Cyclists wearing big Headphones. Safe or Not?

Jawgap

rossie1977 wrote: »

of course its not safe. not only do you dim one of your senses you also partly distract yourself from the task at hand

Headphones and sunglasses are a definite no-no then.......especially if you put gloves on........and have a blocked nose........

Cyclists, however, will always have taste.........

anncoates

/some defensive verbal **** abut motorists

laraghrider

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I've also seen it argued that wearing a helmet gives you a false sense of security.

You're partially correct however in the wrong direction. Almost all research shows that by wearing a helmet you give the driver of a vehicle a false sense of security in that you'll be "ok" and they tend to drive closer to you and take more risks when over taking.

gandalf wrote:

An example, you are happily cycling along the road listening to your favourite band on your headphones. You swerve out a bit to avoid a pothole. Unfortunately you didn't hear the car accelerating rapidly behind you and are swiped off your bike and into the path and seriously injured.

That's noting to do with your hearing though. That points to a cyclist who wasn't looking at the road correctly and didn't signal his intention to move out to avoid a road obstacle in time. Had he done this then the car behind should have afforded the cyclist some time and space and a completely avoidable accident would not have happened. Had the cyclist done that anyway and still been hit by the driver then it's the driver at fault. The scenario you describe has absolutely nothing what so ever got to do with wearing earphones.

That being said I only ever wear earphones when competing in a TT as some good house music helps with rhythm.

gandalf

laraghrider wrote: »

That's noting to do with your hearing though. That points to a cyclist who wasn't looking at the road correctly and didn't signal his intention to move out to avoid a road obstacle in time. Had he done this then the car behind should have afforded the cyclist some time and space and a completely avoidable accident would not have happened. Had the cyclist done that anyway and still been hit by the driver then it's the driver at fault. The scenario you describe has absolutely nothing what so ever got to do with wearing earphones.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Whilst you have a point about signalling, by restricting their sense of hearing the cyclist has limited the sensory perception of their surroundings which would be the major contributory factor in a scenario like this.

kylith

I used to wear over-ear headphones when cycling a long commute, the beat from the music helps keep you moving. I deliberately chose over-ear ones because unlike in-ear I could hear the traffic around me. I don't feel that they dulled my senses any more than a motorist with the radio on.

Helmets are really only of use if you fall off the bike, they are not designed to deal with the impact of a car hitting you. Studies have also shown that cyclists who wear helmets take more risks, and that motorists drive closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets.

Macy0161

RoboRat wrote: »

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pictures-and-video-double-decker-bus-1217163

Bet the pub wasn't wearing hi vis...

Chips Lovell

Listen to Joe Duffy in your car and nobody bats an eyelid. Listen to Joe on the bike and you're dicing with death.

Darkglasses

I tend to cycle on small country lanes, motorists can and do drive at a fair clip and you can hear them long before you see them. For that reason, I'd never consider listening to music on my spins.

Might be different cycling in the city, I don't have a whole lot of experience of it.

Edit: I cycle the kind of road where motorists beep when approaching a corner (or at least should do)

Canis Lupus

gandalf wrote: »

The more aware you are of your surroundings the better.

An example, you are happily cycling along the road listening to your favourite band on your headphones. You swerve out a bit to avoid a pothole. Unfortunately you didn't hear the car accelerating rapidly behind you and are swiped off your bike and into the path and seriously injured.

If you hadn't impeded your hearing you would have been aware because of the sound of the revving engine that a car was approaching at speed and you would have slowed down not swerving out on the road to avoid the pothole.

You need all your senses because a lot of drivers in this country do not consider the cyclists on the roads when they are driving. As a driver I see it every day. I have even been guilty of it a few times where I have overtaken a cyclist on a tight road not giving them enough room if any "surprise" happened.

If you have a crash in a car with another car at least you have some protection (obviously at high speed your bunched). If a car hits a cyclist then the cyclist will normally be seriously injured. Why would you willingly remove one of the senses that you have to mitigate against this?

Why would I maneuver into traffic without looking? If this is some sort of odd last second instinctual reaction all hearing gives me is the sound of my impending accident. However, in years of cycling the rare pothole that catches you unawares is one you cycle through or hop over.

Do you cycle? Are you forming you opinion from experience or just what you think cyclists might do? Having cycled for years in both Dublin, London and here in Brisbane I never once had an incident where I thought to myself that hearing would have 'improved' the situation.

