# Listen to Music or not?



## Aiden_23 (14 Feb 2012)

I have always had my ipod on while running and cycling on my MTB however I am about to enter a new world..........the world of the Roadie!!! Any Roadies out there listen to their ipod while trying to beat land speed records. I have a 10 mile commute facing me and think some tunes would help me push myself however would this affect my concentration to the point I could become a danger??? Any advice is appreciated!!!!


----------



## snorri (14 Feb 2012)

Well, the general consensus on this forum is....................see below.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Feb 2012)

I listen to music but not loud however for some unknown reason I never do at night when I ride my road bike. I remember reading somewhere that fast music needs to be at a certain volume to affect driving ie loud it seems that people who play heavy rock loudly tend to be heavier on the gas. I haven't seen any studies on cyclists (I am sure there must be some)but my guess if is you are using it to keep cadence and effort up you need to play it loud. Whenever I have tried it it doesn't feel safe so it's turned down low enough to still hear traffic.


----------



## DCLane (15 Feb 2012)

Take my example of commuting home tonight;

Riding through Leeds I see an MTB stopped at the lights on the cycle-bit. I pull up alongside, go "evening" and notice he's got ear plugs in.

The lights change - and he pulls right; didn't hear me, didn't check - and just misses me.

*Listening to music = removing a vital sense = more likely accident / death*

*Not listening to music = still got hearing = avoidance / staying alive*


----------



## steve30 (15 Feb 2012)

Try it. Find the appropriate pair of earphones and volume and see if you like it. If you feel in danger because you can't hear, then don't bother.

Personally, I am very sensitive to any kind of noise, so I listen to my Walkman through my Etymotic noise isolating headphones. I don't have the music too loud, it blocks the wind out, and I can still hear the cars coming goodness knows how far away.

I don't think music makes that much difference to hearing traffic. Sure, the noise isolating earphones and music reduce the traffic noise a bit, but then I find when I'm not using them, the wind blocks it out just as much as the music anyway.

n.b. On the rare occasion when I am in a car, (with or without the radio or annoying talking passengers) I can't hear or see the other traffic anywhere near as good as in the above situation.


----------



## youngoldbloke (15 Feb 2012)

No. Don't see how we can criticize pedestrians for doing so, and then do it ourselves. Applies to using phones on the bike too.


----------



## Gez73 (15 Feb 2012)

I don't and never would. Feels like a sense that's just not working and makes me feel very vulnerable. Up to the individual but for commuting in traffic I never do but occasionally do on traffic free trails. I've never felt it would push me further in terms of performance but ,I mostly commute and give myself loads of time. Try it and decide for yourself.


----------



## jdtate101 (15 Feb 2012)

I sometimes have my headphones in, but only connected to my phone, with the small cable mic near my chest. Only so I can take calls whilst out. I do always pull over when I get a call, but when your wearing gloves and a jacket, trying to get that phone out before it rings off is difficult. Without music, the headphones make no difference to my road awareness. I personally wouldn't risk music no matter what the volume.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Feb 2012)

> It takes away some of your ability to hear what's around you. If you can live with that, then go for it. It's up to you. Just don't try to justify it by pretending that it makes no difference, or even actually improves your ability to hear....


 
+1

I prefer the silence of the ride too, gives me time to think.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Feb 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I sometimes have my headphones in, but only connected to my phone, with the small cable mic near my chest. Only so I can take calls whilst out. I do always pull over when I get a call, but when your wearing gloves and a jacket, trying to get that phone out before it rings off is difficult. Without music, the headphones make no difference to my road awareness. I personally wouldn't risk music no matter what the volume.


 
Is it really that important to answer your phone?


----------



## G-Zero (15 Feb 2012)

I used to like my music when I was running, but my personal choice has never seen me on the bike with music playing.

I prefer to hear what's around me and occasionally I lapse in to song.... and beautiful it is too 




*NOT !!*


----------



## Aiden_23 (15 Feb 2012)

Thanks everyone, I will start off with no Music and see how it feels. I would rather be safe and alert than entertained. I was worried about spilling my tea and toast on my ipod if i did have to swerve when commuting at 0430 ,so problem solved!!!!!


----------



## Gooner Mad Dog (15 Feb 2012)

I listen to the radio but quite low stil aware of whats going in, failing that you can listen to chat radio shows that are less risky like Talk Sport, LBC News etc


----------



## JamieRegan (15 Feb 2012)

I think it depends what kind of person you are. I do listen to music more times than not and I cycle through the city centre of Edinburgh. For me, it doesn't make any difference to the traffic noise. I think the important thing is your sense of awareness, generally.

I'm very aware of what I need to do, what traffic is likely to do and what pitfalls are around me. I'm not saying I'm always going to get it right 100% of the time, but if I got it wrong it'll never be because I've got music on.

I've said this before, but if you genuinely think that no cyclists should ever listen to music, then you're also saying that deaf people shouldn't cycle and I don't think anyone should say that.

If you're switched on, confident and aware of your surroundings, then whack it up to 11. If not, then don't.


----------



## uphillstruggler (15 Feb 2012)

how will you be able to hear the drivers throwing those witty insults at you if you have music on?

not for me


----------



## MattHB (15 Feb 2012)

There's no way I'd listen to music on the lanes around here. Most of them are some kind of rat run, so the early warning of an approaching chav-mobile is too vital to deaden.

Plus I like to hear the wildlife. Maybe that makes me sad, but one of the reasons I love riding is to be in the elements and surrounded by nature.


----------



## Nearly there (15 Feb 2012)

I used to listen to music very low and could still here traffic around me then one day set off for a ride without my ipod and actually enjoyed the ride better plus I could hear more sounds and other cyclists coming up behind me and overtaking me


----------



## DougieAB (15 Feb 2012)

Tried it once with one of those single earpieces you can get of ebay. Didn't like it as I found the music too much of a distraction.


----------



## Hacienda71 (15 Feb 2012)

I used to, but don't now and don't miss it. I also won't answer the phone unless it I am stationary, my phone has an answer phone so if it is urgent a message can be left. When I am out cycling it is about me and the bike, not me the bike and a band or a friend wanting to chat about what to do next weekend. Saying that on a particularly steep long hills I have been known to sing to myself  normally something like Spin Spin Sugar by The Sneaker Pimps or other motivating song to get me to the top.


----------



## The Horse's Mouth (15 Feb 2012)

wouldnt even consider it. its dangerous enough in London let alone making it more so.


----------



## benb (15 Feb 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> No. Don't see how we can criticize pedestrians for doing so, and then do it ourselves. Applies to using phones on the bike too.


 
Who on earth has suggested that pedestrians shouldn't listen to iPods?


----------



## benb (15 Feb 2012)

I wonder if there are some small speakers that could be mounted to the bars, or some headphones that don't actually go in the ear, but sit on your shoulders?


----------



## rollinstok (15 Feb 2012)

Headphones and bikes dont mix well. Even on a trail or cyclepath I,d go without in case someone shouted they were passing ( an all too frequent event sadly ).
A handlebar device would be great for off road but havent seen anything since the 70,s when they had some pretty rubbish bar mounted transistor radios.


