Do you listen to an ipod when you ride?

[stewartpratt]

The only useful thing hearing can tell you is if something is approaching behind. But you can't tell from that alone whether a vehicle is going to pass you safely or not. You can only do that by looking behind or using a mirror.

I think I disagree with all of this

In my experience:

Hearing only detects approaching vehicles (as opposed to already-right-behind-you vehicles) on quiet rural roads.

But once you have a vehicle 'in your ears', it does let you know when people are about to try to pass. It can (less reliably) also indicate whether the driver is heavy on the pedals, and what type of vehicle it is (knowing it's a wide vehicle that's about to pass can be useful).

I don't think even looking will let you know whether a vehicle will pass safely or not, unless you're the sort of person who likes to generalise (which I'm not, and IME there's no category of vehicle or driver identifiable by sight which is likely to be more or less benign than any other).

[kwackers]

Ears are like mirrors, handy but easy to get into a regime where they become a substitute for a good look. Car drivers do it all the time, most rely on their mirrors instead of actually looking.

If I woke up stone deaf tomorrow once I'd gotten over the initial apprehension of cycling with a missing sense I'd have no problems doing it, nor would I have any reason to think I was in some way disadvantaged.

I think it's quite simple really:

If you need your ears to cycle safely you're just not looking enough.

[Flinders]

If you need your ears to cycle safely you're just not looking enough.

Fair point, but I prefer to use all the senses I have available- it isn't an either/or.

[kwackers]

If you need your ears to cycle safely you're just not looking enough.

Fair point, but I prefer to use all the senses I have available- it isn't an either/or.

Me too, but when you *really* think about it what do ears do that wouldn't be better done using your eyes?

Look at how often cyclists complain that pedestrians step out into their path (even the non-headphone wearing ones). There can only be one explanation - they didn't hear the cyclist. A prime example of someone using their ears when their eyes are better equipped and an example of how actually using your ears makes you LESS rather than MORE safe.

Ears are fundamentally intended to alert you to dangers you can't obviously see, the crack of a branch in some bushes etc. They're not designed to provide bat like skills in heavy traffic.

There's no doubt in my mind I could cycle just as safely if I suddenly went deaf as I can now, it would just feel unpleasant until I became accustomed.

[stewartpratt]

Me too, but when you *really* think about it what do ears do that wouldn't be better done using your eyes?

Anything where you can gather auditory input in a situation where you can't divert your eyes from the road ahead.

When it comes to anything outside your field of view, any information you gather aurally involves precisely zero loss of visual information, whereas any you gain visually comes at a price.

For the same reason, I also disagree to large extent with your statement "ears are like mirrors". The road ahead is normally your main focus of vision. If you use a mirror, the road ahead is in peripheral vision. If note the 'if') you can gather the same or equally adequate information with your ears then you can fully retain your main view.

I also disagree that looking around is better in all circumstances than using mirrors. Yes, everyone needs to shoulder-check when performing any manouevres involving side, motion, but not all the time. If you look behind, you lose all view of the road ahead, whereas mirrors retain peripheral view. Turning around for a look, whether on a bike or in a car, means you're temporarily not looking ahead. This makes it unsuitable for non-essential information or for any information which requires anything more than a point sample (a glance). Position can be assessed instantly; speed takes a little longer; acceleration longer still. So for monitoring a vehicle's dynamics (or whether they're about to change) you need to watch or listen to it over time. Given the costs to your forward view, that means for anything behind you mirrors are massively better than direct looking and hearing is better still.

[kwackers]

Anything where you can gather auditory input in a situation where you can't divert your eyes from the road ahead.

I think if you're in a situation where you can't afford the time to divert your eyes for a fraction of a second then your ears don't even come into the equation. As a general rule I've pretty much always got several seconds of 'free' space in front of me.

I'd also question why you've allowed yourself to be in that position.

[gentlegreen]

Mostly deep house mixes - though if I feel up for it I have some fairly up-tempo LTJ Bukem drum and bass mixes.
Takes the edge off of the nearly static queue of cars I get stuck behind on my morning commute and the din of the motorway I pass under.

Depends on where and when. On group rides I never feel the need.

[stewartpratt]

I think if you're in a situation where you can't afford the time to divert your eyes for a fraction of a second then your ears don't even come into the equation. As a general rule I've pretty much always got several seconds of 'free' space in front of me.

Really?

Quite often I don't want to take my eyes off the road ahead:

Urban areas with busy adjoining traffic. Busy roads with traffic squeezing past but with little room to move around large drainage covers. Flooded roads. Roads with extensive potholes. Almost any road anywhere in the dark because you only get a small patch of tarmac to look at anyway. And obviously any time you're moving over about 25-30mph, but then hearing becomes pretty redundant.

