# Cyclists and headphones.



## edwardd67 (9 Sep 2012)

Really noticing an increase in cyclist wearing headphones while cycling.With and without helmets, on and off the pavement and going through Red lights.
Not just commuters but guys and girls you'd think should know better!!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (9 Sep 2012)

Never do it,to dangerous.
helps not having an mp3 player or whatever, the only thing I have is a Nokia N95 with Endomondo on it, no one knows the number except the OH, just ordered aBryton Rider 35, so not sure I will be taking the phone when I get that sorted.


----------



## Pauluk (9 Sep 2012)

edwardd67 said:


> Not just commuters but guys and girls you'd think should know better!!


You'd think. Ignoramuses come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and sometimes ride cycles unfortunately.


----------



## green1 (9 Sep 2012)

I ride with them in, I find music helps me keep a tempo. I have the music pretty low so i can still hear traffic and find that i can hear more of whats going on around me as they remove wind noise. Each to their own and all that.


----------



## HovR (9 Sep 2012)

edwardd67 said:


> Really noticing an increase in cyclist wearing headphones while cycling.With and without helmets, on and off the pavement and going through Red lights.


 
Was this a challenge to see how many controversial topics you can fit in one sentence?


----------



## TheDoctor (9 Sep 2012)

Been wearing headphones off and on for thirty years.
Never wear a helmet.
Never been hit by a car.
If you don't notice a couple of tonnes of metal, then being able to hear isn't going to save your bacon.
Honestly, it's one of the more pointless topics out there...


----------



## AndyPeace (9 Sep 2012)

Personaly I don't, I like to sense everything around me, but it is no different to having a car stereo playing whilst driving. As long as you have presence of mind on the road then its no issue.


----------



## defy-one (10 Sep 2012)

Interesting point about reducing wind noise,so actually helps you hear cars. I shall try this today,without music. Prefer to enjoy whats going on around me


----------



## Boris Bajic (10 Sep 2012)

I wear an MP3 headphone in my left ear on rural rides and have yet to be taken by surprise by approaching traffic.

That sounds like a line from a Carry On film, but isn't meant to.

I do wonder at folk I see in crowded city traffic with both cans on and a far-away look in their eyes.... But it's not something I get very cross about.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Sep 2012)

Recent research has suggested that closing the car window compromises driver hearing to a similar level as headphones in cyclists

Should we not be vociferously campaigning against this irresponsible closing of car windows?


----------



## tadpole (10 Sep 2012)

I used to ride listening to music. Everything from Classical to pop and (real) punk (none of this greeday sh@t) I find I could hear everything I needed to hear, and it didn't cause me any problems on the road. But I also found it slowed me down, and meant I was not working as hard as I wanted to. So I stopped about 8 months ago, I don't miss it. AS if is it safe, as safe as a car radio or bluetooth phone, or drinking coffee and driving a car.


----------



## palinurus (10 Sep 2012)

HovR said:


> Was this a challenge to see how many controversial topics you can fit in one sentence?


 
If it was there's no mention of a preferred manufacturer of groupsets.


----------



## Glow worm (10 Sep 2012)

I normally listen to music on my commute. and never have any problems. As long as you are sensible and have it on at a reasonable volume then I can't see a problem. I can still hear the changing of gears and whirring cassettes of bikes coming up behind me, so hearing cars really isn't ever going to be an issue.

The more of these types of thread I read the closer I come to the conclusion that some folk can happily cope with music while riding and others simply can't. For those that can't cope to try to impose their limitations on the rest of us just seems bonkers to me.


----------



## redcard (10 Sep 2012)

Glow worm said:


> I normally listen to music on my commute. and never have any problems. As long as you are sensible and have it on at a reasonable volume then I can't see a problem. I can still hear the changing of gears and whirring cassettes of bikes coming up behind me, so hearing cars really isn't ever going to be an issue.
> 
> The more of these types of thread I read the closer I come to the conclusion that some folk can happily cope with music while riding and others simply can't. For those that can't cope to try to impose their limitations on the rest of us just seems bonkers to me.



There's many terrible drivers and many awful cyclists who have never had a crash.

Don't pretend you're a great rider because you haven't killed anyone.


----------



## Glow worm (10 Sep 2012)

That may be so but doesn't alter the fact that I can still hear everything I need to at all times. I just can't see a problem, so I guess it's just another case of each to their own and all that!


----------



## smokeysmoo (10 Sep 2012)

Almost agree entirely with TheDoctor

Been wearing headphones off and on for _twenty_ years.
_Always_ wear a helmet.
Never been hit by a car.
If you don't notice a couple of tonnes of metal, then being able to hear isn't going to save your bacon.
Honestly, it's one of the more pointless topics out there...


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2012)

tadpole said:


> I used to ride listening to music. Everything from Classical to pop and (real) punk (none of this greeday sh@t) I find I could hear everything I needed to hear, and it didn't cause me any problems on the road. But I also found it slowed me down, and meant I was not working as hard as I wanted to. So I stopped about 8 months ago, I don't miss it. AS if is it safe, as safe as a car radio or bluetooth phone, or drinking coffee and driving a car.


 
If its slowing you down i would suggest listen to something with a quicker tempo, perhaps american idiot


----------



## edwardd67 (10 Sep 2012)

smokeysmoo said:


> Almost agree entirely with TheDoctor
> 
> Been wearing headphones off and on for _twenty_ years.
> _Always_ wear a helmet.
> ...


So the safety of others is pointless?
So if we all start going through lights while listening to music cycling like we're in a world of our own it will be ok!


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2012)

edwardd67 said:


> So the safety of others is pointless?
> So if we all start going through lights while listening to music cycling like we're in a world of our own it will be ok!


 
Are you reading the same thread?, where does anyone say going through a red light listening to music is ok?


----------



## smokeysmoo (10 Sep 2012)

edwardd67 said:


> So the safety of others is pointless?


No, and at no point have I ever suggested otherwise.



edwardd67 said:


> So if we all start going through lights while listening to music cycling like we're in a world of our own it will be OK!


 
Again no, and to correct your wild assumption of my riding style, I don't RLJ either thank you very much.

Oh yes, out of morbid curiosity, why do you aim this only at me and completely fail to include TheDoctor in your riposte?

Now wind your neck in and calm down. We're all different, what suits you and I wont suit a lot of others, c'est la vie, ride safe.


----------



## gavroche (10 Sep 2012)

I tried riding with earphones once. Hated it so will never do it again.


----------



## User6179 (10 Sep 2012)

gavroche said:


> I tried riding with earphones once. Hated it so will never do it again.


 
Yes better riding a bike!!


----------



## edwardd67 (10 Sep 2012)

Smokeysmoo sorry falied to notice you were Quoting The Doctor.


----------



## StuartG (11 Sep 2012)

smokeysmoo said:


> If you don't notice a couple of tonnes of metal, then being able to hear isn't going to save your bacon.


Not being able to hear 10kg of carbon can do for you too (and them!). The swish is a sound particularly prone to being filtered out by anything covering the ear. Those of us who have suffered from headphoned folk being unaware of what's behind may think you a little selfish.


----------



## smokeysmoo (11 Sep 2012)

Sorry SG but I don't fully understand that from the way you have written it.

