Soooo.... Tom Cruise should have been kicking Mozart in the cockpit instead of Metal? I don't think so and in any case the word "might" appears a lot in the abstract of that article. But more after I read it. If it doesn't cost money to do so. But, as has been said, in the presently unenlightened state of our legal system, your credibility will be toasted, after an accident in which you are found wrapped in the wires of your headphones. Toasted beyond redemption.

H

It seems like you feel strongly about the subject, but honestly music isn't necessarily a distraction. Sure, Mozart or Bach is less distracting than something with loud vocals and heavy beat.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that those listening to Mozart did were not tested on their skill in listening to other things for this study.

Probably not, and probably not rote memorization either. But it was distraction which was cited here, and it seems to me that focus and spatial awareness are more important to bike safety than being able to identify given sounds.

I think that the idea that being able to identify given sounds is somehow not part of focus and spacial awareness is pretty wrong, particularly when it comes to bike safety.

This is the primary flaw in Darwin's theory, IMO.

What I've learned from this topic is that the deaf should never, ever consider riding in traffic.

This past week on various commutes I've been distracted. I saw an older heavy set cyclist wearing a "Dark Side of the Moon" cycling jersey. All kinds of thoughts ran through my head. First of all I was not previously aware that such kick ass cycling jerseys existed! I had been under the assumption most cycling jerseys were designed to make the rider look like they were dressing up as a NASCAR for Halloween. "I have to go home and google this!" I thought as the man in the jersey sped past me the other way. While I thought this I could have easily run over a kamikaze squirrel on the trail. So perhaps the lesson here is that prog rock cycling jerseys should be banned! (So should Led Zeppelin jerseys, something google has since informed me exists as well)

Also, I saw an attractive, fit young women riding with a very short mini skirt. This sort of attire is clearly a menace to all straight male and bi/lesbian cyclists on the trail, and should be banned! Just imagine if she'd been wearing a "Dark Side of the Moon" jersey as well! The squirrels would have no prayer.

Okay, snark mode off. My point is, cyclists have a responsibility to remain focused despite the fact that distractions present themselves to us. What may be distracting to one person may have absolutely no effect on another person. I wonder why it's so hard for some people to respect other people's individuality and personal decisions. I see people riding with ear phones all the time, and they've never been a danger to me. If someone has had a personal encounter with a cyclist wearing ear phones that has caused a danger to them or the cyclists themselves because they couldn't hear a warning, lay it on me. But my guess is that such anecdotes are rare and most of the people objecting are simply assuming that because music would be distracting to them, they must be distracting to everyone. Well I'll counter that with my own assumption that there are plenty of cyclists who can listen to music and remain focused.

If there's one thing I've noted about the cycling community since I dove headlong into cycling not too long ago, it's how prone so many are to elitist dogma... and that's really the nice way of saying it. The surly way would be to call this group the "cycling taliban". Though I'm sure that would only be appropriate for a fraction of this group... like say a third.

Just ride the way you want to ride, don't assume that everyone who doesn't ride exactly the way you do is a menace to you or others. In other words, chill out.

The music distracts me from the voices in my head, allowing me to be more aware of my surroundings. Maybe I should just not go out in public, but then many that I see in public shouldn't be there.

[QUOTE=Leisesturm;14639128]Agreed. This is a troll thread. Well... it began as a troll thread. Along the way, however, like most such threads, it picked up the assorted wisdom of numerous sincere posters who offer well meant but biased opinions. I have to say, I am saddened, but not surprised at the number, even in this small sampling of cyclists that think that using only one ear-bud is better than using two. Friends... its the distraction, not the reduction in hearing acuity! You will be just as distracted with Aerosmith pounding in one ear as two. Just because you haven't been killed yet is not an endorsement.[QUOTE]

Well said... very well said...

This is probably a troll thread, and I said to myself I wouldn't bother coming back to this thread, but I really have to disagree with you cycronin. Your arguments don't quite work: it's all based on anecdotal precedents. We all know stories of cyclists who listen to music/don't wear helmets/blah blah blah, and don't get killed, just as we hear about drivers who never wear seat belts and never get into accidents or hurt when they do, or smokers who live to 100, or chronic drinkers who never get liver disease.

