telkanuru

Out of curiosity, how do you know what you're not hearing, if you're not hearing it?

As I said above, I'm not anti-earbud. If you've determined that you don't think it's enough of a distraction to constitute a reason not to wear them, go for it. If you think it's not a distraction at all, however, you're doing a pretty good job of misleading yourself.

Approaching danger makes many diverse sounds, depending on the type of danger. That's why I listen.

Ns1

Truth. (As a commuter with 1 headphone in my ear and as an owner of a small car with a large sound system)

Commodus

Well, I only ask because in many years of riding a bike I can't think of a single instance in which hearing something slightly more loudly made any kind of difference. And I can't imagine the situation in which it could. I'm guessing that if a car finally hits me, it'll sound pretty well like all of the rest of the cars that go by. I don't really want to hear the jerks who yell and honk better, either.

Perhaps if you could offer an example the debate could move forward...I feel a bit like we're talking about wearing anti-unicorn helmets, at this point.

telkanuru

I can't speak to your experience, of course. I can only point out that, once again, anecdotes do not constitute data, and that a lack or surplus of previous experience, no matter its quantity or quality, is not proof of concept, for either side.

The soft click of a car door latch. The gentle whirr of an electric car. The sound of a car coming down a blind side street. Maybe you hear these sounds. Maybe you hear them a lot. I'm not sure how you can argue that you know you hear them all the time.

I ride pretty much exclusively in a tight urban environment, with narrow streets, assertive drivers and pedestrians, and narrower bike lanes. These criteria factor into my decision as well.

Again, I'm not arguing pro or anti headphone. I'm just saying that I don't think the idea that putting something in your ear may stop you from hearing something, and therefore constitutes some nonzero risk to safety (however large or small you judge that risk to be), is all that controversial.

Ozonation

From what I can tell, there have been no studies specifically on the use of one earphone and risk other than the one I quoted from earlier. What I find amazing is the almost overwhelming defense of riding with earphones - whether it be one or two - based almost exclusively on anecdotal experiences, and to believe otherwise we must have scientific data. And yet, we seem to be ignoring the wealth of data regarding:

- dangers of riding with two earphones/headphones
- driver distraction due to music, cellphone use, reading, etc.
- general traffic hazards and risks

In addition, most states allow you at best one earphone while riding. The Province of Quebec prohibits earphones period - it doesn't matter whether it's one or two. Sure, some laws seem pointless, but in this case, do we really think that legislators passed such laws on a whim? Finally, just about every transportation or safety related organization warns against unnecessary distractions, such as excessive music, etc. If we think objectively about this entire issue, then it is a rational conclusion that listening to music via a delivery method that blocks out or reduces outside auditory signals in a densely traveled environment while biking is not risk neutral.

Much has been made of the argument that if a car traveling at 50 km/h is going to hit you, whether or not you are plugged is irrelevant. This is perhaps the rare "unavoidable" worst case scenario, but there many scenarios where if you can perceive a warning in time, it might just make the difference between avoidance and crippling accident. Furthermore, equating risks while driving a car to bicycling in distraction circumstances are not the same. In car, you are riding in mobile structure designed to protect its occupants. The only safety you have as a bicyclist is what you wear (e.g., helmet), what you do (e.g., scanning for traffic), and what skills or resources you have (e.g., visual or audible cues): take one away, and you do not have an engineered crush zone to back you up. Hitting a bicyclist at 30 km/h is unlikely to hurt you as a motorist; the bicyclist on the other hand is unlikely to walk away from an accident.

So, in summary, the objective arguments - even if there is not data to support every aspect - favour significantly riding without any earphones/headphones. But again, it is a free society: if wearing earphones is not prohibited by the law, then by all means do as you will. And there is a chance, even a good chance, that nothing will happen. But at the same time, do be prepared to accept - or pay - the consequences if something does happen.

I do apologize - I have ranted on again. Just be safe when you ride: it is sad to hear, "If I had only..."

telkanuru

Oh no, he said THE WORDS!

Flee!

Ozonation

Yeah... I realized that AFTER I posted. Let's not get into THAT debate ...

Lot's Knife

My take is that "hearing certain things" — particularly aggressive messages from motorists — adversely affects my safety.

adamhenry

So situational awareness is hazardous now?

devianb

I use ear canal style headphones such as the V-moda Vibe since they are comfortable and sound good. I can still hear traffic with the volume up, but I look over my shoulders every now and then to check for up coming cars.

Lot's Knife

I prefer not to be aware of menacing things yelled at me or other audible attempts to startle me. Because I might be tempted to respond, I find these unwanted "overtures" to be dangerous.

frankthetank

A college girl in tight spandex shorts almost caused me to hit a parked car... Headphones have never been an issue...and i listen to thug music.

telkanuru

Headphones are probably cheaper than therapy, I'll agree with you there.

Chipperjones

I recently picked up this Noise Hush Ns560 bluetooth clip on...its pretty much awesome. I plug in my Klipsch earbuds and handle all early morning calls while in traffic!

cycronin

I'd posted earlier in the thread about the Otus helmet speakers (https://www.o-tus.com/). I'd read about them some time ago and this thread inspired me to dig up the link. I decided to go ahead and order them. I received them last night and it debuted for the today's commute.

