It still amazes me that we do this....

[marzjennings]

I've worn headphones while cycling for years and, touch wood, never had a problem. The music is usually loud and my only concern has been that if anything ever fell off the bike (water bottle, pump, etc) I wouldn't hear it. The music is not so loud that I can't hear sirens or horns.

These discussions about headphone use while cycling pop up all the time and I still don't understand how the additional data received through the ears can make one any safer during normal operation of a bike. I do though except that I limit my ability to be informed of exceptional events, i.e. I may miss a verbal warning that something is about to happen.But I'm ok with that very small risk.

My point is that visual observation provides enough information to cycle safely and there is very little additional/helpful information that can be gleamed from listening.

My two favourite examples of why hearing is so important are being able to hear traffic approaching from the rear and then secondly telling from the engine noise the driver's intentions. To the first I say, you're on the road and the assumption should be that is always a car behind you and that visual glances over your shoulder or checking a mirror are more reliable than audible observation. And to the second, so what? How are you going to alter you riding style because you can now hear you have an idiot driver behind you. Are you going to move over and let them past, move from secondary to primary to block a pass, go slower, faster? In fact you are now distracted from riding safely because you're focused on listening to what the driver behind may or may not do.

When roads become full of electric vehicles and cyclists (one can dream), and the loudest noise is bird song, there will still be idiot drivers. What exactly will you be listening for then?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who relies on audible information to cycle safely is the darwin award winner.

 

[marzjennings]

Ok, I get where you're coming from. I grew up cycling the lanes in Cornwall, commuting to school then work around the Redruth area and from my point of view I would consider your style of riding too fast for the conditions. Hearing would not have told me that there was a stationary muck-spreader around the next bend. I would ride how must folks drove, slow enough to stop immediately if we encountered head on traffic. Taking corners wide and on the wrong side of the road to extend my line of sight around blind corners.

And with the bus example I think waiting to hear change in engine note is waiting too late to react. You should assume two things when approaching a bus from the rear, one it could pull out at any time and two, the driver has not seen you. Therefore if you elect to overtake you give it enough room to pull out while you are attempting to pass.

I agree that there are many junctions with poor visibility, but you should ride slow enough to be able to react to what you can see, not to what you think you can hear. I'm pretty sure your hearing can't tell there's another cyclist around the bend, or runner, parked car or fallen tree.

There is no 'clearly really does help', only hearing clearly provides more data that is equally informing and distracting and therefore, I think, zero help.

 

[defy-one]

Cornwall is very different to London urban riding. Each to your own

 

[marzjennings]

[QUOTE 1900651, member: 45"]

Again, it's about maximising the information available.

I disagree. Sight gives you a level of information. Hearing as well as sight gives you more. That's very simple, and inarguable.[/quote]

Not simple, nor inarguable and maybe the complexity of appropriate information requirements escapes you. We are able to navigate complex machinery through diverse environments without audible stimuli, and yet you feel that riding something as simple as a bike needs more information than driving a bus.

All the information you need to ride safely is there in what you can see, if you think you can ride beyond what you can see because you can decipher critical information from audible data then I think you are putting yourself at risk. A blind corner is a blind corner regardless of what you think you can hear and to approach the corner at speed because it sounds safe is, for me, taking an unnecessary risk.

 

[marzjennings]

Cornwall is very different to London urban riding. Each to your own

No cycling is cycling, whether there's one car per mile or thousands. You take a good position on the road, you constantly observe and you ride.

There may be more to watch out for in London and more chance to enjoy the view on a Cornish coastal road, but I still don't see how listening to the cacophony of London traffic will help make a bike ride though the city any safer.

 

[HovR]

I prefer not to wear headphones in traffic, mostly for the reason that I can't hear when a car is coming up behind me and overtaking, which can sometimes take me by surprise!

On quiet country roads and cycle paths I will some times wear headphones, but I believe it does require an extra degree of caution and awareness as you are relying more heavily on your sense of sight, with no useful input from your hearing.