The article I cited a few posts back was pretty conclusive: listening to music for cyclists IS distracting. It was objectively proven, and even more, probably as close to what cyclists will experience under real conditions. There is NO argument. However, does that mean an accident will happen to you, to your friend, to my friend? Of course not... probability only tells us the risks, not specifically who or when it will occur.

I'm not sure how arguing for safety is elitist dogma exactly... but let me present this argument. Let's say, for example, a cyclist decides to wear earphones, doesn't hear a warning shout or a horn signaling danger, and is seriously hurt, maybe even disabled. Yes, he or she can do what they want, but why should the rest of us (society, insurance company) then pay for it? You choose, you take the consequences. The UK wanted to do this with smokers a few years back: if you smoke, you go to the bottom of the list for medical treatment. In Canada, we had a case where a bone specialist refused to treat a patient anymore. The patient was advised to stop smoking to allow the treatment to take effect. He didn't, and then one day, the doctor basically kicked him out. The patient was... aghast! And complained. The doctor said tough. You choose, you live by your consequences. Like another reply said... not sure what the accident/insurance investigators will conclude if headphone wires are wrapped around your neck, but it's probably not going to help your case...

So, I'm all for personal choice, but if you choose to do something that imposes on the rest of society or other institutions socially, economically, or otherwise, well, please be prepared to live with the outcome of that choice. If chance favours you, great! If not... oh well...

Please don't take this personally, but I really want others to think seriously about personal safety. Is a potential accident really worth 20 minutes of your favourite tunes?

Ozonation, I do not take it personally that we don't agree on this at all, and for what it's worth don't think I'm declaring everyone who feels it's unsafe to listen to music is being dogmatic. And also, I should point out that I personally, at the moment, do not listen to music while riding. Though obviously I'm not opposed to it. I wouldn't listen to music with two earbuds because I don't feel it would be safe for me. However I have a friend who rides the trails with two earbuds (and one on the streets), and you know, it's his decision. He's been cycling far far longer than I have. I just flat out disagree that insurance costs should play any factor at all in legislating individual choices.

The article you posted indicated that it two ear buds negatively affected auditory perception but that one ear bud did not (I'd want to know a lot more about the study before I declare it was "conclusive" about anything anyway). The opponents of music and cycling have nevertheless argued that one ear bud, handlebar speakers, helmet speakers, etc. are all unsafe. I remain skeptical there is anything but assumptions that support this.

Actually, it's great to hear that you're very cognizant of this issue! And yes, I can appreciate disagreements.

It is true that the article could not conclude that one ear bud produce a negative effect, but I would not stake my life on it, nor do I think accident/insurance investigators would be overly moved by the "one ear vs two ear" argument. After all, I don't think numerous safety associations, transportation boards, and state laws prohibit or caution against earphones/headphones for no reason.

I am less concerned about listening to music on trail riding, etc. Even a handlebar speaker is unlikely to be as bad: you hear far more ambient noise. In your friend's case, out on the trails, there are still dangers, but most do not involve 2000+ lbs of metal, glass, and plastic moving at you at 50 km/h or more, nor are you surrounded by a moving stream of humanity, some of which are themselves distracted and trying to get from point A to B in the shortest time possible! To me, in that situation, I think the best we can do to be self-responsible is to give ourselves the best chance of survival - hey, it's a jungle out there. And that is your friend's experience: it is instructive, but it is anecdotal - we cannot extrapolate that all riders who wear earphones will be as skilled, resourceful, or perhaps just as lucky as your friend.

I also agree that insurance costs should not dictate legislation, but the point is, why should insurance (or society) pay for your expense/damages/rehabilitation, etc. when you engage in a practice that can potentially add to your injury or death? If you can admit that not having earphones MIGHT have enabled to avoid a collision, hear a warning, etc. then you've lost the argument already. I have no qualms if you want to wear earphones AND are willing to accept fully responsibility and liability for the outcome, and that might include hurting somebody else.