----------



## lulubel (15 Feb 2012)

I used to when I cycled to work at 5am on deserted country roads (by which I mean seeing a single vehicle during my ride was a once a week occurance, if that). I don't now because I ride at times when there's other traffic around and prefer to keep my wits about me, and music is a distraction.


----------



## Aiden_23 (15 Feb 2012)

I took the MTB out today without any ipod and it is just aswell,passing a slip road a car flew past me and just about mounted the grass verge to speed up the slip road. I heard the car accelerate and checked my shoulder to see the indicator flashing in my face,just aswell I had the brakes covered if I hadn't then it could have been bad! So I will defo not be taking the ipod out!!!!!


----------



## JamieRegan (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1724206, member: 45"]Sorry but that's a ridiculous argument.

A deaf person can do nothing about the increased risk that not being able to hear brings. Someone with headphones can.

It's not about should or shouldn't, but about whether the rider accepts the increased risk or not. And there's no getting away from the fact that there is some level of increased risk. Unless you want to argue against physics.[/quote]

Whether you can do something about it or not, the level of risk is the same for both (or greater, even, for a deaf person). So if it's acceptable to cycle whilst deaf, then it has to be acceptable - in itself - to cycle whilst wearing headphones.

A deaf person would be aware that he or she is deaf and would therefore use extra caution and awareness to ensure they were safe. I think I also do that when I wear headphones. I know I'm listening to music, so I make sure I'm aware of everything I possibly can be. Some people wouldn't be, they'd get wrapped up in the music and subconsciously think 'I can't hear a car, so there's not one there'.

I think the lack of conscious awareness is the issue, not the music. If the music makes you forget to be aware, then it's a problem. If it doesn't, then it's fine.

I remember reading a study once that said the majority of women drivers were better drivers when they'd had one drink, than when completely sober. The reason being that they were completely aware that they'd had one drink and concentrated on driving perfectly to make sure they were safe. It's the same principle.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (15 Feb 2012)

JamieRegan said:


> Whether you can do something about it or not, the level of risk is the same for both (or greater, even, for a deaf person). So if it's acceptable to cycle whilst deaf, then it has to be acceptable - in itself - to cycle whilst wearing headphones.
> 
> A deaf person would be aware that he or she is deaf and would therefore use extra caution and awareness to ensure they were safe. I think I also do that when I wear headphones. I know I'm listening to music, so I make sure I'm aware of everything I possibly can be. Some people wouldn't be, they'd get wrapped up in the music and subconsciously think 'I can't hear a car, so there's not one there'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pat "5mph" (15 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> I took the MTB out today without any ipod and it is just aswell,passing a slip road a car flew past me and just about mounted the grass verge to speed up the slip road. I heard the car accelerate and checked my shoulder to see the indicator flashing in my face,just aswell I had the brakes covered if I hadn't then it could have been bad! So I will defo not be taking the ipod out!!!!!


You found your answer by yourself


----------



## BlackPanther (15 Feb 2012)

It's personal choice, but I don't think there's any increased risk whatsoever as long as you have decent headphones (and don't have it on loud) you can hear what's going on around you. I have radio 1 on every day on my way to work. I set off at 6.30 just in time for Chris Moyles. Occasionally on the way home I'll listen to a nice educational podcast. I tend to avoid music not because I think it's more distracting but because I find myself pedalling to the rhythm which results in me not being at optimum cadence. Be warned people, Gloria Estefan was right, the rhythm is gonna get you.


----------



## lavoisier (15 Feb 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> No. Don't see how we can criticize pedestrians for doing so, and then do it ourselves. Applies to using phones on the bike too.


 
+1


----------



## jdtate101 (15 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is it really that important to answer your phone?


 
It can be ........ when your wife is expecting !!!!!!!


----------



## helston90 (15 Feb 2012)

I used to use mine religiously, my route though was 4 miles along 40-60mph road, therefore there was always a car approaching or going past- I didn't need hearing or looking to know this. Now adays the route is country lanes where hearing around the corner is vital so I think it depends what route you're doing and what you're used to.


----------



## redcard (15 Feb 2012)

Once I get my bike, I think my only reaction to seeing a fellow cyclist wearing earphones is: "You're a bit of an idiot, mate."


----------



## Aiden_23 (15 Feb 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> You found your answer by yourself


Strange how that happened but Im mighty glad it did just lucky I was on my 17kg MTB struggling than a nice speedy Roadie or I would have been under the tyres!!!


----------



## Dan_h (15 Feb 2012)

The Velominati have this to say, and I am not going to argue with them!
*Rule #*​*62*​
* // *You shall not ride with earphones.​​Cycling is about getting outside and into the elements and you don’t need to be listening to Queen or Slayer in order to experience that. Immerse yourself in the rhythm and pain, not in whatever 80′s hair band you call “music”. See Rule #5 and ride your bike.8
​


----------



## Nantmor (15 Feb 2012)

Is speech radio more acceptable? It seems always to be Gardeners Question Time when I find myself grovelling into a Fen headwind on a road ruler straight and table flat for two or three miles. Is this sufficiently boring? The comedy shows on Radio 4 are pretty soporific too. Is this a good or bad thing?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

I sometimes listen to music while cycling, sometimes I like to listen to the sounds of nature - I love hearing the owls at night on a country lane. 

Riding in London, I never trust my hearing anyway - there are so many competing noises and city acoustics mean it's impossible to tell exactly where specific sounds are coming from. I'm not a bat, my hearing is at best a crude instrument for evaluating my surroundings. But not being a bat, I make up for the deficiencies in my hearing with excellent eyesight and superior intelligence. 

Inattentive road users tend to be inattentive whether they have earphones in or not. 

d.


----------



## Passion For Pedalling (15 Feb 2012)

Put it on loud speaker. That way u hear traffic but have some nice background beats! Works for me, even in central London


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

Nantmor said:


> Is speech radio more acceptable?



I'm not sure. For me, music works as background noise, but radio needs to be listened to properly, so (for me at least) is therefore more likely to be an unhelpful distraction when cycling. Of course, you may be the kind of person who has the radio on for background noise, in which case you'll probably be fine. 

d.


----------



## LarryDuff (15 Feb 2012)

Just doesn't seem sensible to me. You need your ears to help your eyes.

Why do people have to live life to a soundtrack?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

LarryDuff said:


> Just doesn't seem sensible to me.



...which, with all due respect, is not exactly sound scientific reasoning. 

I once read a piece by a sound engineer that made a pretty good case for the sense of hearing being about as useful when cycling as the sense of smell. I'll look for a link and post it if I can find it. 

But I don't want to be dogmatic about it. If anyone can make a strong counter-argument based on genuine evidence, I'd be happy to consider it. 



> Why do people have to live life to a soundtrack?



Because we're all different and all have different needs and desires. 

d.


----------



## Nantmor (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725089, member: 45"]Again, don't take this personally but that's nonsense.[/quote]
All due respect but you are talking drivel.


