In ear phones that don't seal the ear canal are bad for your hearing. Add the wind noise and they will be even worse as you have to turn them up. In ear phones that seal the ear canal block out a lot of external sounds, attenuation for decent headphones will be around 15db+, so you can listen to your music at a lower level. Wearing a decent pair of sealed headphones on the tube with the iphone turned up to around 7, it's loud and I can barely hear the tube noise which gets can get really loud. This doesn't strike me a something I'd want to transfer to a bike. Also wearing just one headphone you are likely to turn the other one up to compensate for the wind/ traffic noise again putting your hearing at risk.

There is no cure for Tinnitus.


----------



## 4F (15 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554582"]
Haha - idiot
[/quote]


Quite


----------



## BentMikey (15 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> So you expect me to go out and buy a headcam just to prove to you my viewpoint ? FFS mate you need to get a grip on reality.





I'll even offer to lend you mine, paying for postage both ways.

FWIW I'm not suggesting I'm a better cyclist, far from it. I'm sure you're an excellent cyclist, but going purely on your posts I also have a suspicion that you might be relying on your hearing instead of looking as much as you should. I didn't misread your 20km post, by the way.


----------



## marzjennings (15 Sep 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> @joys of sight
> 
> Hearing the ambulance (or police car) converging from the next block tells me I may need to move over (this is London - emergency vehicles often pass wrong side of traffic islands etc.
> 
> BM and possibly Marz seem to suggest that somehow using my hearing makes me less observant; I reject that proposition.




If you're using your hearing to reduce the number of times you think you need to check over your shoulder visually then yes, you're being less observant. Would you ever consider the road clear purely based on the fact you've not heard anything? I'm guessing not, you'd look and check the road is clear before attempting any maneuver in the road and so being able to hear traffic is redundant when manervering. And if you're just traveling along the road, the assumption should be, regardless of how far (20miles even), that there is a car behind you and if you've not visually confirmed where that car is and are waiting on your ears to alert you of its presence you are not being observant.

On a wet and windy day your hearing's going to give you what, 50 yards of warning that there's a car behind you?


----------



## Brahan (15 Sep 2010)

For the last few months I've been wearing headphones on most commutes and I'd say that they've forced me into being a much more observant rider. More looking over my shoulder, more eye contact with drivers which makes them more aware of my presence in front of them. I don't feel worried about having a bit of music in my ears what so ever.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Sep 2010)

I saw a deaf cyclist a few weeks ago, only noticed due to the cochlear implant. What initially drew my attention to him was the amount of looking he was doing, far better than most cyclists we see out and about.


----------



## Mark_Robson (15 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554588"]
Let's be honest, any claim that wearing headphones when cycling doesn't affect your ability to hear what's going on around is daft. It undoubtedly does.

Personally I don't, because I don't want to compromise my senses when I'm on my bike. If you choose to then that's entirely your decision.
[/quote]I understand your point and agree to a certain extent but what about wind noise? By far the biggest audio impairment for me is wind noise. I don't have ears like Dumbo but once I'm going at a decent speed wind noise totally impairs my ability to hear my Ipod and whats going on around me. If it gets any worse I'll have to turn my Ipod up and risk noise induced deafness.


----------



## totallyfixed (15 Sep 2010)

Resisted getting involved until now. I've been a cyclist all my life and been lucky enough to ride with some top people, road racers, testers etc. Been a member of 3 clubs and ridden with probably thousands of cyclists over the years, and you know what? Not one of them did I ever observe using headphones whilst riding. The majority of the people I ride with are experienced on a bike with good handling skills, this should be saying something.
To voluntarily deprive yourself of one of your key senses is completely irresponsible, absolute madness. Other than that I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554590"]
Headphone-induced hearing impairment is optional.
[/quote]

So is listening to music in the car, or winding the windows up. Both are quite normal, so the illogical idea that headphones on a bike suddenly becomes life-threatening is simply mad.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554588"]
Let's be honest, any claim that wearing headphones when cycling doesn't affect your ability to hear what's going on around is daft. It undoubtedly does.

