# "Can I listen to headphones whilst riding / training"...



## Rooster1 (9 Sep 2014)

...asks my safety conscious wife the other day on her maiden 18 miler as it was "boring"

"Sure", if you wan't to end up dead, says I.

Just my thoughts but, listening to music and riding are not ideal ?


----------



## ianrauk (9 Sep 2014)

Press *HERE* @Rooster1


----------



## Rooster1 (9 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Press *HERE* @Rooster1



I don't want to repeat the debate, for sure. I was just amazed that she even asked.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Sep 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> I don't want to repeat the debate, for sure. I was just amazed that she even asked.



It's every bit as dangerous as listening to the radio in a car - what was she thinking?


----------



## Saluki (9 Sep 2014)

Buy her a pair of Aftershokz bone conduction headphones. Ears are open to all other sounds and they are fabby. Legal to use on the road or when driving a car too.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

Saluki said:


> Buy her a pair of Aftershokz bone conduction headphones. Ears are open to all other sounds and they are fabby. Legal to use on the road or when driving a car too.


Is there are UK law that bans headphones? If so, are you sure it written to allow these?


----------



## ScotiaLass (9 Sep 2014)

I won't use earphones on a main road.
However, I do have one earphone in when I'm on the tow/cycle paths - it's a low enough volume that I can still hear everything around me.
Sometimes I don't listen to anything, it depends on my mood.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

(rarely go to headphone/helmet sub forum)

Personally, I find music itself distracting. I wear a bluetooth earpiece, and listen to podcasts. I find that after anything happens that requires my attention, I just stop listening (and have to rewind afterwards), so it really doesn't interfere. However, music absorbs me and makes me less conscious of the road, even though I can still here road noises quite well.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2014)

jefmcg said:


> (rarely go to headphone/helmet sub forum)


Well, perhaps you should do if you want to talk about helmets and headphones


----------



## PK99 (9 Sep 2014)

"... on no account should you listen to audio equipment while you are cycling."

John franklin, Cyclecraft.
1997 edition
P26


----------



## smokeysmoo (9 Sep 2014)

Always have and always will when riding solo.

Each to their own innit


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

They'll ruin your ears.


----------



## numbnuts (9 Sep 2014)

Deaf people ride bikes they also have mirrors and use them a lot so they know what is around them and not just in the front.


----------



## Glow worm (9 Sep 2014)

smokeysmoo said:


> Always have and always will when riding solo.
> 
> Each to their own innit



Same here. Some folk can handle it, others for some reason can't. End of story really.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Sep 2014)

I don't use them. I just sing badly to myself.


----------



## dave r (9 Sep 2014)

I don't use headphones whilst out riding on the roads, but I will when I'm in the shed on the turbo.


----------



## sheffgirl (9 Sep 2014)

Sometimes I will ride with one headphone in my left ear, so I can hearthe road. My hheadphones do block out background noise but I can still hear approaching cars with both in.
Most of the time I don't even have any musicon. I save it for the uphill bits to help pace myself.


----------



## davdandy (9 Sep 2014)

Lets cut to the chase here.If your wife finds 18 miles boring then cycling isn't for her is it,music or not?


----------



## BigAl68 (9 Sep 2014)

I do but only with one ear piece in as I my phone has lost the other channel. I do intend to get it fixed and do use both but only on my 5am commute that's along a cycle path. On roads I never do as I want to hear the cars etc.


----------



## MickeyBlueEyes (10 Sep 2014)

I used to but now quite enjoy riding without. Feels a bit more relaxed without tunes being belted into your ear. I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to music though. If you cannot judge your surroundings with them in then don't wear them, simples.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Sep 2014)

davdandy said:


> Lets cut to the chase here.If your wife finds 18 miles boring then cycling isn't for her is it,music or not?


Maybe. If she found it intolerably, "rowing machine" boring, then it's probably not for her. But if she sound it a little dull, then maybe a small distraction may make the difference.

I prefer cycling with some chat in my ear, and I don't think you can say that cycling is not for me.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Sep 2014)

PK99 said:


> "... on no account should you listen to audio equipment while you are cycling."
> 
> John franklin, Cyclecraft.
> 1997 edition
> P26


1997 though. Franklin is probably thinking of those enormous boomboxes, and forbids them because it's difficult to keep balance while resting the device on your shoulder.

"But, John Franklin, how will I listen to Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince?" you cry.
"Safety first" says Franklin, smiling benevolently, before giving you a thumbs up, and riding away doing a wheelie.


----------



## brand (10 Sep 2014)

A simple answer to this is deaf people are allowed to ride bikes or to be more precise wouldn't get told off for doing so.
Just wear it in one ear (the left) and put a mirror on, glancing at it regularly.
She might enjoy it after a while. Most people would find it less boring than an exercise bike or any other machine. Even if she finds it boring it is still healthy.
This doesn't apply to me as I would prefer to listen to the bird song, the cockerel crowing and the owls hooting....the benefits of living in the countryside.


----------



## si_c (10 Sep 2014)

I usually listen to music when I ride, not so loud that I can't hear anything, but then I listen to music when doing pretty much everything. A side effect of this is that I regularly shoulder check.


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

Not for me and imho anyone who rides with headphones is clearly daft (toned down from my usual response)


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Not for me and imho anyone who rides with headphones is clearly daft (toned down from my usual response)


Why are they daft?


----------



## cosmicbike (10 Sep 2014)

Saluki said:


> Buy her a pair of Aftershokz bone conduction headphones. Ears are open to all other sounds and they are fabby.