----------



## Noodley (15 Feb 2012)

I quite like listening to a tune as I cycle along, which has reminded me I must start doing it again.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725082, member: 45"]Physics. If there's a barrier between you and your surroundings then there's an unarguable impairment. [/quote]

I really must find the article I mentioned above - it refutes this argument quite convincingly. Of course, it may well be that I found it convincing because I wanted to agree with its conclusions but until I've found it, I'm afraid you won't have the opportunity to counter its claims. Sorry!

d.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Feb 2012)

Noodley said:


> I quite like listening to a tune as I cycle along, which has reminded me I must start doing it again.


Tina's "Simply the best" Noods ?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725192, member: 45"]I don't need to see it to know that if there's a physical barrier between your ears and the outside world then your hearing will be impaired. And neither do you.[/quote]

I refer you to my previous comment re bats. 

d.


----------



## benb (15 Feb 2012)

smutchin said:


> I really must find the article I mentioned above - it refutes this argument quite convincingly. Of course, it may well be that I found it convincing because I wanted to agree with its conclusions but until I've found it, I'm afraid you won't have the opportunity to counter its claims. Sorry!
> 
> d.


 
Confirmation bias is the phrase you're after there.





http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2444


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

I said there are sounds, I didn't say anything about being distracted by them. 

The point is that sound information from your environment is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading. My sense of hearing is low down the scale of useful senses when cycling. 

d.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Feb 2012)

Why do we have a sense of hearing.


----------



## Aiden_23 (15 Feb 2012)

This is just getting silly now!!! I wish I never asked the question in the first place. At the end of the day it all about the individual forget Physics.If you want to use 16 lights on your bike for safety or cycle in the gutter then its your choice,if you enjoy music while you cycle(as I did for years both running and MTB cycling on the road) and feel safe doing so then why not! I personally dont feel safe travelling at 15mph while riding through heavy traffic with an ipod in, but in time with experience I might feel confident enough to use it.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Feb 2012)

Paul-you are wasting other senses on this thread. But you know that


----------



## Jezston (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1724032, member: 45"]It takes away some of your ability to hear what's around you. If you can live with that, then go for it. It's up to you. Just don't try to justify it by pretending that it makes no difference, or even actually improves your ability to hear....[/quote]

Here we go again. I'm not sure what User is using, but it clearly is blocking his ability to _listen._

I've been here before and cannot be arsed to get into another row about it. User clearly has very strong views on the matter based on ... well, no evidence whatsoever other than his own anecdotes, and he certainly isn't interested in what anyone else has to say about it if it conflicts with his views and will answer it by cherry picking and belittling those he disagrees with.

I wear a set of open backed bluetooth headphones when cycling. They're a set of bluetooth open back headphones with music at a moderate volume. They do not make a tangible difference to how much I can hear any more than putting speakers on your bike some how. They reduce wind noise. These are my experiences and are not open to debate unless you believe I am lying (presumably I'm a mole working for the mp3 player industry).

They do not 'remove a vital sense'. They are not the audible equivalent of wearing a blindfold - unless you wear to wear huge sealed units blasting out 100dB+ white noise - I wouldn't recommend that regardless of whether you are riding a bike or not.

Some people are ignorant and easily distracted and may ride around with music blasting away music in a world of their own acting like plums. Removing the music from such people is unlikely to change that. If you feel that music distracts you too much that's fair enough. No one is telling you that you should wear headphones and listen to music when you are riding if you don't want to.

I don't see any point to those one ear or handlebar speaker devices.

[I have BSc in Sound Technology including modules in acoustics and psychoacoustics, and 8 years of experience as a professional in audio, mostly in post production. I kind of know a fair bit about sound and its effects]


----------



## rollinstok (15 Feb 2012)

Those who ride without every available sense need a healthy dose of common sense.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725232, member: 45"]So when I heard the siren behind me on the way home today before it was in view?[/quote]

Emergency sirens are pretty loud. You'd have to be wearing some serious noise-cancelling headphones not to hear them. Indeed, I was perfectly able to hear the ambulance as it approached from some way off as I rode through Beckenham this evening, even though I was enjoying listening to the splendid new Django Django album at the time.



> When I hear the car behind drop a gear?....



I don't know. When you hear the car behind you drop a gear... what? You dive off the road and start praying?

d.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

400bhp said:


> Why do we have a sense of hearing.



Exactly what I ask myself every time Quote Unquote comes on the radio. 

d.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Feb 2012)

Do you listen to it whilst listening to something else through headphones?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

rollinstok said:


> Those who ride without every available sense need a healthy dose of common sense.



Yes, if only there were more common sense and less science in the world. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> This is just getting silly now!!!



It always does, every time this subject comes up. Sorry!

d.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

I dont see a problem with one earpiece in only, I mean how much can you hear being inside a car with the sterio blasting ?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725270, member: 45"]You know, noises get louder as they get nearer. There's a point where you will distinguish a siren above the other noise. This point is sooner when you're not wearing headphones. This is neither unhelpful nor misleading. [/quote]

I heard the ambulance from about half a mile away tonight. Admittedly, it was touch and go whether I was going to be able to take evasive action in time, but somehow I managed it. 



> When you hear a change in the engine note from the car behind it's an indication that he's about to do something. If he drops a gear and revs you're alerted to the fact that he could be about to overtake. Make as many backward glances as you can but this is additional and useful information. Not at all misleading.



In what way is it useful? What exactly do you do with this information? It's either safe for him to overtake or it isn't. Me hearing him drop a gear makes no difference to road conditions. 

d.


----------



## Jezston (15 Feb 2012)

*I HEREBY OFFER UP A CHALLENGE*

I have access to a couple of pairs of Binaural Microphones - these are small microphones that resemble earbuds which you stick in your ears and capture sound as if it what the person wearing them is hearing. I also have access to some good portable recording devices.

I propose an experiment - record a ride using them and nothing covering my ears so as to capture the sound of a ride as if I weren't wearing headphones. Then, another with my headphones on listening to music as I would. I can even combine this with a visual recording from my helmet cam.

Caveat: First I need to check whether they are suitable for the proposed experiment - one pair I have aren't in great nick at the moment (missing their housings) and it's possible they won't really capture sound in a close enough way to how I hear - microphones don't work in the same way as the human ear. It's possible they won't be able to handle the sound pressure levels from wind noise and just record a distorted mess.

If I can rule out the above caveat and demonstrate that any useful audible information is still maintained in either set up, will those against headphone use be willing to concede they are wrong?


----------



## Jezston (15 Feb 2012)

I should also add it may take me a while before I can get round to doing this.


----------



## JamieRegan (15 Feb 2012)

User, I think your arguements are appallingly rude. You're arguing against 3 people that are giving their personal opinion based on their experience. 

In my experience, listening to music makes no difference whatsoever to my alertness and the awareness of my surroundings. You seem to me to be some old bloke sat in the corner of a pub arguing a 'principle' for the sake of an arguement.

If I cycle in rain or high winds, the noise from that is far more likely to distract me than my music. If I cycle on a busy road the noise of the traffic is more likely to distract me than my music.

Are you also saying that I shouldn't cycle on busy roads or when it's raining or when it's windy?

There are 101 things that can distract a cyclist, as I'm sure you know. My music isn't one of them, because I'm in control of it and I make sure it doesn't. It sounds like you're not the kind of cyclist that trusts yourself to do that, so you should respect my point of view, as I do for someone like you.