First impressions: Good sound quality for the price and function. Not audiophile quality but for it's function that is a pipe dream. I had it turned up all the way and could hear the music clearly, but, as they are designed to do, external sounds were not blocked off at all. I'd gotten out early because I had to do something in town before work, and there was more cyclists and traffic then when I usually get out. One stretch saw a gaggle of speedster roadies zipping by me... I heard their warnings quite clearly (even one guy who mumbled it). I could hear cars on a road 200 feet off the trail. At one point a truck honked and it was a startling, loud noise-- again this was 200 feet away and I didn't even see the truck. I passed a pedestrian and could hear his footsteps. I could hear people talking on a park bench. The wind was stronger on the way back and it blocked out the music a bit more, but I could still hear it well enough. And it's probably a good sign that louder external noises will overpower the music even with it maxed.

Finally when I took off the helmet at the end of the ride the music became very quiet. There's no chance anyone else riding on the trail could hear it. Perhaps it could be heard faintly if I was stopped next to another cyclist. Not that this would spare me the ire of the self appointed cycling cognoscenti, of course, so flame away!

I did have some issues with the installation. The cord is short and designed for the mp3 player to mount on the back of the helmet... and the mounting material came off by the time I was heading home. The cord was just long enough for me to clip the player to the back of my shirt at the neck. I'm not sure mounting the player on the back of the helmet is going to work all that well, but I may use some additional adhesive to secure it.

Anyway, the early returns indicate to me these are a great solution for incorporating music into the commute safely, unless you believe of course that music is totally incompatible with safe cycling.

And to that point I'd remind everyone that pedestrians with earphones tend to be a far bigger obstacle on MUPs than cyclists wearing earphones. No one seems to have issues with pedestrians with earphones or cars with stereos, and I don't really see why cycling should exist in some nether region where music is too dangerous no matter the circumstance.

Ozonation

And again, while I respect that all of us have our own opinions, the logic being used to argue that earphones/headphones/etc. are NOT a distraction does not hold. telkanuru said it best in an earlier post:In addition, pedestrians with earphones ARE also at significant risk:Clearly, the arguments presented above could also apply to bicyclists, but hey, not many forum members seem to be convinced despite well-documented and vetted studies. And we already dealt with studies that linked loud music to reducing driving ability (car stereos).

However, I'm not against music; if you're in the middle of nowhere on a country or mountain trail and you're chillin' to some tunes - great! What I'm against is the argument that sticking things in your ear - whether it be one or two - that block or partially block sound when you're dealing with a higher risk situation (cars! trucks! buses! dogs! joggers! 3000 lbs of metal and glass moving at 60 km/h!) on busy and congested roads has no effect on your ability stay safe.

Really? Is the previous, rationally derived conclusion that earphones can be a distraction so really hard to accept?

flipped4bikes

You're welcome. Wow, this thread went downhill...

cycronin

Ozonation, we are not debating the same thing. We may not even have a real point of disagreement. I haven't been arguing that using two earbuds is not a distraction or a risk (I've already stated that I wouldn't do this myself because I consider it unsafe). The opinion I have expressed is that I wouldn't go so far as to advocate against the use of them because I classify it as an activity that people engage in for enjoyment or recreation despite the risk. Cycling itself is such an activity. As is say, rock climbing. The list goes on and on. If I understand you correctly you simply want to make the point that they are a risk because they limit auditory perception. I do not disagree with that at all... it is fairly obvious.

The post you responded to was a fairly lengthy review of a product that provides music while allowing auditory perception of the environment to come through. Why would I have described all the examples of me being able to hear what was going around me if the point of that post was to argue that earbuds is not a distraction? I'm not really sure how you got that from my post. And based on our earlier exchange in this thread, I can assure you nothing in my post was directed at you! It's a general reaction to opinions I've seen expressed on this forum (example: when this music debate comes up someone usually says something to the effect of "the best soundtrack for cycling is sounds of the natural environment" as if every human being on earth is obligated to enjoy that more than music because they do).

There's probably some point of disagreement. I find single earbud use fairly acceptable. Yes you are limiting perception in one ear but again, people have the right to take risks for the sake of enjoyment and recreation. If you feel the only acceptable use of music is on country/mountain trails in the middle of nowhere, I disagree. My commute is 80% city trails, perhaps 19% bike friendly side roads and 1% on unavoidable not so friendly bike territory. I feel there is a way to incorporate music into my commute that isn't an unacceptable increase in risk for the sake of making the commute more enjoyable, based on what I find enjoyable. And again, it's not with earbuds-- that's why I wasn't using music until I decided to try these helmet speakers specifically because they don't block out external sounds. You may feel free to disagree that I should be listing to music this way, but we have little to debate on regarding ear buds.

