Favorite music while bicycling

In article ,
"recycled" wrote:

I've listened to mp3's while riding mountain bike trails and I found that
in a particularly challenging section I tune out the mp3. Afterwards I
realize I have no recall of what was playing.

I would agree that music/radio chatter seems to be backgrounded more
easily than an active cell phone conversation, but I don't know of any
studies that investigate it compared to silence. It may well be that
having an iPod playing is no more distracting than simply singing to the
memory of a song, but I would wager that there is at least *some* effect
of having a physical device to deal with that draws your attention away.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

On Apr 1, 9:35 am, Doc O'Leary
wrote:
In article ,

"recycled" wrote:
I've listened to mp3's while riding mountain bike trails and I found that
in a particularly challenging section I tune out the mp3. Afterwards I
realize I have no recall of what was playing.

I would agree that music/radio chatter seems to be backgrounded more
easily than an active cell phone conversation, but I don't know of any
studies that investigate it compared to silence. It may well be that
having an iPod playing is no more distracting than simply singing to the
memory of a song, but I would wager that there is at least *some* effect
of having a physical device to deal with that draws your attention away.

Surely there is *some* effect of having *any* physical device that
draws your attention away from the road. The pertinent questions are,
how large is the effect? Is it so large as to cause some serious
increase in risk?

After all, there are other well-accepted physical devices that draw
bicyclists' attention away. Your gear shifter is one example.
Hopefully, only a very few fanatics would lobby for outlawing multi-
speed bikes based on safety!

I'm continually amazed by the number of cyclists who seem to put
bicycling in the same category as walking a tightrope without a net.
Really, folks, a _little_ distraction is completely survivable!

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

- Frank Krygowski

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
"recycled" wrote:

I've listened to mp3's while riding mountain bike trails and I found that
in a particularly challenging section I tune out the mp3. Afterwards I
realize I have no recall of what was playing.

I would agree that music/radio chatter seems to be backgrounded more
easily than an active cell phone conversation, but I don't know of any
studies that investigate it compared to silence. It may well be that
having an iPod playing is no more distracting than simply singing to the
memory of a song, but I would wager that there is at least *some* effect
of having a physical device to deal with that draws your attention away.


Frankly, the argument that memory is just as distracting as an MP3
device seemed like just an attempt to deflect criticism from the
potential distraction of an MP3 device. I'm not arguing for or against
MP3 devices, but the memory argument seems pretty far out, and couldn't
be tested, anyway.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:08:18 -0700, frkrygow wrote:

On Apr 1, 9:35 am, Doc O'Leary
wrote:
In article ,

"recycled" wrote:
I've listened to mp3's while riding mountain bike trails and I found
that
in a particularly challenging section I tune out the mp3. Afterwards
I realize I have no recall of what was playing.

I would agree that music/radio chatter seems to be backgrounded more
easily than an active cell phone conversation, but I don't know of any
studies that investigate it compared to silence. It may well be that
having an iPod playing is no more distracting than simply singing to
the memory of a song, but I would wager that there is at least *some*
effect of having a physical device to deal with that draws your
attention away.

Surely there is *some* effect of having *any* physical device that draws
your attention away from the road. The pertinent questions are, how
large is the effect? Is it so large as to cause some serious increase
in risk?

After all, there are other well-accepted physical devices that draw
bicyclists' attention away. Your gear shifter is one example.
Hopefully, only a very few fanatics would lobby for outlawing multi-
speed bikes based on safety!

I'm continually amazed by the number of cyclists who seem to put
bicycling in the same category as walking a tightrope without a net.
Really, folks, a _little_ distraction is completely survivable!

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

All this is true, but most people rely on their hearing when driving or
riding bicycles, and headphones do interfere with that. *You* may be able
to ride safely with them by consciously compensating for lack of hearing,
by looking around more or whatever, but many other people may not.
Earphones do increase risk of accidents.

We just had a fatality in Virginia, blamed partially on earphones. A 15
year old kid was hit from behind when he crossed traffic to make a left
turn, probably without hearing the car approaching from behind, or
bothering to look for it.