----------



## rollinstok (15 Feb 2012)

Car driver to police officer.. " I dont know, I just didnt see him"
Passenger to police officer.. " I,m saying nowt"
Police officer to prone ex cyclist.. " Hello.. hello.. hello.. can you hear me son ? "


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725277, member: 45"]Less than you can if the sterio isn't blasting.[/quote]
The point being, inside a car with windows up how much do you think you hear from outside compared to a bike with one earpiece in?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

Jezston said:


> If I can rule out the above caveat and demonstrate that any useful audible information is still maintained in either set up, will those against headphone use be willing to concede they are wrong?



I doubt it - there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about the usefulness of auditory signals, so you're likely to get just as many different interpretations of your recordings. 

d.


----------



## rollinstok (15 Feb 2012)

col said:


> The point being, inside a car with windows up how much do you think you hear from outside compared to a bike with one earpiece in?


 
Point being, a cyclist isnt in a tin can with bumpers, impact zones, seatbelts and airbags


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

rollinstok said:


> Car driver to police officer.. " I dont know, I just didnt see him"
> Passenger to police officer.. " I,m saying nowt"
> Police officer to prone ex cyclist.. " Hello.. hello.. hello.. can you hear me son ? "



Obviously the driver would have seen him and avoided knocking him off his bike if he hadn't been wearing earphones. Stands to reason. 

d.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

rollinstok said:


> Point being, a cyclist isnt in a tin can with bumpers, impact zones, seatbelts and airbags


 We hear a lot more than cars anyway,and I dont think many car drivers are made unaware of their surroundings because they cant hear much from outside? and if your going to have an accident because you listen to some music, which somehow makes you unable to be alert to your surroundings, maybe you shouldnt be on the road in the first place.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725308, member: 45"]Less than compared to a bike (?) with no earpiece in...[/quote]
Ah good, now how many car drivers do you think are less aware of their surroundings because of this?


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725311, member: 45"]But some of us could still hear more.....[/quote]
more of what?


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725319, member: 45"]a) less than if they didn't have the radio blasting.

b) Drivers with 3 more mirrors than most cyclists, wearing a seatbelt and surrounded by airbags? Do you know much about risk assessment?[/quote]
And which sounds do you feel are more important to hear , so you could avoid an accident?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725298, member: 45"]Why do you assume that you'll only normally hear a siren from half a mile away?[/quote]

I made no such assumption. 



> Any indication of something about to happen around you on the road is useful.



You assert this so confidently, I could almost believe it's true.



> Conversely, I'd like to her your reasoning behind hearing being misleading.



You say you understand how sound waves work. Well, think about sound waves and human ears in the context of a busy urban environment...

d.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725334, member: 45"]I like to be able to make that choice while I'm on my bike, not while lying on the sofa watching Inbetweeners and talking to some bus driver who I've never met on the internet.[/quote]
So your avoiding answering as usual, I wonder why?


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725319, member: 45"]
b) Drivers with 3 more mirrors than most cyclists, wearing a seatbelt and surrounded by airbags? Do you know much about risk assessment?[/quote]

So people in control of two tonnes of fast moving metal have less need to be aware of their surroundings than the people they're sharing the road with who don't have that level of personal protection? That's perverse. 

d.


----------



## BlackPanther (15 Feb 2012)

Nantmor said:


> All due respect but you are talking drivel.


 
Has anyone ever started a sentence 'All due respect' and meant it?

Don't take this the wrong way but there's non so blind as them that won't listen (or fully read my original comments). No offence but maybe if you deem it unsafe for me to listen to quiet audio commentary, then it's also unsafe for me to cycle at all. Maybe if we all stayed inside our houses we'd all be safer? I'm surprised you ride at all given the risks....especially since you sound like you're wearing blinkers.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

BlackPanther said:


> There's non so blind as them that won't listen.



Lol. I shall take that as my cue to go to bed, which I should have done an hour ago. 

d.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725334, member: 45"]I like to be able to make that choice while I'm on my bike, not while lying on the sofa watching Inbetweeners and talking to some bus driver who I've never met on the internet.[/quote]
As you seem to portray a keen knowledge of sound and its value, you might like to share with us which sounds do we need to hear so as to avoid accidents, and which sounds we dont need to worry about? And the sounds we do need to hear, at what volume, or does it suffice just to hear them and volume doesnt matter? I think we would all appreciate an answer, as you portray to everyone that you know the answers. Instead of ducking and diving answering, after you have made it seem you have superior knowledge on this.


----------



## BlackPanther (15 Feb 2012)

smutchin said:


> Lol. I shall take that as my cue to go to bed, which I should have done an hour ago.
> 
> d.


 

Maybe it would be safer if you slept downstairs. Then you'd reduce the risk of being struck by lightening.


----------



## col (15 Feb 2012)

BlackPanther said:


> Maybe it would be safer if you slept downstairs. Then you'd reduce the risk of being struck by lightening.


----------



## Aiden_23 (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725305, member: 45"]Go for it.

While you're waiting for the opportunity, I offer you the challenge, given your background, to explain how putting a physical barrier between your inner ear and your surroundings does not bring a level of impairment. Your response (or lack of) may save you the hassle of your experiment.[/quote]
Im watching the TV right now, I covered my ears with my hands.........not that much of an impairment TBH


----------



## BlackPanther (15 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725305, member: 45"]Go for it.

I offer you the challenge, given your background, to explain how putting a physical barrier between your inner ear and your surroundings does not bring a level of impairment. [/quote]

Spoken by someone who's never worn headphones?

Challenge accepted!

FACT. Wearing good quality 'earbud' headphones drastically decreases the main cause of impaired hearing whilst cycling, and that's the wind blast noise which is substantial when travelling at 20mph+, and at 30mph+ it's quite uncomfortable without 'protection'.
Therefore JUST wearing them (no audio) actually improves your ability to hear car engines etc etc. Obviously, it's then a balancing act of getting the audio to a level where the earbuds STOP the windblast, but where the audio is not so loud as to reverse the advantage. I'd like to think that my level of audio is bang in the middle, and so is no more 'dangerous' (but admittedly not actually any safer) than not wearing them at all.

I'd also like to think that I wouldn't pass comment without physically experiencing the subject, so if there are folks on here who've never worn headphones they shouldn't really pass comment? Those who do know the score.

To summarise.
No Earbuds.................More dangerous (at high speed)
Earbuds-no audio..........Safer than riding headphone-less
Earbuds-low volume.......A bit better than 'no Earbuds'
earbuds-High volume......More distracting than no Earbuds

Challenge victorious!

Goodnight Springton, there will be no encore.


----------



## Norm (16 Feb 2012)

Jezston said:


> I wear a set of open backed bluetooth headphones when cycling.


How many others do you see wearing open back headphones? Most cyclists that I see listening to music have the in-ear type which are designed to block outside noises.

Which brings me to...


BlackPanther said:


> FACT. Wearing good quality 'earbud' headphones drastically decreases the main cause of impaired hearing whilst cycling, and that's the wind blast noise which is substantial when travelling at 20mph+, and approaching 30mph+ it's quite uncomfortable without 'protection'.


