Forum menu
I don't think it was ever worth 4 pages of, yes I can, no you can't 🙄
@Fasthaggis Yet you not just read it, but took the time to post an even more inane reply, well done 😉 😀
I'm sorry for being so blatantly argumentative but I cannot comprehend any logic that says someone in charge of a motor vehicle is capable of steering it in amongst thousands of other moving objects at speed whilst their brain is overwhelmed with technology bombarding all of their senses with no ill effect
Yet Cafe del Mar coming out of my iPhone is making me incapable of controlling this machine that responds lightly to my merest body movement.
But that's not what we are saying. We're not saying you're incapable of controlling your bike.
Firstly - in a car, you probably shouldn't have music blaring out or beon the phone much at all. I only put music on in less stressful situations, and I hardly ever answer my phone (with hands free). So being bombarded by music and technology is a pretty bad idea in say London. Maybe the drivers who wipe cyclists out are listening to loud music...
On a bike, you are pretty vulnerable, so not only do you need to be on the ball all the time in London, but you will be safer the more you know about what's going on around you. I think it's of benefit to be be hearing things AS WELL as seeing things.
you need to be on the ball all the time in London
Cycling in London is not the killing fields, you can wear headphones and you'll be fine. (commuting into town for many years.)
Maybe the drivers who wipe cyclists out are listening to loud music...
So why are we wasting our time discussing banning headphones on bikes and ignoring the elephant?
On a bike, you are pretty vulnerable, so not only do you need to be on the ball all the time in London, but you will be safer the more you know about what's going on around you. - See more at: http://www.bikeradar.com
How much safer will you be without headphones?
not sure how dangerous is bike radar?
Cycling in London is not the killing fields
Clearly, but it can be risky and you have to be responsible.
How much safer will you be without headphones?
About 0.4N
Thanks crosshair,I was commenting on aracer's 4page ref ,and only moved to post after nwilco's 50-50 nonsense. It's always the same with these type of threads ,some people's sweeping generalizations ,without imagining for a second how others could possibly cope with all that mountain of risk assessment. Sorry for the slow reply,I was sending my brother a long email to explain to him ,that as a person with reduced hearing,he should think about ditching his motorbike and cycling rides as it's only going to end badly. Luv and kisses 🙂
poor comparison I only have one eye [ I have two but only one works I am not a cyclops ] but do you really think it wont impede you if you wear an eye patch?
you would look cool though I give you that
[quote=Junkyard drooled]poor comparison
Yep
coz then you'd be waging war on the poor beleaguered motorist.Maybe the drivers who wipe cyclists out are listening to loud music...
So why are we wasting our time discussing banning headphones on bikes and ignoring the elephant?
Molgrips...
but you will be safer the more you know about what's going on around you. I think it's of benefit to be be hearing things AS WELL as seeing things.
You keep ignoring the questions I've asked you in this regard, not sure why unless you don't know the answer?
Do you think your hearing is sensitive enough locate to within a foot or so a vehicle (several feet wide emitting noise uniformly across it) approaching from behind you? And if you do hear the vehicle that's intent on hitting you from the rear, do you think that it'll be far enough away from you to allow you to get out of the way? Can you estimate a vehicles speed coming toward you and it's distance from you? I doubt it. Or at least I doubt you can do it accurately.
People struggle to assess speed from visual cues, so I'm highly skeptical that hearing an engine behind you will offer you anything unless you're in the habit of veering wildly across the road without looking. And if that's the case I'd say there are bigger issues that wearing headphones at play! 🙂
In this regard too - punctures can seriously affect control of bicycles, should we all have solid rubber tyres? A weekly eye test? An MOT for bikes? A minimum fitness level test? A "driving test" for bikes?
Seriously the more I read STW forums the more I think there are some people who, basically, just want to remove every vestige of enjoyment from cycling and make it a drudge.