I get the gist but it doesn't scan well.

At the end of the day I ride with headphones, I've never had a reason to stop doing, and I've never caused a situation that would make me reassess what I do.

C'est la vie, que sera and all that jazz.

Ride safe.


PS: I always wear a helmet too


----------



## green1 (11 Sep 2012)

If you check your 6 regularly as you should 99% of the time you'll be aware of them. If they are not aware and you do give them a scare which causes a wobble/accident you've not given them enough room as you've gone past.


----------



## green1 (11 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2034694, member: 45"]Sorry, but no. We should not have to make allowances for cylists who have their music turned up so loud that they jump as you pass them giving the normal amount of space.[/quote]
I'm not saying you should, but I've been passed a couple of times where if I had stuck my arm out to signal a right turn the person passing me would have been clotheslined straight off the back of their bike. The highway code rule about leaving sufficient room when passing doesn't just apply to motor vehicles. If you do leave sufficient room then it won't matter if you make them jump that's the whole point of leaving room in the first place.


----------



## Bromptonaut (11 Sep 2012)

The trouble with this debate is that 'headphones' is used generically. At one end are the sort that are open backed and loose in the ear. At the other are those that hermetically seal to the ear canal AND have electronic noise reduction. As a train pax I've tried the range and found that open backs are useless; background noise from mechanicals and other pax audible even when you're pi**ing them off with full volume boom tish boom tish. OTOH with the sealed sort you can miss the announcement for your station. 

On the bike I prefer hearing everything and won't listen at all.


----------



## TheDoctor (11 Sep 2012)

StuartG said:


> Not being able to hear 10kg of carbon can do for you too (and them!). The swish is a sound particularly prone to being filtered out by anything covering the ear. Those of us who have suffered from headphoned folk being unaware of what's behind may think you a little selfish.


 
Smokey was quoting me there.
Listening to music is one thing, hearing nothing but the music is quite another. Anyway, it's unwise to rely purely on hearing - you do need to look.
The look over your shoulder before turning isn't called a Lifesaver for nothing.


----------



## srw (13 Sep 2012)

green1 said:


> I'm not saying you should, but I've been passed a couple of times where if I had stuck my arm out to signal a right turn the person passing me would have been clotheslined straight off the back of their bike. The highway code rule about leaving sufficient room when passing doesn't just apply to motor vehicles. If you do leave sufficient room then it won't matter if you make them jump that's the whole point of leaving room in the first place.


 Do they stiill teach "mirror, signal, manoeuvre"? It's the same on a bike - except that it's "look, signal, manoeuvre".

If you stick your arm out without making sure that it's safe to do so - that's your problem.


----------



## green1 (13 Sep 2012)

srw said:


> Do they stiill teach "mirror, signal, manoeuvre"? It's the same on a bike - except that it's "look, signal, manoeuvre".
> 
> If you stick your arm out without making sure that it's safe to do so - that's your problem.


I was fully aware they were there, that's why i said if.


----------



## Saluki (13 Sep 2012)

green1 said:


> I ride with them in, I find music helps me keep a tempo. I have the music pretty low so i can still hear traffic and find that i can hear more of whats going on around me as they remove wind noise. Each to their own and all that.


 
Me too. Not all the time, but sometimes. I listen with one ear thingy in, generally the left ear. Only quietly so I can hear traffic very well, I can even hear the sound of my bike travelling over the tarmac.
My headphones were a Godsend on Saturday. I put them in after about 48 miles and the thought of being able to turn off 70's big hair rock as soon as I finished the ride, spurred me on


----------



## Andy84 (13 Sep 2012)

Are deaf people allowed to ride on the road?


----------



## marzjennings (13 Sep 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> Been wearing headphones off and on for thirty years.
> Never wear a helmet.
> Never been hit by a car.
> If you don't notice a couple of tonnes of metal, then being able to hear isn't going to save your bacon.
> Honestly, it's one of the more pointless topics out there...


 
Not too similar for me.

Been wearing headphones off and on for about 25 years
Almost always wear a helmet
Been hit twice (both when without helmet or headphones)
If you don't notice a couple of tonnes of metal, then being able to hear isn't going to save your bacon.
Honestly, it's one of the more pointless topics out there..


----------



## smokeysmoo (13 Sep 2012)

Andy84 said:


> Are deaf people allowed to ride on the road?


Pardon?


----------



## StuartG (18 Sep 2012)

Yes it is because I have a deaf daughter that I am somewhat sensitive on this issue. Despite her compensatory more highly developed visual skills than you or I she knows and I have to agree she is at a disadvantage of being aware of danger.

People who think 'looking over your shoulder' is a complete solution are deluding themselves. Building a picture of what is around you is always incomplete. You try hard but if there is something dodgy ahead you may need to forgo the glance back. And any lifesaver should be to confirm what you already think is there. Goodness me the state of the road, watching for and dodging potholes can almost be a full time activity.

That's why, unless you don't have one, it is unwise to rely on one sense alone. There may be no time for that lifesaver. Which may leave you, and the person behind ...


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Sep 2012)

Safety considerations aside, I'm not sure why people feel the need to be entertained at every moment of every day.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Sep 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Safety considerations aside, I'm not sure why people* feel the need* to be entertained at every moment of every day.


 
I once saw a documentary in which a long-suffering father and monarch was asked to explain why something (in his case a military escort) was needed. His reply, caught on camera, amused me:

He said:_ "Oh, reason not the need. Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfuous. Allow not nature more than nature needs."_

Although the poor chap (who was the main subject of this documentary) was clearly in some way mentally unwell, I thought the point a good one and I thought he made it well.

For the record, I use an MP3 player (left ear only) on some rural rides. I am not a monarch.


----------



## Glow worm (19 Sep 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Safety considerations aside, I'm not sure why people feel the need to be entertained at every moment of every day.



I'm not sure you could call much of my music collection 'entertainment'!


----------



## Theseus (19 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I once saw a documentary in which a long-suffering father and monarch was asked to explain why something (in his case a military escort) was needed. His reply, caught on camera, amused me:
> 
> He said:_ "Oh, reason not the need. Our basest beggars are in the poorest things superfuous. Allow not nature more than nature needs."_
> 
> ...


 
I would be a bit leary of any claims from madmen cast into the raging night.


----------



## mickle (19 Sep 2012)

What a load of sh!t I cannot think of a single situation where being able to hear what's going on outsde of my field of vision would have any influence on my behaviour on the road. Anyone who says they can tell the trajectory of a vehicle from the sound of it approaching from the rear by is a liar.


----------



## mickle (19 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2049457, member: 45"]Do your lanes not have bends?[/quote]
Explain how sound influences the way you ride.


----------



## Bromptonaut (19 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> What a load of sh!t I cannot think of a single situation where being able to hear what's going on outsde of my field of vision would have any influence on my behaviour on the road. Anyone who says they can tell the trajectory of a vehicle from the sound of it approaching from the rear by is a liar.


 
Hmmm!

Two assertions there. As to the first in London, and that may be significant, being able to hear emergency vehicles and the whistles of VIP escorts, for example, often gives me clues on activity outwith my field of vision. The engine note of a vehicle behind gives significant clues as to driver's observation and attitude. It's exact trajectory may need visual confirmation but hearing is advance notice of the clueless close pass merchant.