... the only time I've ridden (a motorbike around a car park without a helmet at 20mph) with proper ear protection, any noise I might have heard was completely drowned out by the wind whistling around the cords. And, when walking whilst listening to music, any time that the cable rubs my clothes, it sounds very loud in my ears. Obviously, every design and every situation is unique but do you not find there is a fair amount of noise which earpieces introduce, even without music playing through them?

I haven't tried cycling with music playing, but I do usually ride with my Buff pulled up around my ears, which cancels out all wind noise and doesn't replace it with anything else.

And, finally...


col said:


> The point being, inside a car with windows up how much do you think you hear from outside compared to a bike with one earpiece in?


Cars generally travel at a similar speed to other cars and have, as Mr P says, a number of rear-view mirrors. A cyclist is often travelling slower than motorised traffic and rearward observation is generally not as easy as provided for drivers.


----------



## fossyant (16 Feb 2012)

My personal opinion, the only acceptable time to wear headphones is on the turbo. Get involved in an accident, and the other person spots them, you can bet they will end up mentioned in a legal case. Always minimise your losses, because if blame can be disproved, it will.


----------



## smutchin (16 Feb 2012)

My ride this morning (without earphones):

At one point, I didn't hear a car behind me because I was going quite fast and the only thing I could hear was the wind whistling in my ears. 

At another point, I heard what I thought was a car behind me but it turned out to be two cars, the second following closely behind the first. They passed me on a blind bend on a narrow road, presumably thinking it was safe to cross the solid white lines because they couldn't hear anything coming the other way. 

At yet another point, I didn't hear the car behind me because its sound was drowned out by the noise of a bus coming the other way. 

At other points along my journey, I heard accurate information about assorted vehicles approaching me from behind. I made no conscious action based on this information.

I heard no emergency sirens this morning. There were none to hear. 

At no time did the presence or lack of accurate sound information make the slightest bit of difference to my journey. I didn't feel the need to alter my course, speed or road position based on any environmental sound information I did or didn't receive on my journey this morning. 

d.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

Norm said:


> How many others do you see wearing open back headphones? Most cyclists that I see listening to music have the in-ear type which are designed to block outside noises.


 
Most of those in ear types such as the ipod buds are open backed, which is why they leak sound so terribly and piss everyone off on the bus/train. Open backed designs allows the driver to move air about better making it easier for manufacturers to produce a better sounding set at a lower cost.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725305, member: 45"]Go for it.

While you're waiting for the opportunity, I offer you the challenge, given your background, to explain how putting a physical barrier between your inner ear and your surroundings does not bring a level of impairment. Your response (or lack of) may save you the hassle of your experiment.[/quote]

I've already addressed this _several _times and you keep nitpicking at it and the material properties of my headphones as it appears that's the only thing you have. If you want a reasonable debate you can have one, but you are behaving as if this is some kind of game and I have no interest in playing.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

My guess at the material properties of my headphones were a _completely_ irrelevant aside which you chose to focus on and try to make something out of because that was all you had. The way you are now deliberately twisting and misrepresenting what I have said to score points, and the way you are completely misrepresenting what happened in the previous 'debate' which I left because it had just turned in to a bunch of people who were never going to change their minds bashing me in a very personal fashion for their own pathetic amusement, is frankly disgusting.

Seriously, if you want to actually have a reasonable discussion with people, stop treating it like a game you have to win at all costs but rather something the participants might actually learn and develop from.

Acknowledge the above and apologise and I'll answer your questions.


----------



## smutchin (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725545, member: 45"]So, for clarity -you acknowledge that sound travels more easily through air than solid objects. That's a reasonable and correct statement. Your objection to this fact is?...[/quote]

This assessment demonstrates that your grasp of physics may not be as firm as you think it is, and that your understanding of sound waves is rudimentary at best, and likely based on misapprehension.

d.


----------



## smutchin (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725595, member: 45"]So putting your fingers in your ears doesn't make it harder for you to hear things?[/quote]


As an argument technique, it seems to work for you.

Zing!

d.


----------



## Svendo (16 Feb 2012)

I usually ride with an mp3 player. I find that the reduction in situational awareness is ok for me. The time I was run over I didn't have music on. I try to ride defensively, with assertive positioning and many rear checks and much anticipation of idiocy.
FWIW I have non-marshmallow type earbuds, and I have the volume at a reasonable level. On busy roads and when windy the traffic or wind mostly drowns out the music.
I find I can easily hear emergency sirens long before the vehicle is visible, I need to take avoiding action, or I could hear it if I were in a car. As a comparison I find the ocerall effect is much less than when listening to the radio in the car at a normal volume. (And much less than the boyracer volume I used to use in my younger days!). Occasionally things surprise me from behind (where are you Fnar?) but I've not found this a problem, as I tend to have checked rearward if there is a hazard, and also happens when I don't have music on.
I think it can depend on the person, and their personal assessment of the risk, based on their own behaviour, If you plug yourself in and blunder about oblivious to your surroundings, then that is likely to be dangerous, but if you are cautious, sensible and copmpensationary, then it can be an enhancement of the experience.
as we know, some pedestrians will step out blithely when the iPod is on, others (such as myself) will make careful visual checks before leaving the pavement, aware they may not hear bicycles or quiet traffic.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

I have already addressed it several times on this thread and others and you know that. Why are you so obsessed about exactly what my headphones are made of? It's what they _do _that matters.

I'll do it one more time. Will you promise to never bring it up again?

The amount of attenuation to specific external sound levels that my headphones bring is so insignificant it would be hard to measure accurately. They are not a sealed unit, so the materials they are constructed from are largely irrevant - there have, effectively, got holes in them. Conversely, the effect of reducing wind turbulence counters this reduction manyfold.

Would you argue that anyone riding in wind without wearing a buff or wooly hat or whatever to reduce wind turbulence is being dangerously irresponsible? It is a choice. Because that has a greater effect on what you can hear than adding music.


----------



## italiafirenze (16 Feb 2012)

BlackPanther said:


> Spoken by someone who's never worn headphones?
> *FACT*. Wearing good quality 'earbud' headphones drastically decreases the main cause of impaired hearing whilst cycling, and that's the wind blast noise which is substantial when travelling at 20mph+, and at 30mph+ it's quite uncomfortable without 'protection'.
> Therefore JUST wearing them (no audio) actually improves your ability to hear car engines etc etc. Obviously, it's then a balancing act of getting the audio to a level where the earbuds STOP the windblast, but where the audio is not so loud as to reverse the advantage. I'd like to think that my level of audio is bang in the middle, and so is no more 'dangerous' (but admittedly not actually any safer) than not wearing them at all.


 
FACT. Just saying FACT in capital letters before writing something doesn't make it any more of a FACT than if you hadn't written FACT. Some sort of reference to a peer-reviewed repeatable scientific study would be useful to qualify status of alleged FACT.

OPINION. I have ridden with earphones in and didn't feel in the least bit impaired or endangered. But I find I prefer not to because I just think cycling is better without music (excepting the turbo trainer, where external stimulus is very necessary).


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725632, member: 45"]
Yes, you acknowledge that they impair sound. Great.[/quote]

Stop trying to twist my words. To an _insignificant_ level, so effectively - no.