Personally I don't, because I don't want to compromise my senses when I'm on my bike. If you choose to then that's entirely your decision.
[/quote]

Completely agree and I choose not to wear them.


----------



## Jezston (15 Sep 2010)

totallyfixed said:


> Resisted getting involved until now. I've been a cyclist all my life and been lucky enough to ride with some top people, road racers, testers etc. Been a member of 3 clubs and ridden with probably thousands of cyclists over the years, and you know what? Not one of them did I ever observe using headphones whilst riding. The majority of the people I ride with are experienced on a bike with good handling skills, this should be saying something.
> To voluntarily deprive yourself of one of your key senses is completely irresponsible, absolute madness. Other than that I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.



I hope you'll understand my frustration replying to this.
The point I keep having to make on this thread, and if you look over it again, is that wearing headphones is not depriving you of a key sense, and the point many others have made is that hearing is not such a key sense.
I apologise if this sounds rude but I wish people would look over previous comments in such threads before making statements which do a great disservice to The efforts made by people to present their arguments.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Sep 2010)

Unless you drive your car with the windows wound down, you'd be a hypocrite.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Sep 2010)

4F, still not interested in borrowing one of my cameras? It's a genuine offer, and I think would add value to the debate. I promise to be positive about any resulting footage, and it's not like it would cost you money or take more than a few minutes of your time.


----------



## 4F (16 Sep 2010)

Jezston said:


> I hope you'll understand my frustration replying to this.
> The point I keep having to make on this thread, and if you look over it again, is that wearing headphones is not depriving you of a key sense, and the point many others have made is that hearing is not such a key sense.
> I apologise if this sounds rude but I wish people would look over previous comments in such threads before making statements which do a great disservice to The efforts made by people to present their arguments.




The post from Totallyfixed was right on the money and it staggers belief that anyone who thinks they are a competant cyclists could disagree with it.


----------



## 4F (16 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> 4F, still not interested in borrowing one of my cameras? It's a genuine offer, and I think would add value to the debate. I promise to be positive about any resulting footage, and it's not like it would cost you money or take more than a few minutes of your time.




Hi Mikey, there is little point to be honest. You have never changed your mind from an argument yet and irrespective of whatever I videod you would not change your mind. I think you should take Lee up on his offer


----------



## BentMikey (16 Sep 2010)

I'm kinda sad you won't do this. It comes across a little as though you're unwilling to demonstrate your looking skills. Perhaps some of the abuse handed out on here on other peoples' videos, including by you, makes you unwilling to walk the walk yourself? No action from yourself only strengthens my feeling that you're compensating for looking by hearing.

As for not changing my mind on arguments, that's plain wrong. Origamist changed my mind on carradice clamps on carbon seatposts, I used to be a pro-helmet religeonista and a RLJer, and there are many other examples. I've no idea what Lee said, he's on ignore.


----------



## JoysOfSight (16 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554596"]Not sure why you put the "so" in, because it doesn't follow at all.[/quote]

Um.. yes, it does.

In fact, I'd have thought there is a reasonable argument that because motorists have blind spots and we do not, the "key sense" of hearing would be even more important for them than it is for us, because while we can easily and routinely see all around, they can't (this applies especially to panel vans and trucks where they can't shoulder check through a rear window).

Ever wondered if a left-turning HGV might have stopped before crushing a cyclist or pedestrian if only the driver could hear the shouts of passers-by? Should having the window down and radio off, not then be a requirement in urban areas (bearing in mind that about 3/4 of London deaths are right there to be prevented).

