Times attacks Ipod Cyclist "zombies"

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

The 'type of ear phones' - hah hah...what about 'none'.

Yes, the way sound is delivered into the ear.

Over the decades (arguably since the advent of the Sony Walkman) headphones became in-ear phones and earphones. Each delivering sound to the ear differently. Some ear-phones, headphones and in-earphones prevent ambient noise from the outside world entering the ear so you can get a better quality sound. Some plug the ear so that you get a better sounding bass range. Some don't do anyof this and allow you to hear noise from the outside world along with the music being played through the head/earphones.

Sound, the delivery of it and sound technology is a most fascinating thing. You shouldn't laugh at it. You could learn a lot.

It is a shame our ears have not developed at the same pace!

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Concentration and attention levels are about the same in a car when I'm driving as when I'm on a bike when riding.

.

So what? You are more vunerable on a bike, as biondino rightly pointed out, so it makes sense to minimise distractions and maximise your senses. You draw the line at things you can influence yourself.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Obviously, point being i can only really listen to one thing at a time.

davmaggs

biondino wrote:

Cars drive at ambient speed, so the number of eventualities which could put them in danger are massively smaller than they are for bikes, which are on the road but seldom travelling at ambient speed. In glib generalisation, the default position for a car is "safe", and the default for a bike is "danger". So you are way more in need of all your sense on a bike.

I concur with Biondino. The fact that a car dominates an entire lane, is more visible, and is a hefty metal box means that it is by default safer than a bicycle. It doesn't mean that you can't cycle with headphones in (as shown by other posters), more that it comes down to whether you think the percentages improve enough for the trade-off.

Surely other posters can't be claiming that wearing headphones has absolutely no impairment at all?

Even when driving being able to hear means that you change gear more effectively, react quicker to other vehicles like ambulances and when stuck in traffic (during the summer with windows open) you can hear motorcycles filtering through traffic. How many people reverse a car into a tricky parking space without turning the radio down?

snailracer

Sewinman wrote:

I think I might cycle home tonight doing what i do when I drive as it must be equally safe - one hand on the handle bar, sometimes no hands, have a fag, drive over pot holes and man covers, never look behind me, take primary constantly...see how I get on.

Slightly OT, if you've ever read Cyclecraft, it recommends "taking primary" as the solution to pretty much every dangerous cycling situation :?

DonDaddyD

I think I'm going around in circles here too the point I'm beginning to lose sight of my own point.

Jesus.

OK in full:

It's ok to drive a car with arguably more distraction than you could ever possibly have on a bike. You can do this safely and maintain your concentration, awareness and attention levels.

On a bike with but one influence of sound, it is not safe, why?

The argument that you cannot hear had been mooted because it is possible to have headphones that allow outside noise in.



So again I ask why is it not safe to use headphones on a bike.

Wallace1492

Do not trust your ears completely, you must look behind you, madness not to.
However, as stated the situation I was in you could not see the car approaching and it was only hearing it that made me brake. I honestly do not think I would have stopped as quick if I had earphones in. You should consider this scenario before saying listening to music is harmless.

However, on saying that this was an exceptional situation, so make your own decision.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Obviously, point being i can only really listen to one thing at a time.

Actually that's not true. Unless you have something wrong with you that's not how the ears work. You may on a concious level think you can only hear one thing at a time but that isn't how the ear works.

Think about yourself in the office. How many different sounds can you hear. Remember hearing and listening is different you only need to be able to hear a sound to be aware of it.

And if you try to deny this, then do you drive with the car radio on? What do you do when an ambulance is approaching, can you not hear it while at the same time hearing the radio?

Sewinman

I don't think its hugely unsafe if you keep the volume low etc, I just think its a little bit silly!

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Obviously, point being i can only really listen to one thing at a time.

Actually that's not true. Unless you have something wrong with you that's not how the ears work. You may on a concious level think you can only hear one thing at a time but that isn't how the ear works.

Think about yourself in the office. How many different sounds can you hear. Remember hearing and listening is different you only need to be able to hear a sound to be aware of it.

And if you try to deny this, then do you drive with the car radio on? What do you do when an ambulance is approaching, can you not hear it while at the same time hearing the radio?

Its the conscious level I am mainly interested in when cycling.

Re - an ambulance, There is a reason it is bloody loud, not very pleasant and they turn on the blues and twos!

DonDaddyD

OK some points:

Som earphones allow you to hear outside noise. You can hear more than one sound.

How is cycling with earphones in these conditions difficult or dangerous?

Compared to a car:

Some cars do everything to block outside noise: You can drive having the radio on, while having a conversation, while following a SatNav

Now if my concentration levels are still high enough for me to do all these things and drive the car safely. Then how is cycling with while listening to music, through earphones that allow me to hear the outside world any more dangerous?

Someone explain to me again how is riding with earphones that allow me to hear the outside world dangerous or more dangerous to a point where I simply shouldn't listen to music when cycling? When my concentration and awareness levels haven't been sufficiently reduced to make me a danger on the road (consider the car example and concentration/awareness levels I gave).