From your first post in this thread:

[QUOTE 1724032, member: 45"] Just don't try to justify it by pretending that it makes no difference, or even actually improves your ability to hear....[/quote]

I will justify it because I'm not pretending that it makes no difference because it doesn't make any difference and they do reduce wind noise. I know what I'm experiencing with my own ears based on my own knowledge of sciences relating to audio, and I am correct.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

For Gods sake I want to bang some effing heads... just agree to disagree guys and let it go.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

Too late Jezston I saw it. 
I wasn't particularly interested last time no, but this thread is a mirror copy of the last. You are arguing exactly the same points as last time. So both of you give it a rest. If you don't both give it up then I am happy to put a stop to it for you.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

Arguing that me wearing my headphones impairs my ability to hear is like arguing wearing cycling glasses is impairing your ability to see, or that not wearing a buff underneath impairs your helmets ability to protect your head in a crash. Or those people who say that not using platinum deoxidised speaker cable at £500 per meter impairs your ability to hear music properly.

I'm sure if you were to look at it at microscopic level you would detect a difference. But that difference is _insignificant_ and it is _irrelevant._

If me saying that makes you feel smug and that you've won the argument or something, then be my guest if it'll shut you up about it.

I'll continue to argue against people who believe that listening to music somehow _entirely removes _a vital sense, though.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

Jezston is that your final word on the subject?

User? You final words?


----------



## fossyant (16 Feb 2012)

Jezzer - do you not listen - this thread is going to be locked. Oh and you are a plonker for using headphones !


----------



## yello (16 Feb 2012)

I don't listen to music when I ride on the road.... but I do cycle around the living room when I put a CD on.


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

fossyant said:


> Jezzer - do you not listen - this thread is going to be locked.


Why? I can understand such friction shouldn't be in beginners, then why not feel free to move it somewhere else? Ian's warning came while I was writing a reply, why are you accusing me of not listening?



> Oh and you are a plonker for using headphones !


 
With attitudes like this pervading can you blame me for vigorously defending myself?


----------



## 400bhp (16 Feb 2012)

Aspergers syndrome alert.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

Right then... is that it? done? finito?


----------



## Jezston (16 Feb 2012)

Look, to be calm for a second before this all gets out of control and shut down, i'll say one more thing before I take a break from this thread.

I get a lot of random grief off this forum (and from moderators it appears), and in real life, from people because I wear headphones when I cycle, despite it making no difference to my safety.

I don't like it, and I'll defend myself when it comes up, even though that often seems to lead to even more grief. Perhaps some people reading it who aren't arguing with me over it are listening and may have their views changed.

Really, as cyclists we all get shoot from people who don't do what we do because they have weird prejudices and misunderstandings of it. You'd think as a result we'd all have a bit more empathy and understanding as a result.

I'll step back for a while now. I don't see any need for the thread to be locked.


----------



## Shaun (16 Feb 2012)

TBH it's a bit like helment debates - strong opinions lead to firmer replies and it can all get a bit heated and overly argumentative - unnecessarily so too, in my humble opinion.

There are no laws governing wearing headphones or earbuds so we are each free to do as we please - and each free to have an opinion on whether that impacts on our safety or not.

Take it easy and accept that you are going to have differences of opinion and none of them is more or less _right_ that the other - just different.

There's no point in falling out over it and if you've said your bit and covered the main points you think are relevant to the thread/idea/opinion - then take a break and come back later to see what others have added to the mix.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Aiden_23 (16 Feb 2012)

I do appologise when I started the thread it was for my own benefit(and other beginners) I didn't realise it was a "touchy" subject, it all went a bit OTT . My next thread Helmets  only kidding


----------



## ianrauk (16 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> I do appologise when I started the thread it was for my own benefit(and other beginners) I didn't realise it was a "touchy" subject, it all went a bit OTT . My next thread Helmets  only kidding


 

Not your fault it descended into tit for tat Aiden. Some people should know better.


----------



## yello (16 Feb 2012)

That's the puppy that attacked me!

I'm going to ram my frame pump down it's throat if I see it again


----------



## kishan (16 Feb 2012)

i do when cycling on the road i need music i cant be doing cycling in silence lol


----------



## BlackPanther (16 Feb 2012)

I take back all I've ever said on the subject. Obviously


italiafirenze said:


> FACT. Just saying FACT in capital letters before writing something doesn't make it any more of a FACT than if you hadn't written FACT


 
By FACT I meant that it is a FACT that I have ridden with and without headphones. It is a FACT from my experience that when doing 25-30 mph on busy roads, wearing earbuds with low volume audio has no detrimental effect on hearing traffic noise. If it did, I wouldn't wear them. The same can be said on the motorbike. I wrote FACT because I wanted it to stand out and I just don't think that those commenting are actually taking note that I listen to quiet audio ONLY.

Maybe those who don't think that earbuds help by blocking windnoise just aren't going fast enough to recognise the benefits? Not that there's anything wrong with riding slowly so don't anyone take that the wrong way.


----------



## baldycyclist (16 Feb 2012)

maybe this is all saying - make sure your obs is good even if you cannot hear......I wear them.....not too loud....and even when I dont hear traffic still do a shoulder check - just to make sure some elecy car hasn't crept up my rear.
I like the puppy?
Is he for sale?
BTW - runners take their dogs for a run, could we get away with taking our dog for a cycle? - I mean just think of the exercise they would get!


----------



## Nantmor (16 Feb 2012)

BlackPanther said:


> Has anyone ever started a sentence 'All due respect' and meant it?
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way but there's non so blind as them that won't listen (or fully read my original comments). No offence but maybe if you deem it unsafe for me to listen to quiet audio commentary, then it's also unsafe for me to cycle at all. Maybe if we all stayed inside our houses we'd all be safer? I'm surprised you ride at all given the risks....especially since you sound like you're wearing blinkers.


I'm sorry, I have only just found your post. I'm afraid you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. My post was not aimed at you but at User. He had just asked someone not to take it personally when he told them they were talking nonsense. You are quite right. I certainly did not mean it when I wrote, "All due respect" , I was objecting to User's use of a similar hypocrisy.
As it happens I agree with you on using headphones. I often use them and I feel able to take as much care of my safety as I want to. That is quite a lot of care.
I also think when I see how badly some helmet wearers ride, that helmets would have to work incredibly well in order to make them with a helmet as safe as me without.

Perhaps I should have semaphored my meaning by using a smiley. Or by changing font colour.

I've also just noticed that you posted a like on my comment, before objecting to it. You must have been as fuddled as me.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1725385, member: 45"]Examples?

Sounds not of concern;
A gently breeze.
The call of the songthrush.
The beat of a butterfly's wings.

