Clueless with iPod

[noisebeam]

It's no different than someone listening to their stereo in their car at higher volumes.
Which also can and sometimes does lead to the motorist missing information that they should be reacting to. Like this morning in left turn lane. Lead driver was blasting stereo with windows up. Light turned green. Nothing. Driver behind me started to honk, and honk again. Nothing. They finally went just as the light turned red.

Of course it was not the isolation from the aural environment that lead to this. They were not paying attention at all, but if they had no blasting music they could have heard the secondary clue.

Of course a wise driver doesn't stop paying visual attention if they have headphones on.

I've seen similar non-reaction from drivers blasting music in response to emergency vehicles.

Al

[BarracksSi]

Same as today. You can easily hear the tire noise.

Not usually, at least not where I am. I can be completely unable to hear a car to my rear if the one next to me is loud enough.

[Steve Hamlin]

"talk of requiring cars to meet a minimum noise level"

I've seen reports on this. It seems a bit sad to me -- something in this world is finally getting quieter, and that's a problem!

In my experience, there's not much tire noise below 20-25 miles per; mirrors are the best defense.

[noisebeam]

I can be completely unable to hear a car to my rear if the one next to me is loud enough.

Well of course louder vehicles drown out quieter ones. This happens every day no matter what type of vehicle the quieter one is. Often it is a motorcycle drowning out regular cars.

And yes, to S.H. at lower speeds tire noise is less, but at lower speeds you are going to see the vehicle long before you hear it.

Al

[invisiblehand]

How about them damned deaf people! They're a freakin menace, riding around without being able to hear!
Then there's them mute folks who don't holler "On your left" or say "Good morning" - arrogant b@stards.
And don't get me started on folks who have less than perfect vision and...gawd it's hard to say it, actually use glasses with corrective lenses rather than staying at home with their red-tipped canes!

:lol:

Damn, that is a good point. It saddens me that I failed to think of it first.

[Steve Hamlin]

While I ride with an MP3 player and think it's terrific, I can't recommend it universally with a clear conscience.

It's up to one's own experience level and riding circumstances. . .

[pirate]

Seems like this one is your fault. apply the situation to cars (bikes are considered road vehicles and subject to the same rules of driving) You were in the left lane, and turned right across the right lane, without checking to make sure it was safe. Your fault. Not his. He could easily have been going fast enough to be passing you slowly and not just cruising so close.

No, it wasn't my fault. I didn't turn across any lane at all. I was in a bike lane on the right side of the road turning right, he was directly behind me, failing to give the road vehicle in front of him (me) a safe distance, because he wasn't paying attention. If you rear-end someone it's your fault, period.

[bkrownd]

joggers and pedestrians with headphones on the wrong side of the road are also a big safety problem.

[kendall]

If I'm on a bike I sometimes use the headphones, but turned down so I can still hear what's going on around me. On though I often have them turned up, (so I like the old rock!) at those times though my eyes are working overtime.

Nothing inherently wrong with it but if you're the type that needs to remind yourself to pay attention, then by all means keep the ears open. If you feel your speedometer, heart rate monitor, or whatever makes it difficult to watch where you're going then don't use them either.

Ken.

[chipcom]

No, it wasn't my fault. I didn't turn across any lane at all. I was in a bike lane on the right side of the road turning right, he was directly behind me, failing to give the road vehicle in front of him (me) a safe distance, because he wasn't paying attention. If you rear-end someone it's your fault, period.

Hmm, so in other words you felt it was ok to make a right turn without signaling and without checking for another vehicle coming up to your right and rear? Congrats, you did the typical motorist right hook.

You both were wrong - he should have been paying attention and planning for you to do the stupidest thing possible, while you didn't bother signaling or giving a look.

[Winter76]

I listen to my mp3 player while riding. I listen to Audiobooks and I have no issues hearing what is going on around me. I'm sure people on here will say otherwise, but I know what I can hear and what I can't.

[chipcom]

I listen to my mp3 player while riding. I listen to Audiobooks and I have no issues hearing what is going on around me. I'm sure people on here will say otherwise, but I know what I can hear and what I can't.

No you can't. Please don't second guess the safety nannies...they know what's best for us, they know all, see all, hear all, smell all, taste all, feel all and gosh darn it, they care.

