Cyclists and headphones.

[Miquel In De Rain]

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

 

[srw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Surely the headphones are a give-away?

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

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

Surely the headphones are a give-away?

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

 

[srw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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'.