Well, I've ranted on enough, and again cycronin... it is certainly up to each person to decide what to do. To each their own, but I hope each person thinks more broadly about safety.

Following this logic, one could make a case against bicycling altogether.

But seriously, one earphone? Are you also opposed to radios in any vehicle?

One earphone is legal in California, and as a rider who has 1000's of miles riding with one, I don't think it's an issue.
Furthermore, at the speeds I travel I'm not going to be able to take evasive action if I do hear some car coming up behind me. Cars fast; Me slow.

If I really did a cost/benefit analysis I could well discover that riding with an earphone is so pleasurable that it encourages more riding, which in turn increases general health, and therefore makes it less likely I'll become a burden to my insurance company or society in general. (OK, I'm just having fun now...)

"Slippery Slope" is a rhetorical fallacy.

"False Equivalence" is a rhetorical fallacy.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Every person, I think, has a tolerance for what sort of risks they expose themselves to while riding, skipping reds, wearing earbuds, etc. I don't see this as particularly different than driving, where it can manifest in willingness to speed (and how fast you're willing to speed), drive aggressively, etc. Every person should and does decide what they see as an acceptable level of risk for a given activity, should understand that what they decide may not necessarily be what someone else decides, and, within reason, to accept that.

However, trying to convince yourself that certain behaviors don't constitute an increased risk is a form of self-deception that doesn't do anyone any good.

Spare me the "noise cancelling" card, how is wearing headphones any different than blasting music in your car with the windows up (or down)?

Because in one instance you're wearing headphones while on a bicycle, and in the other you're sitting in a car listening to speakers. There are many dissimilarities between the two scenarios. Is there one or two you wanted specifically?

I know in my state wearing headphones while driving is illegal, so apparently I'm not the only one who sees a difference between two dissimilar things.

Blasting music in cars can be just as bad. In 2004, the BBC reported the following:

Drivers warned against loud music


[TABLE="width: 203, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Listening to loud music while driving can seriously hamper reaction times and cause accidents, new research suggests. A Canadian study found people took up to 20% longer to perform physical and mental tasks to loud music. If motorists were delayed that long at the wheel they could suffer a fatal crash, warned the RAC Foundation. Edmund King of the RAC Foundation said the study showed that "not only is loud music a nuisance to others, it could also be the cause of accidents". Earlier research by the RAC Foundation, a British motoring organisation, found drivers were twice as likely to skip a red light while listening to music. In the Canadian study volunteers carried out tasks while listening to levels of noise varying from 53 decibels (equivalent to an office environment) to 95 decibels (equivalent to an oil rig).


[TABLE="width: 208, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 5"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Researchers found reactions to be significantly decreased at higher noise levels for both physical and mental work. At 95 decibels reaction times to tasks that involve decision making plummeted by 20%. Edmund King, the RAC Foundation's executive director, said: "The findings of the Canadian study are bad news for decibel-loving drivers, as they prove that not only is loud music a nuisance to others, it could also be the cause of accidents on the roads."

[... more...]

Yeah, if you read back having your car stereo on and windows up blocks more sound than having one headphone in. Just because state legislators tend to vote one way doesn't mean it's scientifically valid.

Next people are going to want to ban reading while driving.

I would happily ban Escalades while driving.

Well said...

I apologize. I missed your post that had actual data showing that riding with one earphone created additional risk.

Well, for one with the headphones you can still hear emergency vehicles, tires squealing, horns and approaching engines. In the enclosed vehicle with loud music you can't.

I keep the volume low on my MP3 player, I feel like I can hear well enough.

I'm curious as to what the anti-earbud crowd thinks I'm missing. What sort of sound does an approaching danger make?

Nah, dear, I'm too much of an old hand at this internet game to bother with that. Let's just assume I've found my evidence and you've found a couple spurious reasons why you don't think it matters, and leave it at that. Unless you'll be won-over by the simple idea that putting things in your ears stops you from hearing certain things, and that hearing certain things is probably good.