Tried a set of these at my local running shop, really impressed. Bit like driving a car with the radio on, and I was able to have a chat with the shop assistant whilst listening to music with no problem. Not bought any yet though, at the best part of £50 for the cheapest one's they will have to wait..


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Ambient noise for a cyclist with earphones in-70db

Ambient noise for a car driver with windows closed-50db


----------



## Profpointy (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Ambient noise for a cyclist with earphones in-70db
> 
> Ambient noise for a car driver with windows closed-50db



wouldn't it depend considerably on the earphones? Some keep out outside noise, and some don't.
I guess ditto the car - with say, a near silent Rolls keeping out most outside noise, or far that matter an old Landy drowning out most outside noise.

Still 20dB difference - with cars letting in more outside noise (if I've understood figures right)


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cy...same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing/013329

Ride On magazine of Australia has discovered that cyclists listening to music or podcasts while riding hear more ambient traffic noise than motorists listening to an in-car stereo or even listening to nothing at all. Cars - with windows up - are inherently sound-proof.


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Why are they daft?



If you want to block one of your six senses then I wish you all the best.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 Sep 2014)

I sometimes wear headphones when watching movies late at night. 

I know i know, I'm a fool. How can i hear the sound of fire crackling, fizzing and popping in the kitchen?


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> If you want to block one of your six senses then I wish you all the best.



It doesn't "block" anything. With earphones in you still hear more than drivers.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> If you want to block one of your six senses then I wish you all the best.


So what should people who have no choice do? ie: the deaf?


----------



## Profpointy (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cy...same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing/013329
> 
> Ride On magazine of Australia has discovered that cyclists listening to music or podcasts while riding hear more ambient traffic noise than motorists listening to an in-car stereo or even listening to nothing at all. Cars - with windows up - are inherently sound-proof.



thought you said -70db for headphones but only -50 in the car


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Hyphen, not minus sign.


----------



## Profpointy (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Hyphen, not minus sign.



so the claim is 20dB less outside noise in a car than with headphones?

(not arguing with it, just checking the story)


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

yep


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> It doesn't "block" anything. With earphones in you still hear more than drivers.


What's the point in comparing it to cars because then you might as well say that cyclists need rear-view and door mirrors as standard? Cars have mirrors which things behind you can catch your eye even if not looking directly. Listening out is not as important.

Unless you have mirrors on your bike, if you sound is also blocked, you might not be drawn attention to someone screeching or revving up behind you.


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> So what should people who have no choice do? ie: the deaf?



I am sure that if deaf people had the choice they would take hearing any day rather than imparing it.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

How many cyclists do you know with no neck?


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> It doesn't "block" anything. With earphones in you still hear more than drivers.



So are you suggesting that you hearing is as crystal clear with headphones as it is without ? If you are then carry on but my personal view is that that theory is bollox.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Clearer than for drivers, by 20db, yes.

If earphone-wearing by cyclists is so terribly awful and reckless can you find the practice cited in a fatal RTC?


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

I check behind regularly. Its about being drawn attention to someone behind during the moments you are not looking backwards. Like I say, in a car, the mirrors are in my peripheral vision. Things can draw my attention. A cyclist who can't hear will only know what's behind at the times they look.


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Clearer than for drivers, by 20db, yes.
> 
> If earphone-wearing by cyclists is so terribly awful and reckless can you find the practice cited in a fatal RTC?



I still call bollox however if you want to carry on wearing them in the misguided impression that your hearing is not affected then carry on.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Pardon?


----------



## Dan B (10 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I check behind regularly. Its about being drawn attention to someone behind during the moments you are not looking backwards. Like I say, in a car, the mirrors are in my peripheral vision. Things can draw my attention. A cyclist who can't hear will only know what's behind at the times they look.


Unless what's behind is an electric vehicle or another cyclist, in which case the headphoneless cyclist will be just as unaware as the cool one


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

Dan B said:


> Unless what's behind is an electric vehicle or another cyclist, in which case the headphoneless cyclist will be just as unaware as the cool one


Correct. It doesn't solves all problems but solves quite a lot. I'd take that. I still shoulder check regularly but it's helpful for certain tw*ts in cars


----------



## Saluki (10 Sep 2014)

cosmicbike said:


> Tried a set of these at my local running shop, really impressed. Bit like driving a car with the radio on, and I was able to have a chat with the shop assistant whilst listening to music with no problem. Not bought any yet though, at the best part of £50 for the cheapest one's they will have to wait..


I went mad and got the bluetooth jobs. Hubster paid for most of them as a pressie. I also got 15% discount from the bike shop as I'm a member of a bike club. The man in the shop said that I was so I must be


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> I am sure that if deaf people had the choice they would take hearing any day rather than imparing it.


Don't dodge the question. If cyclists wearing earphones are "daft" then are deaf people on bikes daft too?


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Don't dodge the question. If cyclists wearing earphones are "daft" then are deaf people on bikes daft too?



Put simply a deaf person has no choice, someone who does have a choice imho is an idiot.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

So drivers with their windows closed are idiots?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Put simply a deaf person has no choice, someone who does have a choice imho is an idiot.


If someone wearing headphones/earphones and thus (apparently) impairing their hearing is "daft" or an "idiot". By your logic, a person who happens to be hearing impaired already is also an idiot and/or "daft"


----------



## PK99 (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Clearer than for drivers, by 20db, yes.
> 
> If earphone-wearing by cyclists is so terribly awful and reckless *can you find the practice cited in a fatal RTC*?