If you don't like wearing headphones, that's fine. Don't wear them, but the leap to "headphones are dangerous" is just another step in forcing culpability onto cyclists for accidents that aren't their fault. A trick that Boris has managed twice now spectacularly well.
All evidence suggests that risks are, in the vast majority, present at road junctions where cars turn into cycles or cars pull out on cycles. The lack of any citing of 'lack of hearing' in *any* study, suggests that it's not a contributor to accidents, but is a contributor to yet another negative viewpoint of cyclists. "bloody bikers, get what's coming to them" etc etc etc.... By advocating the banning of headphones with ZERO data to suggest it's a risk, you're contributing to the view that innocent victims are somehow to blame for accidents caused by others.
People struggle to assess speed from visual cues, so I'm highly skeptical that hearing an engine behind you will offer you anything unless you're in the habit of veering wildly across the road without looking. And if that's the case I'd say there are bigger issues that wearing headphones at play!
Irrelevant - hearing the vehicles around you allows you to judge a myriad of things that are going on around you - is that bus about to pull out (hear the engine rev) or slow down (engine tone and brakes, plus the ping that someone has asked to stop) - it allows you to judge better whether that car to your right is going to stop at the lights or not, it allows you to hear anything from a pedestrian crossing activating to an approaching siren from a fire engine that is about to go through the lights
All these audible warnings allow your brain to form a context for what your eyes are seeing and assist you to process the information, giving you much needed advance warning of things that are going on out of your line of sight - its not just about the car behind you.
Overtook another cyclist who was wearing earphones t'other day. Judging by the jump and loud "fark" he wasn't expecting me. Made me chuckle 🙂
p8ddy you are using extreme examples to prove a point.
The counter extreme retort is that if we were all deaf we would not be under any more danger- the fact we developed hearing counters this somewhat
It allows me to hear a car revving high so i know its about to overtake, the sound lets me know its rough speed and if its a bus or a truck, how its driven etc
All of this is imperfect for sure but you dont have it.
i have more information than you as i can hear things and you cannot
Will this save my life?
Not sure but I have once done a life saver on a roundabout to avoid a car going into aj unction at 60 that would have splattered me across its bonnet
Would i have looked without the sound - not sure tbh but the sound was what I noticed first.
Do as you please I dont actually care but i am not sure how you can argue removing a sense doe snot hinder you tbh - how big this is i accept we can debate but not whether it does.
i was trying to opt out of this.
Overtook another cyclist who was wearing earphones t'other day. Judging by the jump and loud "fark" he wasn't expecting me.
Though unless your bike is squeaky as hell he almost certainly wouldn't have heard you if he wasn't wearing headphones. That you caused him to jump suggests you might not have given him enough space.
Would i have looked without the sound - not sure tbh but the sound was what I noticed first.
Assumes that your headphones block out all sound. You can get fully isolating headphones or run them at a volume to block out everything but doesn't mean everyone does. I wore mine in today and stopped for a conversation with a builder without turning them off.
An article has just been posted on new scientist on this subject.
As for how accidents occur, of the 456 cyclists seriously injured on London's streets in 2010, the most common causes were an oncoming vehicle turning right across the cyclist's path or the cyclist hitting, or swerving to avoid hitting a car door.Many motorists complain about cyclists running red lights, but this accounted for just 3 per cent of serious injuries. Also, more than three-quarters of injuries occurred during daylight hours.
When came to deaths, the most common causes were the cyclist and another vehicle turning left at the same time; a vehicle changing lane across the path of the cyclist; and the cyclist riding off the pavement and into the path of a vehicle.
[url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24636-despite-the-deaths-cycling-in-london-is-getting-safer.html#.Uo-ETdK8Cy4?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=twitter&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL-twitter ]link[/url]
No mention of headphones here.
Lots of room Simons. Sorry for pulling you in.
Junkyard...
p8ddy you are using extreme examples to prove a point.
The "extreme" examples I'm using are among the most common types of accident for cyclists/cars.