More telling is the accident rates which have risen and fallen with the
use of earphones over the years. They've come and gone several times
since the orginal Sony Walkman appeared in the late 70s. I don't have the
stats handy but if you're really interested you could probably get them
from the Cities of Newport Beach or Huntington Beach. You can pretty much
track the popularity of headphones by bike (and pedestrian) accident
rates.

Earphones increase accidents at ski areas too, which is why they've been
banned off and on. A friend of mine worked in risk management for a major
ski resort operator and for him this was an ongoing battle. Earphones are
a known cause of many collisions but banning them is impractical and
unpopular.

Operating any vehicle on a road while wearing earphones is illegal in VA.

Matt O.

wrote:

After all, there are other well-accepted physical devices that draw
bicyclists' attention away. Your gear shifter is one example.
Hopefully, only a very few fanatics would lobby for outlawing multi-
speed bikes based on safety!

Yet one more selling point for those late-night "Autobike" ads

I'm continually amazed by the number of cyclists who seem to put
bicycling in the same category as walking a tightrope without a net.
Really, folks, a _little_ distraction is completely survivable!

I, for one, think of all those skaters on the multi-use paths who have the
music on at such a high level they can't hear you no matter how loudly you
yell behind them -- and then look startled when you pass.

I'm suspicious of anyone with headphones on -- skater, pedestrian or
cyclist. Maybe they are listening as a low level which provides little
distraction, and maybe they aren't.

On Apr 1, 1:21 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:08:18 -0700, frkrygow wrote:


Surely there is *some* effect of having *any* physical device that draws
your attention away from the road. The pertinent questions are, how
large is the effect? Is it so large as to cause some serious increase
in risk?

After all, there are other well-accepted physical devices that draw
bicyclists' attention away. Your gear shifter is one example.
Hopefully, only a very few fanatics would lobby for outlawing multi-
speed bikes based on safety!

I'm continually amazed by the number of cyclists who seem to put
bicycling in the same category as walking a tightrope without a net.
Really, folks, a _little_ distraction is completely survivable!

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

All this is true, but most people rely on their hearing when driving or
riding bicycles, and headphones do interfere with that. *You* may be able
to ride safely with them by consciously compensating for lack of hearing,
by looking around more or whatever, but many other people may not.
Earphones do increase risk of accidents.

Hmm. Data?

We just had a fatality in Virginia, blamed partially on earphones. A 15
year old kid was hit from behind when he crossed traffic to make a left
turn, probably without hearing the car approaching from behind, or
bothering to look for it.

As you might expect, I'd be much more inclined to attribute that
accident to the "not looking" part, plus to the false idea that
bicyclists must always be on the right. I say this partly because
I've been surprised by cars at my left when riding with ears
completely unobstructed, in windy conditions.

Bicyclists MUST merge left before making a left turn; and they MUST
look behind for cars before they merge. This is true whether they're
wearing headphones, cycling into a headwind, stone deaf, or whether
they can hear perfectly. (And I should remind everyone that cycling
into a headwind and cycling while deaf remain legal.)

More telling is the accident rates which have risen and fallen with the
use of earphones over the years. They've come and gone several times
since the orginal Sony Walkman appeared in the late 70s. I don't have the
stats handy but if you're really interested you could probably get them
from the Cities of Newport Beach or Huntington Beach. You can pretty much
track the popularity of headphones by bike (and pedestrian) accident
rates.

If you'd post the data, we could discuss it. But of course, the
difficulty is dealing with the confounding factors. That is, when
there are more accidents, is it because of more headphones? Or more
bicycling? Or louder sound systems in cars (making drivers pay less
attention)? Or more cell phones? Or more risk taking by less
competent cyclists... and so on.

- Frank Krygowski

ZBicyclist wrote:
wrote:
After all, there are other well-accepted physical devices that draw
bicyclists' attention away. Your gear shifter is one example.
Hopefully, only a very few fanatics would lobby for outlawing multi-
speed bikes based on safety!