30 sec of googling throws up:

http://road.cc/content/news/85387-a...yclist-who-turned-path-vehicle-overtaking-him
*A coroner has returned a verdict of accidental death in the case of a cyclist who apparently rode without warning into the path of a car that was overtaking him as he attempted to perform a right turn on a road in Lincolnshire. A police officer told the inquest it was "likely" the victim was wearing earphones.*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-music-earphones-killed-level-crossing.html
*Phil Dawn, a father-of-three, failed to hear the passenger train’s horn as it thundered towards him, or the shouts of horrified bystanders who tried to stop the cyclist from moving on to the crossing.

An inquest heard Mr Dawn, 34, ‘did not flinch’ despite the desperate attempts of two walkers to alert him to the oncoming danger.

Giving evidence at Nottingham Coroner’s Court Thomas Butler said he and his friend Grant Pinhold heard the train twice sound its horn moments after seeing the cyclist ride on to the tracks - but he didn’t seem to hear them or the approaching train.
*


http://lcc.org.uk/articles/ellie-ca...led-evidence-of-london-lorry-cycling-fatality
*It is quite likely that Ellie was wearing earphones and was listening to Radio 4 Women's Hour at the time of the crash. Her phone was found beside her on the road, turned on and still tuned into the BBC. While the sound of the radio may not have been a factor, the act of listening might have divided her attention leading to less awareness of the risk of the turning lorry.*


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

So that's a no then? Not one single fatality has been attributed to earphones.


----------



## Hip Priest (10 Sep 2014)

I prefer to listen to the creak of my knees.


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

Some rubbish being spouted on this thread !
I hear every car just the same with my earphones in !
I hear cars better with my earphones in on a non windy day than I hear without earphones when its windy !
I like to be able to hear , earphones don't stop you hearing !
Never trust your ears anyway ,always look , anybody knocked down because of pulling out in front of a car has done so because they never looked not because they didn't hear !


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> So drivers with their windows closed are idiots?


They have mirrors which you can see in your peripheral Vision alerting you to sudden dangers from behind that may be missed with cyckists' intermittent shoulder checks.


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3272110, member: 259"]So do I.[/QUOTE]
Great. You sound wise. But many don't.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> If you want to block one of your six senses then I wish you all the best.


Six senses!

"i SEE DEAF PEOPLE"

"What's that 4F? Got me headphones in, see."


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

People who don't wear earphones are expert on what you do or don't


John the Monkey said:


> Six senses!
> 
> "i SEE DEAF PEOPLE"
> 
> "What's that 4F? Got me headphones in, see."



He maybe uses the " FORCE "


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Sep 2014)

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I think John Franklin has nicked my Derek B tape.


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> If someone wearing headphones/earphones and thus (apparently) impairing their hearing is "daft" or an "idiot". By your logic, a person who happens to be hearing impaired already is also an idiot and/or "daft"



Don't be stupid, as much as you like an argument I am sure you can work out the difference


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Don't be stupid, as much as you like an argument I am sure you can work out the difference



Pot Kettle springs to mind!


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

Eddy said:


> People who don't wear earphones are expert on what you do or don't
> 
> 
> He maybe uses the " FORCE "



Spot on, it's called common sense


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

Eddy said:


> Pot Kettle springs to mind!



Another one in the idiot camp I see


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Another one in the idiot camp I see



Troll on !!!


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

Eddy said:


> Troll on !!!



So you seriously cannot see the difference between some one who is hearing impaired to someone who chooses by choice to impair one of your 5 senses ?


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> So you seriously cannot see the difference between some one who is hearing impaired to someone who chooses by choice to impair one of your 5 senses ?



My post Pot/ kettle was about you accusing TMHET of wanting an argument as clearly that is what you want !
Nothing to do with hearing impaired !


----------



## Markymark (10 Sep 2014)

There's that photo of the dude with one arm and one leg cycling. He's fudging awesome. I'd think someone who has 2 arms cycling thriygh heavy traffic texting on the phone, for example, is an idiot.


----------



## Lilliburlero (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> If you want to block one of your six senses then I wish you all the best.



Totally agree with this. I want to know what is going on around me, I want to know what kind of vehicle is about to pass me and I want to know if there is anything wrong with the bike. Every edge you can get out there is a good thing, is it not? 

*btw, my 6th sense is knowing when i`v had enough ales.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Sep 2014)

Basically if you drive with your car windows shut, there is no reason why you shouldn't ride with headphones


----------



## 4F (10 Sep 2014)

John the Monkey said:


> Six senses!



Common sense John is my no 6, good to see you back on CC by the way


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2014)

Lilliburlero said:


> Totally agree with this. I want to know what is going on around me, I want to know what kind of vehicle is about to pass me and I want to know if there is anything wrong with the bike. Every edge you can get out there is a good thing, is it not?
> 
> *btw, my 6th sense is knowing when i`v had enough ales.



Then don't wear headphones , there not compulsory !


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Common sense John is my no 6, good to see you back on CC by the way


Eh, thanks. The break did me good, I think. Nice to see some familiar faces among all these terrifying new people


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> wouldn't it depend considerably on the earphones? Some keep out outside noise, and some don't.
> I guess ditto the car - with say, a near silent Rolls keeping out most outside noise, or far that matter an old Landy drowning out most outside noise.
> 
> Still 20dB difference - with cars letting in more outside noise (if I've understood figures right)


The research showed that the reduction was greater for cars.

The difference between a cyclist's ability to hear ambient noise with headphones an a moderate volume was less than the difference betwen open and closed car windows.

Why should one group be criticised and the other allowed to perform the same ambient noise reduction as a standard practice?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> wouldn't it depend considerably on the earphones? Some keep out outside noise, and some don't.
> I guess ditto the car - with say, a near silent Rolls keeping out most outside noise, or far that matter an old Landy drowning out most outside noise.
> 
> Still 20dB difference - with cars letting in more outside noise (if I've understood figures right)


The research showed that the reduction was greater for cars.

