[Closed] Earphones worn by cyclists.... and others rant....

I doubt any of this would be an issue if cyclists and pedestrians were catered to a bit better by transport infrastructure. It's a sad state of affairs where everyone has to be in a constant state of cat like alertness in order to avoid being mown down by a giant metal box. And even sadder that people's idea of solving the problem is to seize on some perceived error of judgment by the victim, be it wearing headphones,hi viz, or , helmets, rather than address the slightly more complex issue of why riding on the road is unsafe in the first place.

As for all the crass generalisations about deaf riders having heightened perceptive superpowers, what rubbish. It must be great being deaf and never getting tired, distracted or old.

Well said amedias.

The OP seems to be assuming that everyone who rides/walks with headphones in has them at a volume that prevents them hearing anything else.

A fair point and I should have clarified my original rant with that, yes. I am talking about "at a volume which disables your ability to hear most of anything else".

I do love the way STW promote literal pedants though. I think most on here will have experienced either of my original scenario's and can empathise, but I appreciate there's some qualifification to it.

I personally side with those that have said/hinted and can be summarised as "limiting one of your five senses is not 100% focus on the activity / dangers around you and limits your ability in that regard".

He says typing with one hand holding a cup of coffee with the other 😉

It must be great being deaf and never getting tired, distracted or old.

Why would they not get any of the above? Who is saying here they won't? Having worked at a place with a unit for profoundly deaf children my understanding of the issues and their abilities is pretty good. Going off topic, but it always astounded me how good the newly deaf were at learning to lip read in comparison to those with hearing that consciously tried to learn the skill. No crass generalisations made, well at least not without quite a lot of knowledge and experience 😉

[i]I have startled cyclists passing them because they didn't hear me pinging my bell / calling out to them because of their headphones. One of them nearly caused a crash
[/i]
TJ, maybe you were passing a bit too close?

Convert, you seem to be forgetting that many of us will experience some degree of hearing loss at some point in our lives, probably accompanied by a decline in our other senses.

Of course, when that moment comes, by the OP's logic we should either commit ourselves to a nursing home, or be immediately removed from the gene pool by a speeding 4x4.

Mr Agreeable - Member
Convert, you seem to be forgetting that many of us will experience some degree of hearing loss at some point in our lives, probably accompanied by a decline in our other senses.

Of course, when that moment comes, by the OP's logic we should either commit ourselves to a nursing home, or be immediately removed from the gene pool by a speeding 4x4.

Not true (re the second para), if you actually read my post properly I used the words "voluntarily deprive" referring to the use of earphones. I didnt state that the offending walkers/runners/cyclist be removed from the activity either.

You made that up to be provocative, a bit shallow IMO.

Of course, when that moment comes, by the OP's logic we should either commit ourselves to a nursing home, or be immediately removed from the gene pool by a speeding 4x4.

There will come a point in all our lives when, due to our declining faculties, we have to amend our previous behaviour or risk injury to ourselves or others. That is obviously the case with driving and I can't see why it should not also be the case with cycling too. To what degree that decline needs to be before change is made is down to your own "risk assessment". Common sense no?

Weird how people get so defensive when challenged about behaviour where they are putting themselves at risk.

Peter Poddy - Do you have wing mirrors on your bike?

Kryton, I think that's where we end up if you take your arguments to their conclusion.

Cycling is dangerous, but rather than removing the source of the danger you want people to change their behaviour.

People do their own "risk assessments" all the time and the result is that more people box themselves and their kids away in houses and cars.

As for joggers on shared use paths, when you can show me that they kill as many people as car accidents or obesity I'll start treating it as a problem.

People do their own "risk assessments" all the time and the result is that more people box themselves and their kids away in houses and cars.

You can be idealist all you like but the sad truth is very few of us can change the world (build a nation of thousands of miles of cycle paths in this case), we are pretty much limited to changing our own actions.

But Mr Agreeable you've changed the path of what I wrote, which was a "rant" as indicated an not an educated challenge with reasoning.

FWIW, I never stated walkers/joggers kill cyclists, what I ranted about was that they should turn on a cyclist for being "startled" when they removed one of the key methods of detecting what was coming up behind them. Maybe they should accept responsibility for the fact that that is what they did rather than berate the cyclist who (in my case) made every effort to alert them of thier presence?

