A Safer way to listen to music?

Two Flat Tyres

diy wrote:

I listen to music when I cycle, it doesn't stop me from hearing cars come up. Also as a motorcyclist I find the lack of mirrors makes me keep checking my shoulder when riding anyway.

For me the music risk is more about the mental state rather than cutting off your hearing. On the grand scheme of things, extra lights, high vis clothing etc are probably of more benefit that being able to hear.

I'd say its almost impossible to hear if someone is going to pass you too close or not.

I would personally agree with all of this...

and to add...

I also ride motorbikes, where I mostly can't hear anything because I wear earplugs (as do a lot of motorcyclist). It was strange at first not hearing everything around, but you find that you focus more on checking over your shoulder and blind spots, which isn't bad practice on a motorbike.

diy

anyone who rides regularly who doesn't wear ear plugs wont be able to hear anyway From memory anything above 40mph start to damage your hearing without protection.

Personally I wouldn't listen to music while riding a motorbike - to easy to let the tempo drive your speed/aggression up.

prawny

They look pretty nifty.

On monday night I went out on my MTB with my cheapo Aldi running phones on (like the sennheiser pmx680 but £2) and with the volume lower I would have been able to hear everything. I deliberatly had them a bit higher, the night sounds over the chase freak me out.

On the road I think the one good earbud thing is probably the best. When I was commuting full time I used to use a bluetooth headset incase the wife needed me and I could stream music at the same time. I was going to swap to a single ear bud handsfree kit (blackberry do one) but decided to sack it off and get the train instead.

springtide9

I have something similar... basically earbuds that sit outside of your ear.

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/music-he ... r-cycling/

They work really well.. basically any traffic will drown out the music... and you can even have a conversation with people while the music is playing.

The music obviously isn't very loud (that's the idea) and you can only really hear the 'tunes' when you are on quiet roads... but that's the point!

junglist_matty

Listening to music is NOT dangerous, I've ridden tens of thousands of miles listening to music, the one time I had a crash with a car was when a car pulled out in front of me from a side road.... Music or no music wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference!

I also don't get the argument of being able to hear stuff when riding; maybe you all ride very slow because most of the time when I ride without music, all I can hear is wind noise. I can't hear any traffic until it's right up behind me about to make a pass and so why does that make riding safer!?

seanorawe

I find the safest way to listen to music is to sing the songs yourself. Dance songs are really good when you get all the funny noises right.

chris_bass

seanorawe wrote:

I find the safest way to listen to music is to sing the songs yourself. Dance songs are really good when you get all the funny noises right.

I assume you arent throwing some shapes at the same time?! I cant see that being too safe!!

navrig

junglist_matty wrote:

Listening to music is NOT dangerous, I've ridden tens of thousands of miles listening to music, the one time I had a crash with a car was when a car pulled out in front of me from a side road.... Music or no music wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference!

I also don't get the argument of being able to hear stuff when riding; maybe you all ride very slow because most of the time when I ride without music, all I can hear is wind noise. I can't hear any traffic until it's right up behind me about to make a pass and so why does that make riding safer!?

Your logic is flawed.

You cannot measure the number of times you weren't involved in an accident because you were or were not listening to music.

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

Common sense says that reduction of one of your awareness senses when cycling is likely to increase the chance of an accident. If the data exists I bet it backs up the view that you are safer without headphones and music.

How much safer?

That will depend on the cycling environment - busy, rural, urban, city centre and so on.

goonz

Personally I think its not worth it for example for a commute, maybe for a long quiet sunday ride on quiet roads with no traffic then yes, but busy commutes nope. Firstly the safety aspect which a lot disagree with, secondly the road noise would drown out the sound so whats the point of listening to music like that? And lastly its just an added nuisance imo, those extra cables in the way, the phone/mp3 player in the back pocket etc.

diy

Navrig wrote:

Your logic is flawed.

You cannot measure the number of times you weren't involved in an accident because you were or were not listening to music.

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

Correct it is flawed, but yours is no better. If more cyclists listen to music then more cyclists will be represented in the stats. Substitute the word music with red bikes and not listening to music with black bikes and you could easily conclude that red (or black) bikes are safer. equally it is a flawed analysis.

Navrig wrote:

Common sense says that reduction of one of your awareness senses when cycling is likely to increase the chance of an accident. If the data exists I bet it backs up the view that you are safer without headphones and music.

Realistically we are looking for the accident event, where hearing the approaching vehicle enabled the cyclist to take some avoiding action. Unless you have some crazy on your tail revving and beeping his horn (which you'd hear anyway), I can't see how hearing an approaching vehicle helps. I do buy in to the idea that listening to music changes your attitude to risk. That is well proven.

navrig

diy wrote:

Navrig wrote:

Your logic is flawed.

