Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?

[Norm]

What are you going to do if all cars go electric?

[QUOTE 554538"] Your third paragraph is meaningless bearing in mind that there are no electric cars on the road at the moment and there probably won't be either for the foreseeable future. [/quote]
And, even if there were, have a good listen (without headphones ) to the next few cars which pass you, Marz, and you may change that line of reasoning.

I think that most of the noise that you will hear from a modern car, unless it is accelerating, is the tyres on the tarmac which still happens, even with electric cars.

 

[Arfcollins]

[QUOTE 554364"]
>>Don't agree, when I did use headphones I used to have it loud enough to listen to podcasts and mainly radio. You're assuming I absolutely have to hear everything above traffic, which isn't true. I accept that I will miss some of the output when a loud car goes past - just as I have to accept that if I'm chatting with a roadie mate, I'm not going to hear his every word when cars go past.<<

Why not? Because of a loud car? I suggest you go down the ENT clinic and request an audiogram.
[/quote]

That's ridiculous Lee. I too listen to 'talk radio' when cycling, adjusted to a comfortable level for the mostly quiet route to work, and I put up with some of it being drowned out on the main road. The fact that it is drowned out means I'm hearing the traffic!

In reply to others, we seem to have only one admitted example of a SMIDHY in this string, and even he has this refuted by another poster. Those who think we should be analysing accident statistics for the use of headphones will need to ensure that deaf casualties are included. I'm not aware of any of the cycling or safety organisations suggesting that deaf cyclists should stick to the turbo trainer. Go figure.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Mikey, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree over this.

If you feel safe without hearing fair enough. I'd rather have the clues it gives me. Not just on the stuff I might see if I had constant 360degree vision but the ambulance round the corner and the motorbike behind the bus. Anyway, my commute is too short for music to add anything.

 

[marzjennings]

[QUOTE 554538"]
You're first two paragraphs have no bearing on what I wrote (and the example I gave).

Your third paragraph is meaningless bearing in mind that there are no electric cars on the road at the moment and there probably won't be either for the foreseeable future.

As for the bit in bold, by hearing and not looking (for example) I can tell how fast the car is being driven, how fast it is approaching and where it is in relation to me and the time before it passes me. I then take this information and use it to assess my position, the traffic in front which may affect the line of the car who will overtake. If you take that away and just rely on your sight then you are just making riding a bike that little bit harder.
[/quote]

The first two paragraphs were in reference to my counter theory that being able to hear traffic can be misleading and possibly not of a benefit to a rider.

My third paragraph was a silly hypothetical.

To your last paragraph all I read is that you're being distracted by attempting to assess traffic conditions behind you by listening to engine noises. If you're in traffic then the assumption is there will be a car behind you and if you know there's a car behind you should have already looked back and assessed its risk. If you're coming up to a line of traffic you should again look to see where that car is positioning themselves and sometimes a look back and catching that drivers eye stops them doing something stupid.

Now out in the county on quiet lanes you may get super chav come revving up behind you in some pimped out Fiat. Now you'd have heard them coming and what are you going to do? Move over, close to the hedge and allow them to squeeze past or maintain the legal position you were already in before you heard their car. If you're not looking over your shoulder frequently you're not riding safely and if you don't like looking over your shoulder, get a mirror.


The only noise that is important to hear is that of a siren and you have to have some pretty good earphones and some loud music not here a siren.

 

[BentMikey]

sorry,

yes meant his .

just seems hipocritical for riders to not worry about it,, but at the same time complaining about peds who walk out with earphones on..

I agree about the hypocrisy. I don't mind peds wearing earphones or not, I only prefer them to look before crossing the road. Even then I'm not massively bothered, because I'm looking for pedestrians and allowing for their mistakes. They're not going to hear me on a bicycle anyway.

It's a bit like how I'm not worried about drivers with their windows up (much worse than earphones), or even *gasp* playing the radio.

 

[Jezston]

I'm not sure how many times I've said this already, but I feel I need to say it again.

A conventional pair of open-backed head/earphones do not restrict your ability to hear loud noises.

Even with your music turned up to hearing-damaging levels, it will still be quieter than a close accellerating engine or a siren.

Most MP3 players are currently limited to 80-90dB, which is 'very loud' in real terms. Typical listening volume that could be considered 'loud' would be around 72dB

An ambulance siren is a shocking 123dB at 3 meters, decreasing in a non-linear rate (inverse square) over distance - reflective surfaces such as buildings making it carry even further. The ambulance would half to be several hundred meters away (approx half a kilometer!), if in the countryside, before the volume decreased to a level where someone listen to white noise at full volume might not be able to hear it.