 

[MrJamie]

I dont think MisterPaul is trying to suggest we *need* to hear things or rely purely on audio information to navigate roads and traffic, just that it improves our awareness. It might be okay to drive a car without hearing, but since other road users tend not to look for cyclists and the result isnt in our favour we need to be hyper aware of whats going on around us and anticipate not being seen.

On country lanes I can hear a car a few hundred metres away, which often allows me to slow/speed up so they meet me at a safe place to overtake (assuming theyre a nutter and will overtake regardless). It also saves me constant shoulderchecking and occasionally being suprised when a car suddenly whizzes past me unexpectedly. I like that i can hear the car behind me dropping a gear and revving to start an overtake before I would be able to see it if i were looking behind me constantly, so I can judge if their overtake is safe or if I risk getting cut up etc.

Interestingly helmet noise nearly vanishes when my hairs longer and covers my ears and is then super loud each time i get a haircut.

Edit: wrote this before seeing Pauls last two posts and pretty much said the same thing

 

[potsy]

How loud are people having the music if they can't still hear traffic?

I wore mine a lot at one time, less so nowadays, but listened to the football on the way to work the other night, could still hear the traffic around me.
With shoulder checks and glances in the mirror I was fully aware of everything I needed to be aware of.

 

[marzjennings]

[QUOTE 1900841, member: 45"]I didn't say need. I said it's useful additional information. You can't argue that. The only argument by headphone users is whether visual information is enough to bring you to an acceptable level of risk.[/quote]
But that is the point I trying to argue, there is no additional information to be gleamed from listening to traffic, it's just noise, even white noise that not only does not help, but also, and I'll take this tenuous step, may even distract you from safe cycling.

 

[rusky]

But that is the point I trying to argue, there is no additional information to be gleamed from listening to traffic, it's just noise, even white noise that not only does not help, but also, and I'll take this tenuous step, may even distract you from safe cycling.

What evidence do you have to support that?

 

[Boris Bajic]

I wear them all the time. I play everything REALLY LOUD. So loud that nothing else intrudes.

I know it isn't dangerous, because other road users yell at me and honk when I'm riding dangerously.

When I have my MP3 going full blast, I don't hear anyone yelling or honking.

Is that proof absolutely perfect or is that proof absolutely perfect?

 

[ufkacbln]

There is a very interesting article by Gareth Rees
How the anti-cycling lobby poisons public discourse


It explains how the myth of Ipod Zombies came about and how with becomes an accepted problem with absolutely no evidence that it is!

 

[marzjennings]

What evidence do you have to support that?

The same amount that suggests that the audible awareness of traffic is beneficial to the cyclist, 100% personal anecdotal experience.

 

[MrJamie]

[QUOTE 1901288, member: 45"]So, you've got a car behind you and between your backward looks you hear him drop a gear and increase his revs. You don't see this as beneficial information?[/quote] Ive been followed and heard the car behind start an overtake, which gives me an early warning to check that he'll make it before <oncoming traffic/traffic island/junction> and a number of times theyve chanced it too closely, but by the time theyre alongside im already braking so they can pull back in without either pushing me off the road or having a head-on the other way. The worst so far was so insanely late starting the overtake the oncoming car slammed its brakes skidding to a stop and i only barely braked enough for the WVM swerving accross my front wheel. Its also good for hearing traffic approaching when idiots try to overtake me into blind bends so I know theyll be forced to cut back accross me. The extra couple of seconds is useful imho, anecdotal or not.

 

[MontyVeda]

For the umpteenth time - deaf people do ride bikes, live and breathe. They have to get about somehow. However they are welll aware of the danger. They do make use of their enhanced visual/spatial awareness but it is not a choice.

firstly... why do you assume that a person wearing headphones is not aware of danger? Loud noise does not wrap one in a bubble of perceived immortality.

"enhanced visual awareness" ??? you mean, they look out of the corner of their eye checking their peripheral vision? Or just have a wider angle of view because they're deaf? (yes, the latter suggestion is pure sarcasm)

Headphones are a choice. Trying to justify them on someone else's disability is sick as well as dangerous. I trust that wasn't what you were trying to do?

"sick" - very harsh.

"dangerous" - I'm sure many disagree.