----------



## mickle (19 Sep 2012)

Bromptonaut said:


> Hmmm!
> 
> Two assertions there. As to the first in London, and that may be significant, being able to hear emergency vehicles and the whistles of VIP escorts, for example, often gives me clues on activity outwith my field of vision. The engine note of a vehicle behind gives significant clues as to driver's observation and attitude. It's exact trajectory may need visual confirmation but hearing is advance notice of the clueless close pass merchant.


Ive yet to try a set of ear phones capable of blocking the sound of a siren. 
As someone who habitually wears fones im genuinely interested to know - how does your behaviour change in response to audible signals. Seriously. What do people do?


----------



## mickle (19 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2049574, member: 45"]Sound info gives me another consideration when assessing the risk of my cycling. I've given clear examples before. I'd prefer not to be missing any information that's available to me. 

It's all about accepted level of risk. If I can hear something, like a chavmobile hurtling in my direction from around a bend on a lane, then I'm better prepared.[/quote]
I'm interested to know how your behaviour changes in response to audible stimuli.


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

Youre not answering my question.


----------



## Hawk (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Youre not answering my question.


 

A few examples of how I used hearing recently:

I am behind a moving car which is indicating right to move out due to parked car in our lane. There is a gap on my right. I look over my shoulder and indicate. I am now looking forward and know what the car infront is doing (slowing?). I hear the rev'ing of an engine in otherwise free-moving traffic, behind me. I have deduced that the chap in the outside lane behind me is a cockwomble and isn't about to let me out so can go straight to plan B (e.g stop and wait for next space). A quick glance can confirm but I heard it coming two seconds ago anyway.

I can hear an emergency siren in the distance. I turn round and see an ambulance around 400 metres away from me as I wait at lights near a hospital. Ambulance has moved in to oncoming lane of a 30mph single carriageway, behind me on my right. Hospital is at same junction, on my left. Would be extremely difficult for drivers to see in mirrors. I pull a few metres ahead of ASL and signal to three lanes of traffic to wait up til the ambulance is through and and turned left (across our path), the lights turn green whilst the ambulance is still 300m away. We'd have gone on green light if I had spotted the ambulance a few seconds later, thus ambulance would have had to left hook three lanes of moving traffic effectively.

Group ride, we have constant overtaking vehicle, I am rear rider; I hear each one coming and can call a "tail" warning based on looking ahead and analysing what's going on ahead of me to see if an overtaking vehicle is coming in to conflict with us.

Wide lane, I'm doing 30mph, limit is maybe 40mph. Secondary gives adequate room for cars to overtake. A truck catches me up and is waiting behind me. Windy day. There is a gap in traffic appearing in about 8 seconds that I expect the driver will use to overtake safely. Suddenly, I hear the truck engine rev'ing up and realise the driver is going for a stupid overtake instead. I can brace myself a little so the turbulence around the truck wont come as a surprise.


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2049892, member: 45"]I am. It changes the timings of my actions, giving me a bigger safety zone.[/quote]

I just cant see it. If I ride in accordance with the national standards/ Cycle Craft/ Bikeability there isn't a sound which can change the specifics of what I do.

You're failing to convince me so I'd like you to try a bit harder. _Which sound_ makes you change your course _and how_ does your behaviour - speed and/or trajectory presumably - vary as a result.
You've given the example of a chav in a Corsa, presumably you're suggesting that you hear the engine revving before you see the vehicle? What do you do? Jump into a hedge?


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

Hawk said:


> A few examples of how I used hearing recently:
> 
> I am behind a moving car which is indicating right to move out due to parked car in our lane. There is a gap on my right. I look over my shoulder and indicate. I am now looking forward and know what the car infront is doing (slowing?). I hear the rev'ing of an engine in otherwise free-moving traffic, behind me. I have deduced that the chap in the outside lane behind me is a cockwomble and isn't about to let me out so can go straight to plan B (e.g stop and wait for next space). A quick glance can confirm but I heard it coming two seconds ago anyway.


 Nope. Either stay in the shadow of the slowing vehicle. Or Stop. Very straightforward. The sound of the car hasn't told you anything you couldn't have worked out with your eyes.



Hawk said:


> I can hear an emergency siren in the distance. I turn round and see an ambulance around 400 metres away from me as I wait at lights near a hospital. Ambulance has moved in to oncoming lane of a 30mph single carriageway, behind me on my right. Hospital is at same junction, on my left. Would be extremely difficult for drivers to see in mirrors. I pull a few metres ahead of ASL and signal to three lanes of traffic to wait up til the ambulance is through and and turned left (across our path), the lights turn green whilst the ambulance is still 300m away. We'd have gone on green light if I had spotted the ambulance a few seconds later, thus ambulance would have had to left hook three lanes of moving traffic effectively.


 I can hear an emergency vehicle through my headphones - it's why they're loud.



Hawk said:


> Group ride, we have constant overtaking vehicle, I am rear rider; I hear each one coming and can call a "tail" warning based on looking ahead and analysing what's going on ahead of me to see if an overtaking vehicle is coming in to conflict with us.


 Huh? If a car is - as you suggest - about to 'come into conflict' _what exactly do you all do?_



Hawk said:


> Wide lane, I'm doing 30mph, limit is maybe 40mph. Secondary gives adequate room for cars to overtake. A truck catches me up and is waiting behind me. Windy day. There is a gap in traffic appearing in about 8 seconds that I expect the driver will use to overtake safely. Suddenly, I hear the truck engine rev'ing up and realise the driver is going for a stupid overtake instead. I can brace myself a little so the turbulence around the truck wont come as a surprise.


 *Primary* Chris. Final answer.


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

Gawd, it'll be absolute frickin mayhem if electric vehicles ever take to the road in significant numbers....


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> *Huh? If a car is - as you suggest - about to 'come into conflict' what exactly do you all do?*


 
Move over predictably, smoothly and without flinching. If it is going to be a tight squeeze someone will command the group to ease up or go easy so as to slow down the pace without people slamming brakes on and piling up. If the road is particularly busy and a tight squeeze then someone will ask the group to get into a single line.

Some things you cannot do much about.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> *Primary* Chris. Final answer.


So primary all the way down the road? 

As someone mentioned up-thread, there is enough to do looking out for potholes, hearing a vehicle approach from behind can give you the opportunity to alter your road position, either to brace for turbulence from a truck or to take primary. As an example, I'm heading towards Shooters Hill, I glance back and see a car a good 100 yards back. My attention is then drawn to a notorious junction where people often just pull out in front of bikes. As I pass the junction, I hear that the car behind me is now close, I'm approaching a pinch point and so take primary to put off a close pass. If there's no car there's no point changing my line and my hearing has let me know he's caught up


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> So primary all the way down the road?
> As someone mentioned up-thread, there is enough to do looking out for potholes, hearing a vehicle approach from behind can give you the opportunity to alter your road position, either to brace for turbulence from a truck or to take primary.


 
Why do you need to alter your road position just because you hear a car approach from behind? You should already be in an appropriate position on the road regardless of what traffic may or may not be behind you.

Also you would take primary without looking to see what's behind you first? What if there was another cyclist overtaking you, in front of the car you hear approaching, you may move into them.