You cannot measure the number of times you weren't involved in an accident because you were or were not listening to music.

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

Correct it is flawed, but yours is no better. If more cyclists listen to music then more cyclists will be represented in the stats. Substitute the word music with red bikes and not listening to music with black bikes and you could easily conclude that red (or black) bikes are safer. equally it is a flawed analysis.

Navrig wrote:

Common sense says that reduction of one of your awareness senses when cycling is likely to increase the chance of an accident. If the data exists I bet it backs up the view that you are safer without headphones and music.

Realistically we are looking for the accident event, where hearing the approaching vehicle enabled the cyclist to take some avoiding action. Unless you have some crazy on your tail revving and beeping his horn (which you'd hear anyway), I can't see how hearing an approaching vehicle helps. I do buy in to the idea that listening to music changes your attitude to risk. That is well proven.

I disagree with some of your points.

My suggestion that comparing numbers of accidents between different types of cyclists is likely to show some correlation for some measurement factors and no correlation for others. Black bikes versus red bikes may show some correlation, personally I have my doubts but I may be wrong.

In making comparisons and analyzing those results you can either draw conclusions or not depending on data set size and age of data etc. The comparison factors could be anything:

Bike colour,
Bike style,
Hi viz, no hi viz
Lights, no lights
music, no music and so on.

Publication of the findings allows the reader to reach his own conclusion on the suitability of the measurement factors and then manage their own personal risk accordingly.

I haven't made a suggestion that safety all relates to hearing vehicles simply that removal of one sense impacts on your ability to respond to your environment. Therefore I am not advocating the measurement of something which did not happen, I.e. the cyclist did not have an accident. To make sense of the factors that affect you have to measure things which did happen and look for the cause and influencing factors.

Mikey23

Was on the Tarka trail today and came up behind idiot woman wearing full ear cover type headphones and riding right in the middle of the trail at about half my speed. Didn't hear my ding a ling or my warning shout and carried on with a kind of vacant expression. Decided to slowly overtake, startled her as I passed and we both ended up in the grass verge... She will not be on my Christmas card list

Benjamin Hall

Be loud and proud. Bluetooth.

Mikey23

Liking this!

junglist_matty

Navrig wrote:

diy wrote:

Navrig wrote:

Your logic is flawed.

You cannot measure the number of times you weren't involved in an accident because you were or were not listening to music.

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

Correct it is flawed, but yours is no better. If more cyclists listen to music then more cyclists will be represented in the stats. Substitute the word music with red bikes and not listening to music with black bikes and you could easily conclude that red (or black) bikes are safer. equally it is a flawed analysis.

Navrig wrote:

Common sense says that reduction of one of your awareness senses when cycling is likely to increase the chance of an accident. If the data exists I bet it backs up the view that you are safer without headphones and music.

Realistically we are looking for the accident event, where hearing the approaching vehicle enabled the cyclist to take some avoiding action. Unless you have some crazy on your tail revving and beeping his horn (which you'd hear anyway), I can't see how hearing an approaching vehicle helps. I do buy in to the idea that listening to music changes your attitude to risk. That is well proven.

I disagree with some of your points.

My suggestion that comparing numbers of accidents between different types of cyclists is likely to show some correlation for some measurement factors and no correlation for others. Black bikes versus red bikes may show some correlation, personally I have my doubts but I may be wrong.

In making comparisons and analyzing those results you can either draw conclusions or not depending on data set size and age of data etc. The comparison factors could be anything:

Bike colour,
Bike style,
Hi viz, no hi viz
Lights, no lights
music, no music and so on.

Publication of the findings allows the reader to reach his own conclusion on the suitability of the measurement factors and then manage their own personal risk accordingly.

I haven't made a suggestion that safety all relates to hearing vehicles simply that removal of one sense impacts on your ability to respond to your environment. Therefore I am not advocating the measurement of something which did not happen, I.e. the cyclist did not have an accident. To make sense of the factors that affect you have to measure things which did happen and look for the cause and influencing factors.

Don't even start on the debate of statistics!

There's only one statistic that affects everyone: 100% of us will die, every single other statistic is complete and utter rubbish.... For example, if last year, it rained for 20% of the time, that DOES NOT equate to being able to say that 20% of this year it will rain, therefore, why does it matter that last year it rained 20% of the time!? It means absolutely nothing.

navrig

junglist_matty wrote:

Navrig wrote:

diy wrote:

Navrig wrote:

Your logic is flawed.

You cannot measure the number of times you weren't involved in an accident because you were or were not listening to music.

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

Correct it is flawed, but yours is no better. If more cyclists listen to music then more cyclists will be represented in the stats. Substitute the word music with red bikes and not listening to music with black bikes and you could easily conclude that red (or black) bikes are safer. equally it is a flawed analysis.

