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

[steveindenmark]

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]

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]

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

 

[Shut Up Legs]

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]

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

 

[Dan B]

[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]

[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]

[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]

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

 

[Arrowfoot]

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]

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]

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]

Six senses!
"i SEE DEAF PEOPLE"

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.

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]

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]

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]

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…