The difference between a cyclist's ability to hear ambient noise with headphones an a moderate volume was less than the difference betwen open and closed car windows.

Why should one group be criticised and the other allowed to perform the same ambient noise reduction as a standard practice?


----------



## Lemond (11 Sep 2014)

For me it would spoil the ride. There are certain sounds that make me feel really happy, a road bike purring along being one of them.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> So drivers with their windows closed are idiots?



Wrong question?

The question that should be asked is:

So anyone who compromises their ambient hearing an idiot?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Great. You sound wise. But many don't.



So is the suggetsion that mirors replace hearing?

Solves the issue?


----------



## Markymark (11 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> So is the suggetsion that mirors replace hearing?
> 
> Solves the issue?


In a car, yes. On a bike, don't know but reject the idea that because it's not important in a car then it's not important on a bike as they are dufferent with dufferent aids at your disposal.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> In a car, yes. On a bike, don't know but reject the idea that because it's not important in a car then it's not important on a bike as they are dufferent with dufferent aids at your disposal.



How?

I fail to see what aid is available to me in a car that is not available on my bike....

You really need to explain which aid is not available on my bike....


----------



## Markymark (11 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> How?
> 
> I fail to see what aid is available to me in a car that is not available on my bike....
> 
> You really need to explain which aid is not available on my bike....


My point, being badly explained by me, was about those that say that cars close windows so who cares if cyclists wear headphones. My point is that all cars by law (I believe) require mirrors. This ais
ds with drawing your attention to rear dangers in your peripheral vision. That's why they're different. I was told cyclists have a neck - obviously refering to be able to look behind you. My point is that it's not in your peripheral vision and you may well miss what's behind when you are not looking. All that is moot for cyclists with mirrors, but those without, I believe hearing is more important on bikes than in cars.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Sep 2014)

Everything in life is a balance between pleasures and risks. 

I listened to podcasts from around the world when I am cycling: from NPR, BBC, Slate, ABC etc etc. Ideas from around the world seep into my brain, and blend themselves into the landscape around around me. I still remember shortly after setting out on one of my first audaxes, listening to a Radio 4 special about Will Self and psychogeography as I rode through Oxfordshire. The talk about the different types, meanings and uses of maps gained an extra layer as I looked at the two maps I was using that day: the audax route (a list of instructions, landmarks and turns); and the GPX route I was following on my phone. Understanding how those two things were maps, and how there form was driven by the use to which they are put added a new layer to my understanding of maps and of what I was doing.


----------



## StuartG (15 Sep 2014)

Listening to music on your bike? Great up to 1967 - worth carrying the heavy duty rack, speakers and battery packs. After 1967. What's the point?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> So that's a no then? Not one single fatality has been attributed to earphones.


 
Be fair, you asked for 'cited' and not 'attributed'.

GC


----------



## Learnincurve (15 Sep 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> ...asks my safety conscious wife the other day on her maiden 18 miler as it was "boring"
> 
> "Sure", if you wan't to end up dead, says I.
> 
> Just my thoughts but, listening to music and riding are not ideal ?




tell her to do what I do and ride with a portable radio in a frame bag 

I can hear everything around me _and_ popmaster. Unfortunately on friday Chris Evans decided to play ghostbusters as I was passing a group of dog walkers but that's life.


----------



## Hacienda71 (15 Sep 2014)

If you can hear the vehicle behind you what difference does it make to the way you ride? Also do you not shoulder check and do a "lifesaver" prior to making a manoeuvre if you are or aren't listening to something. 
I don't listen to anything when riding although I have in the past and if you ride consistently I would see the increase in risk to be minimal. It is those god damn Smidsy's you need to worry about.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> In a car, yes. On a bike, don't know but reject the idea that because it's not important in a car then it's not important on a bike as they are dufferent with dufferent aids at your disposal.



The same eyes, ears and nose need the same input to make the same decision ... simples.

Decreasing the input decreases the ability to respond - simples

Why should this be acceptable for person A and very, very naughty for person B


----------



## jefmcg (15 Sep 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> tell her to do what I do and ride with a portable radio in a frame bag
> 
> I can hear everything around me _and_ popmaster. Unfortunately on friday Chris Evans decided to play ghostbusters as I was passing a group of dog walkers but that's life.


Please don't do that. I hate being exposed to other people's crappy taste in music. I hate it when drivers do it, and I'd hate it to become a thing amongst cyclists.

(had to google to find out which station Chris Evans is on: really, radio 2? surely silence is better?)


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> How many cyclists do you know with no neck?



Paging @User14044 !


GC


----------



## Markymark (15 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The same eyes, ears and nose need the same input to make the same decision ... simples.
> 
> Decreasing the input decreases the ability to respond - simples
> 
> Why should this be acceptable for person A and very, very naughty for person B


So it shoukd be illegal for cyclists not have mirrors like cars?


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So it shoukd be illegal for cyclists not have mirrors like cars?



As this is a discussion about hearing - only if they improve the cyclists hearing as much as they apparently do for cars.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Please don't do that. I hate being exposed to other people's crappy taste in music. I hate it when drivers do it, and I'd hate it to become a thing amongst cyclists.
> 
> (had to google to find out which station Chris Evans is on: really, radio 2? surely silence is better?)




The answer is the wonderful Florence Foster Jenkins.

Cruise around town with Florence booming out of the Sound System.............. Instant Street Cred


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> As this is a discussion about hearing - only if they improve the cyclists hearing as much as they apparently do for cars.


