5 ms·

I really wonder if the pretty sudden prevalence of noise canceling tech in consumer headphones and earbuds is going to have a material impact on pedestrian safe

by kbos87 5y ago

I really wonder if the pretty sudden prevalence of noise canceling tech in consumer headphones and earbuds is going to have a material impact on pedestrian safety. I think of myself as being a pretty alert pedestrian, but I had two “too close for comfort” calls while walking where my inability to hear what was happening around me (thanks to my amazing and much beloved 2nd generation AirPods) put me in danger that would have otherwise been easy to avoid. I wear them in transparency mode when I’m walking anywhere near traffic now.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
This is effectively blasphemy but pedestrians have an obligation to be situationally aware. I suspect the pedestrian-first / roads aren't just for cars attitude contributes to this. Physics doesn't care about your right-of-way and it is far easier for a person on-foot to yield to a car than it is for a car to avoid a collision.
- newsbinator 5y ago
  > Physics doesn't care about your right-of-way My own counter-blasphemy: as a lifelong pedestrian, I don't care about a car owner's right to own a car. If you want to operate a killing machine, then you either yield to people who don't operate one (yes, even to reckless idiots), or you accidentally kill them.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I've always kind of wondered what the country would be like if we held drivers materially accountable for injuring/killing other people. Ex, injuring a kid by rear ending a car was legally treated like inflicting the same injury with any other weapon.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It is treated the same way, at least under the law. People driving negligently can do go to jail for pedestrian fatalities.
      - newsbinator 5y ago
        To me (again, as a crazy anti-car person), the negligence was in ever thinking you could operate a car for 40 straight years without eventually sending some kid to the hospital. How many drivers go their whole lives without so much as a "fender-bender"? In a long enough adult human lifespan, even the best driver in the world can't avoid a fender-bender with the worst driver in the world.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >To me (again, as a crazy anti-car person), the negligence was in ever thinking you could operate a car for 40 straight years without eventually sending some kid to the hospital. Any rational person would not expect to send someone to the hospital, based simply on the numbers. The pedestrian fatality rate is like 2/100k per year. If you are an average (bad) driver, you are unlikely to kill anyone. Add a huge fudge factor for hospitalization vs death, and you are still very unlikely to send someone to the hospital. Why would avoiding non-injury fender benders be the goal post? People expect to have a number of them in my life and that is why drivers have insurance.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"If you want to operate a killing machine" How can I take this seriously? >"either yield to people who don't operate one" And I do, where appropriate.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      > How can I take this seriously? I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US? Cars are dangerous, there's no doubt about it. There are lots of wealthy, developed countries that put safeguards around cars in the forms of pedestrian safety standards, low speed limits, strict licensing restrictions, strict road enforcement, and effective road design. It's not like the US is the only wealthy country in the world with cars. It's a well-known joke to get a license in the US, and teens and adults in the US joke about hitting parked cars, stop signs, trees, and mailboxes all the time. America has a non-existent safety culture surrounding the _outside_ of a car; cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US?" A car is a car no matter which nation it is in. A car does not transfigure into a killing machine because it is in America. I understand what you are saying about road design in other nations. That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. >"cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants" This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike.
        Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        > That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. I hear you. This is why most mature traffic safety and transit advocacy is about encouraging infrastructure changes, encouraging even traffic enforcement, and trying to add sensible legislation around vehicular responsibility (like alcohol rules and the like). The problem is, car culture is a thing that exists in America (and many parts of the world of course), and that culture often actively embraces reckless acts like speeding, unsafe hauling, coal-rolling, or unsafe vehicle lifting. Car culture also often actively pushes back against efforts to make the roads safer like automated traffic enforcement or stricter licensing requirements, and leads to negative things like catcalling from cars. You don't have to take my word for it, just check out https://reddit.com/r/cars https://reddit.com/r/cars and look at the jokes and memes they say. I'm also willing to bet that the average subscriber of r/cars is a _safer_ driver than the average American driver because of their enthusiasm. > This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike. In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Sharlin 5y ago
I really can't fathom how anyone would even consider wearing noise-canceling headphones while in traffic in any active role (ie. not a passive passenger).
- rbanffy 5y ago
  I have a pair of really great earbuds that came with an older cellphone that are phenomenal at blocking external noise. I NEVER use them outside the house for precisely this reason. Sony-Ericsson probably caused a non-trivial number of fatalities by bundling such a great audiophile gadget with a phone.
docdeek 5y ago
Headphones (including earbuds) are illegal to use while riding a bike or an electric scooter in France. Police in my city regularly set up 'warning weeks' where they'll stop and caution people to remind them before fining scores in the weeks after. Situational awareness is essential when your only protection from a collision with a car are the clothes on your back, helmets being optional, of course. I like podcasts as much as the next person but not enough to trade an episode for missing the cars around me.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Podcasts are why mass-transit was invented. That and pocket books.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
Honestly, as a pedestrian and cyclist myself, wearing closed-backed, ear-obstructing, or noise cancelling headphones as a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, is pure insanity as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I'm looking at you, oblivious jogger who can't hear my bell as I pass on a dual-use path. Get yourself a set of bone conducting headphones if you want to be out and active and listening to music or whatever. The technology is amazing and it's infinitely safer.