If some one is depending on their hearing to give warning of dangers on the road then they are not 'looking' around enough. (Sirens and group ride communication aside)


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Why do you need to alter your road position just because you hear a car approach from behind? You should already be in an appropriate position on the road regardless of what traffic may or may not be behind you.
> 
> Also you would take primary without looking to see what's behind you first? What if there was another cyclist overtaking you, in front of the car you hear approaching, you may move into them.
> 
> If some one is depending on their hearing to give warning of dangers on the road then they are not 'looking' around enough. (Sirens and group ride communication aside)


Where would the cyclist come from? Sorry but there isn't time to see everything you need to and to deliberately take one of your other senses out of a situation in which it may be useful is just crazy. 

And why take primary if I don't need it, that just means I have to move back out of people's way afterwards


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> What a load of sh!t I cannot think of a single situation where being able to hear what's going on outsde of my field of vision would have any influence on my behaviour on the road. Anyone who says they can tell the trajectory of a vehicle from the sound of it approaching from the rear by is a liar.


 
I think this may be more strongly worded than is helpful. I wear headphones on rural climbs (left ear only) and in the past I've worn them in both ears.

I accept that knowledge of movement outside one's field of vision might not influence one's actions, but it can be very helpful.

One reason I took to leaving the right earphone out was that I was occasionally surprised to find fast-moving trucks alongside me. You might argue that I therefore do not look behind frequently enough. Among both cycling and motorcycling friends (past tense) I am/was ridiculed for looking behind too often - even on a race track. 

Finding an artic' alongside me may not influence my actions directly, but there is an element of mild surprise there which can affect my responses. This may affect my behaviour.

I am strongly in the MP3-on-a-bicycle camp, but I do find that however frequently one looks to the rear, it is helpful to have some auditory notion of vehicles approaching from what for much of one's time in the saddle is a blindspot.


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Where would the cyclist come from? Sorry but there isn't time to see everything you need to and to deliberately take one of your other senses out of a situation in which it may be useful is just crazy.
> 
> And why take primary if I don't need it, that just means I have to move back out of people's way afterwards


 
'Out of people's way'?? Really?


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> 'Out of people's way'?? Really?


I don't really like to be a nuisance cyclist and I don't really need 6' of empty road to my left most of the time so yes I would have to move back over from primary and out of people's way.


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Where would the cyclist come from? Sorry but there isn't time to see everything you need to and to deliberately take one of your other senses out of a situation in which it may be useful is just crazy.


Make time to see everything. If you not looking you're not riding safely.

I'm pretty sure a car driver who hit a cyclist and claims they never heard them is in a lot of trouble. Same for a cyclist.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Make time to see everything. If you not looking you're not riding safely.
> 
> I'm pretty sure a car driver who hit a cyclist and claims they never heard them is in a lot of trouble. Same for a cyclist.


Didn't say I wasn't looking. If you have to see everything to cycle safely then it's impossible to cycle safely in London. There is far too much going on for you to see everything hence you use your other senses

Being aware isn't the same as seeing


----------



## Hawk (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Nope. Either stay in the shadow of the slowing vehicle. Or Stop. Very straightforward. The sound of the car hasn't told you anything you couldn't have worked out with your eyes.


 
Disagree, I would have needed an extremely substantial look backwards to determine the car was accelerating to block off the space to my right i.e not let me out. To work out it was accelerating I would need to (ok subconsciously BUT the following has to happen, otherwise it's mathematically impossible for me to work out it's accelerating):

Determine its position once
Determine its position a second time and determine what distance it has covered in what time from position 1; get a feel for its speed
Determine its position a third time and determine what distance it has covered in what time from position 2; get a feel for its speed
Compare the relative speeds between 1-2 and 2-3 

All this time I NEED to be looking backwards and can't be paying attention to what's in front of me.

Much less safe option than looking forwards and listening then paying a quick glance to confirm the gap's still there.



mickle said:


> I can hear an emergency vehicle through my headphones - it's why they're loud.


 
I barely heard this one over the sound of HGVs and traffic when it was ~400m away. I'm sure you'd have heard it before it "left hooked" as I described but here an earlier initial audible warning allowed me to take a better course of action.



mickle said:


> Huh? If a car is - as you suggest - about to 'come into conflict' _what exactly do you all do?_


 
A few examples:

Car overtakes in to oncoming traffic
Slow in a controlled manner and allow driver to complete overtake rather than have a head-on
Move as far as possible to the left to minimise the chances of a head-on wiping us all out
A warning prompt riders in to an immediate heightened state of alert and notifies them they're in a safety-critical situation. 

Close overtake
Riders alerted to situation (always helps)
Riders have time to plan and predict what's going to happen
Maybe they need to ride through a pothole, that they could otherwise have avoided, to prevent having to swerve laterally in to a dangerously overtaking vehicle. Stuff like that




mickle said:


> *Primary* Chris. Final answer.


 
OK, then the same thing happens when I'm in primary (i.e I get squezed even though I am middle of the lane). Same difference, I still know about turbulence about to hit me


----------



## G2EWS (20 Sep 2012)

Hi All,

Sorry to see you fellows getting cross with each other. This is obviously an emotive subject. Surely we are all allowed our own opinion. Neither right or wrong, just ours!

Anyway, back to the purpose of the thread. Personally I suffer very bad tinnitus, I hear white noise 24/7 and a 1kHz tone 24/7. If tired or stressed I get very high pitch sounds coming through in waves. Sounds awful and guess it is, but as will all problems you get used to it and thank heavens that you don't have something worse wrong with you.

But this means my hearing would be seriously impaired if I put headphones on whilst cycling, so am unlikely to try it.

I was under the impression that it was illegal to wear headphones when driving and can see that this law may actually be applied to cyclists as well?

Best regards

Chris


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I don't really like to be a nuisance cyclist and I don't really need 6' of empty road to my left most of the time so yes I would have to move back over from primary and out of people's way.


 
Is the primary position 6ft from the kerb ?


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> . If you have to see everything to cycle safely then it's impossible to cycle safely in London. There is far too much going on for you to see everything hence you use your other senses


 
I disagree, almost everything you need to be aware to cycle safely in London you can see and should be looking out for. Tourists/children stepping into the road, taxis coming out of side streets, buses pulling out, cars changing lanes, motorbikes splitting the lane, other cyclists, pot holes, red lights, etc. Yes it's pretty crazy, but all of it only requires visual observation. If you feel you're missing stuff and that your hearing is filling in the gap you are not looking around enough.


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Sorry to see you fellows getting cross with each other. This is obviously an emotive subject. Surely we are all allowed our own opinion. Neither right or wrong, just ours!
> 
> ...


 
Illegal to wear headphones - which law is this?,is it maybe to do with comunications rather than listening to music?,would be very surprised if wearing headphones was illegal.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I disagree, almost everything you need to be aware to cycle safely in London you can see and should be looking out for. Tourists/children stepping into the road, taxis coming out of side streets, buses pulling out, cars changing lanes, motorbikes splitting the lane, other cyclists, pot holes, red lights, etc. Yes it's pretty crazy, but all of it only requires visual observation. If you feel you're missing stuff and that your hearing is filling in the gap you are not looking around enough.