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Obviously, point being i can only really listen to one thing at a time.

Actually that's not true. Unless you have something wrong with you that's not how the ears work. You may on a concious level think you can only hear one thing at a time but that isn't how the ear works.

Think about yourself in the office. How many different sounds can you hear. Remember hearing and listening is different you only need to be able to hear a sound to be aware of it.

And if you try to deny this, then do you drive with the car radio on? What do you do when an ambulance is approaching, can you not hear it while at the same time hearing the radio?

Its the conscious level I am mainly interested in when cycling.

Re - an ambulance, There is a reason it is bloody loud, not very pleasant and they turn on the blues and twos!

I'm sorry but your struggling for a point now.

I said that you may on a concious level think i.e. you think you can only hear one thing. But in reality you can hear many different sounds all at the same time over a measurable distance.

shouldbeinbed

antfly wrote:

i`m more interested in the facts and someone was killed.

where are the facts that headphones had anything to do with it tho. The coroner says that she MAY have been listening to headphones that miraculously fell out of her ears and tucked themelves inside her scarf.

theres also no mention if the ipod was on or not or if there ware any witnesses that saw the girl with the phones in her ears. theres not a single shred of fact that they had anything to do with her death.

the coroner sounds like a Clarkson Martin devotee.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no they haven't, how could they. You are away evolution takes longer than a lifetime to take effect, right?

Obviously, point being i can only really listen to one thing at a time.

Actually that's not true. Unless you have something wrong with you that's not how the ears work. You may on a concious level think you can only hear one thing at a time but that isn't how the ear works.

Think about yourself in the office. How many different sounds can you hear. Remember hearing and listening is different you only need to be able to hear a sound to be aware of it.

And if you try to deny this, then do you drive with the car radio on? What do you do when an ambulance is approaching, can you not hear it while at the same time hearing the radio?

Its the conscious level I am mainly interested in when cycling.

Re - an ambulance, There is a reason it is bloody loud, not very pleasant and they turn on the blues and twos!

I'm sorry but your struggling for a point now.

I said that you may on a concious level think i.e. you think you can only hear one thing. But in reality you can hear many different sounds all at the same time over a measurable distance.

You know what I meant - there is a difference between hearing and actually listening.

DonDaddyD

You only need to hear the sound to be aware of it. You don't need to listen to it. So if you are cycling listening to music and can still hear sounds outside of what you are listening to and your concentration and awareness levels haven't been reduced to a point where they are considered dangerous, then again, I ask you how is cycling with earphones dangerous to the point where you simply shouldn't?

Yes it would be arguably marginally safer to not wear headphones at all, but wearing headphones in the above circumstance is still well within the reasonable safe limits too the point that not wearing headphones at all isn't going to increase your safety significantly if at all.

snailracer

In previous posts I have described commonplace situations where relying on one's hearing can be dangerously misleading. If valid, it would be logical to classify traffic noise as a "distraction" in itself, as it supplies ambiguous information.

So now the choice is between misleading distraction (traffic noise) or pleasant distraction (headphones + music). I find it hard to decide which is safer. Perhaps hearing nothing/being deaf would be safest?

Sewinman

If you don't listen to it you won't process it properly - until it catches your attention i.e. its loud or very different.

As per your question - If you think you are just as aware and just as conscious of traffic noise whilst listening to some tunes then carry on with it. I think you are kidding yourself but there is no way I can prove it one way or the other.

For me its common sense so I don't do it.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

If you don't listen to it you won't process it properly - until it catches your attention i.e. its loud or very different.

That's circumstantial and frankly not accurate. Or just your clever shaping of the meaning listening and hearing. Being able to hear something means you've become aware of it. The nature severity of that awareness, depends on variables I'm too tired to discuss.

As per your question - If you think you are just as aware and just as conscious of traffic noise whilst listening to some tunes then carry on with it. I think you are kidding yourself but there is no way I can prove it one way or the other.

For me its common sense so I don't do it.

In other words I win. Thanks. :P

My work here is done.

Now I'm off to the Griffin.

Sewinman

You can't prove that i am not safer by not listening to music, so you have not won. In fact it was a totally pointless game in the first place.

I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

You can't prove that i am not safer by not listening to music, so you have not won. In fact it was a totally pointless game in the first place.

Just by you saying that I so won this round!

Don't hate the playa!

:P

Lol!

ThreeLionsBrian

I prefer the music to the sound of the car, there is nothing i can do about a car screeching up behind me it will just scare the **** out of me each time. i'd rather be oblivious. Same with mirrors i'd rather not see or hear how close the moronic, retarded and senile "drivers" get to me.

Theres enough hazards on the roads without worrying about the lawfully uncontrolled!

snailracer

Sewinman wrote:

If you don't listen to it you won't process it properly - until it catches your attention i.e. its loud or very different.

As per your question - If you think you are just as aware and just as conscious of traffic noise whilst listening to some tunes then carry on with it. I think you are kidding yourself but there is no way I can prove it one way or the other.

For me its common sense so I don't do it.