[ATAC49er]

Coupla points here....

1.) People in general have less and less respect as the days go by; it used to be that you were taught the expectation of walking on the right (correct) side of the street, along one side of the sidewalk. But when some found out that there was no horrible penalty for not doing as they were taught, it all began to trickle away. So we now have bike riders who think it's OK to ride in the street against traffic, switch back & forth between sidewalk & street arbitrarily, etc.; pedestrians who think it's OK to walk in the middle of the street; rollerbladers who think it's OK to leave wheeltracks on other people.

2.) I used to ride with a portable CD player/headphones -- it interfered with my experience of the ride, so I quit.

[slagjumper]

If this is such a problem, why dont we hear about all those unsafe deaf drivers and cyclists? I think that your senses can fool you and actually become a cause of an accident. For example, ever had an electric bus creep up on you? What about a Prius running in electric mode? Dont you remember how easily the blind man from "Kung Foo" could walk across 2by four bridging the acid pool?

[chipcom]

Dont you remember how easily the blind man from "Kung Foo" could walk across 2by four bridging the acid pool?

When you can take the iPod from my hand, it will be time for you to leave. :D

[oceanfx]

OP: You know we have more than one sense for taking in our situation, right? When I can't hear anything on the road (which happens when after a certain speed anyway because of the wind) I rely on my eyes instead. When I wear headphones, I just shoulder-check more often--something Pirate could have done, whether or not he was wearing them.

[invisiblehand]

No you can't. Please don't second guess the safety nannies...they know what's best for us, they know all, see all, hear all, smell all, taste all, feel all and gosh darn it, they care.

There are two important considerations, IMO.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion -- i.e., I think that it is unwise to ride with a headset on -- and telling people to simply not do it for safety reasons.

There are situations where an individual makes decisions but others pay the price. Consider a cyclist with a headset riding quickly down a MUP. Clearly, a cyclist can seriously hurt other people and -- conditioned on the environment and the cyclists' choices like velocity -- wearing the headset could be irresponsible.

While I sympathize with the argument against the safety nannies, I think that putting the argument in the right context is important.

[KrisPistofferson]

I didn't pay attention to the poll the first time, very Helmet Head-ish.

[photoassign]

Congrats, you did the typical motorist right hook.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Clearly, a cyclist can seriously hurt other people and -- conditioned on the environment and the cyclists' choices like velocity -- wearing the headset could be irresponsible.

While I sympathize with the argument against the safety nannies, I think that putting the argument in the right context is important.

Irresponsible people acting foolishly, with or without headphones can seriously hurt other people due to their irresponsible bicycling behavior, i.e. riding too fast for the environment. Headphones are an insignificant factor in bicycling collisions except in Safety Nanny Nightmares.

[zirger726]

I almost always listen to the radio with headphone on my commute and have never had a problem because of it. One morning however, my batteries went dead mid-ride so I road in in silence. As I was riding past some woods I heard a noise (probably would not have heard it if the radio was on) and was looking in the darkness for the cause, I didn't want a dog or deer to run out in front of me. Instead I hit a wheel sucking pothole (one of those long narrow ones that run parallel with your bike) and got a flat and went over the front of the bike. Would I have avoided the accident if the radio was on maybe, but I might have hit something coming out of the woods if there had been something.

Lesson learned: Don't zero in on one thing so much that you aren't paying attention to anything else.

I still listen to the morning talk radio show on my way to work

[Wordbiker]

I just think iPods are dumb.

Restrictive DRM and a battery that doesn't last.

[invisiblehand]

Headphones are an insignificant factor in bicycling collisions except in Safety Nanny Nightmares.

How do you know this?

[Pig_Chaser]

How do you know this?

How do you know that it isn't true?

[invisiblehand]

How do you know that it isn't true?

I did not write that it was false.

[RiggerUWZ]

I can hear more on my bike with an i-pod(not loud), than someone in their car with windows up.

[Allister]

How do you know this?

For me, first hand experience.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How do you know this?

The same way I know that chewing gum while cycling is not an irresponsible act - Lack of any demonstrated evidence to the contrary. You sir, are the one (among more than a few posters) posting messages that wearing headphones is irresponsible. On what evidence of any significent accident results do you base your statement besides the fabricated Conventional Wisdom of the Bicycling Puritans and/or Safety Nanny clique?