So if you're looking at all the stuff on your list (which is all forward facing I notice) when do you have time to look behind you? Good idea to keep your ears open too, no?

Sorry but as I said before: to deliberately remove a key sense when cycling is madness to me. It's like eating with a peg on your nose


----------



## green1 (20 Sep 2012)

Hawk said:


> A few examples of how I used hearing recently:
> Group ride, we have constant overtaking vehicle, I am rear rider; I hear each one coming and can call a "tail" warning based on looking ahead and analysing what's going on ahead of me to see if an overtaking vehicle is coming in to conflict with us.


I think every rider who wears headphones wouldn't be wearing them if they were out of a group ride. It would kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

Eddy said:


> Is the primary position 6ft from the kerb ?


Primary is wherever you feel you have control of the whole lane.


----------



## G2EWS (20 Sep 2012)

Eddy said:


> Illegal to wear headphones - which law is this?,is it maybe to do with comunications rather than listening to music?,would be very surprised if wearing headphones was illegal.


 
Hi Eddy,

Just checked and it is indeed an urban myth. However, if the driver was spotted driving without due care and attention and wearing headphones in both ears, then that would be taken into consideration.

Best regards

Chris


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Primary is wherever you feel you have control of the whole lane.


 
White line in the middle of the road for me then ,just googled it and it says middle of your lane ,I always thought primary was 1 metre out ,dont know how I thought that ,saying that most of the roads you need to stop dangerous overtakers on are quite narrow and i dont think if the road lane is 12ft wide you would need to take primary ( 6ft to your left) as most cars are about 6ft wide .


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

Eddy said:


> White line in the middle of the road for me then ,just googled it and it says middle of your lane ,I always thought primary was 1 metre out ,dont know how I thought that ,saying that most of the roads you need to stop dangerous overtakers on are quite narrow and i dont think if the road lane is 12ft wide you would need to take primary ( 6ft to your left) as most cars are about 6ft wide .


I personally would count a metre out usually as secondary. But as I say primary is wherever *you* feel you need to be to have control of the lane.

As an example going through a pinch point I'll usually put myself bang centre of the lane if there's traffic behind me. However coming down Shooters Hill (multiple pinch points, 40+mph for me) I will tend to be about a foot to the left of the centre line to discourage all overtakes. I don't like being overtaken at 40 by a twonk who then immediately puts his brakes on


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi Eddy,
> 
> Just checked and it is indeed an urban myth. However, if the driver was spotted driving without due care and attention and wearing headphones in both ears, then that would be taken into consideration.
> 
> ...


 
Thats what i thought and what you say above you could also say the same if someone had the radio on or was having a conversation.
cheers


----------



## G2EWS (20 Sep 2012)

Very interesting reading on the Primary and Secondary position having just goggled it. Along with the fact that riding two abreast is also perfectly legal.

As a newbie to this cycling on roads I think we need to re educate motorists to these rules as I was not aware of them and wonder how many none cyclist motorist know how the law stands!

Regards

Chris


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Very interesting reading on the Primary and Secondary position having just goggled it. Along with the fact that riding two abreast is also perfectly legal.
> 
> As a newbie to this cycling on roads I think we need to re educate motorists to these rules as I was not aware of them and wonder how many none cyclist motorist know how the law stands!
> 
> ...


 
Most motorist wont be interested to be honest as they just see cyclists as a nuisance !


----------



## User6179 (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I personally would count a metre out usually as secondary. But as I say primary is wherever *you* feel you need to be to have control of the lane.
> 
> As an example going through a pinch point I'll usually put myself bang centre of the lane if there's traffic behind me. However coming down Shooters Hill (multiple pinch points, 40+mph for me) I will tend to be about a foot to the left of the centre line to discourage all overtakes. I don't like being overtaken at 40 by a twonk who then immediately puts his brakes on


 
Yep , the amount of times im overtook just before a roundabout then they put the brakes on in front of me, think maybe im to far to the left .
cheers


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Sorry to see you fellows getting cross with each other. This is obviously an emotive subject. Surely we are all allowed our own opinion. Neither right or wrong, just ours!


I have a problem with the presumption by some on this thread that the use of headphones whilst pedaling a bicycle is 'dangerous', 'madness', 'crazy' etc without - it seems to me - any real understanding of how listening to what's going on around us actually affects what we do. I remain completely unconvinced that the use of headphones has a measurable negative effect on cyclists safety. And I guarantee that asking the antis for evidence would be an exercise in futility.

And anyway. 1) Cyclists wearing headphones hear about the same as drivers.
And anyway. 2) Electric cars.
And anyway. 3) Deaf people.
And anyway. 4)_ It's a perfectly legal activity._
And most of all. 5) A girl was killed a couple of years ago here in York performing a perfectly legal and mundane every-day manouver. She was hit by a reversing lorry which was crossing a cycle track. The papers and their websites were full of 'comment' after the event and one of the recurring themes was that she was wearing headphones - as if this had any bearing on the incident. It made her out to be wholly responsible more her own demise. The fact was that the collision wasn't her fault and, actually, _she wasn't even wearing headphones_! But it deflected attention away from the real cause of her death. 'Stupid girl had it coming' was the implication. Kinda sickening, but symptomatic of the contempt with which great swathes of the population hold cyclists.

If people are going to suggest that my decision to wear headphones is 'dangerous' and that I am, by implication 'crazy' they'd better have a decent argument. And I haven't seen one yet.


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> So if you're looking at all the stuff on your list (which is all forward facing I notice) when do you have time to look behind you? Good idea to keep your ears open too, no?
> 
> Sorry but as I said before: to deliberately remove a key sense when cycling is madness to me. It's like eating with a peg on your nose


 
Unless I'm making a move in the road (changing lane, turning, overtaking), I really don't care what's behind me. I'll glance behind to keep aware of how busy the road is and always check before making a move. But on the open road and if I'm in a good position on the road (usually secondary) I just assume that somewhere behind there is a car and at some point they will overtake. Nothing really to see or listen out for.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Unless I'm making a move in the road (changing lane, turning, overtaking), I really don't care what's behind me. I'll glance behind to keep aware of how busy the road is and always check before making a move. But on the open road and if I'm in a good position on the road (usually secondary) I just assume that somewhere behind there is a car and at some point they will overtake. Nothing really to see or listen out for.


Ok in London there is ALWAYS something in front of you, alongside you and behind you. You need to get used to having all your wits and senses about you.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> If people are going to suggest that my decision to wear headphones is 'dangerous' and that I am, by implication 'crazy' they'd better have a decent argument. And I haven't seen one yet.


 
This is not really representative of general cycling (I don't have much of an opinion on the matter really), but if riding in a group, you are relying on those on the front to spot hazards (pot hole, recessed man hole cover, wet/slippery man hole cover, gravel etc) and to signal, this propagates down the line. Sometimes it is not possible to signal with your hands and a shout is required. If you are wearing headphones your ability to comprehend the call is impaired, thus you may hit whatever the person at the front advised you to avoid. Or you may fail to propagate the call down the line and someone else may hit it if you are lucky enough to miss it.


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Ok in London there is ALWAYS something in front of you, alongside you and behind you. You need to get used to having all your wits and senses about you.


Yes, so what are you listening for? If there's always a car behind you, what additional information do your ears provide you with.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Yes, so what are you listening for? If there's always a car behind you, what additional information do your ears provide you with.