Captain Flaps

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I never once had an incident where I thought to myself that hearing would have 'improved' the situation.

I often know not to even bother trying to indicate to switch lanes because I can hear someone speeding up behind me. I only glance over my shoulder and indicate if I can't hear traffic approaching.

farmchoice

I'm a cyclist and a motorist. I cycle a road bike (racer) and also hybrid on which I have a child seat and bring my kid. I cycle out in the countryside and in towns and cities. I am stating all this to give am impression of my level of experience on a bike.

In my opinion listening to music which effects your ability to hear the traffic while on a bike is inherently dangerous. On a bike you are vulnerable and you need all your senses operating.

Now I know many people who use headphones while cycling and they don’t like hearing this and usually start the ''whataboutry'' as they say up north. What about drivers listening to the radio, ''what about deaf cyclists'' etc.

The fact is if you cannot hear the traffic ahead of, or behind you, if you can't hear car horns, if you can't here barking dogs or shouting children you are much more likely to put yourself in danger of being in an accident.

Get In There

farmchoice wrote: »

The fact is if you cannot hear the traffic ahead of, or behind you, if you can't hear car horns, if you can't here barking dogs or shouting children you are much more likely to put yourself in danger of being in an accident.

That's a fact so you say? Please do back your claim up with solid statistics and research.

Yours,
A Deaf cyclist & motorist.

laraghrider

gandalf wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. Whilst you have a point about signalling, by restricting their sense of hearing the cyclist has limited the sensory perception of their surroundings which would be the major contributory factor in a scenario like this.

Oh don't get me wrong. I hate seeing cyclists with earphones in. I completely 100% agree with you on the notion of restricting the hearing and similar to darkglasses (a regular in the cycling forum) I cycling mostly on country roads and wouldn't even consider wearing headphones for the reasons he has pointed out. I was simply pointing out that in your example the hearing part is possibly 10% of that entire scenario and even half of the other 90% would have avoided it. 45% of the time, it works everytime!

Canis Lupus

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I often know not to even bother trying to indicate to switch lanes because I can hear someone speeding up behind me. I only glance over my shoulder and indicate if I can't hear traffic approaching.

So not wearing headphones saves you turning your head fractionally. Got it

farmchoice wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and a motorist. I cycle a road bike (racer) and also hybrid on which I have a child seat and bring my kid. I cycle out in the countryside and in towns and cities. I am stating all this to give am impression of my level of experience on a bike.

In my opinion listening to music which effects your ability to hear the traffic while on a bike is inherently dangerous. On a bike you are vulnerable and you need all your senses operating.

Now I know many people who use headphones while cycling and they don’t like hearing this and usually start the ''whataboutry'' as they say up north. What about drivers listening to the radio, ''what about deaf cyclists'' etc.

The fact is if you cannot hear the traffic ahead of, or behind you, if you can't hear car horns, if you can't here barking dogs or shouting children you are much more likely to put yourself in danger of being in an accident.

I cycle, drive a car and ride a motorbike and I say it's safe. Pretty sure I have you trumped.

gandalf

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I cycle, drive a car and ride a motorbike and I say it's safe. Pretty sure I have you trumped.

You just have to be wrong once on a bike though

Chips Lovell

Nobody ever has car accidents?

hoodwinked

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I didn't think of that.

What if they are actually partially deaf, and require the device to amplify the environmental sound to normal levels? Like a fancy hearing aid.

well i didn't think of that

still i think loud music blasting out of a car is different to loud music blasting out of your headphones,

at least with the car you hear them coming even if they can't hear you, with a cyclist wearing headphones, you can't hear them nor can they hear you.

Darkglasses

gandalf wrote: »

You just have to be wrong once on a bike though

You might have to explain that one to me. Do you think there are more fatalities on bicycles than cars or motorbikes, proportionally? Because I don't think that stands up.

farmchoice

Get In There wrote: »

That's a fact so you say? Please do back your claim up with solid statistics and research.

Yours,
A Deaf cyclist & motorist.

I don't have any, I have no idea whether any exist or not, so I suppose my use of the term 'it's a fact 'was used more in the colloquial sense. However I think my point stands.

You are a deaf cyclist so you are prepared by your life experience to cycle without being able to hear. This is how you live your life and I am sure you are a very safe cyclist and motorist, then again maybe you're not maybe you're a complete head the ball but I doubt that has anything to do with you being deaf.

For a hearing person the loss of this sense in a situation where there is a risk element makes them less safe, in my opinion.