Ozonation

Eh.... you're probably right cycronin... we've gotten to the point we're debating whether one shade of grey is slightly whiter or darker than another shade. Personally, I will not use even one ear bud if I'm on a busy city road. Not only would I find it somewhat pointless for me, I find the whole earbud thing physically distracting (wires, if one drops out, etc.). I rarely use them when I run or do circuit training or weights anymore anyways. I also don't believe we should limit our activities just because of risk, but why add risks when you don't really have to? My argument is that that 2% of extra enjoyment while tuned in, in a not-so-bike-friendly urban jungle, might cost someone much more that lasts 100% of his or her life.

Personally, and please don't take this the wrong way, I find the "I'm entitled to/allowed to..." attitude a bit selfish: I want to listen to music, but if I get hit and knew I could have avoided it, what am I going tell my parents, my kids, my spouse, my friends if I'm crippled or injured? Why impose on them? Yes, yes... I know... this is all rather doom and gloom, which for me, is actually not my typical attitude. And hey, my spouse knows I'm far from perfect too! But for me, the litmus test is: is this something I would allow my kid/niece/nephew/student to do? If not, then why should I be allowed to do it? Is it because as an adult I'm "allowed" to do it? Or is it something that I can genuinely say I really know more about, am *so* much more skilled at, and wiser in my judgment that I can honestly say I should do it?

But, like you, we do probably agree on most points, and I think other forum members just want me to shut up, so best of luck, nice debate, and stay safe.

sudo bike

Not going to wade through 4 pages of another headphones debate again, but just going to drop this here in case it wasn't yet posted.
https://www.slipstreamz.com/

Not headphones, but if you wear a lid they supposedly do a pretty decent job at reducing wind noise to make earbuds more effective.

As to the same old argument, I'll throw in the same old one: It probably does slightly reduce awareness, but my experience has led me to believe it is very insignificant. I can still hear most noises when I ride with earbuds. With the addition of a mirror, I think my situational awareness is still much better and headphones don't do much to reduce it with that in mind. Hey look, I hit helmets, headphones, and mirrors all in one post. The trifecta. Now I just need to find a way to work in Vehicular Cycling for the ultimate rage post.

bobdell

Many threads go downhill - some more quickly than others, exept maybe for the show you pet threads...

I know! Show your pet with headphones!

fietsbob

I saw these mentioned, and thought it a good idea.. to post the thing here..

https://www.bikeradar.com/gear/catego...rsion-12-46417

sound of the music, comes thru bone conduction so you can still hear
with your unblocked ears, the Bus or 18 wheeler coming up behind you.

Leisesturm

Completely false. Sirens and horns are LOUD. I do not own a car so if I am in a car it is a rental. Late model or NEW. That means A/C that works. Windows up? You betcha. It also usually means CD changer with Satellite subscription enabled... Jam Band station here I come. I will likely be able to hear anything I need to hear regardless. THAT ISN'T THE POINT. What is being said by myself and others is that by the time you hear (or don't hear) the squealing tires it is way too late. But, possibly, if you weren't listening to the headphones, one earbud even, you wouldn't have missed the stop sign that you sailed through causing the tires of the car about to T-Bone you to squeal horribly. What is so hard to believe or understand about that.

I don't listen to car stereo's very loud. Nevertheless I usually turn it off when things get gnarly or when I am parallel parking. I do this automatically. I wonder why that is... ... could it be that the music is a distraction??? Cars have stereo's (and cigarette lighters) and perhaps... technically, they shouldn't. But real life isn't black and white. If one must miss a stop sign and sail out into cross traffic... what would you rather do it wearing? Six thousand pounds of steel and aluminum or a Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" T-Shirt?

The previous paragraph is why deaf people don't automatically become road kill by deciding to ride a bicycle. They may not hear the siren or squealing tires but they also do not become DISTRACTED by the high volume Kenny Rankin or Bonnie Raitt that might cause a non-hard of hearing rider to miss an obvious road cue like a stop sign or school bus.

Listening to music while riding a bicycle in traffic cannot be considered a "best practice". Personally, I don't do it. My bemusement comes from reading arguments that riding with headphones is "safe" or "safer" than doing something similar in a car. Rubbish. Again, because you have done it for years... safely. Is not an endorsement. Cocaine was once a medicine. So was smoking. Maybe vehicular cycling will one day be practiced in numbers significant enough to give interested researchers a larger body of data to work with... and maybe not... in the meantime common sense is about all there is to work with.


H

himespau 

To you, music may be a distraction, but it isn't to a lot of us. And if listening to music makes you miss a stop sign, well, then maybe you shouldn't be listening to music (or driving). But music (which I rarely listen to on a ride) has no effect on whether or not I see and/or stop at stop signs or any other signal. That's because I use my ears to listen and my eyes to see.

wphamilton

If they're so LOUD, then why do you imagine we can't hear them with ear buds?

I do own a car, drive to to work unfortunately for a couple of weeks, and I don't turn the music up period. Need to hear the sirens before they're right behind me. Not a problem with earbuds on a bike

I missed this question (sorry). Given the choice in that situation I'd far rather not be in something that could kill or injure someone from my stupidity. What was the point ... that it's safer to be distracted in a motor vehicle than otherwise? I strongly disagree, you have to me most top on your game the more damage you can cause.