No. You asked why it's ok for cars to have music on, it's because of mirrors. I was then told cyclists have a neck. I have the same neck in my car. You can't compare cyclists and drivers yet refuse to acknowledge what cars have but cyclists don't. 

You need a method of being drawn ti what's behind yiu. It may be mirrors it may be hearing. People who have neither are fools. If you are in a car you're breaking the law.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> No. You asked why it's ok for cars to have music on, it's because of mirrors. I was then told cyclists have a neck. I have the same neck in my car. You can't compare cyclists and drivers yet refuse to acknowledge what cars have but cyclists don't.
> 
> You need a method of being drawn ti what's behind yiu. It may be mirrors it may be hearing. People who have neither are fools. If you are in a car you're breaking the law.



I think you are mistaking me for someone else..........

However:



0-markymark-0 said:


> No. You asked why it's ok for cars to have music on


]

No I didn't - Pointed out that the same decrease in ambient hearing occurs with headphones and closed car windows. Both are choosing to compromise their hearing, yet one is "a fool" and the other is a genius?



> it's because of mirrors.



Which raises the question of how these mirrors improve ambient hearing. Mirrors cannot and do not replace or augment ambient hearing



> I was then told cyclists have a neck. I have the same neck in my car. You can't compare cyclists and drivers yet refuse to acknowledge what cars have but cyclists don't.


... and that is?

One thing a car has and cyclists do not is a roof and side panels that decrease vision and create blind spots that cannot be seen even with a magical mirror?

Just the sort of place where hearing an approaching vehicle or cycle would be important?





> You need a method of being drawn ti what's behind yiu. It may be mirrors it may be hearing. People who have neither are fools. If you are in a car you're breaking the law.



Which again asks how mirrors improve or replace ambient hearing (and why being a person being deaf is "a fool")[/QUOTE]


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3281923, member: 45"]It's simple.

Listening to music when cycling affects your ability to hear anything else. That's physics, so there's no point arguing it.

It's up to the rider to decide whether he or she is happy with the level of impairment they are choosing to bring.

Deaf people have no choice.

Comparison with cars is irrelevant, as we're comparing _listening to music when cycling_ with _not listening to music when cycling_.

Close the thread....[/QUOTE]

I always love it when these things become difficult and discussion simply stops

We are comparing road users who compromise their ambient hearing.

One is acceptable, one is not..... refusing to discuss this because it is inconvenient is nonsensical


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Comparison with cars is not irrelevant. They are also road users and seem to do ok with a similar sensory deprivation to t ha under discussion. Therefore, it is perfectly valid for us to debate whether or not the conditions encountered by motorists in these circumstances is also applicable to cyclists.

It really isn't difficult, and complicating matters by excluding a valid comparison is an intentional tactic created to divert from the facts.


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Which again asks how mirrors improve or replace ambient hearing (and why being a person being deaf is "a fool")


It doesn't. You need something to draw your attention to what's behind you. Are you suggesting that using nothing is acceptable?
As for deaf people, as I said above, there's a cyclists who rides with one arm and one leg. He's fudging awesome. I'd think a cyclist negotiating heavy traffic with one hand whilst the other is, say, sending a text is a fool.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3281923, member: 45"]It's simple.

Listening to music when cycling affects your ability to hear anything else. That's physics, so there's no point arguing it.
[/QUOTE]
I listen to words in one ear.

I can hear cars, with or without an ear phone. I can't tell if they are about to pass me too close, with or without an ear phone. Sometimes I can hear bicycles with or without an ear phone. Sometimes I can't. Depends on wind, their bike, lots of factors. If they say something to me, I can always hear that either way. So I always take a look, no matter what I hear. I do not feel the voices in my ear affect my safety.

(Huge ear covering headphones that remove all ambient noise for the purpose of creating an immersive environment are not suitable for cycling of course, and no one hear is saying they are. For me they are as dangerous because they are immersive. )


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

"Should I wear headphones when cycling or not?"

When supporting the 'yes' argument it is perfectly valid to draw comparison with those in a similar position.

It's not much of a debate if you try to artificially prevent one side from making reference to material that may support their stance. Indeed, such repression is unhealthy, and is why peoples right to free speech is enshrined in law under Article 10 of the ECHR.

If you don't feel able to participate in a debate without depriving those of a different viewpoint the same opportunity as yourself to defend their stance, then the onus is on you to leave the debate, not them to discard supporting evidence just to suit you.

And no, I'm not pro headphone - I'm just anti bullying.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Telling someone they can debate with you, but only if they conveniently discard evidence that may support their stance is bullying.

Unreasonably asserting your will upon another is overbearing, childish and bullying.

If you're so sure you're right then you will smite down their argument with unassailable logic of your own. Telling them you'll only discuss the matter when they've discarded the evidence you don't feel like discussing lowers the debate to the playground level.

Now, why don't you provide evidence to support that last paragraph, or should I suggest that it's irrelevant and you shouldn't bring that point to the discussion.

So, come on. Back it up with some EVIDENCE.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3282017, member: 45"]
The OP wanted to compare riding with headphones or not riding with headphones. That's two scenarios. Not three. So the comparison is ear-naked or music.
[/QUOTE]
(forgetting about the car thing, which I agree is not relevant)

It's way more than two scenarios. There's no headphones, there's wearing some so you "failed to hear the passenger train’s horn as it thundered towards him, or the shouts of horrified bystanders who tried to stop the cyclist from moving on to the crossing". But there are lots of other ways to add some aural enjoyment to a ride that are between the two.