There is no justification for obstructing your hearing in a four-wheeled vehicle which can't equally be applied to a two-wheeled vehicle, however much you wish it. Since we completely accept the blithe disregard of this "key sense" by 99% of road users, I find it hillarious that anyone would seriously argue that it is essential for the 1% who are faster (on average, in traffic) and have incomparably better all-round visibility.



totallyfixed said:


> Resisted getting involved until now. I've been a cyclist all my life and been lucky enough to ride with some top people, road racers, testers etc. Been a member of 3 clubs and ridden with probably thousands of cyclists over the years, and you know what? Not one of them did I ever observe using headphones whilst riding. The majority of the people I ride with are experienced on a bike with good handling skills, this should be saying something.
> To voluntarily deprive yourself of one of your key senses is completely irresponsible, absolute madness. Other than that I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.



All I can say is, your experience of riding with clubs and testers is very different to mine. (And at over 200 miles a week for three years, I would flatter myself that I now have a tiny little bit of first-hand experience).

I'd go as far as to say that some of the worst bike riding I see comes from the faster rider who apparently thinks that having put time in on the turbo somehow gives them invulnerability. Certainly their "key sense" of hearing doesn't seem to prevent a ready number from pulling out in front of me around parked cars, though if I took your post at face value, those are the riders that should least demand me covering the brake!

Perhaps a good use of Mickey's camera would be to do a sort of inverse test of the overtaking one. Instead of having one cyclist fitted with a camera, park a car on a main cycling street with the camera set up to catch whether riders do a visual check before pulling out around it (with a good quality camera it would also be possible to tell which riders had headphones in).

Simple as pie.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Sep 2010)

JoysOfSight said:


> Perhaps a good use of Mickey's camera would be to do a sort of inverse test of the overtaking one. Instead of having one cyclist fitted with a camera, park a car on a main cycling street with the camera set up to catch whether riders do a visual check before pulling out around it (with a good quality camera it would also be possible to tell which riders had headphones in).
> 
> Simple as pie.



Now that's an excellent idea!! Bravo!


p.s. It's Mikey, not Mickey.


----------



## marzjennings (16 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554606"]


Let's get back to the question, and my response. Headphones impair hearing, and I'd rather maximise mine while on my bike. Whether or not cars are noisy is irrelevant.
[/quote]


Headphones do impair hearing, can't argue with that. Being able to maximise then to hear the world around as you ride is cool. Thinking that this flood of maximised audible information somehow makes you a much safer rider is a bogus supposition.


----------



## JoysOfSight (16 Sep 2010)

+1. 

Here's another one. The technology exists to provide riders with 'phones that don't obscure the noises around you, but magnify them.

Does this make you even safer than a normal rider, and if not, why?


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Sep 2010)

People are comparing driving a car with the windows up and stereo on, as being the same as riding with phones in.

...well, if my car was as light as a pushbike, offered no impact protection, was only capable of going 20mph and never keeping up with the flow of traffic (so staying in their line of sight), and was constantly at threat from other inconsiderate car drivers ...I sure as hell wouldn’t roll the windows up and put the stereo on when I drove it.

its not a good comparison.

I ride a motorcycle and by law have to wear a helmet. Yet i find helmets restrict my vision and also my ability to hear traffic and so, feel oddly "safer" on the pushbike than on the motorbike.

is this because I can hear better , perhaps.


----------



## kc57 (16 Sep 2010)

As a casual cyclist I find myself on mainly lone bike rides and I use headphones. I have a Bluetooth Handsfree to enable me to use my music player on my phone, it also means if I get a call I can pull over and answer without fumbling through layers of clothing. I have no doubt their will be a myriad of cries about not taking a phone whilst cycling but I find it a useful tool. The handsfree also allows me to mute the music and adjust the volume so I can adapt it to the current traffic conditions. I don't find much more of an impairment to my hearing than I would from the wind whistling in them, that is more to do with the damage from Rugby rather than speed by the way :-). I believe it is a personal choice, if I was in a group cycling then common courtesy would mean not having the headphones on, the same as when I jog with friends.

BTW, the comment about the technology is apt, Noise Reducing Headphones can minimize background drone allowing you to better hear other sounds, I currently use them when traveling by train and plane. I haven't used them for cycling as they aren't sport specific so would probably die with the sweat or rain but the sport versions should cope.