A typical car engine when accellerating will produce 90dB at 3 meters. When listening to music at a typical volume it would only be totally masked out at 20m away - and again that's if you are listening to white noise. The sound of a car engine is a broadband noise sound - listening to typical music you will still hear it at 50m away.

 

[JoysOfSight]

It's funny how many people confuse the fact that they *like* to be able to hear what's going on with not being safe if they *can't* hear what is going on...

I completely understand *liking* to hear stuff; but the bottom line is that if I lost my hearing, I would be able to keep on riding just the way I do now and not be any the worse off, because I use my eyes to check what is going on.

It's not hard. Assume that you are always about to be overtaken unless you've physically checked that it's not the case. Then, no matter whether you are being passed by an HGV, electric car, electric scooter (getting pretty quiet) or just a faster cyclist than you (silent) you won't be caught out.

If you're not going to bother looking, then you *can* use your ears to make you a little safer. But admitting that is admitting that the way you ride is fundamentally not safe, because not everything that will hit you can be guaranteed to be heard over ambient noise.

Interestingly I lost my iPod for a few months (damn winter jacket pocket!) so have been riding without it. I'm concerned that I'm starting to get the sort of bad habit listening problems people describe above.

 

[4F]

I don't think hearing is an important secondary. It doesn't help your safety at all, and for a rider to think so is IMO almost always showing up a weakness of their riding.

Not since Cab's last post have I ever read such rubbish.

 

[JoysOfSight]

[QUOTE 554549"]If I'm going down a road which has no traffic am I not riding safely by not looking over my shoulder frequently?[/quote]

How do you know there's no traffic unless you look?

Having said that, I think the whole "coming up behind" thing is a bit of a red herring. On the open road the moment you need to commit to diving onto the verge is earlier than you can tell whether they're going to hit you or skim past. But do people dive off all the time? No. You have to take it on trust that you're not going to get nailed, whatever your eyes or ears are telling you.

 

[4F]

How do you know there's no traffic unless you look?

Having said that, I think the whole "coming up behind" thing is a bit of a red herring. On the open road the moment you need to commit to diving onto the verge is earlier than you can tell whether they're going to hit you or skim past. But do people dive off all the time? No. You have to take it on trust that you're not going to get nailed, whatever your eyes or ears are telling you.

I think that a lot depends on the type of road you are riding on. On my commute half of them are very rural and I would say that hearing is important as I can factor in my road position accordingly.

If I hear a car / tractor behind me and I also note that ther is a car / corner also approaching from the opposite direction then I would take a strong primary to control the situation, if there was no such hazard then I would continue in secondary. There is no point on this part of the journey to make constant shoulder checks as at times I can go 20 minutes between seeing a car.

In the urban part of the journey then I would carry out a lot more shoulder checks as the traffic volume blends into one.

However not once have I ever thought that wearing anything that would restrict my hearing a good idea much along the lines of deciding that cycling with one eye closed would be a bad idea.

 

[Jezston]

However not once have I ever thought that wearing anything that would restrict my hearing a good idea much along the lines of deciding that cycling with one eye closed would be a bad idea.

My argument is that wearing headphones is more akin to wearing sunglasses in terms of it's affect on your senses.

 

[marzjennings]

[QUOTE 554549"]
Not distracted at all, I am just trying to give an example of where hearing as well as seeing can benefit.

As for the other bits in bold you are trying to teach the teacher. I would say though that the bit in italics is a bit far fetched and perhaps you can elaborate? If I'm going down a road which has no traffic am I not riding safely by not looking over my shoulder frequently?
[/quote]

Apologies if I'm trying to delivery coals to newcastle. I constantly check behind me, some of which comes from advanced driver training where I'd get asked constantly during training to confirm the make, model and number plate of the car behind and buzzing through London on the bike where I'd be checking every direction cars could be coming from. Even riding the small country roads around Cornwall, where you don't see a car for miles I'd still be checking every dozen or so pedal revolutions. I guess I like to know what's behind me and I'm surprised others may be depending on, what I consider to be, poor information from their ears.

Therefore, no, I don't think you're riding safely by not looking your shoulder frequently, even on roads with no traffic.

 

[4F]

My argument is that wearing headphones is more akin to wearing sunglasses in terms of it's affect on your senses.

Then your argument is flawed.

 

[Jezston]

[QUOTE 554557"]
Not quite sure how you can compare having headphones in your ear to wearing sunglasses?
[/quote]

It was a poor analogy, but I feel the impression many people seem to have of the affect of wearing headphones on your ability to hear the world around you is hugely exaggerated. I believe using headphones no more leaves you deaf to the world as sunglasses leave you blind.

 

[4F]

[QUOTE 554557"]
Not quite sure how you can compare having headphones in your ear to wearing sunglasses?
[/quote]

To to be fair wearing headphones would stop flies flying into your ear