[Allister]

The same way I know that chewing gum while cycling is not an irresponsible act

Clearly some of the folks here struggle with that as well.

[invisiblehand]

The same way I know that chewing gum while cycling is not an irresponsible act - Lack of any demonstrated evidence to the contrary. You sir, are the one (among more than a few posters) posting messages that wearing headphones is irresponsible. On what evidence of any significent accident results do you base your statement besides the fabricated Conventional Wisdom of the Bicycling Puritans and/or Safety Nanny clique?

No, you failed to live up to your own standards when it comes to "wild speculation." You made a statement of fact. Go prove it or provide ample evidence of it as opposed to your assertion that there is no evidence to the contrary -- or more correctly, you are unaware of any evidence to the contrary -- so "I know it must be true."

My assertion is that -- in combination with other choices -- riding with a headset would be irresponsible if it unreasonably increases the risk to other people. While I am not up to speed on the literature that looks at auto accidents, I recall that there are simulation and accident studies that conclude that distractions were a significant determinant. Personally, I think that listening to music through headphones qualifies as a distraction -- some of the studies qualified music as such whereas others left it open -- and that the cognitive function and decision-making that occurs while driving a car is similar enough to cycling to make the inference.

The notion of irresponsible is a matter of opinion anyway. Clearly, an action would have to increase someone else's risk past a certain threshold in consideration with the cost of avoiding such an action. So if the cost of avoiding an action is minute, taking the action could be irresponsible even if it created little risk to others.

[chipcom]

Personally, I think that listening to music through headphones qualifies as a distraction

Perhaps...to those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, or those who are easily distracted anyway. Personally, I don't have any problem concentrating on what I am doing while listening to music, just as I don't let things like traffic noise, construction, aircraft taking off overhead, distract me. IMO the root cause is the person that is so easily distracted, not the device or source of the distraction.

[Steve Hamlin]

Many trained musicians are able to read music, listen to themselves, hold a tune, keep rhythm, watch a conductor/band leader, listen to the others in their section, listen to the band/orchestra as a whole and even march in formation -- all simultaneously.

If you're not comfortable with music while riding, then by God avoid it. . .

[songfta]

The poll is flawed.

That said, I'm not a big fan of riding with an iPod unless the user either:

a. Rides with a single headphone (likely in the right ear); or
b. uses AirDrives (http://www.airdrives.com/lowkey.html) headphones, which don't block the ear canal.

I've tried both, prefer the AirDrives over a single earphone, but prefer no extraneous distractions from the task at hand.

Just my $0.02 - YMMV.

[invisiblehand]

Perhaps...to those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, or those who are easily distracted anyway. Personally, I don't have any problem concentrating on what I am doing while listening to music, just as I don't let things like traffic noise, construction, aircraft taking off overhead, distract me. IMO the root cause is the person that is so easily distracted, not the device or source of the distraction.

Actually Chip, I agree that one can responsibly listen to music while cycling. My guess is that we would compensate by adjusting other choices; i.e., riding a bit slower, with a little more caution, adjusting the volume when appropriate. So just like I care little for helmet laws and helmet nannies, I doubt that I would support a no music law or some blanket recommendation.

However, a recommendation that one use extra care is warranted, IMO.

[BarracksSi]

Many trained musicians are able to read music, listen to themselves, hold a tune, keep rhythm, watch a conductor/band leader, listen to the others in their section, listen to the band/orchestra as a whole and even march in formation -- all simultaneously.

Yeah, but we do all of that without unrelated noise in our ears... ;)

Then again, there are times where what I'm hearing is no use, whether we're just way too loud and I can't even hear myself, or we're located in a position where sound delay would throw off our timing if we played only by ear. That's when we go by the conductor despite what we're hearing from the rest of the ensemble.

I don't exactly like listening to music while riding, but that's mainly because of the nature of music -- it's constantly making sound. I'm not averse to listening to spoken word, though.

The more that I think about it, the more I realize that I don't change course without getting visual confirmation that it's safe. Whether I turn my head or use my mirror, I've been able to get a handle on things before they get close enough for me to hear (sometimes I can't hear specific cars near me anyway because so many others make so much noise). I even use my mirror on the occasional MUP or quiet park road to know whether I'm about to be passed or drafted (which I personally don't mind).

