Listen to Music or not?

[BlackPanther]

All due respect but you are talking drivel.

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

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

 

[smutchin]

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

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

d.

 

[col]

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

 

[BlackPanther]

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

d.

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

 

[col]

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

 

[Aiden_23]

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

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

 

[BlackPanther]

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

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

Spoken by someone who's never worn headphones?

Challenge accepted!

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

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

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

Challenge victorious!

Goodnight Springton, there will be no encore.

 

[Norm]

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

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

Which brings me to...

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

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

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

And, finally...

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

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

 

[fossyant]

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

 

[smutchin]

My ride this morning (without earphones):

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.

 

[Jezston]

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

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

 

[Jezston]

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

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

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

 

[Jezston]

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

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

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

 

[smutchin]

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

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

d.

 

[smutchin]

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


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

Zing!

d.