How come I never see a cyclist with listening to music with an mp3 player?



Traffic Jammer

New Member
Nov 5, 2005
130
0
0
If you really want to listen to music on the roads they have some good jackets with speakers built into the collar. Good for skiiing and snowbaording too. I've ridden both with and without music, riding messenger as well as recreationally. Personally I find my 'safe space' decreases with head phones, but not with speakers as the music becomes part of the environment as opposed to being injected into my hearing canal. this is not to say I'm less aware, because when riding with music I look around alot more. I've decided that for safety reasons, not for legal ones I don't use heaphones. I simply move too fast and use every bit of information that comes to me while riding, and my hearing does help me determine if I have room to slice across that lane without impeding the cars' movemement. Remember what the driver ALWAYS says ... I didn't see you ... therefore we must be invisible. :D
 

baj32161

New Member
Jul 15, 2004
492
4
18
61
I do not do it for 2 reasons....I feel it is unsafe, no matter how others feel, and it is illegal here in New Jersey. I would be completely humiliated to get a ticket on my bicycle...unless it is a speeding ticket:D
 

mitosis

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
1,539
0
0
alienator said:
Small point, pod doesn't have any evidence that his situational awareness hasn't decreased with the use of ipod/earpieces. It's not something you can objectively measure on yourself.

Deaf people can ride bikes, but while they've lost their hearing, their other senses have become more acute. From the standpoint of physics, it cannot be argued that earpieces emitting music do not decrease the discretion with which someone is able to analyze their aural input. You don't have to do a study to see that.

The point is that anything that decreases your awareness, like music in your ears decreases your ability to know what is going on around you. You only have to look at other threads on this forum that complain about walkers and skaters who do not hear cyclists approaching to see evidence of that.

Anyone who rides does not keep aware by just listening or looking it is a combination of both. You hear something so you have a look. Although motorists are often culpible as a result of lack of awareness, it could be argued that if cyclist want to be responsible they need to maintain maximum awareness as well.

Although hearing impaired people ride, it doesn't mean they have as much awareness of their environment as people with hearing. Wearing ear buds is choosing to ride with decreased awareness. Deaf people don't have that choice.
 

davidd86

New Member
Nov 29, 2004
126
0
0
I often ride with my iPod on. I just don't keep it too loud. After many years of riding, I'm ultra-attentive to traffic anyway.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
You guys are retarded. I swear this forum is full of the bottom of the barrel in the gene pool sweepstakes sometimes, which is why I am rarely on it. Idiot questions like this, and "does cycling make you taller" seem to be the norm more often than not unfortunately. It's ILLEGAL for a reason you morons! You know, like crack cocaine and shooting people and the like - it's just not a good idea for anyone with a shed of common sense in their body. Go right ahead if you have a chase car with you like LA, or if you have a wish to die at an early age. Has anyone here actually seen the statistics about cyclists killed by cars (9 in NYC alone year to date June)? They're not looking out for us, and if you have half a brain you would be wise to use ALL of your obviously deficient senses to protect yourself on a bike at all times:
"...found that cyclists and pedestrians in the United States were two to six times more likely to be killed than their German or Dutch counterparts. Per kilometer traveled, U.S. pedestrians were 23 times more likely to get killed than the occupants of a car, while bicyclists were 12 times more likely to be killed. In the United States in 2000, 662,000 bicyclists and 191,000 pedestrians ended up in emergency rooms. And 740 of those cyclists and 4,598 pedestrians died..." [Yahoo Newswire - Connie Chung 8/2003]
Of course those of you who think it's fine in your little imaginary world where everyone is attentive behind the wheel and will yield to your every little cycling whim, I encourage heartily to go out and ride in some traffic with your iPod and no helmet. Do the rest of us a favor.
 

davidd86

New Member
Nov 29, 2004
126
0
0
Gee, how do you really feel? I mean, fair enough comment though.

It's not as black and white as you think though. I also ride a motorcycle and I am insanely devoted to safety issues. However, note that almost all motorbike riders wear earplugs out of necessity -- they can't hear a thing if they're in right. In both cases, the most important safety feature is to ride defensively, and always be highly, highly aware of the traffic around you.








jimmer23 said:
You guys are retarded. I swear this forum is full of the bottom of the barrel in the gene pool sweepstakes sometimes, which is why I am rarely on it. Idiot questions like this, and "does cycling make you taller" seem to be the norm more often than not unfortunately. It's ILLEGAL for a reason you morons! You know, like crack cocaine and shooting people and the like - it's just not a good idea for anyone with a shed of common sense in their body. Go right ahead if you have a chase car with you like LA, or if you have a wish to die at an early age. Has anyone here actually seen the statistics about cyclists killed by cars (9 in NYC alone year to date June)? They're not looking out for us, and if you have half a brain you would be wise to use ALL of your obviously deficient senses to protect yourself on a bike at all times:
"...found that cyclists and pedestrians in the United States were two to six times more likely to be killed than their German or Dutch counterparts. Per kilometer traveled, U.S. pedestrians were 23 times more likely to get killed than the occupants of a car, while bicyclists were 12 times more likely to be killed. In the United States in 2000, 662,000 bicyclists and 191,000 pedestrians ended up in emergency rooms. And 740 of those cyclists and 4,598 pedestrians died..." [Yahoo Newswire - Connie Chung 8/2003]