----------



## david k (31 Oct 2014)

i always listen to my ipod with mainly podcasts or audio books, i enjoy them and dont find it a distraction, i normally ride on trails or quiet roads
i have a mirror and look behind before any manuvre also do a life saver each time, im quite conscious of my surroundings, i dont feel it makes a big difference to my safety so continue with it
i find it more comfortable than wind noise, helps keep me relaxed and to enjoy the ride


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Nov 2014)

jefmcg said:


> (forgetting about the car thing, which I agree is not relevant)
> 
> It's way more than two scenarios. There's no headphones, there's wearing some so you "failed to hear the passenger train’s horn as it thundered towards him, or the shouts of horrified bystanders who tried to stop the cyclist from moving on to the crossing". But there are lots of other ways to add some aural enjoyment to a ride that are between the two.




Methinks that headphones are the least of this cyclist's issues.

Unless the headphone band is over his eyes then the problems here are visual rather than auditory


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

This question comes along with should I wear a vis vest or should I wear a helmet. There is no definitive answer. At the moment it is personal choice, so make your own mind up.


----------



## simongt (27 Jan 2015)

Regarding earphones / headphones, I tried wearing them using a Sony Walkman - yes, it was THAT many years ago - ! I just couldn't get on with them for the simple reason that I felt cut off from what was going on around me. And that was during a stroll in the woods - ! So no, I've never used them since.


----------



## shadow master (27 Jan 2015)

Not for me!but I'm moving at warp factor 5!


----------



## Shut Up Legs (28 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The same eyes, ears and nose need the same input to make the same decision ... simples.
> Decreasing the input decreases the ability to respond - simples
> Why should this be acceptable for person A and very, very naughty for person B


Prejudice. Apparently, cyclists have to be perfect angels, whereas it's 'acceptable' for motorists to (a) close their windows, (b) turn their radios on, (c) talk to passengers while driving, etc. This seems like a pretty clear case of prejudice to me. It's the same reason that cyclists are villified for running red lights, while motorists frequently do the same, with few commenting on it.

I've used earphones before while cycling, and it doesn't impair my situational awareness at all (and yes, I am hearing-impaired). I just use my hearing and sight appropriately, and pay attention.


----------



## simongt (29 Jan 2015)

And of course, it is perfectly legal for motorists to wear earphones whilst driving - !


----------



## Dan B (29 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3505742, member: 45"]It's not about us and them. It's about the indisputable and physically inarguable fact that wearing headphones impairs your hearing while riding.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I would dispute that. I've sometimes found that it reduces wind noise.


----------



## Dan B (29 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3505830, member: 45"]Turn your head to the side. No wind noise in your rear ear.[/QUOTE]
I thought the point was supposed to be that you need to be able to hear what's going on so that you can tell what's behind you _without_ turning your head? If you're going to look round anyway you could just ... look


----------



## green1 (29 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3505742, member: 45"]It's not about us and them. It's about the* indisputable and physically inarguable fact that wearing headphones impairs your hearing while riding*. Whether it does this enough to increase the risk to a level where you're significantly safer not wearing them is the question, but let's not pretend that they have no effect.

It's a comparison of wearing against not wearing, not one of cycling against driving.[/QUOTE]Is it? I find headphones increase the amount I hear as it cuts out wind noise and if I'm on a ride without them I can't hear f'call after a few miles due to what wind noise does to the tinnitus in my right ear.


----------



## AndyWilliams (30 Jan 2015)

I witness people not paying attention, in a day dream, cycling really badly................................................without using headphones.


----------



## Arrowfoot (30 Jan 2015)

I get the sense that alot of the debates is about comparing apples with oranges. They are both vehicles but. Cars are inherently safer, drive much of their time on clear lanes, etc. Bikes on the other hand is not in the same place. There has to be increased level of situalional awarness and hearing plays a big part. I suspect that many of us might not realise how important it was when we first started going on the roads. I now can tell with a reasonable degree if it is black cab, bus or HGV that is behind me. Its the Toyota Prius that startles me when it comes alongside. 

I am sure headphones are alright in less busy parts of the world. But comparing cars to bikes to me might not be a fair comparison.


----------



## Drago (17 Feb 2015)

Fair is for communists. Life in the real World is governed by natural selection, not an artificial human construct designed to negate those with a physical or intellectual advantage in order that the weak and unworthy might prosper and thus prevent the evolution and improvement of the species.

A car has to navigate the same roads and hence the same hazards without killing anyone or getting oneself killed. A typical car with the Windows up deprives the driver of hearing more ambient outside sound than a cyclist with headphones. Period, as the yanks say.

Hell, I've had Land Rovers that were so noisy inside you couldn't hear the radio, and no one is suggesting Series II s should be banned because of issues with drivers hearing, yet they have to safely occupy and navigate the same tarmac that cyclists do.


----------



## anothersam (2 Mar 2015)

I've never quite understood why people get bothered by this, unless you've been run down by a cyclist whose eyesight was impaired because his earphones were so large they cut off his peripheral vision, or who is so incredibly distracted by that devil music he's weaving all over the place like he's filtering around invisible cars. It's a non-issue, though it's dependable fodder for forums and newspapers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/acti...d-cyclists-be-allowed-to-listen-to-music.html
[better version here; or at least fewer typos]



John the Monkey said:


> Six senses!
> "i SEE DEAF PEOPLE"



















jefmcg said:


> I listened to podcasts from around the world when I am cycling: from NPR, BBC, Slate, ABC etc etc. Ideas from around the world seep into my brain, and blend themselves into the landscape around around me. I still remember shortly after setting out on one of my first audaxes, listening to a Radio 4 special about Will Self and psychogeography as I rode through Oxfordshire. The talk about the different types, meanings and uses of maps gained an extra layer as I looked at the two maps I was using that day: the audax route (a list of instructions, landmarks and turns); and the GPX route I was following on my phone. Understanding how those two things were maps, and how there form was driven by the use to which they are put added a new layer to my understanding of maps and of what I was doing.