I wouldnt ask cyclists with earphones to change their behaviour either - just (as others have said) use some common sense (or more of the other 4 senses) IF removing your ability to hear traffic. The risk you put yourself in this position is a personal decision, not mine to make, although I am entitled to express my opinion.

see, what you're actually ranting about is not "cyclists wearing earphones" it's "cyclists not paying attention"

it just so happens that you've correlated one with the other without any real real evidence as to causation one way or the other.

Just a thought but why is it illegal to drive wearing earphones, why are you not allowed to wear earphones at work yet it is ok to cycle with them?

[img] [/img]

Personally I find women in low cut tops and mini skirts more of an issue

Weird how people get so defensive when challenged about behaviour where they are putting themselves at risk.

Could you please explain the increase in risk?

Could you also explain how someone should modify their cycling style if they hear anything approaching.

Thanks

Oh ,and the whole being defensive thing ,well that sometimes happens when people feel like they are being lumped in to some vast stereotype* .

*can't risk asses ,or multi-task without falling off types.

Could you also explain how someone should modify their cycling style if they hear anything approaching.

This is the big thing for me. Before I do any sort of manouvre I will look, several times. If I'm not making a manouvre then hearing what's behind me is irrelevant. I can't tell the difference between the sound of a car that's going to pass safely and one which will mow me down.

Maybe I'm just a superior being, but I can have headphones in [i]and[/i] still hear other vehicles. Likewise I can play my ipod in my car, and still look in the mirrors. Just saying like

If you are walking through the woods with headphones on and a cyclist passes you without you hearing them - did they really pass you???

It is pretty dangerous to have too much dependency on your hearing with things like electric/hybrid cars and even electric cycles becoming more common.

This is the big thing for me. Before I do any sort of manouvre I will look, several times. If I'm not making a manouvre then hearing what's behind me is irrelevant. I can't tell the difference between the sound of a car that's going to pass safely and one which will mow me down.

How about avoiding a pot hole - not a manouver as such but a slight alteration in road position that "might be" enough to get clipped by a passing car. On the pot hole strewn lanes I ride on I do this all the time. I don't look behind to check every time because in the beautiful silence of the countryside I can use my hearing to know that it might be a problem.

Chakaping, the reason people get defensive on threads about earphones and helmets is the "blame the victim" attitude that so many people display.

Saying cycling is dangerous because people don't wear helmets or listen to music ignores the many massive issues with the road network and the way people travel in this country. Yet if you point this out you get told that you're being unrealistic.

Couldn't be bothered to read all the thread because I assume it's mostly the same as the first 20 or so posts, so in case it's not been mentioned here's a question:

To the OP - Is it okay for a motorcyclist to wear a helmet that impairs their hearing (and possible at the same time wearing a headset)?

I agree with Peterpoddy's comment about cars, but in response to the "riding a bike is a very different thing" comment, refer to the question above. You have to balance on a motorcycle etc etc

FWIW, I ride my commute with earbuds and the radio playing through them. I don't have it loud, so I can hear cars, but I don't necessarily always hear cyclists approaching from behind. I do however have eyes and common (and road) sense.

Running red lights, weaving, riding on the pavement and general lack of roadcraft are all, IMO, much more dangerous than wearing headphones.

Cycling is dangerous, but rather than removing the source of the danger you want people to change their behaviour.

Why do you say cycling is dangerous? Compared to what?

I don't listen to music for two reasons.

1) it *may* reduce my ability to hear what is happening around me and do not want to take that chance. That's my choice, others have other views.

2) I would rather listen to the birds, wind, rain and other natural sounds, really don't understand why people would want to have music on in the great outdoors - but if they want to that is there choice. I can listen to music at home.

Maybe I just enjoy the cycling more than some?

Are deaf people not allowed to ride bikes, walk, jog?

Let people do as they wish, survival of the fittest and all that.

It sounds like there's plenty of decent evidence on here.

I disagree.

The evidence on [b]this thread[/b]* suggests that those who choose to wear earphones are also aware of the impact (or non-impact) it has on their ability to hear traffic and act accordingly.

What I'm getting at is that saying "earphone wearers are dangerous" is missing the point. Its "people not paying attention" that can be dangerous.

I'm also saying that one does not necessarily cause the other, and that to assume the wearing of earphones makes you pay less attention may actually be erroneous, as shown by all the people on here reminding us that they actually are more aware of the fact they have to look around when using them.