Of course those of you who think it's fine in your little imaginary world where everyone is attentive behind the wheel and will yield to your every little cycling whim, I encourage heartily to go out and ride in some traffic with your iPod and no helmet. Do the rest of us a favor.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
davidd86 said:
Gee, how do you really feel? I mean, fair enough comment though.

It's not as black and white as you think though. I also ride a motorcycle and I am insanely devoted to safety issues. However, note that almost all motorbike riders wear earplugs out of necessity -- they can't hear a thing if they're in right. In both cases, the most important safety feature is to ride defensively, and always be highly, highly aware of the traffic around you.
Your motorcycle provides an extra 600lb "cushion" for you in the case of a crash versus the 15lbs for a road bike. It's simply not smart to do on a bike. How many times do you warn someone with "on your left" before passing (maybe you brainiacs don't)? I can't count the number of times people are just completely unaware of their surroundings - looking at trees, people, thinking about work, what they are going to have for lunch, etc etc etc - and have not yielded or turned into me. Throw an iPod into the mix and you have dangerous people for the rest of us. I honestly don't care if you get smashed up by a truck driver who has been behind the wheel too long and isn't as concerned about your safety, I'm all for it, but don't go and do it at the expense of my safety. Selfish morons.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
First, it's smart to wear earplugs on a motorcycle because the earplugs damp the high frequency noise (aka, wind noise) that would otherwise drown out the sounds the motorcyclist should hear. That's a fact.

Second, I'm not sure how a motorcycle provides any cushion. I can tell you that if you go down on a motorcycle it is extremely sub-optimal when you get hit by the motorcycle. I had a racing crash at a triple digit speed that I thought I'd come through pretty nicely as I slid down the track, on my back, at over 100mph.....that thought changed when I saw my race bike re-entering the atmosphere six feet above me. I guarantee you that its effects on my corpus were less than cushion-like. Saying a motorcycle provides a 600 lb cushion is about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. That 400, 500, or 600 lb bike is a system with a lot more energy than a bicycle....and that energy gets expended, in part, on the rider.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
100+ mph on anything and you're playing with fire no matter how "good" or "aware" you are. Sorry to hear about your accident, but back to the topic - you'd be infinitely better off on a motorcycle in a 25mph crash with a car than on your bicycle. Your comparison was completely irrelevant. Just say no to drugs son.

You morons need to read the Jim Price threads: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t301831-im-hoping-we-didnt-just-lose-a-member.html

I feel sick after reading that we have lost Boudreaux. Although most of you are probably mentally disabled, we simply don't need another tragedy. Why would any of you CHOOSE to do something so obviously detrimental as wear an iPod when you are up against 2 ton SUVs on the road. I'm sure you could skydive in a straightjacket too (pulling the ripcord with your teeth of course - it's perfectly safe) but hell if I would try it. Try to ACT smart at least.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
jimmer23 said:
100+ mph on anything and you're playing with fire no matter how "good" or "aware" you are. Sorry to hear about your accident, but back to the topic - you'd be infinitely better off on a motorcycle in a 25mph crash with a car than on your bicycle. Your comparison was completely irrelevant. Just say no to drugs son.

Actually, you're completely ignorant of the physics of anything, sonny. Explain how a motorcycle protects you, oh wise one....and tell us, while you're at it how that protection is infinitely better than on a bike. You need to say "yes" to logic and critical thought.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
alienator said:
Actually, you're completely ignorant of the physics of anything, sonny. Explain how a motorcycle protects you, oh wise one....and tell us, while you're at it how that protection is infinitely better than on a bike. You need to say "yes" to logic and critical thought.
I don't know, you tell me. I'm not the one who decided to fall off my motorcycle at 100+ mph. Brainiac.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
Okay, I can see that the spirit of Mr. B hasn't left us. Not by any stretch of the imagination...

I bought an ipod nano not too long ago, with the idea that I'd use it for my longer rides. Most of my riding is on very lightly traveled backroads around horse farms - you might see three or four cars in an hour - so immediate danger wasn't that much of an issue.

However, I only used it cycling a couple of times. First off, I found that wind noise tended to interfere with the music, even with the larger, thicker ipod headphones. You had to really jam them in to block out the wind noise, which also blocked out everything else.