Proximity, level of patience, idea of the attitude of the driver


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> This is not really representative of general cycling (I don't have much of an opinion on the matter really), but if riding in a group, you are relying on those on the front to spot hazards (pot hole, recessed man hole cover, wet/slippery man hole cover, gravel etc) and to signal, this propagates down the line. Sometimes it is not possible to signal with your hands and a shout is required. If you are wearing headphones your ability to comprehend the call is impaired, thus you may hit whatever the person at the front advised you to avoid. Or you may fail to propagate the call down the line and someone else may hit it if you are lucky enough to miss it.


 
Nobody wears headphones on group rides. That is, not if the want to be invited on the group ride again.


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Proximity, level of patience, idea of the attitude of the driver


 

Again, doesn't matter. They can sit there and fume and rev all they like. The attitude of the driver behind should never distract you from the road ahead.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Again, doesn't matter. They can sit there and fume and rev all they like. The attitude of the driver behind should never distract you from the road ahead.


But they don't sit there and fume do they? They attempt to squeeze past. They can wind themselves into a state where physical attack may become likely. Yes while you're lying on the ground you can shout "I was right" at them. 

Nothing distracts me from my environment not just what's in front of me 

Again my question is why would you deliberately remove a useful sense from the equation?


----------



## Rezillo (20 Sep 2012)

In 2005, a senior manager in my workplace was killed while cycling into work. It was part of a 20+ mile route that he had cycled regularly for years.

Witnesses described him pulling straight out of a road junction into the path of a oncoming car. The car was not travelling at excessive speed and the driver had no chance to avoid him. Why he pulled out into the path of oncoming traffic is a mystery. However, his earphones and player were found smashed in the road and it was thought he was probably wearing them at the time. 

The inquest drew no conclusion as to whether the earphones were a contributory factor but I can't help feeling that he might be alive now if he had a chance to hear the car rather than just not register it visually. The car was in clear sight so perhaps he was just in a world of his own while cycling a route he knew backwards - a situation that would not be helped by wrapping yourself up in a separate audio environment.

His death shook us all up - he was a really nice guy and a champion and supporter of cycling generally. Like others here, I just think to deprive yourself of a key sense that helps to warn of very real dangers is just not worth it.

John


----------



## marzjennings (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> But they don't sit there and fume do they? They attempt to squeeze past. They can wind themselves into a state where physical attack may become likely. Yes while you're lying on the ground you can shout "I was right" at them.
> 
> Nothing distracts me from my environment not just what's in front of me
> 
> Again my question is why would you deliberately remove a useful sense from the equation?


 
I don't find the data I receive through my ears while cycling useful. I feel I 'see' everything I need.

And I don't care what they try and do. 99.9% of drivers will not hit you on purpose and will do all they can to avoid hitting you. Regardless of how much they rage, rant and fume.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I don't find the data I receive through my ears while cycling useful. I feel I 'see' everything I need.


Then there's no further discussion to be had.


----------



## Bromptonaut (20 Sep 2012)

I'm still with Martin & User. Hearing gives some clues to add to what I can see. Sometimes its stuff I would have seen if I'd not been focussed on higher priorities like potholes or the tw*nt in front. Other times it's stuff I cannot see yet 'cos it's concealed by a buildig/bend/large vehicle or whatever.

If others feel they don't need those clues then fairynuff


----------



## green1 (20 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I don't find the data I receive through my ears while cycling useful.



Listening to wind noise isn't very useful is it?


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Sep 2012)

Good god,thank god there are no deaf cyclists.


----------



## green1 (20 Sep 2012)

I well aware of that, but i can't ride around with my head permanently turned to the side. I suffer from tinnitus and wind noise makes it considerably worse, hence why I wear earphones. I tried earplugs once but they blocked out too much noise.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Sep 2012)

I've seen worse cycling from people who only seem to rely on their hearing.


----------



## srw (20 Sep 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> I've seen worse cycling from people who only seem to rely on their hearing.


Which is why you rarely see a blind cyclist.

If you don't believe you need all your available senses, and prefer to hear Warhammer than yellowhamers then bully for you. But I'll be taking extra care around you - just like I take extra care around fixie riders, red light jumpers and people who wear a helmet without doing the straps up.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Sep 2012)

srw said:


> Which is why you rarely see a blind cyclist.
> 
> If you don't believe you need all your available senses, and prefer to hear Warhammer than yellowhamers then bully for you. But I'll be taking extra care around you - just like I take extra care around fixie riders, red light jumpers and people who wear a helmet without doing the straps up.


 
Personal choice and as i've been using headphones on the bike since 1985.I can't see what the problem is and I also don't advertise the fact either so you wouldn't know anyway if you saw me.


----------



## martint235 (20 Sep 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Personal choice and as i've been using headphones on the bike since 1985.I can't see what the problem is and I also don't advertise the fact either so you wouldn't know anyway if you saw me.


Surely the headphones are a give-away?


----------



## mickle (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Again my question is why would you deliberately remove a useful sense from the equation?


Again. Because hearing is superfluous. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise with evidence or a convincing argument.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Surely the headphones are a give-away?


 
Hidden by a bandana and helmutt.They are only small ones anyway.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (20 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Surely the headphones are a give-away?


 
Hidden by a bandana and helmutt.They are only small ones anyway.


----------



## srw (21 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Again. Because hearing is superfluous. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise with evidence or a convincing argument.


Mickle, you're being unusually obstreperous on this. Plenty of people have provided concrete examples which you've airily dismissed as being irrelevant using a variety of very dodgy debating techniques.

Hearing certainly isn't necessary, but many people find it a useful addition to the safety repertoire, and find it ludicrous that someone would voluntarily choose to deny themselves its benefits. Not to mention that anyone would prefer to listen to manufactured shite than to the sounds of the natural world which are one of the joys of cycling.

Of course if you're actually working your way through Byrd's choral music before embarking on a course of Philip Glass I might revise my opinion, but somehow I suspect that's unlikely.


----------



## mickle (21 Sep 2012)

srw said:


> Mickle, you're being unusually obstreperous on this. Plenty of people have provided concrete examples which you've airily dismissed as being irrelevant using a variety of very dodgy debating techniques.
> 
> Hearing certainly isn't necessary, but many people find it a useful addition to the safety repertoire, and find it ludicrous that someone would voluntarily choose to deny themselves its benefits. Not to mention that anyone would prefer to listen to manufactured s***e than to the sounds of the natural world which are one of the joys of cycling.
> 
> Of course if you're actually working your way through Byrd's choral music before embarking on a course of Philip Glass I might revise my opinion, but somehow I suspect that's unlikely.



There we go again - ludicrous? I contend that its possible to ride perfectly safely without the use of sound. None of the examples offered have convinced me otherwise. And I'll take Johnny Cash over the traffic on the A19 any day.


----------



## martint235 (21 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> There we go again - ludicrous? I contend that its possible to ride perfectly safely without the use of sound. None of the examples offered have convinced me otherwise. And I'll take Johnny Cash over the traffic on the A19 any day.


