Affixed

This is the most absurd thing I've read here. Maybe you can tell it to me again while you are having skin grafts done.

Yellowbeard

Lol. Ok.

So when a car is coming up behind you, I suppose you detect the doppler shift and determine not only where the car is, but precisely which direction it's heading?

My point being that if a car is 10-20 feet behind me and approaching (which I won't be oblivious to), I'm not gonna be making the split-second decision to dive from my bike into the ditch based on anything I can HEAR. I can't HEAR the difference between a car about to hit me and a car about to pass me within any reasonable window of reaction time. Neither am I constantly evaluating my bail-out situation every time a car is near when I'm NOT wearing headphones. That'll get tiring fast on a busy road and my attention is better paid to keeping a good line.

Actually this same debate is going (again) in A&S right now, and the question several of us have is: what exactly are you listening for?

We all have eyes, those of us without mirrors can turn our necks, and you can still hear a lot even with headphones. No one's arguing that there's NO difference in awareness, just that it isn't very much.

sulr

So you cannot determine the level of aggressiveness the driver has by hearing them? If I past a stop sign and hear a car revving really loud I know he is going to come by fast. I can hear a car a half a block away on streets where cars are blocking the view of crossing traffic, giving me that extra alertness I need. It's always good to know where cars are relative to me, and how I perceive them to be driving.

I'm not just worried about cars though. I'm sure many of us ride through sketchy neighborhoods. Being able to hear groups of kids is important for me, because I have more issues with groups of adolescents than I do vehicles. If I can't hear that there is a group of adolescents a block away or around a corner (they're usually loud), then that means I can possibly put myself in a situation I don't want to be in.

I can only see where my face is turned, but I can hear everything around me.

streetdude

This sums it up pretty nicely. I don't think one can make a terribly sound argument for decreasing sensory awareness when safety is the primary issue.

JohnDorian

It may because it's extremely windy here... But even with ear buds in (at a mid to low level) I end up hearing more wind than anything. I dont hear cars until they're almost in my peripheral without music, and I can still hear them with music, so I dont see how it matters...

Yellowbeard

Perfectly reasonable, but one CAN distinguish between listening to music and guaranteed disaster for much the same reason that deaf people aren't prohibited from cycling in traffic.

This is, after all, the forum where people regularly ride without brakes.

EpicSchwinn

I will occasionally. I went out and bought some really crappy not noise cancelling ear buds and I keep the traffic side out. If I'm riding around campus practicing tricks in a parking lot or something I'll put both buds in.

plowmanjoe

i use the deaf people argument when i think about these things for myself. the difference here is that music is an additional distraction for me. completely silence isn't the same. i would end up completely blocking the music out when i'm trying hard to focus on traffic anyways. so it just becomes an inconvenience.

it's just better to be able to hear your surroundings. legal and beneficial are different. it may be legal for a deaf person, but it's better to be able to hear your surroundings in terms of safety.

jessesv

truth.

also, you might have to factor in any yelling from motorists/pedestrians/other cyclists. sure, nobody can tell if a car is going to hit them by sound alone and in some instances you can't tell at all, but why would you remove one of your senses and add a distraction when your personal safety is involved?

at this point i'm just beating a dead horse, do what you want. but there are certainly a lot of bad drivers out there and i want to be fully aware of what's going on around me when i'm on the road.

Ultraspontane

Why do some people need music blasting in their ears at all times? Just enjoy the breeze, the sun, and the birds singing. Stop being so ADD.

pylea

^Agreed.

Leukybear 

I'm guilty, lock me up and throw away the key, if listening to music was bad enough, I admit that I wear professional noise cancelling studio monitors sometimes when I ride (ultimate ears triplefi 10's if there's any audiophile guys here).... but hey the music keeps me going.

Benefits are they look so different that police would think they're medical if they didn't know better hehehe

Brett77

I would be interested to know how many anti-headphone people ride brakeless and blast through lights.

I Have a Bike

If I'm going to and from the gym I'll leave my head phones in.\, but I don't use my ipod for anything else other than workout tune-age.

Ultraspontane

Its not even about safety for me. Its about people that always need distractions. They can't just chill out and enjoy the outdoors. One of my favorite aspects of cycling, is that I get to be AWAY from distractions. Why would I willfully introduce more distractions when I love the solace that I get from just me and the road?

I Have a Bike

hi^5

agustinkim

illegal if you're wearing in both ears... in most places

Squirrelli

I would be interested to know how many people ride bikes and eat sandwiches at the same time.

It's my decision to wear headphones and my decision to go brakeless and talk on the phone while patting a dog and having a mocha and watching squirrel porn at the same time.

People are going to do things that other people are not going to like. Get over it.