More than that, I found that I really prefer listening to the sounds of the ride. It's the most peaceful music of all.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
JohnO said:
Okay, I can see that the spirit of Mr. B hasn't left us. Not by any stretch of the imagination...

I bought an ipod nano not too long ago, with the idea that I'd use it for my longer rides. Most of my riding is on very lightly traveled backroads around horse farms - you might see three or four cars in an hour - so immediate danger wasn't that much of an issue.

However, I only used it cycling a couple of times. First off, I found that wind noise tended to interfere with the music, even with the larger, thicker ipod headphones. You had to really jam them in to block out the wind noise, which also blocked out everything else.

More than that, I found that I really prefer listening to the sounds of the ride. It's the most peaceful music of all.
WORD [you can wear your helmet JohnO] ;)
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
jimmer23 said:
I don't know, you tell me. I'm not the one who decided to fall off my motorcycle at 100+ mph. Brainiac.

Well, gee, I said mine was a racing crash. You, however, are the one that alleged that a motorcycle provides cushion, therefore, you have to sniff your pixie dust and pretend you know how that can be. No one else made the fanciful claim that you did, so, fill us in. Don't forget to use that logic, thing, and be careful not violate any physical laws.
 

jimmer23

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
57
0
0
alienator said:
Well, gee, I said mine was a racing crash. You, however, are the one that alleged that a motorcycle provides cushion, therefore, you have to sniff your pixie dust and pretend you know how that can be. No one else made the fanciful claim that you did, so, fill us in. Don't forget to use that logic, thing, and be careful not violate any physical laws.
Gee whiz you got me. So you're telling me that I'd be better off getting t-boned by a car at 25mph on my bike than on your motorcycle? Or hit anywhere else for that matter - front, back, etc. So by your self-described LOGIC, a pedestrian would stand a better chance against that same car than a motorcycle or a bike; what with all that useless metal to crash on top of them.

Can I ask you exactly where did you get your crack, and do you have any left after smoking the quantities that have you so high?

This is so easy, have you made it as far as high school physics boy? A motorcycle has far more MASS (look it up if you "no comprende amigo") and therefore will absorb far more FORCE than a 15 pound tin-foil-like-crumpling bicycle frame. Furthermore, the impact is far more likely to be absorbed by a BIG MOTORCYCLE PART in relation to the small mass of a bicycle. WHICH leaves the brunt of the impact to be borne by the RIDER of the bicycle. You know, legs, head, back, and the like of which you have already obviously cracked? Go ahead and get a paper and pencil, maybe a crayon, and draw it out if it helps you to understand.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
jimmer23 said:
Gee whiz you got me. So you're telling me that I'd be better off getting t-boned by a car at 25mph on my bike than on your motorcycle? Or hit anywhere else for that matter - front, back, etc. So by your self-described LOGIC, a pedestrian would stand a better chance against that same car than a motorcycle or a bike; what with all that useless metal to crash on top of them.

Can I ask you exactly where did you get your crack, and do you have any left after smoking the quantities that have you so high?

This is so easy, have you made it as far as high school physics boy? A motorcycle has far more MASS (look it up if you "no comprende amigo") and therefore will absorb far more FORCE than a 15 pound tin-foil-like-crumpling bicycle frame. Furthermore, the impact is far more likely to be absorbed by a BIG MOTORCYCLE PART in relation to the small mass of a bicycle. WHICH leaves the brunt of the impact to be borne by the RIDER of the bicycle. You know, legs, head, back, and the like of which you have already obviously cracked? Go ahead and get a paper and pencil, maybe a crayon, and draw it out if it helps you to understand.


Well, I guess we see the limit of your knowledge. Mass absorbing force? Gee, that doesn't happen. Force can act on a mass, but it doesn't soak it up like a sponge, beav. I know you didn't get that far in school, but there's this little ol' equation that says that force=mass*acceleration. If you used a bit of algebra (you might need your nanny to help you with this), you could rearrange that equation to find that if you divide that force by the mass it is acting on, you get an acceleration. Hmmmm. Imagine that, that ol' force didn't just disappear in that mass. No, it made that mass move. Weird, eh? Now, later I'm gonna use a term called "momentum." That's just a mass times its velocity. But guess what: if you change that momentum over a little interval of time, guess what you get? That's right: force. It takes force to change momentum. See, there's something they teach in a math class called calculus, and that thing is integration. And when you integrate a change in momentum over time, you get force. I know that's complicated, but maybe someday, after you get the hang of fractions, you'll get to take calculus.