No one is arguing that it's possible to cycle safely without hearing, look at the deaf cyclists mentioned. What is argued is that hearing is a useful sense to have which you just stubbornly refute without evidence to back it up. And "you can't tell if a vehicle is in front of you or behind you by hearing alone" is irrelevant because no one has suggested cycling blindfolded


----------



## Nigelnaturist (21 Sep 2012)

green1 said:


> Listening to wind noise isn't very useful is it?


Can be, I have never found a need to listen to anything whilst riding, other than whats around me, same as when walking.
A little off topic here, I used to collect shell fish on the West coast of Scotland, some days when it was still, you could here the tide turn, its very subtle, you wouldn't get that with headphones on music or not. This is what is meant by sensory perception, things so subtle it gives you warning.


----------



## mickle (21 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> No one is arguing that it's possible to cycle safely without hearing, look at the deaf cyclists mentioned. What is argued is that hearing is a useful sense to have which you just stubbornly refute without evidence to back it up.


 
If you agree that it's possible to cycle safely without using sound why are people using words like 'crazy', 'ludicrous', to describe people who chose to ride with headphones.



martint235 said:


> And "you can't tell if a vehicle is in front of you or behind you by hearing alone" is irrelevant because no one has suggested cycling blindfolded


Not mine.


----------



## marafi (21 Sep 2012)

I remember seening on the TV about a blind cyclist. Who clicks his tongue in case anything is close to him. 

Cyclists and headphones. Hmmm do not agree with but people will still do it! EVEN though your trying to warn them, they cant hear you with full blast volume.  Even this guy < doesnt have headphones! lol


----------



## martint235 (21 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> If you agree that it's possible to cycle safely without using sound why are people using words like 'crazy', 'ludicrous', to describe people who chose to ride with headphones.


It's possible to cycle safely with one hand. However in rush hour traffic I would suggest you are crazy to do so if you have another hand available to you.


----------



## mickle (21 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> It's possible to cycle safely with one hand. However in rush hour traffic I would suggest you are crazy to do so if you have another hand available to you.


There you go with the 'crazy' again. We're not talking about riding with one hand, we're talking about riding whilst wearing headphones.

Do you know of any studies which show that cyclists wearing headphones are more likely to suffer a collision? Anything at all? If it's such a threat to the safety and life expectancy of the population you'd imagine that someone would have investigated...

I, as a long-time bike geek, qualified cycle instructor and occasional professional driver, have, after much thought, come to the conclusion that wearing headphones on my bike has no effect on my behaviour on the road. I just don't think that sound plays any significant part. If you're not getting my point I have to conclude that I'm just not presenting it well enough, because you're obviously not an idiot. What irks me about your point of view is that it feeds in to the idea that cyclists are responsible for the danger posed to them by others. The pressure to wear helmets and HiViz, riding in the gutter to 'stay out of the way'. It's all related to general perception and the acceptance by the motoring public and - to some extent - some on here, that cyclists who venture on to the road have no-one to blame but themselves when they come a cropper. Witness the phenomenon of people wearing helmets _not to protect themselves from injury_ but to protect themselves from insurance company lawyers.
If cyclists are in danger from motor vehicles it's because _drivers pose a danger_, not because they're wearing headphones. We should be able to wear headphones (a perfectly legal activity BTW) without others, and particularly our fellow cyclists, describing us as 'crazy'.


----------



## martint235 (21 Sep 2012)

I agree totally with most of what you say. Hiviz, helmets etc. The difference to me is these are the _addition_ of something that may or may not help whereas headphones is the deliberate _removal_ of something that may or may not help.

There are unfortunately a lot of things we should be able to do safely that we can't. It's difficult to argue the point from A&E though.


----------



## srw (22 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> There we go again - ludicrous? I contend that its possible to ride perfectly safely without the use of sound. None of the examples offered have convinced me otherwise. And I'll take Johnny Cash over the traffic on the A19 any day.


Yes, ludicrous. Laughable. I also find it ludicrous that someone could vote Tory or voluntarily listen to heavy metal or go to a football match or commute on a busy main road out of town. But people I respect do all of those things.


----------



## User6179 (22 Sep 2012)

srw said:


> Yes, ludicrous. Laughable. I also find it ludicrous that someone could vote Tory or voluntarily listen to heavy metal or go to a football match or commute on a busy main road out of town. But people I respect do all of those things.


I sometimes commute to football matches while listening to Iron maiden and I always vote tory but I find it ludricrous that anyone would care so much whether someone wears headphones or not while cycling


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I contend that its possible to ride perfectly safely without the use of sound.


There's where we part company. I am amazed you can make that statement and also claim to be a cycle instructor (did I get that right?). In traffic it is impossible to ride perfectly safely PERIOD. That is because you are not in control of other's imperfect riding/driving. All you can do is to minimise risk through anticipation. It come through all the senses. Which is to deny the use of any potentially increases risk.

Not to mention cries from behind are useful. And when one in front ignores them because they are wearing phones it can and does create totally unnecessary difficulties. Perhaps the fact that you are unaware of this says something about you as a danger to others.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Sep 2012)

Eddy said:


> I sometimes commute to football matches while listening to Iron maiden and I always vote tory but I find it ludricrous that anyone would care so much whether someone wears headphones or not while cycling


 
My Ipod does not recognise Iron Maiden, when you ask for the band it calls them "Eeeron Myden"


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Sep 2012)

StuartG said:


> There's where we part company. I am amazed you can make that statement and also claim to be a cycle instructor (did I get that right?). In traffic it is impossible to ride perfectly safely PERIOD. That is because you are not in control of other's imperfect riding/driving. All you can do is to minimise risk through anticipation. It come through all the senses. Which is to deny the use of any potentially increases risk.
> 
> Not to mention cries from behind are useful. And when one in front ignores them because they are wearing phones it can and does create totally unnecessary difficulties.


 
Let's ask a simple question....

It has been shown that by closing their windows car drivers induce a similar loss of audible data. Are you saying that we should not allow drivers to close their windows ?



> Perhaps the fact that you are unaware of this says something about you as a danger to others.


 
...or more about your attitude to the many riders with hearing difficulties?


----------



## mickle (24 Sep 2012)

StuartG said:


> There's where we part company. I am amazed you can make that statement and also claim to be a cycle instructor (did I get that right?). In traffic it is impossible to ride perfectly safely PERIOD. That is because you are not in control of other's imperfect riding/driving. All you can do is to minimise risk through anticipation. It come through all the senses. Which is to deny the use of any potentially increases risk.
> 
> Not to mention cries from behind are useful. And when one in front ignores them because they are wearing phones it can and does create totally unnecessary difficulties. Perhaps the fact that you are unaware of this says something about you as a danger to others.





'Cries from behind'? Are you for real?


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> It has been shown that by closing their windows car drivers induce a similar loss of audible data. Are you saying that we should not allow drivers to close their windows ?
> 
> ...or more about your attitude to the many riders with hearing difficulties?


 
Q1. Of course not. I presume you drive a car, ride a bike and maybe also ride a motorbike. Do you not, like me, have a very different appreciation of the road around one depending on the mode?

In a car you have a stable platform plus three large mirrors which, in well set up vehicles, gives you 360 degree vision without moving the head. Your peripheral vision will spot unexpected events and elevate them to the concious unless you are dozing or distracted (and yes too many are). You are much less concerned about the road surface and the urgent need to change direction. Sound cues have less to offer.