It could actually be that people who generally don't pay much attention and are not aware of their surroundings are more likely to use earphones... but that sounds faintly ridiculous, until you think about it, they might be, because they're not aware enough to realise the impact it has on them.

Anyway, I'm going in circles now.

*admittedly a very small and not-necessarily representative sample

shindiggy - Member

Let people do as they wish, survival of the fittest and all that.

Whilst I agree with you context - using my original example is it therefore alright for the earphone wearing walker to shout and swear at me becuase "I made them jump", despite my efforts to alert them, becuase they themselves impaired their ability to detect me?

Frankly, no, thats not OK.

Konaboy, I really can't be arsed to google it for you, but in terms of accidents per mile travelled cycling in the UK is more dangerous than driving, walking, rail travel, air travel and probably skydiving, if it was classed as a method of commuting.

The most positive thing anyone can say about it is that it's marginally safer than sitting on the sofa until you die of cardiovascular disease.

Kryton, you're in luck. It just so happens that all the joggers you encountered on your commute are members of this forum, and take any complaints made by fellow members very seriously. They are currently burning their ipods, and them they're going to hit themselves over the head with a set of Z1s and wee in their own shoes.

Mr Agreeable - Member
Kryton, you're in luck. It just so happens that all the joggers you encountered on your commute are members of this forum, and take any complaints made by fellow members very seriously. They are currently burning their ipods, and them they're going to hit themselves over the head with a set of Z1s and wee in their own shoes.

This is a Jogging forum? I see where I went wrong.....

I listen to music when I'm cycling, no different to having the radio on in the car.

Chakaping, the reason people get defensive on threads about earphones and helmets is the "blame the victim" attitude that so many people display.

Saying cycling is dangerous because people don't wear helmets or listen to music ignores the many massive issues with the road network and the way people travel in this country. Yet if you point this out you get told that you're being unrealistic.

You have a perfectly valid point Mr A, but I don't see how deliberately blocking out one of your key senses when riding on the road is going to change it.

What are you going to do when you're waiting at the red traffic light at the bottom of the hill and I'm careering down behind you on my out-of-control steamroller shouting at you to move out of the way?

Mr Agreeable, I still wouldn't class it as 'dangerous'. Maybe higher risk than other modes of transport (I too can't be arsed googleing it and I'm sure there are diferent stats to support what you want to believe!).

I just don't think it is useful when we are trying to get more people cycling and it is described by experienced cyclists (I'm assuming you are) as being dangerous.

Pedant mode off. 😉

The question isn't does wearing headphones block one of your senses or not. It's does it have a [i]significant[/i] effect on your safety. Otherwise you could argue that taking one hand off the handlebars (e.g. to drink or unzip a jacket) is dangerous and you should always pull over and stop first, or that not wearing full body high-vis/christmas tree lights/body armour when cycling on road puts you at higher risk of injury, or cycling along a main road instead of the indirect route increase risk, etc.

*admittedly a very small and not-necessarily representative sample

And yes, I would agree that it's "people not paying attention" that is the issue - personally I have no problems with a drunk driving a car at 100mph while holding a phone to their ear if they can still drive safely - while I do object to someone perfectly sobre not listening to any music that manages to almost (or actually, thankfully so far I've avoided it) take me out because they're still not paying attention.

Chaka, I'm sure that the incident you're describing is based on reality and all, but I'm not convinced that there is any significant safety benefit in not wearing an ipod, at least not compared to the much bigger changes that could be made to where and how we ride. Maybe we should be campaigning for more stringent MOT tests for steam rollers 😉

I just hate the way that cyclists will pick over aspects of their personal safety like it's a sodding air crash investigation, yet don't want to confront much bigger, trickier issues.

5 senses - better chance of smelling death coming than hearing the car/truck that is going to clip you

Konaboy, if I was talking about cycling to a non cyclist of course I'd be bigging it up. I love many things about it: the speed, the free exercise, the convenience, the fact that I get to participate in fascinating forum debates about tyres. But there is no denying that it is more dangerous than other forms of transport.

There is no "other" set of statistics that prove cycling is safe. The best CTC et al can do is the rather clumsy workaround which shows that cyclists tend to have better life expectancies than immobile slobs. Most people perceive cycling as dangerous, and relatively speaking they are right.

I'm sure that anyone who cycles regularly in urban areas has had to cultivate a pretty philosophical attitude towards the numerous times your safety gets endangered by a driver. Trying to argue that black is white is not really going to get many more people into cycling.