Sounds worth checking out;
A car approaching.
A cyclist approaching.
A horse approaching.
A bus approaching.
A pedestrian approaching.
A lorry approaching.
and so on.....[/quote]
But does the volume of these come into play? And why is it cars dont hear most of these, yet manage normally quite well. Also as a cyclists field of view isnt obscured by pillars ect, we actually have more awareness than any vehicle driver. So going on this, if we did away with hearing altogether, cyclists would actually be safer. So going on that vein, do you think that hearing is really not the main sense we use, but sight is.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

I think most would agree with you about it being difficult to drive without seeing. But if you cant hear anything, do you look just in case? or if you do hear something do you not look because you heard it? I think it all comes down to looking, so sight wins over sound on this I believe. Though if you havnt seen something, a blast on the horn does the trick to alert you to its presence. I think you would be a very gifted person if you could tell exact position or movement on hearing alone, but you would be a very normal person if you just looked around and saw things without the need to use hearing to forwarn you of somethings approach.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1726553, member: 45"]I've not mentioned anything about using one sense alone. It's about using all of your senses together.

There are plenty of times when things can be heard before they're seen, and plenty of examples of hearing supplementing sight. See my morning commute post on this thread.[/quote]
My point is, your going to look if you hear something are you not?


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1726566, member: 45"]Of course. Sorry, but I don't get your point.[/quote]
Also if you DONT hear anything, do you NOT look?


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1726574, member: 45"]It's important to have a visual awareness of your surroundings so yes, things like regular shoulder checks are good practice.

But its impossible to be looking everywhere at all times, and this is where your hearing can help. It's also common to hear things that you can't see yet (around corners, behind walls).[/quote]
I agree, but the majority of identifying whats around you is sight, I would bet if you put ear plugs in to stop you hearing anything at all, you would still manage safely, as even when you dont hear anything we still look for things. This is why one earplug in listening to music wouldnt be detrimental to your safety, you still have hearing enough for those things we might miss with sight. So in reality it doesnt make any difference.


----------



## col (16 Feb 2012)

[QUOTE 1726594, member: 45"]That depends on the individual's definition of "safely", and that is subjective. My view on this is based on the measurable (meaning that there definitely is a) difference between wearing headphones and not. Cyclists can ride with no hearing at all, but there is an increase in risk brought about by the removal of one of the senses. Not all headphones have the same effect as earplugs (though many do), but all bring some measure of restriction in hearing.

If a rider considers that increase in risk to be minimal, or not enough to result in them riding without headphones, then that's up to them.[/quote]
I suppose my definition of safety is not getting hit by anything. I manage to not get hit in my car without the aid of hearing as much as I would on a cycle. But then we are all open to getting rear ended by someone who is distracted weather we hear or see them. Does hearing something behind us tell us they are about to rear end us? Unlikely, but looking would give a better clue.


----------



## smutchin (17 Feb 2012)

What it comes down to for me is whether or not environmental auditory cues are genuinely useful. I maintain that they aren't, and that the sense of hearing is more or less redundant when cycling (at best it comes very low on the list of useful senses) - and I really don't get why hearing would be useful when cycling but not when driving. If anything, I would think the opposite is true. I try to ride my bike in a way that enables me to react to the silent hazards (pedestrians, broken glass) as well as the ones that make a noise, and I find that hearing doesn't give me any useful extra information that I didn't already get from my other senses. YMMV*

What's more, even if you do believe hearing is helpful, it isn't trustworthy. It's all very well jumping to conclusions based on sound wave experiments in school physics lessons, but the real world isn't a laboratory and there are all sorts of factors that affect how sound behaves that can create some very misleading impressions. We're not bats, we're humans. Our sense of hearing is somewhat rudimentary. It does not give us accurate information about the world around us. If you rely on the evidence of your hearing when cycling, especially in a busy urban environment, you are soon going to come a cropper.

If I were going to get philosophical, I could say that we should never trust any of our senses ever, but that's for a different thread. And that, my friends, is my very last word on this subject. At least until next time it comes up.

d.


*User, I could give an analysis of your examples to back up what I'm saying, but since I consider it unlikely that I'd convince you I'm right, it would be pointless and I really don't want to get drawn into the argument again, so I'll spare you. It's ultimately a matter of opinion, and you have your opinion and I have mine.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (17 Feb 2012)

When I'm cycling I'm listening. It helps me to know what's going on around me, what sort of vehicles are approaching from behind, whether something is coming up fast etc.
I couldn't listen to music while cycling. I feel it would divorce me too much from my environment.

In driving I have music on most of the time. The things I need to hear, like emergency vehicles are nice and loud, but I have no need to listen for passing vehicles. There's less passing me, less need to be aware of what is passing me, and I've got the nice mirrors.
The music is an alternative to listening to the engine, but again not too loud as to become a distraction.

Am I right that a survey concluded that Kylie Minogue was the most distracting artist to listen to?
Don't know whether it's the music or the thoughts that come to mind though


----------



## Muddyfox (18 Feb 2012)

I quite often listen to music or a podcast is very enjoyable whilst trundling along .. but i live in a rural area so traffic is'nt much of a problem for me

I did 19 miles last weekend and saw 3 cars and 2 tractors


----------



## Aiden_23 (18 Feb 2012)

I thought I read 32 tractors there


----------



## Muddyfox (18 Feb 2012)

Aiden_23 said:


> I thought I read 32 tractors there


 
That'l be in the summer at Harvesting time


----------



## lukesdad (18 Feb 2012)

Muddyfox said:


> I quite often listen to music or a podcast is very enjoyable whilst trundling along .. but i live in a rural area so traffic is'nt much of a problem for me
> 
> I did 19 miles last weekend and saw 3 cars and 2 tractors


Busy day then


----------



## Norm (18 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Busy day then


There'll be an article about the increased traffic in the local paper next Friday.


----------



## Muddyfox (19 Feb 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Busy day then


 


Norm said:


> There'll be an article about the increased traffic in the local paper next Friday.


 
I wont be going out during rush hour again .. i can assure you


----------



## Boris Bajic (23 Mar 2012)

I like to listen to music from an MP3 while i ride. I can shorten climbs and take the edge off the gradient. There is clear evidence of this, but I'm not telling you where it is.

Issues with music on the move:

1. I only put the nearside ear thingy in place, so the offside one either hangs annoyingly or gets stuffed into my top. 

2. When descending at speed, all music just becomes "Wshhhhhxxxhffffthshfff..." which is not unlike what the young people listen to these days. 

3. I do not listen to music when riding in towns or cities. i see people do it and they look fine, but I prefer not to. 

4. I am a keen looker-behinder. I've never really had an issue with traffic creeping up on me.


----------



## benb (26 Mar 2012)

Just read this on the Guardian bike blog.
Interesting product.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/26/bike-headphones-music-cycling


----------



## Jezston (26 Mar 2012)

benb said:


> Just read this on the Guardian bike blog.
> Interesting product.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/26/bike-headphones-music-cycling


 
Not wanting to revitalise an old argument I shall tread carefully, but I think products like this (and single ear phones, handlebar mounted speakers etc) are a bit of a red herring. If you think listening to music is too much of a distraction, or you feel the music itself masks out too much of what you want to be listening for, then fair enough that's up to you.

But half decent open-backed headphones in of themselves block out so little that I don't think these products really offer any advantage - and it appears they offer significant disadvantages in terms of cost and sound quality.


