Mobile phone conversations, listening to music and quiet (electric) cars:
Are traffic sounds important for safe cycling?

A. Stelling-Konczak a b, G.P. van Wee c,
J.J.F. Commandeur a d, M. Hagenzieker a b

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.014

Abstract

Listening to music or talking on the phone while cycling as well as the
growing number of quiet (electric) cars on the road can make the use of
auditory cues challenging for cyclists.

The present study examined to what extent and in which traffic situations
traffic sounds are important for safe cycling.

Furthermore, the study investigated the potential safety implications of
limited auditory information caused by quiet (electric) cars and by
cyclists listening to music or talking on the phone.

An Internet survey among 2249 cyclists in three age groups (16–18, 30–40
and 65–70 year old) was carried out to collect information on the following
aspects: 1) the auditory perception of traffic sounds, including the sounds
of quiet (electric) cars; 2) the possible compensatory behaviours of
cyclists who listen to music or talk on their mobile phones; 3) the
possible contribution of listening to music and talking on the phone to
cycling crashes and incidents.

Age differences with respect to those three aspects were analysed.

Results show that listening to music and talking on the phone negatively
affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling.

However, taking into account the influence of confounding variables, no
relationship was found between the frequency of listening to music or
talking on the phone and the frequency of incidents among teenage cyclists.

This may be due to cyclists’ compensating for the use of portable devices.
Listening to music or talking on the phone whilst cycling may still pose a
risk in the absence of compensatory behaviour or in a traffic environment
with less extensive and less safe cycling infrastructure than the Dutch
setting.

With the increasing number of quiet (electric) cars on the road, cyclists
in the future may also need to compensate for the limited auditory input of
these cars.

[Full paper at the link below]

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000145751730177X?via%3Dihub>

COMMENT: Note the reference to traffic environments having “…less safe
cycling infrastructure than the Dutch”, remembering that the UK population
is four times that of Holland but has 91 cyclist deaths compared to
Holland’s 200. The Dutch could learn from the Brits about safety. Ban
cyclist headphone use now.

--
Spike

On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
> Ban
> cyclist headphone use now.

Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in cars,
listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?

On 17/12/2023 08:10 pm, soup wrote:

> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:

>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>
> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in cars,
> listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?

I don't mind the occupants of vehicles listening to such things.

But people in other vehicles, on the footway and in adjoining buildings
shouldn't have to listen to them too!

On 17/12/2023 20:25, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 08:10 pm, soup wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>
>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>
> I don't mind the occupants of vehicles listening to such things.
>
> But people in other vehicles, on the footway and in adjoining buildings
> shouldn't have to listen to them too!

Like the wee boy racers here with a DOOF-DOOF-DOOF noise and NOTHING
else audible as there 'car' goes past.

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:

<research paper snipped by PP>

>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.

> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in cars,
> listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?

You’re confusing apples with oranges.

--
Spike

On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>
> <research paper snipped by PP>
>
>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>
>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in cars,
>> listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>
> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>
In what way?

Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:

>> <research paper snipped by PP>

>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.

>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?

>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.

> In what way?

Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.

> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.

No, they don’t.

--
Spike

On 17/12/2023 22:50, Spike wrote:
> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>
>>> <research paper snipped by PP>
>
>>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>
>>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>
>>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>
>> In what way?
>
> Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.

By their very definition it is obvious that sound deadening shuts off
external sounds (with various amounts of success, bit like headphones
really).
>
>> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.
>
> No, they don’t.
>
Of course they do .
Are you deliberately being stupid?

On 17/12/2023 09:33 pm, soup wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 20:25, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 08:10 pm, soup wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>>
>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>>
>> I don't mind the occupants of vehicles listening to such things.
>>
>> But people in other vehicles, on the footway and in adjoining
>> buildings shouldn't have to listen to them too!
>
>   Like the wee boy racers here with a DOOF-DOOF-DOOF noise and NOTHING
> else audible as there 'car' goes past.

Precisely.

No-one likes them.

On 17/12/2023 11:51 pm, soup wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 22:50, Spike wrote:
>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> <research paper snipped by PP>
>>
>>>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>
>>>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>>
>>>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.
>
> By their very definition it is obvious that sound deadening shuts off
> external sounds (with various amounts of success, bit like headphones
> really).
>>
>>> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.
>>
>> No, they don’t.
>>
> Of course they do .
> Are you deliberately being stupid?