Beautifully put.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsmjOItqWE

That one isn't going on my iPod.



StuartG said:


> Listening to music on your bike? Great up to 1967 - worth carrying the heavy duty rack, speakers and battery packs. After 1967. What's the point?




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5DPlNCmtk

Released 1968. If that wasn't meant for speakers too big to fit in your ears, I don't know what is.


----------



## StuartG (2 Mar 2015)

anothersam said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5DPlNCmtk
> 
> Released 1968. If that wasn't meant for speakers too big to fit in your ears, I don't know what is.



Ahem. From Wikipedia *"Born to Be Wild" was first recorded in 1967 by Steppenwolf* in a sped-up and rearranged version, thatAllMusic's Hal Horowitz described as "a roaring anthem of turbo-charged riff rock" and "a timeless radio classic as well as a slice of '60s revolt that at once defines Steppenwolf's sound and provided them with their shot at AMimmortality

Nope, nowt after '67 worth dying for


----------



## StuartG (2 Mar 2015)

anothersam said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5DPlNCmtk
> 
> Released 1968. If that wasn't meant for speakers too big to fit in your ears, I don't know what is.



Ahem. From Wikipedia *"Born to Be Wild" was first recorded in 1967 by Steppenwolf* in a sped-up and rearranged version, thatAllMusic's Hal Horowitz described as "a roaring anthem of turbo-charged riff rock" and "a timeless radio classic as well as a slice of '60s revolt that at once defines Steppenwolf's sound and provided them with their shot at AMimmortality

So the '68 version isn't really worth putting on the playlist


----------



## anothersam (2 Mar 2015)

I stand corrected about Born to be Wild – how embarrassing to be wrong about something so easily fact-checked! – though I'm curious why you've chosen 1967. Almost everything that floats my boat came after that, including my favourite Dylan…


----------



## andyfraser (2 Mar 2015)

anothersam said:


> I stand corrected about Born to be Wild – how embarrassing to be wrong about something so easily fact-checked! – though I'm curious why you've chosen 1967. Almost everything that floats my boat came after that, including my favourite Dylan…


I would've picked 1967 too, or more precisely 66 - 68. In my case it's because it's around the time of a big change in music. The rise of rock and psychedelic rock, Hendrix and Zeppelin and Floyd and Purple and Cream.


----------



## Licramite (27 May 2015)

I find music helps to keep me motivated, but again earphones out on the road is a bit of a no no, so I rigged a mini speaker on the left hand side of my helmet, I can hear the music and any traffic around me.
Of course other people can hear my music but what do I care, they will only be by me for a moment before they leave me in their dust as they zoom by (and I'm talking other cyclists here) (or joggers, dog-walkers, zimmer frame users)


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (27 May 2015)

They're not neccessarily dangerous, though I wouldn't recommend them in city traffic. Just look behind you often, keep it to the side of the road and you'll have no problems unless someone wants to ram you on purpose.


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)

Don't keep to the side of the road, that's how you will get squished at pinch points. 

Headphones don't feature in the top fifty ways accidents and collisions are caused.


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)




----------



## Licramite (27 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Don't keep to the side of the road, that's how you will get squished at pinch points.
> 
> Headphones don't feature in the top fifty ways accidents and collisions are caused.


 
please don't use the word "Headphones" I find it disgusting and offensive


----------



## Glow worm (27 May 2015)

Riding home yesterday evening on the commute, headphones in as usual, I heard the police siren approach from behind, and pulled out of the way well before most of the cars around me.


----------



## glenn forger (27 May 2015)

More riders are killed by drivers playing with their mobiles than from anything to do with headphones, so B&H have their priorities skewed. Yet another example of cyclists being asked to modify their behaviour, no matter than the facts point out that headphones are nowhere near a significant factor in the causes of RTCs.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (27 May 2015)

At Christmas I was bought a pair of Audio Technica CPK500 sports headphones. They are a weird in ear fit (with the kind of 'cage' that slots inside the ear to keep them in place and then a bud that goes in to the ear) and have been 'blessed' with the super tangle type of cable that snags on absolutely everything. But on the plus side they are very comfortable and the buds come in two types as well as three sizes. One is smooth and fits snugly in to the ear, the other is ribbed (or possibly furrowed) and fits in so you can hear the music, but doesn't make a tight fit. I am always careful to ride with the volume pretty low anyway but even so occasionally conversations at traffic lights were an issue sometimes with standard ear buds (although I never had issue hearing traffic that mattered during the ride) but I can comfortably hold a conversation with these and they really do seem to serve the purpose of adding music without adding isolation with the ribbed option on the buds (initially I couldn't imagine they'd make a difference).

They are handy, although I'd just wear buds if I didn't have them as I think it's a lot more about the volume you choose to listen to than the action of listening at all.


----------



## Profpointy (27 May 2015)

Motorcyclists are advised to wear ear plugs to reduce the noise. Suffer from hearing damage otherwise.


----------



## Licramite (28 May 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Motorcyclists are advised to wear ear plugs to reduce the noise. Suffer from hearing damage otherwise.


 
No thats only if they listen to rap.


----------



## AndyWilliams (29 May 2015)

I'll take back what I said about riding with headphones. I got something stuck in my tyre when riding, didn't hear the puncture and kept riding. OK I felt it going down but still.....

So, I have been riding without headphones and I am surprised what I hear and how I am much more alert. And I prefer it too.


----------



## Red17 (1 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Motorcyclists are advised to wear ear plugs to reduce the noise. Suffer from hearing damage otherwise.