On a motorbike although less stable you still have good rear vision although the consequences of missing something are much greater that you need the lifesaver glance. Sound cues are missed because of the helmet and engine sound.

Bicycles give you no rear vision (I've tried bicycle mirrors but they offer very little and at a cost that IMHO cancels it out). One relies completely on rear glances and sound. Whilst those glances will provide the most accurate information they can never be as frequent and long lasting as one would wish. The peripheral vision warning is absent. Hence sound so often gives the cue that there is something there that needs to be checked out. In stress situations where looking ahead is essential sound may be the only informing sense of the situation behind. That can influence you decision on braking, swing to the left or the right.

Q2 What precisely are you insinuating about my attitude to "riders with hearing difficulties"?
I think I had stated that openly and fully explained that in an earlier post. It is after all the reason I'm posting to this thread. What is your problem with that and how is it connected with Q1?

Puzzled ...


----------



## Berties (24 Sep 2012)

with wind rush i have enough trouble hearing, even though i like my music and on a 4 hour ride have been tempted i have held off,with the colder weather i am covering my ears and have found this a drain on my hearing,i would rather be able to use all my senses to the best they can,so no ear phones for me


----------



## green1 (24 Sep 2012)

StuartG said:


> In a car you have a stable platform plus three large mirrors which, *in well set up vehicles, gives you 360 degree vision without moving the head*. Your peripheral vision will spot unexpected events and elevate them to the concious unless you are dozing or distracted (and yes too many are). You are much less concerned about the road surface and the urgent need to change direction. Sound cues have less to offer.


 They don't though mirrors have blind spots and do not give you a 360 view. Try pulling out without looking over your shoulder on your driving test, instant failure.


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2012)

green1 said:


> They don't though mirrors have blind spots and do not give you a 360 view. Try pulling out without looking over your shoulder on your driving test, instant failure.


"Well set up vehicles ..." I have 5 mirrors. You can sit and look through each one in turn. There is overlap everywhere. And yes you should still glance behind before changing lane/pulling out as an extra precaution. It is called 'belt and bracers'. That's the whole point of this discussion on using sound cues on a bike if you can. You are unwise to unnecesarily rely on one major sensory input.

The problem with this thread is that many hearing people significantly under appreciate the input you get from 'peripheral' hearing as it is so often monitored by the subconcious. The reason why we suddenly look round and see something (aka the sixth sense) is often because of those unconcious sound cues.


----------



## mickle (24 Sep 2012)

StuartG said:


> There's where we part company. I am amazed you can make that statement and also claim to be a cycle instructor (did I get that right?). In traffic it is impossible to ride perfectly safely PERIOD. That is because you are not in control of other's imperfect riding/driving. All you can do is to minimise risk through anticipation. It come through all the senses. Which is to deny the use of any potentially increases risk.
> 
> Not to mention cries from behind are useful. And when one in front ignores them because they are wearing phones it can and does create totally unnecessary difficulties. Perhaps the fact that you are unaware of this says something about you as a danger to others.


 
I'm a qualified cycle trainer.
You're another of those sorts who cant have a decent argument without resorting to the underhand and personal - in this case an unsubsatintiated slur on my roadworthiness.
No one ever '_cries from behind_' on my commute. And when I overtake someone I'm responsible for establishing if it's safe to do so.


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> No one ever '_cries from behind_' on my commute.


Well you wouldn't know, would you? 

"On your right", "Coming through" are just good etiquette if you feel the rider in front is not aware and could do something stupid. And being more inclined to stop at traffic lights than some - if I hear the swishing of a bike behind me I instinctively shout 'stopping'. As a qualified cycle trainer with implied decent standards of roadworthiness - don't you do the same? If not might you consider doing it? Or do you think audible warnings are a waste of time? (Struggling to remember what CycleCraft has to say on this).

I have seen too many crashes where an audible warning may have saved the day. As an experienced rider I'm really surprised that has not happened to you.


----------



## User6179 (24 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I'm a qualified cycle trainer.
> You're another of those sorts who cant have a decent argument without resorting to the underhand and personal - in this case an unsubsatintiated slur on my roadworthiness.
> No one ever '_cries from behind_' on my commute. And when I overtake someone I'm responsible for establishing if it's safe to do so.


 
I always listen to music on solo rides and never had a problem but to be fair to stuart i think he is talking about slow moving cyclist wearing headphones maybe on narrow cycle paths and would agree that this could be unsafe as I have encountered theses cyclist weaving about hogging the whole path and oblivious to me behind shouting excuse me ( btw never shout comming through on left or right just shout "keep your position" as a lot of cyclist dont know left from right, i found this out after a lady went right after I told her "comming through on the right")


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> 'Cries from behind'? Are you for real?


 
GET OUT OF MY F********* WAY


----------



## JohnerH (26 Sep 2012)

hmmmm, with this discusion, it made me wonder... How do deaf people cope with regular cycling? And for the record I always ride with headphones...mostly listening to podcasts...


----------



## neil earley (27 Sep 2012)

How many times on a cycle path have you used your bell and the pedestrains are totally unaware of you as their mp,3 are blocking out the sound of your bell !! I rest my case.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Sep 2012)

neil earley said:


> How many times on a cycle path have you used your bell and the pedestrains are totally unaware of you as their mp,3 are blocking out the sound of your bell !! I rest my case.


 
How many times have you shouted a warning at a car or rung your bell and they haven't heard you because their windows are shut!! I rest my case


----------



## neil earley (28 Sep 2012)

Cars dont wear Ipods !! people do anycase cardrivers have probably got the radio turned up loudly lol which is another distraction .


----------



## Licramite (8 Nov 2012)

I wear them when off roading - trouble is they always hit a really get up and go tempo just as I,m halfway up hill hanging on by my chinstrap
my hearing must be a bit duff so I don,t wear them on the road were I need to hear traffic


----------



## Joolz-2009 (27 Dec 2012)

I used to wear one earphone when training alone, or cycling to work. So that way I could still hear the road traffic,


----------



## Licramite (27 Dec 2012)

I've got an mp3 player and mini speaker that drops into a breast pocket on my cycling top.
you can hear it and all the sound around you. admittedly so can everyone else but hell do I care.


----------



## IckleTrixter (15 Sep 2014)

My route to work is on cycle paths with no road cycling (lucky me!)
I want to get a speaker for my bike or one in a 'bum bag' but would like some advice. Anyone got any links to reasonably priced ones in the UK?


----------



## Drago (15 Sep 2014)

I only tried wearing headphones once. Unfortunately, 'Ace of Spades' came on the radio just after I left the house, and I arrived at work in half the normal time and dripping in sweat. Never again.


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2014)

Thread necromancy alert, if anyone was going to follow up to any post on pages preceding the current one ..


----------



## Licramite (18 Sep 2014)

Mini speakers are getting quite common, I have a little one I strap to my helmet , close enough to my ear to hear it without interfereing with surrond sound.
and if people don't like my taste in music, I'm only going to be their for a few seconds -so Ta-Ta.
though it can let you down when you have some peice by ZZtop and I'm chugging up a hill in granny gear. (I'm mean the gears , not wrinkled stockings and a cardy)


----------