I am very wary of "common sense" arguments:

After all, it is "common sense" that riding in the gutter, far away from the main traffic stream, is safer, no?

It is "common sense" that cycling slower is safer, no?

It is "common sense" that a rear light is more important for your safety than a front light, no?

It is "common sense" that the Earth is flat, OK I'll stop now :P

Sewinman

*sticks ear phones in* La-la la laaa, i can't hear you.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

*sticks ear phones in* La-la la laaa, i can't hear you.

Of course you can't bloody hear him you're on the T'interweb! You can read what he is saying though!

rhann

I've ridden with earphones many a time, they do not cause a problem you can still hear traffic coming, it is no different to cycling while deaf, all you do is look over your shoulder just a little bit more, which is what everyone should do anyway, the only thing that I wouldn't recommend is that a new cyclist does it, they need to get experience of the road and listening to music may not help. Cars have music on all the time, and even when they dont you cant hear much out of their sealed metal boxes, they don't even look out of them most of the time so how can you expect them to listen.

Specialized Needs

DonDaddyD wrote:

My work here is done.

Wasn't this one of your contributions on the last 'Friday' thread? :shock:

Sewinman, take care!

John Stevenson

Sewinman wrote:

I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.

And you know it's a zombie cyclist coming up behind you because they're saying "Braaaaains..."

biondino

DonDaddyD wrote:

biondino wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cars drive at ambient speed, so the number of eventualities which could put them in danger are massively smaller than they are for bikes, which are on the road but seldom travelling at ambient speed. In glib generalisation, the default position for a car is "safe", and the default for a bike is "danger". So you are way more in need of all your sense on a bike.

(also, apologies for being harsh in my last post)

I'm not seeing that as any logic that can be applied practically.

Eh? I'm just pointing out that you are fundamentally safer travelling at ambient speed than not, so the number of situations you have to deal with that could threaten you are far fewer. It's not supposed to be "practical".

As I said its not practical logic. At a push theoretical logic.

The number of 'dangerous scenarios' a car travelling at ambient speed may find itself in is a variable we cannot measure. We cannot compare it to the potential number of dangerous scenarios a bicycle could find itself in when not travelling at ambient speed. Further more ambient speed isn't even a constant and a variable in itself.

The only constant is the guy on the bike and the guy in the car travelling along the road at varying speeds both compared between themselves and the speed compared between each other. I don't think the speed ambient or otherwise is an issue here.

The question is what is more dangerous, having your hearing slightly reduced when on the bike or in the car.

Of course we can measure variables! Let's start with a simple one, with a single variable. A single lane road, and a bike is travelling at 20mph, ambient traffic is travelling at 30mph. There's one car every five seconds. Over a mile, the bike is involved in an overtaking manoeuvre 12 times; each car is involved one time. Therefore there is a massive difference in the number of potential flashpoints.

In practice, it seldom works out so simply, but when using stats in this way, you only need work with the variables you can test. Moving at ambient speed makes a massive, practical, testable difference.

biondino

Here's another example. Let's say there is a "danger zone" at a crossroads - for example, the zone in which an HGV turns left. A cyclist traveling at 10mph is in that danger zone for TWICE AS LONG as a cyclist traveling at 20mph. That's the kind of testable, relevant difference speed can give.

Relating that to my example above, if you are traveling at ambient speed, you are never in a "danger zone" with relation to the other ambient traffic. If you are not traveling at ambient speed, then whatever else may be going on, ambient traffic must be added as a potential danger.

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

What the c0ck are you talking about. Of course we can measure variables! Let's start with a simple one, with a single variable. A single lane road, and a bike is travelling at 20mph, ambient traffic is travelling at 30mph. There's one car every five seconds. Over a mile, the bike is involved in an overtaking manoeuvre 12 times; each car is involved one time. Therefore there is a massive difference in the number of potential flashpoints.

In practice, it seldom works out so simply, but when using stats in this way, you only need work with the variables you can test. Moving at ambient speed makes a massive, practical, testable difference.

I don't talk about c0ck, unless its about mine and involves a women or something medical... :shock:

Needless to say I therefore couldn't read past your opening sentence. It moves away from the point to discuss issues that I don't think can be reasonably measured to assess the danger of using headphones when cycling.

I'm sticking to this:

I wrote:

OK some points:


Som earphones allow you to hear outside noise.

You can hear more than one sound.


How is cycling with earphones in these conditions difficult or increasingly dangerous?

Compared to a car:


Some cars do everything to block outside noise:

You can drive having the radio on, while having a conversation, while following a SatNav


Now if my concentration levels are still high enough for me to do all these things and drive the car safely. Then how is cycling with while listening to music (i.e. doing one extra thing to cycling) through earphones that allow me to hear the outside world any more dangerous beyond the danger of cycling in the first place?

Someone explain to me again how is riding with earphones that allow me to hear the outside world dangerous or so dangerous to a point where I simply shouldn't listen to music when cycling? Especially when my concentration and awareness levels haven't been sufficiently reduced to make me a danger on the road (consider the car example of concentration/awareness levels I gave).