I should keep my eyes open for a mono earphone that doesn't suck.

[Steve Hamlin]

adjusting other choices; i.e., riding a bit slower. . .

It's not a choice any more for me. I'm old and I'm slow.

I'm not averse to listening to spoken word, though . . .

I find it the opposite -- I tend to focus to more fully on spoken word. But akin to what you've said on playing in a band, I can drop out of music in a heartbeat and tune in to "the band director."

And, yes, visual cues conquer all -- I can imagine being deaf and riding. I cannot imagine being blind (blinder, actually, as a charter member of the thick spectacles club. . .) and riding. Never without a mirror. . .!

[SingingSabre]

I don't ride with an iPod...but I never leave my Zen MP3 player at home! ;)

I've had one collision, it was with a traffic bollard. There was an SUV coming up on my left and a bollard on my right. The SUV was coming up a little too closely, and I got to choose between the vehicle and the bollard. I chose the bollard, as it doesn't bite back.

The collision was irrelevant to my headphones (which, by the way, are earbuds with some sort of foam that expands in the ear canal -- very stable and comfortable, also block out a lot of wind noise).

[BarracksSi]

I'm not averse to listening to spoken word, though . . .

I find it the opposite -- I tend to focus to more fully on spoken word. But akin to what you've said on playing in a band, I can drop out of music in a heartbeat and tune in to "the band director."

For me, it's not so much a matter of focus but just which is blocking more outside sound more often.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Actually Chip, I agree that one can responsibly listen to music while cycling. My guess is that we would compensate by adjusting other choices; i.e., riding a bit slower, with a little more caution, adjusting the volume when appropriate. So just like I care little for helmet laws and helmet nannies, I doubt that I would support a no music law or some blanket recommendation.

However, a recommendation that one use extra care is warranted, IMO.

Is that the same type of "little more caution" compensation required when wind noise may, to some degree, mask out the sounds/noise that cyclists presumably need to listen for in order to ride responsibly? If so, that extra caution (whatever that means) must be needed to ride responsibly whenever the wind blows, or the cyclist travels at some minimum speed above walking speed, to compensate for the alleged additional risk of aural distractions.

[invisiblehand]

Is that the same type of "little more caution" compensation required when wind noise may, to some degree, mask out the sounds/noise that cyclists presumably need to listen for in order to ride responsibly? If so, that extra caution (whatever that means) must be needed to ride responsibly whenever the wind blows, or the cyclist travels at some minimum speed above walking speed, to compensate for the alleged additional risk of aural distractions.

If you lack real evidence for your factual statement, then just correct it. Let's end this hypocrisy please. No apologies needed.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If you lack real evidence for your factual statement, then just correct it. Let's end this hypocrisy please. No apologies needed.

OK. Let me put it in words more to your liking. Nobody has ever demonstrated (to my knowledge) that there is any evidence that cyclists listening using headphones have been involved in any significently greater number of accidents than those without. Nor has any evidence been presented that headphone wearing cyclists have been involved in any significent number of collisions at all. And all your guessing about other scenarios doesn't change that observation. If you or anyone else has some knowledge about any greater percentage of accidents for headphone wearing/gum chewing cyclists, dish it out. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke about irresponsible cycling, risks and hazards like the other Clued-in Nannies.

And yes I am sure an anecdote or two can/will be offered about a collision with a headphone wearing cyclist; an argument than could be countered with hundreds of reports of collisions with cyclists who were not wearing headphones.

[Allister]

If you lack real evidence for your factual statement, then just correct it. Let's end this hypocrisy please. No apologies needed.

LOL. You're only going on guesswork and opinion yourself, dude.

[genec]

OK. Let me put it in words more to your liking. Nobody has ever demonstrated (to my knowledge) that there is any evidence that cyclists listening using headphones have been involved in any significently greater number of accidents than those without. Nor has any evidence been presented that headphone wearing cyclists have been involved in any significent number of collisions at all. And all your guessing about other scenarios doesn't change that observation. If you or anyone else has some knowledge about any greater percentage of accidents for headphone wearing/gum chewing cyclists, dish it out. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke about irresponsible cycling, risks and hazards like the other Clued-in Nannies.