The counter extreme retort is that if we were all deaf we would not be under any more danger- the fact we developed hearing counters this somewhat
I don't understand your point. If it's an evolutionary one, which I think it is (and I'm not being facetious) then I would suggest that Human/artificial methods of movement are way to early in the evolutionary process for this to make any odds to out hearing. If that's *not* your point, I apologise, but I don't get it.
It allows me to hear a car revving high so i know its about to overtake, the sound lets me know its rough speed and if its a bus or a truck, how its driven etc
So you hear a car overtaking. What good does that do? If your road positioning is poor, I'd suggest judgement is a more serious issue than headphones. Otherwise, what does it add to the mix? If the cars going at speed, by the time you're heard it, it's too late, what's going to happen will happen. Also, If you're cycling to close to these vehicles that you can hear this, I'd say again there's a bigger safety issue.
All of this is imperfect for sure but you dont have it.
i have more information than you as i can hear things and you cannot
Will this save my life?
It's not only that I don't have it - it's that I don't need it. It adds nothing to the mix.
Causes of car/Bike collisions:
Drive Out at Controlled Intersection 12.20%
Motorist Overtaking 11.90%
Motorist Opens Door in front of Bicyclist 11.90%
Motorist Left Turn - Facing Bicyclist 10.70%
Motorist Right Turn - Other 9.60%
Motorist Right Turn at Red Light 7.70%
Drive Out from Lane or Driveway 7.70%
Ride Out At Controlled Intersection 3.10%
Wrong Way Bicyclist 2.50%
My "extreme" example of a motorist overtaking - I don't believe we have hearing sufficient to hear from a good enough distance or to place a cars position/distance anywhere near accurately enough to make any odds.
"The headphones are dangerous" myth, is exactly that, a myth.
In the accidents attributing cause to cyclists, or where cyclists were at least partly to blame the causes were listed as follows:
Loss of Control (including mechanicals/blowouts etc)
Traveling too fast for conditions
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Impaired by alcohol
The above accounted for 100% of Cyclist to blame/contributry accidents.
Not one single mention of "Didn't hear the car", not one single mention of headphones contributing to accidents. I've looked at research from the DfT and from as far afield as Canada. Not one single study has referenced headphones. Not one. Why is that? Does the STW hive mind know better (I mean, who needs fact, you can prove *anything* with facts)?
Not sure but I have once done a life saver on a roundabout to avoid a car going into aj unction at 60 that would have splattered me across its bonnet
Would i have looked without the sound - not sure tbh but the sound was what I noticed first.
Clearly, I'm glad you didn't get hit. That's good news. The truth is though we'll never know what might have happened, so it's maybe a reason for you to forgo earphones, but not an indicator they're unsafe.
Do as you please I dont actually care but i am not sure how you can argue removing a sense doe snot hinder you tbh - how big this is i accept we can debate but not whether it does.
We're in agreement - Neither of us care who wears headphones or not. My issue is with the statements that A. Headphones are dangerous, when it's opinion not supported by any empirical evidence or fact. B. The notion headphones should be banned and C. that wearing headphones is "removal of a sense". At worst it's removing part of a sense. It doesn't remove the balance component. Nor do headphones stop you hearing outside noise.
I believe in live and live. I take my safety seriously and don't believe I'm compromising it - but there are people on here who basically would remove every vestige of fun from cycling.
And like I say, seeing as "loss of control" is a major factor in accident causation for cyclists, there's a far far better case for solid rubber tyres and bike MOTs than there is for banning headphones. Don't tell Boris that though, it'll just be used as another weapon of mass distraction. 😉
Another interesting link (for anyone that's not lost the will to live)
Again, not a single contributory instance of headphone usage.
Headphone/mobile phone use does get mentioned with regard to pedestrians in accident reports. But for the reason that IanMunro mentioned - ie They stop paying attention to their surroundings, stop looking where they are going!