The headphone folks aren't better than the brakeless folks nor are the anti-headphone with brakes are better than the sandwich eating folks.

/THREAD PLZ.

cc700

deaf people can drive with no adaptive equipment.


sound is not a necessity. it's safer to have all your wits but cmon, jamon.

EpicSchwinn

By that logic it's chill to drive drunk because it's their decision. Just because you're making the decision doesn't mean you're the only one affected by it.

nuhtowel

qft

bhop

To quote someone earlier.. that's the most absurd thing i've read here... To compare someone listening to music while riding a bicycle to drunk driving is.. well, it's not a comparison.

gilmatic

If the drunk driving analogy is "absurd" then it would be easy to compare it to texting while driving. I don't drive a car but I would still want other motorists to not have to go to court, jail, etc for a mistake that you make by wearing headphones.

Perhaps the topic is a bit hard to discuss as some people posting here might be from the middle of nowhere where I would understand it not being quite the danger. However, in New York I've seen some dudes rock noise-cancelling headphones while riding through heavy traffic with cars cutting eachother off and cars speeding through yellow lights. It's dangerous as **** and it definitely is everyone's business as you're doing it in public.

It's cool if you think it's alright as I can't do anything to change your opinion if you're not mature enough to listen to advice but please don't act like it's none of our business when you're doing something in public that puts yourself and others at risk.

With that being said..

I rock loud enough speakers so I can hear my surroundings plus my mega dope hip hop music in the background.

Peace to the Wu syndicates in this thread for knowing what's up.

cc700

The drunk driving argument is also irrelevant because LISTENING TO MUSIC only impairs a non essential ability. the ability to hear has zero bearing on someone's ability to safely control a vehicle, by fact, scientific research, and by most state's laws. lots of citys and a few states do have bicycle specific 'no headphones' rules, but such laws are about earpieces that block out sound, they say nothing about listening to music.

if you needed to hear in order to safely travel in traffic, they wouldn't put stereos in cars.

volume can be an issue, and if you listen to blaring music you can be ticketed, but that's simply for the reason that it may drown out emergency vehicle horns and sirens or a cop may feel you are "distracted" by your 15" sub bass grooves(but closer to the truth is that he just is prejudiced against black culture and music). Most of the time, there ain't a snowball's chance in hell your little earbuds are going to make you not notice an emergency siren, and the cop will have a very hard time proving he had probable cause to believe you couldn't hear an emergency siren unless there's a no headphone law in your municipality. which there may be. which is why you get speakers.


similarly, i usually don't wear headphones but i very frequently play music aloud on my phone with it right next to my head. this is not illegal and it's also not in the least bit dangerous.


can you imagine the collective havoc that would ensue from the lawsuits of deaf organizations and individuals were such laws about listening to music rather than blocking out sound?

SOUND HAS NO BEARING ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. that's why emergency vehicles have lights, and that's why it's illegal to honk your horn in a non-emergency situation.

ScottRock

To be fair, the argument EpicSchwinn was responding to wasn't framed in the best way, and i do think that the logical extension of "people will make choices, deal with it" is drunk driving = ok. As it is with all absolutes, unfettered individual choice is not always a good thing.

But, i totally agree that the comparison between the two is inappropriate in reality. Drunk driving (or any drunk operation of heavy machinery) is bad solely because of the potential for harm in sailing a five-ton wheeled metal hammer down busy streets while inebriated. It's silly to separate potential for harm from the dd equation, because it's not (necessarily) a crime of the same degree to simply be drunk, to walk drunk, run drunk, or cross-country ski drunk. It's really hard to hurt someone else by stumbling around drunk. It's really easy to hurt someone else by driving drunk.

Think about who you can hurt on a bike: Pedestrians, and cyclists. First off, you can't ****ing hear pedestrians. They also have to cross into your line of sight in order for you to hit them. If you are relying on sound rather than sight to ensure others' safety, in all honesty gtfo the road. Consider the most common scenario i hear concerning cyclists and headphones: "headphone wearers wouldn't hear a cyclist bearing down from behind." Even assuming you can actually hear an oncoming rider, that's some seriously weak sauce, because you never, ever assume that your rear is clear. If a headphone wearing cyclist merges into another cyclist, that's not the fault of the headphones--that's the fault of the cyclist who couldn't be bothered to visually check his rear. Hearing doesn't impair vision, which is the first and pretty much only important factor in riding safely with others.

If you merge into a car because you don't hear a car coming or whatever, well, that's on you, and the conscience of whatever unlucky driver pancaked you.

As far as i understand it this is exactly the reason why headphones are illegal where they are (CA, FL, MD, a few others). It has next to nothing to do with driver safety per se.