Yet one more selling point for those late-night "Autobike" ads

I'm continually amazed by the number of cyclists who seem to put
bicycling in the same category as walking a tightrope without a net.
Really, folks, a _little_ distraction is completely survivable!

I, for one, think of all those skaters on the multi-use paths who have the
music on at such a high level they can't hear you no matter how loudly you
yell behind them -- and then look startled when you pass.

Bob Hunt apparently has no problem getting their attention.

I'm suspicious of anyone with headphones on -- skater, pedestrian or
cyclist. Maybe they are listening as a low level which provides little
distraction, and maybe they aren't.

Bell first, and if no reaction, use the air horn.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

In article ,
TomP writes:
wrote:

I don't use headphones or carry a receiver so my music comes from
within and rises to a crescendo when I reach summits of great climbs.
I hear "Joe Green" (Giuseppe Verde) Va Pensiero from Nabucco:

http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/...-pensiero.html

http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/f51.html

Jobst Brandt

I can worm Jethro Tull's Locomotive Breath, Aqua Lung, and Thick As a Brick,
depending on the conditions.
Locomotive Breath is great for chasing down a bogie in front...

Sometimes Rick Wakeman's Merlin the Magician works for me,
especially when followed by Holst's: Uranus. Then there's
ELP's Abaddon's Bolero. And Softer Ride, off Status Quo's
"Hello" album. Tunes with syncopation just screw up my
cadence. One needs a Biopace rig for syncopation.

I mostly favour tunes of which I know the lyrics, so I
can sing along. That rules out a lot of opera (or as
a friend of mine refers to arias: girdle-poppers.)
I'm told I can "do" Alice Cooper's Under My Wheels quite
convincingly, but that, like Tarzan-yodeling, requires a
li'l inspiration. I can also sometimes "do" David Bromberg
if I stick a clothespin on my nose and do the quivery voice
thing. If it doesn't come out right, I can always switch to
doing Neil Young or Corky Siegal. Chuck Berry is impossible
to imitate well. So are Van Morrison and Steve Winwood.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:16:16 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

I mostly favour tunes of which I know the lyrics, so I
can sing along. That rules out a lot of opera (or as
a friend of mine refers to arias: girdle-poppers.)
I'm told I can "do" Alice Cooper's Under My Wheels quite
convincingly, but that, like Tarzan-yodeling, requires a
li'l inspiration. I can also sometimes "do" David Bromberg
if I stick a clothespin on my nose and do the quivery voice
thing. If it doesn't come out right, I can always switch to
doing Neil Young or Corky Siegal. Chuck Berry is impossible
to imitate well. So are Van Morrison and Steve Winwood.

For opera you don't have to know the words, just the intonation.
Germanic or Italian sounding gibberish is quite passable. Think about
wine and cheese names while channelling Andy Kaufman and Paparazzi.
--
zk

In article ,
Zoot Katz writes:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:16:16 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

I mostly favour tunes of which I know the lyrics, so I
can sing along. That rules out a lot of opera (or as
a friend of mine refers to arias: girdle-poppers.)
I'm told I can "do" Alice Cooper's Under My Wheels quite
convincingly, but that, like Tarzan-yodeling, requires a
li'l inspiration. I can also sometimes "do" David Bromberg
if I stick a clothespin on my nose and do the quivery voice
thing. If it doesn't come out right, I can always switch to
doing Neil Young or Corky Siegal. Chuck Berry is impossible
to imitate well. So are Van Morrison and Steve Winwood.

For opera you don't have to know the words, just the intonation.

I can "intonate" Bob Dylan-ish real good.
Just gimme a clothespeg to clamp my nose shut,
and a harsh Chinese or Russian cigarette.

Come to think of it, that singer guy from Dire
Straits fits in there, too. A bunch o' raspy,
breathy mumbling.

Germanic or Italian sounding gibberish is quite passable. Think about
wine and cheese names while channelling Andy Kaufman and Paparazzi.

Screw opera! Just gimme the wine 'n cheese.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca