Is Hearing Loss a Valid Choice?

It's not the automakers' goal to have all of their cars go 120 mph, but they do want to build cars that have enough acceleration to pass a truck going 50 mph in a 70 mph zone. The motive power that provides that much acceleration will also give you a high top end speed.

Sure, the automakers could put governors on the engines that would permit strong acceleration at moderate speed but limit the top end speed -- but that's not really necessary, since legal speed limits are posted and most people are content to stay within 20 mph of the posted limits.

As to the headphone issue, my general feeling is that we're already over-regulated by the nanny state. I don't see the need to make a federal case out of someone's choice to damage their own hearing. Where does it end? Do you ban skateboards, dirt bikes, bungee jumping, ultralights, rock climbing...?

Usbport, if someone damages their hearing unecessarily, when they have a choice of higher or lower sound, then it costs the taxpayer to put it right, this is disgraceful and should be stopped, at least here in the UK where everyone working pays for the NHS!

Might there be an exemption on sugar for lactose in breast milk, as long as it is consumed by people of the appropriate age?

I can see this is getting complicated. ;-)

As it goes when governments start to interfere with things that are supposed to be for our own good.

<...most people are content to stay within 20 mph of the posted limits....>

Would they be the people that treat speed limits as speed targets?

Curious. What does speed target mean?

As a person whose hearing was damaged unintentionally by the high dB output of headphones while on the job recording an experimental sound performance, I think a design feature that limits the potential for harm is a good idea. Obviously, the limit should be high enough to permit a normal dynamic range for music.

And what is a normal dynamic range for music?

What is too loud?

Again, people assume that hearing damage is caused by a specific SPL or sound pressure level. That is, once you reach 86 dB damage occurs. This is not the case and has more to do with the magnitude of the impulse, the area under the curve, and the frequency than simply clipping at a specific SPL. There are other factors, too.

The ear works in a fashion that is far more complex than you might think, so a simple upper limit in SPL is not going to work.

I guess all of this also begs the question, should anyone be responsible for their own actions or is it always someone else's responsibility to look after your well being?

So, in your example, is turning the volume control down first not a prudent move?

To answer the original post's question, "Is Hearing Loss a Valid Choice?" No, it is not a valid choice, it is a stupid choice when self inflicted. However, there will always be an attorney that will tell you otherwise.

I think it's more a public safety issue and law suits. We buy or kids MP3 player with head phones. We as parents or the manufacturer can not control the volume they play it at. So they do not damage their hearing the manufactures now limit the volume. Some of this maybe do to a increase in litigation faced by the manufactures of these devices. Even most adults do not understand the damage the do to their hearing when listing to loud music.

So if people want to blow there ear drums out because they can't control themselves. And they want to hold the manufacturer responsible. Then the the manufactures only recourse is to do it for them.

Next up the car stereo manufactures that build those mega watt amp systems. You know the ones where you see the rear fenders vibrating and bulging in and out. Can you imagine what that does to their hearing. Let alone the discord it causes in the public because they think we want to hear it too in the middle of the night.

When I was growing up I had the way to loud earphones which eventually graduated me to one of those car sound systems when I was in my late teens and up. I have also been around industrial and farm machinery all my life too with little to no hearing protection.

I am now 36 and still test at above average hearing in both range and sensitivity.

So where do we then stop with the other nanny state issues that may come up after this? Block out the sun just in case someones kid it too stupid to keep himself from staring at it? Issue everyone high UV rated sunglasses the day they are born and keep supplying them until the day they die?

The reason I am against this is because it just one more step in continuous outward spiral of regulation and unnecessary protection over things that where once all handled by what was then common sense.

Question is who pays for those with the lack of common sense?

Well, historically, who has always paid for the village idiot?

What?? Wearing floss?

I say a person should be able to wear what they want.....

QUIT MUMBLING!

Consarn whippersnappers!

YES, hearing loss is a valid choice, as the author said.

Utterly bottomless stupid, nut valid. So are other supidities.

NOW< WHAT?

Of course people should have the right to destroy any part or ability of their own body if they consciously and deliberately choose to do so, provided only that this poses no risk to others. However, especially young people tend to explore the borders of all kinds of pleasant experiences, be they alcohol, drugs, sound, light, speed or whatever. But in case of hearing these envelope-stretching experiments do not give immediate feedback regarding the effects of the experiments. Usually these will be revealed only dozens of years later. So there is no such thing as a conscious and deliberate choice, let alone whether or not that choice would endanger others, e.g. in traffic.

I think in principle this justifies a strong general emphasis on noise reduction, as well as limitations on sound producing capabilities of consumer products.

Once we take out the minor detail that we are talking about people, what remains is the design of a feedback loop. Some folks are wired such that some sounds are MUCH more pleasant than the immediate consequences: rock concerts, hockey games, cars with mufflers in name only. Some folks (ahem) can't ride a city bus without both ear plugs and those ear protectors that the guy on the tarmac with the orange sticks uses. I don't blow out my components with high gain for the same reason I don't often put my hand on a hot stove. When the pain / danger / risk / is sufficient, people change aw by their selves right quick. How does that go? If you can't be a good example, you can at lease serve as a horrible warning.

Gotta love it: Today's CR4 quotation at the bottom of the page is, "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today" -- Abraham Lincoln

I have two young children. While I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, I do not allow them to use headphones (with the exception of overseas flights and a few other occasions where I or their mother can ensure the volume is not too high). They are still young and have difficulty grasping the long term affects of their actions, not so very different from dental hygiene (brushing/flossing everyday). I want them to at least make it through adolescence intact with good habits before they take over managing those aspects of their bodies.

I applaud you, sir!

Thanks!! It's not easy....those little rascals have a lot higher energy level than my wife and I.

Perhaps if people insist on listening to high pressure sound, they could have their Eustachian canals connected to the alimentary canal at its terminus. This way the sound pressure could be equalized. In the case of headphone users, a simple shunt from the Eustachian tube, to the outer ear, would suffice.

A good Hollywood plastic surgeon should be able to do this.

Our Constitution protects us from our goverment.

Legislation protects us from other people.

Mothers protect us from ourselves.

The design feature should be an option compulsorily made available in each set. The choice is that of the informed user. Rangasayee Mumbai