And yes I am sure an anecdote or two can/will be offered about a collision with a headphone wearing cyclist; an argument than could be countered with hundreds of reports of collisions with cyclists who were not wearing headphones.

Well of the small amount of cyclists killed, all it would take is one, wearing headphones to be "significent." Of course they will probably blame the motorist, vice the headphones. :rolleyes:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Well of the small amount of cyclists killed, all it would take is one, wearing headphones to be "significent." Of course they will probably blame the motorist, vice the headphones. :rolleyes:

Statistically significent.:rolleyes:

[RiggerUWZ]

Headphones or not is ones choice. I'm just glad to see so many cyclists. It's ashame that we must argue amongst ourselves.

[invisiblehand]

OK. Let me put it in words more to your liking. Nobody has ever demonstrated (to my knowledge) that there is any evidence that cyclists listening using headphones have been involved in any significently greater number of accidents than those without. Nor has any evidence been presented that headphone wearing cyclists have been involved in any significent number of collisions at all. And all your guessing about other scenarios doesn't change that observation. If you or anyone else has some knowledge about any greater percentage of accidents for headphone wearing/gum chewing cyclists, dish it out. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke about irresponsible cycling, risks and hazards like the other Clued-in Nannies.

And yes I am sure an anecdote or two can/will be offered about a collision with a headphone wearing cyclist; an argument than could be countered with hundreds of reports of collisions with cyclists who were not wearing headphones.

Actually it sounds to me like willful denial and/or a strange homage to Sophists.

We seem to agree that your "wild speculation" earlier is based on your anecdotal observations and "fanciful" views of the world -- I see that you failed to show a study where cycling with headphones poses no increased risk. That nobody collects data on this specific subtopic of cycling does not prohibit making inferences from other areas of life. For instance, show me statistics that cyclists riding blindfolded resulted in a greater number of collisions relative to those without a blindfold.

[invisiblehand]

LOL. You're only going on guesswork and opinion yourself, dude.

That is correct Allister. The difference is that I write that it is an opinion. Moreover, I make it clear -- at least make an attempt -- what my inferences are based on.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Actually it sounds to me like willful denial and/or a strange homage to Sophists.
Willful denial of what? That something is risky/irresponsible because you think so? Fine you win; whatever you say is true because you believe it so and it will remain true until someone convinces you otherwise.

Don't forget to never bicycle unless you are well fed, feeling tip-top and well rested and only on bright sun shiny days because otherwise would be irresponsibly riding with possibly dulled senses taking unnecessary risks for such a difficult task as riding a bicycle in public.

[invisiblehand]

That something is risky/irresponsible because you think so?

I already addressed this ... "responsible" is a matter of opinion. There is some notion of an acceptable amount of risk relative to cost of avoiding that risk. Oh, I forgot to include that one would also consider the benefit from the action. In the world with limited information and a cost to getting more information, we all make inferences on those risks, costs and benefits. One way to make this more concrete might be to consider what the "man on the Clapham omnibus" -- any Brits here? did I get it right? -- thinks or what would happen in a tort case. If you think that a cyclist involved in a collision with a pedestrian would be more likely to be found guilty, then you have some measure of "responsible".

Since transportation has a lot "cooperative" aspects to it -- I mean this in both the colloquial and game theory context -- considerations other than a libertarian view come into play. Hmmm, I don't think I am communicating well here. I will have to think about it more.

Fine you win; whatever you say is true because you believe it so and it will remain true until someone convinces you otherwise.

Funny ... except for the "fine you win" part, there is no winning around here other than pleasant conversation and sharing of knowledge; when it gets unpleasant then it becomes a game of how much one loses ... from your posts one could make the same conclusion about you. I thought I knew you better than that.

[Linus_S]

I think it is pretty stupid if you cannot hear what is going on around you especially if you have good hearing. I have seen many pedestrians get in the way of people who are calling out "passing left". Almost always they have some sort of radio or music device in their ears.

On the flip side, totally unobstructed ares pick up the the rushing sound of the wind. Sometimes the wind muffles my hearing. A knitted hat pulled over the ears helps. What do you do to keep the wind noise down to a comfortable level?