----------



## JoysOfSight (16 Sep 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> People are comparing driving a car with the windows up and stereo on, as being the same as riding with phones in.
> 
> ...well, if my car was as light as a pushbike, offered no impact protection, was only capable of going 20mph and never keeping up with the flow of traffic (so staying in their line of sight), and was constantly at threat from other inconsiderate car drivers ...I sure as hell wouldn’t roll the windows up and put the stereo on when I drove it.



30,000 KSI each year in traffic collisions, of which only a very few involve cyclists but the overwhelming majority involve at least one driver who, whether to blame for the incident or not, might have been alerted by a shout that they couldn't hear.

Considering whether hearing obstruction is a good thing needs to look at both sides of the equation, not simply the safety of the driver / rider. Does a reversing bus driver not need to look in his mirrors because he won't be hurt if he crushes someone? Clearly not. 

You'll observe that this is not an argument for obstructing cyclists' hearing, if anything the reverse - in other words, it's simply an argument that road users should be treated consistently.

I have no problem with people who think any hearing obstruction (driving or cycling) is dangerous, that's quite a sustainable position (although not one I agree with).


----------



## Norm (16 Sep 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> ...well, if my car was as light as a pushbike, offered no impact protection, was only capable of going 20mph and never *keeping up with the flow of traffic (so staying in their line of sight),* and was constantly at threat from other inconsiderate car drivers ...I sure as hell wouldn’t roll the windows up and put the stereo on when I drove it.


 

A point which I made several pages ago when asked about the differences between motorbikes and pushiron.

With reference to the original question, it is, IMO, safe to ride with headphones but, IMO, not as safe as it is to ride without.


----------



## 4F (16 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I'm kinda sad you won't do this. It comes across a little as though you're unwilling to demonstrate your looking skills. Perhaps some of the abuse handed out on here on other peoples' videos, including by you, makes you unwilling to walk the walk yourself? No action from yourself only strengthens my feeling that you're compensating for looking by hearing.
> 
> As for not changing my mind on arguments, that's plain wrong. Origamist changed my mind on carradice clamps on carbon seatposts, I used to be a pro-helmet religeonista and a RLJer, and there are many other examples. I've no idea what Lee said, he's on ignore.



Mikey, I am certainly not concerned about any abuse that I may get from any video as without doubt there are some parts of my commute that would draw discussion.	Currently I am off my bike at the moment due to an old football injury which is playing up (cruciate ligament) and I may take you up on your offer later in the year.

My commute is approx 1 hour (30 mins rural and 30 mins urban) How much recording time can your camera capture ?


----------



## totallyfixed (16 Sep 2010)

Just a thought, is there any correlation between listening with headphones whilst riding in urban vs rural areas, ie might it be that urban riders are more likely to be wearing headphones?
Still can't get my head around not wanting to experience in full all the sights and sounds that are unique to riding a bike, on my rides I regularly see Buzzards, Red Kites, Peregrine Falcons and between March and September, Ospreys. I am often alerted to them by their calls, can't imagine cutting off one of my senses voluntarily.
Thanks Tony, knew you would think the same, was I supposed to be impressed by someone who rode 200 miles per week? Now if he had said 400.....


----------



## Sam Kennedy (16 Sep 2010)

I've never cycled with earphones, but when I do cycle, all I can hear is wind noise anyway, so I can very rarely tell if there is a car behind me just by hearing alone.
I don't see what would be wrong with one earphone, only potential danger I can think of is getting distracted and crashing, or the earphones getting tangled in the spokes.


----------



## sabian92 (16 Sep 2010)

I've nearly been killed, and I bollock my younger brother for doing it as well, yet he still does it.