----------



## benb (26 Mar 2012)

Jezston said:


> Not wanting to revitalise an old argument I shall tread carefully, but I think products like this (and single ear phones, handlebar mounted speakers etc) are a bit of a red herring. If you think listening to music is too much of a distraction, or you feel the music itself masks out too much of what you want to be listening for, then fair enough that's up to you.
> 
> But half decent open-backed headphones in of themselves block out so little that I don't think these products really offer any advantage - and it appears they offer significant disadvantages in terms of cost and sound quality.


 
I'm ambivalent. I think if someone wants to listen to music it's up to them, and it's their responsibility to make sure their awareness isn't impaired to such a degree that it compromises their safety or that of other people.

I have no idea how this compares to open-backed headphones, but thought some people might be interested in it.


----------



## redcard (26 Mar 2012)

Has anyone used the argument that impairing hearing may enhance the the other senses?

Surely the safest cyclist on the road is the one who navigates solely through smell?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?fdp2u0


----------



## jim55 (26 Mar 2012)

redcard said:


> Has anyone used the argument that impairing hearing may enhance the the other senses?
> 
> Surely the safest cyclist on the road is the one who navigates solely through smell?
> 
> ...


 
eh!!!u taking the piss ,how can this be done


----------



## jim55 (26 Mar 2012)

just to add my comments
iv always been of the opinion that riding with headphones is taboo ,i recently tried it and find im much more stable and dont get spooked by cars passing so much ,sometimes when a car went by id get spooked before and get a fright(even after a look and seen traffic and thus expecting it ,you just dont know when its gona pass ,now (headphones on low )much calmer and i feel more observant (maybe cos im not so nervous i look more often ),whatever ,it was a surprise ,so much so i ride with them in all the time now (if im riding alone ).but the caveat is i can still hear road noise and people shouting and stuff


----------



## redcard (26 Mar 2012)

jim55 said:


> eh!!!u taking the piss ,how can this be done



Do you want to argue about it?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?kijvtm


----------



## jim55 (26 Mar 2012)

nope ,i just dont see how its possible ,i think ud have to see


----------



## jim55 (26 Mar 2012)

and btw pm is for any "discussion "you dont want anybody else to here ,your aggresive tone does nothing for your reputation !!


----------



## redcard (26 Mar 2012)

jim55 said:


> and btw pm is for any "discussion "you dont want anybody else to here ,your aggresive tone does nothing for your reputation !!



I wasn't the one being aggressive!


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?h2lwrr


----------



## Jezston (26 Mar 2012)

[QUOTE 1782467, member: 45"]I thought you were going to do an experiment to support your claims?....[/quote]

It didn't seem that anyone was terribly interested, and then the thread died.

I should do it some time, though. Tricky thing is if the results from microphones are particularly representative of what you hear.

EDIT also just noticed this thread is kind of hidden away now, so not sure if many would be around to judge the results. But I will do it some time.


----------



## Bluenite (26 Mar 2012)

Crank up the volume and ride.


----------



## jim55 (26 Mar 2012)

redcard said:


> I wasn't the one being aggressive!
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?h2lwrr


Somebody asks if ur having a laugh about deaf /blind and the response is du wana argue about it !!! I'd call that aggressive and I bet if somebody said that to you you'd read it as that as well , no place for it hear ,there's a pub just across from me and if I said to anybody about anything "du wana argue about it" I bet I'd b lying/rolling about the floor


----------



## smutchin (27 Mar 2012)

redcard said:


> Has anyone used the argument that impairing hearing may enhance the the other senses?
> 
> Surely the safest cyclist on the road is the one who navigates solely through smell?


 
There are at least four human senses that are more important to a cyclist than the sense of hearing. Personally, I think my sense of hearing is no more reliable or useful than my sense of smell when cycling, but we've had all that out upthread and failed to come to an agreement (as you will no doubt be surprised to learn).

d.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Mar 2012)

What amuses my wife is when I return from a ride in the hills and shout my reply when she asks me anything.

She then says quietly "I do wish you wouldn't take your iPod with you".

"What?" I yell and pop out the only earphone I use on the bike, with music still pouring from it.

She repeats her wish with a smile.

"It's OK" I say with a smile "I only wear one earphone, so I can hear fine".

My wife has long-since perfected the wry smile as a response to spousal stupidity.

That discussion is fairly regular (in different guises) and is a nailed-on easy win for my wife.... But I still use the iPod and still believe that it's safe if I only wear the nearside earphone.

It's safe because I only wear it in one ear and I can hear fine like that. Or something.


----------



## smutchin (27 Mar 2012)

Jezston said:


> I should do it some time, though. Tricky thing is if the results from microphones are particularly representative of what you hear.


 
I have an iPhone app called Aware that picks up environmental noise through the inline mic in your earphone cable and feeds it to you. I tried it because I thought it might be useful but I found it distracting to the point of making me feel slightly nauseous. (It's a bit like watching a film when the sound and pictures aren't properly synched.)

If sound information is to be at all useful to you when cycling, you need to be able to discern the direction it's coming from. Now, I find that you can't trust the directional cues you get from environmental sound*, which is why I personally don't consider hearing useful when cycling, but when that sound is being reproduced digitally by your phone rather than coming from the world around you, it loses what little directional information it may have had and becomes entirely useless.

For that reason, I doubt your experiment would be helpful.

d.

*YMMV, but I cycle in the real world, not in an anechoic chamber.


----------



## smutchin (27 Mar 2012)

jim55 said:


> Somebody asks if ur having a laugh...


 
...which is not exactly the most rational line of argument, is it?

d.


----------



## Jezston (27 Mar 2012)

smutchin said:


> I have an iPhone app called Aware that picks up environmental noise through the inline mic in your earphone cable and feeds it to you. I tried it because I thought it might be useful but I found it distracting to the point of making me feel slightly nauseous. (It's a bit like watching a film when the sound and pictures aren't properly synched.)
> 
> If sound information is to be at all useful to you when cycling, you need to be able to discern the direction it's coming from. Now, I find that you can't trust the directional cues you get from environmental sound*, which is why I personally don't consider hearing useful when cycling, but when that sound is being reproduced digitally by your phone rather than coming from the world around you, it loses what little directional information it may have had and becomes entirely useless.
> 
> For that reason, I doubt your experiment would be helpful.


 
The plan was to record with a set of decent binaural mics mounted in my ears (they basically look and act like large earbuds), so as to be the nearest thing you could get to actually capturing what the human ear hears.

Thing is of course microphones don't work quite like the human ear so I'd have to do a trial run and have a proper listen to see if what they pick up is actually anything like what I actually hear. Quite possible they'd be far too sensitive to wind noise and not sensitive enough to traffic noise, but if they aren't completely crippled they may be useful to compare the difference between having my headphones off, on and with music.

Although I don't know if any of it is particularly worth it as only one person has asked for it and I don't think many people fancy having a serious open discussion about it, hence this thread being dumped in the cyclechat equivalent of Room 101.


----------



## Norm (27 Mar 2012)

Jezston said:


> ... and I don't think many people fancy having a serious open discussion about it...


The thing for me, Jez, is that you are using open-backed cups. I don't recall having seen a single cyclist with anything other than the ipod-style buds or the ones which are pushed deeper into the ear canal and are specifically designed and marketed as being to reduce external noise, so any testing you did wouldn't be vastly relevant to others.


----------