PLUG71

Darkglasses wrote: »

You might have to explain that one to me. Do you think there are more fatalities on bicycles than cars or motorbikes, proportionally? Because I don't think that stands up.

I think that you are more vulnerable on a bike than in a car and surely there are less cyclists than car drivers on the road.

wonderfulname

I have to hear what's going on around me when I cycle, so sometimes I put on big headphones to block the wind, if you're cycling into it it can be all you hear. I would say it's unsafe to be on the road without all your senses, same goes for drivers, I can't imagine driving without being able to hear your car, I was taught to change gear by ear.

gandalf

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Do you cycle? Are you forming you opinion from experience or just what you think cyclists might do? Having cycled for years in both Dublin, London and here in Brisbane I never once had an incident where I thought to myself that hearing would have 'improved' the situation.

I haven't cycled in a long time. I am basing my experience on cycling around Dublin when traffic was a lot lighter years ago. Back then I certainly wouldn't have cut off a sense as useful as hearing.

I got side swiped by a car on Kellys corner around then (before it changed configuration) but I heard the guy coming so luckily for me I was able to brace myself and only ended up with grazes from being forced off the road. If I was in a world of my own expecting my way to be unhindered I probably would have come off a lot worse in that situation.

I cannot understand how someone cannot see how illogical it is to remove a sense as important as hearing when you are out cycling.

gandalf

Darkglasses wrote: »

You might have to explain that one to me. Do you think there are more fatalities on bicycles than cars or motorbikes, proportionally? Because I don't think that stands up.

Crash between a bike and a car? Who comes out worse?

Canis Lupus

gandalf wrote: »

You just have to be wrong once on a bike though

That's how I like to roll. On the edge all the time. Hell I even wear ear plugs on the motorbike. It's like I have a deathwish.

Zulu

hoodwinked wrote: »

well i didn't think of that

still i think loud music blasting out of a car is different to loud music blasting out of your headphones,

at least with the car you hear them coming even if they can't hear you, with a cyclist wearing headphones, you can't hear them nor can they hear you.

On a serious note, you are somewhat right. I wear earphones while cycling, but I wouldn't have them so loud as to block out all other sound; I'd tend to have them fairly low. ...but I doubt that stops many people tut-tutting at my irresponsibility.

Darkglasses

gandalf wrote: »

Crash between a bike and a car? Who comes out worse?

The cyclist presumably, but I think that's a simplistic way of looking at how vulnerable (or not) cyclists are. But I think making a mistake when driving a motor vehicle is considerably more likely to result in a fatality than while cycling, and I think that is supported by statistics. Almost every cyclist I know has had at least one off, either hitting a car or just coming off in the rain by themself. Yet the number of cyclist fatalities per year is a small fraction of the number of motorist fatalities, which I would strongly suspect have a far smaller number of crashes/collisions.

dub_skav

gandalf wrote: »

I haven't cycled in a long time. I am basing my experience on cycling around Dublin when traffic was a lot lighter years ago. Back then I certainly wouldn't have cut off a sense as useful as hearing.

I got side swiped by a car on Kellys corner around then (before it changed configuration) but I heard the guy coming so luckily for me I was able to brace myself and only ended up with grazes from being forced off the road. If I was in a world of my own expecting my way to be unhindered I probably would have come off a lot worse in that situation.

I cannot understand how someone cannot see how illogical it is to remove a sense as important as hearing when you are out cycling.

The fact that you depended on your hearing to protect you sounds like poor cycling to me.
Approaching Kelly's corner I would be aware of what traffic in all directions was doing by looking to see where they were and what they were likely to do.
At a busy junction like that, the eyes are all you should depend on in my opinion, your ears will more than likely just confuse things.

pickarooney

I'm not sure what good it does me being able to hear a car coming behind me. I don't cycle any differently based on what's following me.

Darkglasses

gandalf wrote: »

Crash between a bike and a car? Who comes out worse?

Or to put it more simply, I'd rather have a crash on a bike than in a car.

gandalf

dub_skav wrote: »

The fact that you depended on your hearing to protect you sounds like poor cycling to me.
Approaching Kelly's corner I would be aware of what traffic in all directions was doing by looking to see where they were and what they were likely to do.
At a busy junction like that, the eyes are all you should depend on in my opinion, your ears will more than likely just confuse things.

Kellys corner was configured quite differently 20+ years ago when I was cycling than it is now.