gentlegreen wrote:Perhaps every time the words "headphones" or "helmet" appears in a thread title, a flag could be arranged indicating how recently it was last discussed ...
Noone has brought up that wearing a helmet, or any other form of hat, impairs hearing as well...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
gentlegreen wrote:Perhaps every time the words "headphones" or "helmet" appears in a thread title, a flag could be arranged indicating how recently it was last discussed ...
Noone has brought up that wearing a helmet, or any other form of hat, impairs hearing as well...
Well exactly. If I didn't wear headphones, I would have to find some summer earmuffs ...
LANDSURFER74 wrote:Why do correspondants insist on bringing deaf people into this argument .. sorry discussion! The thread is; "Wearing headphones while cycling." Not should deaf people be on bicycles. Get with the programme...
Because I'm deaf, so if your riding a bike with headphones your in the same boat as me, I just use my eyes/mirror to make up for the lack on hearing the same think as they can
LANDSURFER74 wrote:Why do correspondants insist on bringing deaf people into this argument .. sorry discussion! The thread is; "Wearing headphones while cycling." Not should deaf people be on bicycles. Get with the programme...
Because I'm deaf, so if your riding a bike with headphones your in the same boat as me, I just use my eyes/mirror to make up for the lack on hearing the same think as they can
The difference being that you are acustommed to the lack of hearing in all aspects of your life ...
It is harder work for a person with hearing, and harder etiology if there is ssomethobg else to distract...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Not only can I listen to music (carefully chosen, open-back phones, low level) and cycle safely on the lanes and suburban roads I use, I can also chew gum.
Stopping myself over-focussing on my life and problems might be an issue, but the music helps ...
I lived in London for three years and used to (mostly) cycle to work, a 9 miles each way jaunt. At the time the walkman had come out and I tried the earphones cycling. These were the type that sits on the outside of your ear, rather than in them. My experience of these was quite counter-intuitive. With them on, I could not hear the music with a car behind me, and I could more easily hear the car behind me than I could without earphones and music. The explanation for this is that they eliminated the swoosh of air past my ears, so they were no hazard at all to me, as far as I could see.
Now I have not used earphones cycling since so I have no idea of what effect the in-ear earphones would have.
Gearoidmuar wrote: I have no idea of what effect the in-ear earphones would have.
I tried them just once - they came with my new MP3 player - on a familiar, quiet road - for about 100 yards ... I suppose you can get used to being so cut off - given the deaf can manage perfectly well, perhaps adding music was the final straw -
I found I couldn't listen to music at all when I rode a motorcycle - but I was not a natural motorcyclist and gave that up after 10 years. A mad mate of mine would charge across the country at insane speeds with Nirvana and the like belting out.
iviehoff wrote:I'll do what I should have done sooner and start a new thread on this. (This was previously posted on the "Fog" thread).
It isn't illegal to wear headphones while cycling, but according to a recent law case, you might be found negligent for handicapping your hearing so you can't hear clearly, for example a verbal warning from a race marshall. The case itself had several issues, and there's a longer exposition here of all the points: http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011 ... brent.html
And here's my rather shorter summary, focusing on the headphones issue.
A cyclist wearing headphones collided, as he turned left, with a cyclist who was on the wrong side of the road approaching the junction; the latter was participating in a road race. The cyclist with the headphones was given explicit verbal warning of the approaching racers by a race marshall, but failed to act on the warning, because he didn't gather what was being said to him. The judge explicitly did not find him negligent for wearing the headphones - cyclists are merely exhorted not to wear headphones and not to use mobile phones in government publicity, much as they might exhort us to be responsible in other ways, rather than being legally required not to. But it was negligent to fail to act on the warnings of the race marshall. So, in other words, if he had impeded his hearing so much, be it the headphones, or the volume of the music, or whatever, then that is his problem. In consequence, he was found 1/3 responsible for the accident. (The cyclist on the wrong side of the road approaching a junction was 2/3 responsible. The fact of taking part in a race does not absolve you from proper behaviour when the race takes place on roads still open to the public.)
Edited for clarity.
I think that it is significant that the judge explicitly did not find the cyclist negligent for wearing headphones. This isn't really about cycling whilst wearing headphones at all. This is about paying attention to and being aware of one's surroundings whilst cycling. Listening to things other than the environment may be a distraction. That's all.
And marshals in some regions have the power to stop traffic. Had the headphone cyclist ignored a marshal with such authority, he would have been guilty of an offence and had no case whatsoever.
Last edited by Vorpal on 19 Nov 2011, 3:35pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
hungrydave wrote:I frequently ride with headphones and never had a problem... (realise that this in itself is a rubbish argument). The trick is to use the older / cheaper in ear style as they don't block out the outside world - I can comfortably hear the radio and what's going on around me - certainly more than I can hear within the car.
Yes, for our own safety, we need to hear what's happening around us but all other transport types rely mostly on visual cues (sign posts, road markings, traffic lights, indicators etc) for direction and notices. In fact higher end cars make a point about cutting out as much of the outside world as possible. Why should bikes, in legal terms, be treated differently?
I don't know the details of this situation but assume that, had it been a car, the Marshall would flag down the car, tap on his window, or put up a sign to notify the driver. I doubt he'd shout at a passing car and expect him to hear. Or a motorcyclist with a helmet on. Or a bus driver.
A car has access to 3 large mirrors at all times . The main practical point with not restricting your hearing is its your way of knowing whats behind you . Also a car travels at the speed of the rest of the traffic in general so has less traffic approaching from behind.
I find that I can rely on my ears more than my eyes when approaching blind junctions etc. Your ears give automatic 360 degree vision. I dont live in a city so in London with the general noice levels this may be different but I would still not do without my 360 degree vision