And since you mentioned getting t-boned, we'll look at that scenario, cupcake: in a t-bone, on a motorcycle, there is nothing to protect your legs, therefore the force the car applies will be acting on your leg, or simulataneously, the motorcycle. Now let's get to that cushion. Since the motorcycle has inertia(OOOpps. I better explain inertia to you: inertia is just a measure of how much something resists a change in its motion. Can you handle that?) much greater than your leg, the motorcycle is less likely to move than the parts of your leg are. The net result is a crushing leg injury. A bicyclist is likely, in the same scenario, to suffer equally horrific injuries, BUT the one thing the bicyclist has going for him is that his ride has magnitudes less inertia than the motorcycle. Therefore, while the car will break the cyclists leg, it is unlikely that the fractures will be much greater from his leg being pinned betweent the bike and the car. Head on collision: in both cases the rider is likely to suffer chest and head trauma, as well as spinal trauma, when he rotates over his ride into the car. The motorcyclist's head may be spared due to the better protection offered by a motorycle helmet. The one thing that won't be spared is the motorcyclist's femurs and or pelvis. It is common in these types of collisions for the motorcyclist, as they rotate over the bike...don't forget, he still has forward momentum....to fracture both femurs when they strike his clip-ons (aka handlebars) or handlebars. The cyclist may incur the same injuries or he may not since the bicycle is likely to rotate with the cyclist. At the very least, the bicycle has much less forward momentum and will likely be moved in some other direction. Glancing blows? Well, guess what: even if the car only hits the motorcycle and not the ridere, the motorcycle is still likely to go down so that the rider is likely to be hit by the motorcycle. These cases are all born out by injuries typically seen in motorcycle and bicycle accidents.

Since you seem to have difficulty understanding simple, Newtonian mechanics, let me say this: a motorcycle and rider system moving at 25 mph has more energy than a bicycle and rider moving at that same speed. So that energy has to be dissipated somewhere, and it's usually the rider that is the victim of that dissipation. More importantly, the motorcycle rider combo has more momentum. In fact between the car, the motorcycle, and the rider, the rider has the least momentum, so if he/she is between the two, guess which of the three will suffer the most?

What is really stupid is to claim that there is any real substantive advantage to being on either a motorcycle or bicycle in a 25 mph collision. The difference in injury severity between the two scenarios is unlikely to be so great that one is preferable over the other. Now see, that's something that you probably didn't pick up in the video game you were playing.
 

mitosis

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
1,539
0
0
jimmer23 said:
You guys are retarded. I swear this forum is full of the bottom of the barrel in the gene pool sweepstakes sometimes, which is why I am rarely on it. Idiot questions like this, and "does cycling make you taller" seem to be the norm more often than not unfortunately. It's ILLEGAL for a reason you morons! You know, like crack cocaine and shooting people and the like - it's just not a good idea for anyone with a shed of common sense in their body. Go right ahead if you have a chase car with you like LA, or if you have a wish to die at an early age. Has anyone here actually seen the statistics about cyclists killed by cars (9 in NYC alone year to date June)? They're not looking out for us, and if you have half a brain you would be wise to use ALL of your obviously deficient senses to protect yourself on a bike at all times:
"...found that cyclists and pedestrians in the United States were two to six times more likely to be killed than their German or Dutch counterparts. Per kilometer traveled, U.S. pedestrians were 23 times more likely to get killed than the occupants of a car, while bicyclists were 12 times more likely to be killed. In the United States in 2000, 662,000 bicyclists and 191,000 pedestrians ended up in emergency rooms. And 740 of those cyclists and 4,598 pedestrians died..." [Yahoo Newswire - Connie Chung 8/2003]
Of course those of you who think it's fine in your little imaginary world where everyone is attentive behind the wheel and will yield to your every little cycling whim, I encourage heartily to go out and ride in some traffic with your iPod and no helmet. Do the rest of us a favor.

Are you holding back on us? I mean, why don't you say what you really feel? ;)
 

pod

New Member
Jul 21, 2003
159
0
0
JohnO said:
First off, I found that wind noise tended to interfere with the music, even with the larger, thicker ipod headphones. You had to really jam them in to block out the wind noise, which also blocked out everything else.
Yes the wind makes them pretty useless going downhill, but I'm not quick enough for that to be too much of a problem on the flats and I like to climb big hills where it's a non issue and a little music helps distract me from the pain.

The important thing from a safety point of view is to focus on what you are doing. Any distractions such as mucking about with power metres, watching passing females, reading street signs, chatting... can be dangerous, but we don't get self appointed experts coming out and saying ban street signs, ban talking! Anything that is fun people tend to want to ban, alcohol, sex, music, dancing... depending on where you live. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean there is a good reason and listing to music while riding thankfully is not illegal here.

Sure, an earplug of any discription will lessen the sound somewhat as sunglasses will lessen the light somewhat. So? I haven't been able to find any evidence that listening to music while riding is dangerous and my experience is that it isn't for me. There is some evidence that music can improve safety with regard to driving. So call people all the names you like (not meaning you JohnO) but opinions are not evidence.