Would you ban people with hearing difficulties (we used to call them
"deaf") from driving / riding motor vehicles or from riding chav-bikes?

AFAIAC, the problem with loud music is the nuisance caused to third parties.

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 22:50, Spike wrote:
>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> <research paper snipped by PP>
>>
>>>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>
>>>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>>
>>>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.
>
> By their very definition it is obvious that sound deadening shuts off
> external sounds (with various amounts of success, bit like headphones
> really).

Now you’re moving the goalposts.

Hint: no-one had mentioned ‘sound deadening’ up to this point.

>>> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.

>> No, they don’t.

> Of course they do. Are you deliberately being stupid?

And just for good measure, the personal attack!

You really have no clue about what you’re speaking of.

Ban cyclist headphones now!

--
Spike

On 18/12/2023 09:09, Spike wrote:
> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 22:50, Spike wrote:
>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>>>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <research paper snipped by PP>
>>>
>>>>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>>
>>>>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>>>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>>>
>>>>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>>>
>>>> In what way?
>>>
>>> Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.
>>
>> By their very definition it is obvious that sound deadening shuts off
>> external sounds (with various amounts of success, bit like headphones
>> really).
>
> Now you’re moving the goalposts.
>
> Hint: no-one had mentioned ‘sound deadening’ up to this point.

Mmm not a detail orientated person are you?

"Is there a study that also considers the use of SOUND DEADENING in
cars". witness your own quote quoting this.
>
>>>> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.
>
>>> No, they don’t.
>
>> Of course they do. Are you deliberately being stupid?
>
> And just for good measure, the personal attack!

I call it as I see it. you're not proving me wrong with this 'moving the
goalposts' rubbish are you?

> You really have no clue about what you’re speaking of.

Driver and cyclist, is that enough for you?

> Ban cyclist headphones now!

Why?
>
>

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 09:09, Spike wrote:
>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 22:50, Spike wrote:
>>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/12/2023 21:39, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/12/2023 14:37, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> <research paper snipped by PP>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ban cyclist headphone use now.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a study that also considers the use of sound deadening in
>>>>>>> cars, listening to the radio in cars, listening to podcasts in cars ?
>>>>
>>>>>> You’re confusing apples with oranges.
>>>>
>>>>> In what way?
>>>>
>>>> Hint: The apples shut off external sounds, the oranges don’t.
>>>
>>> By their very definition it is obvious that sound deadening shuts off
>>> external sounds (with various amounts of success, bit like headphones
>>> really).
>>
>> Now you’re moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Hint: no-one had mentioned ‘sound deadening’ up to this point.
>
> Mmm not a detail orientated person are you?
>
> "Is there a study that also considers the use of SOUND DEADENING in
> cars". witness your own quote quoting this.

You were the first to mention ‘sound deadening’, in reply to my OP.

The term does not appear in the abstract quoted in the original post.

Ergo, you were the first to mention the term.

>>>>> Any of these situations result in loss of situational awareness.

>>>> No, they don’t.

>>> Of course they do. Are you deliberately being stupid?

>> And just for good measure, the personal attack!

> I call it as I see it. you're not proving me wrong with this 'moving the
> goalposts' rubbish are you?

I just did prove you wrong, again.

>> You really have no clue about what you’re speaking of.

> Driver and cyclist, is that enough for you?

Not relevant.

>> Ban cyclist headphones now!

> Why?

Because they increase the risk.

Just look at the cases of cyclists who crash into things because they don’t
look beyond their front axle. Now you want to add in lack of auditory clues
as well. Sheer madness.

--
Spike

Yeah right.

Who was it said "don't argue with idiots they drag you down to there
level then beat you with experience" ?

I tire of this you may have the last word.

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> Yeah right.

> Who was it said "don't argue with idiots they drag you down to there
> level then beat you with experience" ?

If you had spelled that correctly, it might have had some force, but as it
is it just confirms things as they stand.

> I tire of this you may have the last word.

An easy cop-out. TTFN.

--
Spike

On 18/12/2023 11:38 am, soup wrote:
>
> Who was it said "don't argue with idiots they drag you down to there
> level then beat you with experience" ?

Er... someone who didn't know how to spell "their"?

Otherwise, pass. :-)