Its down to wind noise mainly - much worse with modern well ventilated helmets. Not sure if it was as much of an issue before helmets became compulsory but that is a whole other argument.


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (1 Jun 2015)

I always use earphones when cycling. It's boring listening to chainrattle and cars passing by. Look behind you often and you'll have no problems.


----------



## srw (1 Jun 2015)

TheSoulReaver03 said:


> I always use earphones when cycling. It's boring listening to chainrattle and cars passing by. Look behind you often and you'll have no problems.


(a) Adjust your chain so it doesn't rattle and (b) find a quieter road or some friends. Then you can listen to the birds, the frogs and the insects, or have a chat.


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (1 Jun 2015)

srw said:


> (a) Adjust your chain so it doesn't rattle and (b) find a quieter road or some friends. Then you can listen to the birds, the frogs and the insects, or have a chat.



a.) My chain always rattles a bit since I have have a slight bend in the drivetrain :\ and b.) no one I know is a cyclist or likes to cycle long distances.


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (1 Jun 2015)

[QUOTE 3724791, member: 259"]Why do motorcyclists have to lobby in favour of noisy bikes? Are they more fuel-efficient or safer?[/QUOTE]

No, but the sound of a two/four-cylinder engine running directly below you is very loud and damages hearing. They don't neccessarily play music on them, just plug them in so they block some of the noise out.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jun 2015)

TheSoulReaver03 said:


> No, but the sound of a two/four-cylinder engine running directly below you is very loud and damages hearing. They don't neccessarily play music on them, just plug them in so they block some of the noise out.



It wind noise at speed. Engine noise, unless you've added a hooligan exhaust doesn't really figure much, at least for hearing damage.


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (1 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> It wind noise at speed. Engine noise, unless you've added a hooligan exhaust doesn't really figure much, at least for hearing damage.



Well, if it's cold out and you're cycling, then the wind itself can be quite a pain even when cycling. Imagine the intensity of it on a motorbike.


----------



## jefmcg (1 Jun 2015)

[QUOTE 3724791, member: 259"]Why do motorcyclists have to lobby in favour of noisy bikes? Are they more fuel-efficient or safer?[/QUOTE]


----------



## anothersam (2 Jun 2015)

TheSoulReaver03 said:


> They're not neccessarily dangerous, though I wouldn't recommend them in city traffic.


I use them specifically for city traffic, but that's just my crazy self. Also country lanes. Everywhere, really…





It's curious what makes some of us comfortable with them, others not so much. I can appreciate people who have no place for them while cycling, whether it's because of concerns for safety or they prefer listening to the real life soundtrack of their ride. For my own part I've been plugging in since my first end-to-end back in 1997, which if memory serves was accompanied by an awful lot of Tanita Tikaram on cassette tape. These days I'm thankful for mp3 players.

In the city in particular, music relaxes me (I'm sure it would have the opposite effect on others!) It filters out much of what I don't need to hear anyway, while still letting in things like sirens.

In the country, frankly, it gets my mind off how boring the country is, much as I love it here. It also provides the occasional surreal moment such as I experienced yesterday evening as I glided past a well known grazing animal and this came on:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khs_PofcsbQ

Actually it was a cow I went past. I like cows, and not just because Gary Larson did so much to make them interesting. They have big beautiful eyes which follow you as you go past. I often wonder what they're thinking, and if it involves regrets at not being a carnivore.

A lot of people think they're dangerous.






Headphones, I mean. They are quick to give me and others like me Darwin Award points. I just show them my organ donor card and carry on.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> It wind noise at speed. Engine noise, unless you've added a hooligan exhaust doesn't really figure much, at least for hearing damage.


Even hooligan exhausts disappear at speed. Wind noise is the thing. I could ask my mate about wind noise without a helmet, he occasionally heads up on to the Yorkshire moors, loses the helmet and rides around enjoying the scenery.


----------



## anothersam (3 Jun 2015)

I had what educators call a teachable moment yesterday whilst interviewing a gardener (which makes me sound posher than I am, but if the Hunters fit…). "I see you around on your bike," he said after we'd discussed how much Monsanto Roundup should be sprayed to stun but not kill bunnies. After we'd established that yes I am the village cyclist, he launched into a mini diatribe against cyclists who wear "those ear things" and weave all over the road. Needless to say I cleared my throat.

Had a bit of fun watching his eyes slightly bulge at the thought he may have just insulted a potential client, but I'm not cruel enough to enjoy the squirming of even tradesmen, so I let him off the hook by agreeing that yes, it looks like a crazy thing to do, before explaining why it isn't any madder than spraying glyphosate around and hoping the local hoppers regard it as nectar.

Anyway, it turns out his anecdotal ire was based on an apparently misbehaving pedestrian, who in the interests of comity I agreed should also be sprayed with Roundup much like unruly weeds.


----------



## Full Metal Sprocket (14 Jun 2015)

[QUOTE 3271166, member: 259"]I've been wearing headphones on the bike since I could afford my first Sony Walkman - ahem - many years ago.

I must have been clinically dead many times over. [/QUOTE]

Since 1985 for me.


----------



## Dan B (28 Jun 2015)

Full Metal Sprocket said:


> Since 1985 for me.


Everyone was dead in the mid-80s though. Look at any picture of the period


----------



## TheSoulReaver03 (1 Jul 2015)

Dan B said:


> Everyone was dead in the mid-80s though. Look at any picture of the period



If they were dead, how come my parents are still alive?


----------



## Dan B (1 Jul 2015)

TheSoulReaver03 said:


> If they were dead, how come my parents are still alive?


Because it's not the mid-80s any more, of course


----------