by kbos87 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago

This is effectively blasphemy but pedestrians have an obligation to be situationally aware. I suspect the pedestrian-first / roads aren't just for cars attitude contributes to this. Physics doesn't care about your right-of-way and it is far easier for a person on-foot to yield to a car than it is for a car to avoid a collision.

newsbinator 5y ago
> Physics doesn't care about your right-of-way My own counter-blasphemy: as a lifelong pedestrian, I don't care about a car owner's right to own a car. If you want to operate a killing machine, then you either yield to people who don't operate one (yes, even to reckless idiots), or you accidentally kill them.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I've always kind of wondered what the country would be like if we held drivers materially accountable for injuring/killing other people. Ex, injuring a kid by rear ending a car was legally treated like inflicting the same injury with any other weapon.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is treated the same way, at least under the law. People driving negligently can do go to jail for pedestrian fatalities.
    - newsbinator 5y ago
      To me (again, as a crazy anti-car person), the negligence was in ever thinking you could operate a car for 40 straight years without eventually sending some kid to the hospital. How many drivers go their whole lives without so much as a "fender-bender"? In a long enough adult human lifespan, even the best driver in the world can't avoid a fender-bender with the worst driver in the world.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >To me (again, as a crazy anti-car person), the negligence was in ever thinking you could operate a car for 40 straight years without eventually sending some kid to the hospital. Any rational person would not expect to send someone to the hospital, based simply on the numbers. The pedestrian fatality rate is like 2/100k per year. If you are an average (bad) driver, you are unlikely to kill anyone. Add a huge fudge factor for hospitalization vs death, and you are still very unlikely to send someone to the hospital. Why would avoiding non-injury fender benders be the goal post? People expect to have a number of them in my life and that is why drivers have insurance.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"If you want to operate a killing machine" How can I take this seriously? >"either yield to people who don't operate one" And I do, where appropriate.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > How can I take this seriously? I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US? Cars are dangerous, there's no doubt about it. There are lots of wealthy, developed countries that put safeguards around cars in the forms of pedestrian safety standards, low speed limits, strict licensing restrictions, strict road enforcement, and effective road design. It's not like the US is the only wealthy country in the world with cars. It's a well-known joke to get a license in the US, and teens and adults in the US joke about hitting parked cars, stop signs, trees, and mailboxes all the time. America has a non-existent safety culture surrounding the _outside_ of a car; cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"I mean sure it's hyperbolic, but is it wrong in the context of the US?" A car is a car no matter which nation it is in. A car does not transfigure into a killing machine because it is in America. I understand what you are saying about road design in other nations. That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. >"cars are only meant to be safe for their inhabitants" This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike.
      - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        > That tells me the car shouldn't be labeled as a killing machine since the road design bears the responsibility in this perspective. I hear you. This is why most mature traffic safety and transit advocacy is about encouraging infrastructure changes, encouraging even traffic enforcement, and trying to add sensible legislation around vehicular responsibility (like alcohol rules and the like). The problem is, car culture is a thing that exists in America (and many parts of the world of course), and that culture often actively embraces reckless acts like speeding, unsafe hauling, coal-rolling, or unsafe vehicle lifting. Car culture also often actively pushes back against efforts to make the roads safer like automated traffic enforcement or stricter licensing requirements, and leads to negative things like catcalling from cars. You don't have to take my word for it, just check out https://reddit.com/r/cars https://reddit.com/r/cars and look at the jokes and memes they say. I'm also willing to bet that the average subscriber of r/cars is a _safer_ driver than the average American driver because of their enthusiasm. > This is untrue, there exist safety features that benefit occupants and non-occupants alike. In theory. In practice, the numbers show that these safety features aren't enough.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Sharlin 5y ago

I really can't fathom how anyone would even consider wearing noise-canceling headphones while in traffic in any active role (ie. not a passive passenger).

rbanffy 5y ago
I have a pair of really great earbuds that came with an older cellphone that are phenomenal at blocking external noise. I NEVER use them outside the house for precisely this reason. Sony-Ericsson probably caused a non-trivial number of fatalities by bundling such a great audiophile gadget with a phone.

docdeek 5y ago

Headphones (including earbuds) are illegal to use while riding a bike or an electric scooter in France. Police in my city regularly set up 'warning weeks' where they'll stop and caution people to remind them before fining scores in the weeks after. Situational awareness is essential when your only protection from a collision with a car are the clothes on your back, helmets being optional, of course. I like podcasts as much as the next person but not enough to trade an episode for missing the cars around me.

rbanffy 5y ago
Podcasts are why mass-transit was invented. That and pocket books.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

Honestly, as a pedestrian and cyclist myself, wearing closed-backed, ear-obstructing, or noise cancelling headphones as a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, is pure insanity as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I'm looking at you, oblivious jogger who can't hear my bell as I pass on a dual-use path. Get yourself a set of bone conducting headphones if you want to be out and active and listening to music or whatever. The technology is amazing and it's infinitely safer.