Besides, a look behind isn't "a fraction of a second". That may be all you see of the view behind, but there's a good second lost in getting there and back. And as I say, there's much information that simply can't be gathered in a fraction of a second - even though the more critical stuff is the stuff that takes less time.

I'd also question why you've allowed yourself to be in that position.

That makes it sound like I'm relying on sound for my absolute safety. I'm not, I'm just using sound as an added extra. Here's an example:

There's one particular stretch on my way home which is a rural road, but it's fairly busy when I ride along it. It's also in leafy Surrey, which means everyone is incredibly impatient. It has several bends, between each of which there's enough space to overtake if you're lucky, but it's always tight. It's only a mile or so, so I pedal full-tilt along this in order to skew drivers' judgement about whether it's best to overtake. I'm happy to hold people up if need be - I'm doing 20 or so and it's only a mile, and comes into a 30 zone. But people will overtake - fair enough, but often I'm in a position where I can see a car approaching round the bend in front, and the car behind me can't. Hearing will tell me when the car behind is about to overtake - sight can't do this! - meaning I can at least prepare myself for the possibility that I'm about to get barged to the side of the road. That may mean a slight move to the right to buy myself a few inches of extra tarmac to swerve into if need be, or it may be that in the worst case I'm just mentally eyeballing the more comfortable bits of verge to end up in, but at least I know I'm about to be passed.

It's not really about preventing anything, and it's most certainly not about the difference between responsible for an accident and not being so. It's about having a little extra preparation should Bad Things happen, and about having the extra inch of tarmac on the occasion when that inch of tarmac might really matter.

Without hearing you can't maintain that continual early warning system. Now if you don't find that useful that's fair enough - maybe you don't have to ride through rural Surrey at 6pm - but for me it's something that I can make genuine use of.

[kwackers]

Urban areas with busy adjoining traffic. Busy roads with traffic squeezing past but with little room to move around large drainage covers. Flooded roads. Roads with extensive potholes. Almost any road anywhere in the dark because you only get a small patch of tarmac to look at anyway. And obviously any time you're moving over about 25-30mph, but then hearing becomes pretty redundant.

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at. As I said if you're in a position where you can't afford to divert your eyes then your ears don't make any odds.
Such times that require such attention are fairly rare and account for a tiny percentage of your time - even during rush hour in a city centre.
You may want to keep an eye on traffic waiting to join your lane for example - but what good are your ears at that point? What would it tell you if you could hear a car coming up behind you? You'd still need to look behind to figure out what was happening or (as I do) ignore it and concentrate on the job in hand.

For the dark, may I suggest better lighting?

Hearing will tell me when the car behind is about to overtake - sight can't do this! - meaning I can at least prepare myself for the possibility that I'm about to get barged to the side of the road. That may mean a slight move to the right to buy myself a few inches of extra tarmac to swerve into if need be, or it may be that in the worst case I'm just mentally eyeballing the more comfortable bits of verge to end up in, but at least I know I'm about to be passed.

And so your eyes are free to keep an eye on the car behind - why do you need your ears? Mirrors are a better replacement for this scenario anyway because there are a whole raft of reasons why you might not hear the car behind and presume yourself to be alone.

I maintain that relying on ears when you should be relying on vision is a poor (even dangerous) substitute and where you can't afford the time to look then your ears are useless anyway.

[stewartpratt]

What I'm getting at is that I like to look where I'm going. Watching out for hazards in front of me is my responsibility. Looking behind is a necessary thing at times but fundamentally it requires not looking in front.

If you can suggest a light that will light up the road so as to be as visible as it is during the day at 35mph or so and will burn for 3 hours then please do. Especially if it's affordable. Otherwise the one I have is adequate. Surely there's no disputing that when riding at full speed with a bicycle light at night your eyes are working a little harder than during the day?

I don't think you've read any of the numerous bits where I've said I don't rely on hearing. It's advance warning of overtaking. You can't get that by sight unless you don't want to look where you're going.

Probably time I let this thread die

[kwackers]

I don't think you've read any of the numerous bits where I've said I don't rely on hearing. It's advance warning of overtaking. You can't get that by sight unless you don't want to look where you're going.

I have read them, I just believe it doesn't matter.

I have ears too. I can hear the tyre noise from cars frequently an easy half mile back. I use it to let me know there's something coming.
On the other hand I am also occasionally surprised when a car passes because I didn't hear it coming.

And that is precisely my point. I'm relying on the unreliable and shouldn't be.