Unless you are wearing infinite hi-vis jackets with a klaxon warning people a mile away you are coming, I really wouldn't.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> Mikey, I am certainly not concerned about any abuse that I may get from any video as without doubt there are some parts of my commute that would draw discussion.	Currently I am off my bike at the moment due to an old football injury which is playing up (cruciate ligament) and I may take you up on your offer later in the year.
> 
> My commute is approx 1 hour (30 mins rural and 30 mins urban) How much recording time can your camera capture ?



Ooh, I'm sorry to hear about your injury, that sucks big time. Hope you can recover quickly and well.

The camera should be able to capture all of that commute no problem, just let me know when you're ready.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Sep 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> People are comparing driving a car with the windows up and stereo on, as being the same as riding with phones in.
> 
> ...well, if my car was as light as a pushbike, offered no impact protection, was only capable of going 20mph and never keeping up with the flow of traffic (so staying in their line of sight), and was constantly at threat from other inconsiderate car drivers ...I sure as hell wouldn’t roll the windows up and put the stereo on when I drove it.
> 
> ...



Feeling more dangerous on the mbike is probably quite right, it's perhaps roughly 3.5 times more dangerous than a bicycle on average in the UK. This is despite keeping up with the traffic, and the difference is perhaps mostly due to the extra speed and lack of care that so much power imbues.

On the contrary, cars and bikes are an excellent comparison on the hearing issue. I think you should see JoysofSight's post where he comments that being on a bike, where you have better visibility, can look around far more easily means you also need hearing? Of course not - it's the car driver that, according to the pro-hearing religeonistas, needs hearing far more, with limited vision, mirrors with massive blind spots, closed in a box.


----------



## 4F (17 Sep 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Ooh, I'm sorry to hear about your injury, that sucks big time. Hope you can recover quickly and well.
> 
> The camera should be able to capture all of that commute no problem, just let me know when you're ready.




No problem, I suspect it will heal just in time for the bad weather to really start


----------



## JoysOfSight (17 Sep 2010)

sabian92 said:


> ...a klaxon warning people a mile away you are coming, I really wouldn't.



Wait, your ears actually warn people you are coming? Are they mutated or something? 



totallyfixed said:


> Just a thought, is there any correlation between listening with headphones whilst riding in urban vs rural areas, ie might it be that urban riders are more likely to be wearing headphones?



Maybe. For my own part, I'm quite happy to ride around town without music, because it's extra hassle to keep track of the player (and keep it charged, and carry it about with the cables everywhere) but I would never go on a long ride with nothing to listen to - even if I end up riding with someone and never bother.

It's just the same as the car radio. I don't turn it on automatically to go down the shops, I would turn it on automatically to spend 10 hours driving around the country.

It would be interesting to know how it correlates.



totallyfixed said:


> Thanks Tony, knew you would think the same, was I supposed to be impressed by someone who rode 200 miles per week? Now if he had said 400.....



I thought that remark might come across a bit nobbish. But since I haven't been here long, I didn't really see how I could refute that weird idea about serious riders and headphones without qualifying that I'm not (and don't ride with) a once-a-month mountain biker or something.

20,000 miles a year by bike would be a lot - way more than I could handle (most of my mileage comes from having a long commute, not training miles or whatever). Respect if you are managing that!


----------



## adam23 (19 Sep 2010)

i have to admit that i do wear them on my morning rides on sunday, about 40 to 50 miles normally mostly cause of the wind nie i hate and i get pain in my ears when i dont ear them.
if i go on a hilly ride ten i put on angry music to give me a bit of a rush lol sad but it works or me


----------



## novo19 (28 Sep 2010)

If I'm by myself then yes, I wear them usually both ears when I'm off-road or on cycle paths and 1 ear when on the road, but I'm all eyes when on the road so I know whats happening around me!


----------



## Jezston (28 Sep 2010)

OH GOD JUST LET IT DIE


----------



## 4F (28 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 554627"]
The word of choice if you decide to ride on the road with headphones.
[/quote]


I must admit that post from Jezston bought a smirk to my face as well


----------

