Headphones and Cycling! Is it safe?

[c2c]

In all my years, I've never, ever heard of a blind cyclist being knocked down in rush hour, and yet sighted cyclists appear to get knocked down left, right and center. Therefore they must be safer.

From now on, I'm only ever going to cycle while wearing a blindfold.

P.S, Did you know that the average person has less than two legs?

that made i laff......but name your scource, cos i dont believe it.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

The only thing I dislike about biking on my own is the silence... Well, actually no, I like silence. I dislike silence interrupted by engines.

What is everyone's opinion on biking with headphones in? Is it stupid to do, is it dangerous? Is it any different from driving in a car with a CD blaring?

my opinion, bad idea and dangerous, others disagree.

try it and see what you think

 

[adds21]

that made i laff......but name your scource, cos i dont believe it.

It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.

Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).

Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!

 

[c2c]

It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.

Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).

Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!

mate you are a diamond......... sharks n ice cream.........

 

[NigC]

It really is true, albeit only a fraction less than two.

Most people have two legs, but some people have lost one, or both legs. Therefore if you add up all the legs, and divide by the number of people, you’ll get a result of slightly less than 2 (there aren't enough people with 3 or more legs to make up the numbers).

Just goes to show that you shouldn’t always trust statistics. It’s a little like saying that you’re more lightly to be attacked by a shark if you eat ice cream (or blind cyclists don't get knocked off). Statistically true, but a bit misleading!

How about chocolate - is that safe to eat? I mean I like my ice cream, but if there's a shark problem, I'll definitely switch to chocolate

 

[JoysOfSight]

Scenario...

You get knocked off and the offenders lawyer finds out you are deaf.
Sorry it was your fault for not being able to hear the vehicle approaching ......

Fixed that for you. Not sure how well it stands up though.

Having said that, there was that woman killed by a lorry which overtook and turned left too soon, where the suggestion was made that if she'd not been listening to music she might have been able to jump over the railings or something. Not convinced myself, because deaf or not, when a lorry overtakes you you'll pretty much see it, and I don't know what the sound of an HGV turning left over my body would sound like anyway.

Victim blaming is a fine art form these days. We shouldn't encourage it.

 

[JoysOfSight]

PS. (sudden random thought) - what happens if somebody is in one of those enclosed velomobiles? It's a bike, right, but you've chosen to ride something where your hearing is impaired. Would that mean any rear-ender involving a velomobile is considered to be the rider's fault?

What about if it has a removable "roof" (no idea what it's called - like a convertable). You could get a prosecution with the lid off, but not with it on?

 

[cyberknight]

Fixed that for you. Not sure how well it stands up though.

Having said that, there was that woman killed by a lorry which overtook and turned left too soon, where the suggestion was made that if she'd not been listening to music she might have been able to jump over the railings or something. Not convinced myself, because deaf or not, when a lorry overtakes you you'll pretty much see it, and I don't know what the sound of an HGV turning left over my body would sound like anyway.

Victim blaming is a fine art form these days. We shouldn't encourage it.

They shift blame if you do not wear a helmet so i was extrapolating, i can see it happening.In fact judges have reduced the sentences because of no helmets being a contributing factor.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...-helmet-affects-guilty-drivers-sentence-21674

Very easy to see how that could be used with headphones,i am not saying it is right just how it could be used.

 

[Corporate Ascents]

I don't cycle with head phones - just in case. Never would in London that's for sure.

 

[Crankarm]

They shift blame if you do not wear a helmet so i was extrapolating, i can see it happening.In fact judges have reduced the sentences because of no helmets being a contributing factor.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...-helmet-affects-guilty-drivers-sentence-21674

Very easy to see how that could be used with headphones,i am not saying it is right just how it could be used.

At some point there must be an appeal on a point of law as judges are making it up as they go along. Parliament has not legislated that cyclists must wear helmets (Although I do did). Where does it stop? What will be the next protective item cyclists should wear as suggested by the defence for the defendant or judges on a frolic ?

Surely the legal principal that usually applies that the defendant takes the claimant/victim as he finds him should not be dispensed with just because a cyclist is the injured party? If a cyclist is not wearing a helmet or protective body armour so what? But for the moton knocking them down they would not have been injured or killed. Period.

 

[chap]

In response to the OP, and note that I have only read 5 of the replies, I would think that like wearing a helmet, it is up to you.

One ought to be mindful of their surroundings especially in busy urban surroundings; listening to music whilst cycling on the roads thus can present a risk. However, if you accept this risk, take responsibility for it, and make sure to be aware of what is happening around you then you are probably better off than some riding without earphones.

After all, there is no law against deaf people cycling, although one would imagine that they are very much aware of their surroundings.

 

[Globalti]

I tried skiing and listening to my Walkman one and was shocked at how reckless I became.

 

[MacB]

I tried skiing and listening to my Walkman one and was shocked at how reckless I became.

that's what Eye of the Tiger does for you, get's you all manly

 

[JoysOfSight]

No

Good answer. So if we don't accept that riding a velomobile is dangerous (although it is a bit odd) because you can't hear anything, how can we support the idea that cycling any other sort of bike with/without hearing is dangerous?

Myself, I think it is because velomobiles look like cars - so we magically don't consider any need for hearing to be important. Which is odd, because with the windows down drivers can hear quite well, and they have far worse situational awareness than cyclists, because they can't easily look over their shoulder and take in the world. Mirrors are not such a good substitute (and anyway, plenty of cyclists have mirrors of one form or another).

 

[BentMikey]

Besides which, I should think you can hear perfectly well in a velomobile - they are not insulated from sound and vibration in the way cars are, and most have your head sticking out anyway.