Navrig wrote:

Common sense says that reduction of one of your awareness senses when cycling is likely to increase the chance of an accident. If the data exists I bet it backs up the view that you are safer without headphones and music.

Realistically we are looking for the accident event, where hearing the approaching vehicle enabled the cyclist to take some avoiding action. Unless you have some crazy on your tail revving and beeping his horn (which you'd hear anyway), I can't see how hearing an approaching vehicle helps. I do buy in to the idea that listening to music changes your attitude to risk. That is well proven.

I disagree with some of your points.

My suggestion that comparing numbers of accidents between different types of cyclists is likely to show some correlation for some measurement factors and no correlation for others. Black bikes versus red bikes may show some correlation, personally I have my doubts but I may be wrong.

In making comparisons and analyzing those results you can either draw conclusions or not depending on data set size and age of data etc. The comparison factors could be anything:

Bike colour,
Bike style,
Hi viz, no hi viz
Lights, no lights
music, no music and so on.

Publication of the findings allows the reader to reach his own conclusion on the suitability of the measurement factors and then manage their own personal risk accordingly.

I haven't made a suggestion that safety all relates to hearing vehicles simply that removal of one sense impacts on your ability to respond to your environment. Therefore I am not advocating the measurement of something which did not happen, I.e. the cyclist did not have an accident. To make sense of the factors that affect you have to measure things which did happen and look for the cause and influencing factors.

Don't even start on the debate of statistics!

There's only one statistic that affects everyone: 100% of us will die, every single other statistic is complete and utter rubbish.... For example, if last year, it rained for 20% of the time, that DOES NOT equate to being able to say that 20% of this year it will rain, therefore, why does it matter that last year it rained 20% of the time!? It means absolutely nothing.

Who rattled your cage?


Do a search on this page and you will find that you are the ONLY person who mentions statistics!!

junglist_matty

lol... My cage isn't rattled buddy.... You said compare x against y, that will give you a figure that x % of accidents happened when riders were listening to music and y % of accidents happened when riders were not listening to music, so you brought it up; historical data does not dictate what will happen in the future, which is what you were effectively saying.

Is it safe to ride whilst listening to music?
My opinion is that yes it is safe to listen to music and ride your bike.

navrig

junglist_matty wrote:

historical data does not dictate what will happen in the future, which is what you were effectively saying.

.

That's not what I said.

I agree that historical data does not dictate what happens in the future. Individual behaviour dictates what will happen. Behaviour can be influenced by looking at historical data or experience.

Publication of the findings allows the reader to reach his own conclusion on the suitability of the measurement factors and then manage their own personal risk accordingly.

When you are 6 and you break your leg falling from a tree you learn that climbing trees can be sore. Or you may see your friend breaking a leg when falling from a tree.

You may chose not to climb trees again.

There is nothing difficult in this.

chris_bass

junglist_matty wrote:

lol... My cage isn't rattled buddy.... You said compare x against y, that will give you a figure that x % of accidents happened when riders were listening to music and y % of accidents happened when riders were not listening to music, so you brought it up; historical data does not dictate what will happen in the future, which is what you were effectively saying.

Is it safe to ride whilst listening to music?
My opinion is that yes it is safe to listen to music and ride your bike.

no it doesnt but it can help you to see what is 'likely' to happen, for example i'd wager that every january is colder than july for every year sice records began, so although this doesnt mean the january will definitely colder this year it does help us to see what is more likely.

as for headphones though i'd say that its got more to do with the type of person that is likely to not be paying attention/taking risks may be more likely to wear headphones not that wearing headphones makes you more likely to have an accident.

if you are a careful cyclist, headphones or no headphones you'll probably be ok (obviously can't legislate for wrong place at the wrong time etc) and if you don't pay attention when cycling you probaly won't!

diy

What was said was this

You can however measure the incidence of accidents involving cyclists and compare the numbers of those listening to music with those not listening to music. That would be the real/simple measure of how dangerous it is to listen to music when cycling.

You cannot conclude the bold from the input data. This is why:

-We do not know the proportion of cyclists who do and do not listen to music.
- We do not know if cyclists exposed to other high risk factors (busy roads, commuting, poor standard of roadcraft etc) are also likely to listen to music.
- we do not know of how many accidents are avoidable by having heightened hearing or happened because the rider could not hear
- we do not know if there are any compensatory factors?

Take a cyclist/motorcyclist who normally wears a helmet and take away their helmet and see how differently they ride. Far to many complex factors at play to simply say if more splatted cyclists are listening to music than not, it must increase the danger.

moscowflyer

I used to wear headphones all the time years ago, don't any more though. However, a good app you can use is 'Awareness' which still allows in outside noise, I've used it a few times when running.