As it happens I don't believe for the most part that knowing there's a car coming up is particularly important, if I did I'd be a doddering wreck.
On the few occasions that it is important then I know exactly whats around me and why. I'll have kept an eye behind me, and then followed it in my mirror. When it's important to know whats around me I'll rely on my eyes.

As for 'not looking were you're going', it takes a fraction of a second to look back and even then peripheral vision is enough to spot anything 'sudden' (your peripheral vision is designed to respond faster than the main vision to sudden changes).
A quick glance back to confirm presence and then back to tracking it in the mirrors...

[Flinders]

In the end, it must depend on where you cycle. In London, on noisy streets at busy times, hearing may not help much. I don't really remember TBH. However, in the country, I find it does help to listen. I can differentiate types of vehicle approaching who are not yet in sight even in mirrors on bendy roads, and to some extent I can identify speed too, and this can help me anticipate how best to ride- e.g. slow a bit to let a vehicle pass me easily in a good place rather than go through the wide bit before it gets to me, or speed up to get to a bit of road with better visibility for the approaching vehicle to see me in plenty of time.

At times, though not in complex traffic or poor driving conditions, I do listen to the radio while driving, but not on headphones (which exclude other sounds), or so loud that I can't hear the car engine, but in that case I have more and better mirrors than there can be on my bike, and looking round to check my blind spot (and yes, I do that too) is quicker and doesn't affect my balance as it does to some extent when on the bike.

On the bike, I'd have to have headphones to listen, which in my experience excludes too many other sounds. I also like to hear my bike- if there is a mechanical issue emerging, I want to be the first to hear it.........

Someone did suggest on a similar thread using just one ear, and I imagine that would work, though in the end I decided not to try it. I don't do as much cycling as most of you, so still find plenty to look at and think about; I appreciate someone on a tough training regime who has always to use the same route or two is in a very different position.

[meic]

In the end, it must depend on where you cycle. In London, on noisy streets at busy times, hearing may not help much. I don't really remember TBH. However, in the country, I find it does help to listen. I can differentiate types of vehicle approaching who are not yet in sight even in mirrors on bendy roads, and to some extent I can identify speed too, and this can help me anticipate how best to ride- e.g. slow a bit to let a vehicle pass me easily in a good place rather than go through the wide bit before it gets to me, or speed up to get to a bit of road with better visibility for the approaching vehicle to see me in plenty of time.

At times, though not in complex traffic or poor driving conditions, I do listen to the radio while driving, but not on headphones (which exclude other sounds), or so loud that I can't hear the car engine, but in that case I have more and better mirrors than there can be on my bike, and looking round to check my blind spot (and yes, I do that too) is quicker and doesn't affect my balance as it does to some extent when on the bike.

On the bike, I'd have to have headphones to listen, which in my experience excludes too many other sounds. I also like to hear my bike- if there is a mechanical issue emerging, I want to be the first to hear it.........

Someone did suggest on a similar thread using just one ear, and I imagine that would work, though in the end I decided not to try it. I don't do as much cycling as most of you, so still find plenty to look at and think about; I appreciate someone on a tough training regime who has always to use the same route or two is in a very different position.

I find all that quite easy to do with the headphones on (even easier at speed where the headphones reduce the wind noise). If you are out in the countryside you can quite happily hear the music at a low volume. Motor vehicles on the other hand do tend to be very noisy.

I did get caught napping the other day by a cyclist who crept up behind me, I still heard the whoosh of his bike milliseconds before I saw him. Fortunately for me I wasnt wearing the headphones at that particular moment and was daydreaming instead.
Of course if I HAD been wearing the headphones, they would have been to blame, wouldnt they?

[gentlegreen]

I buy Sennheiser PMX-60 headphones.
I literally can't ride 50 yards wearing in-ear 'phones or with the music turned up too loud.
I find I'm perfectly able to hear traffic when it's useful to me.

My kid brother is a roadie and is only into classical music - he once told me a key objection for him to music on the move is it wouldn't match his cadence ... my own relationship to music was changed for ever thanks to dancing to multi-layered complex beats in warehouses and fields ...

[Flinders]

Interesting, meic, but I've even given up with headphones when walking around here on the pavement as I just can't hear the traffic- (you get clipped by wing mirrors on the road between here and town if you aren't careful) The volume has to be so loud for me to hear that I can't hear anything else (like a cyclist behind me on the pavement asking to overtake, BTW no criticism here as the pavement is the only safe place for a bike on that road).
I hadn't realised that earphones would help that much with the wind noise. Maybe I have rubbish headphones, but I can't see how even the best wouldn't cut some outside sounds out..............