radio reception on bike - Page 6

Re: radio reception on bike

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:11lidva3nbbmt63@news.supernews.com:


> The general use of music to improve memory, awareness, and the
> integration of learning styles

I wonder if "Welcome to the Jungle" counts...

Re: radio reception on bike

I wouldn't argue with the findings. However I do believe that
"awareness" and "concentration" and "focus" as used in the quoted
context- that is for studying- is quite different from situational
awareness and focus that is the type associated with what we are
discussing.

So, for example, deep concentration or focus, is a key component of
meditation. But the focus is very much inward and in a meditative state
you would not want to be driving your car as situational awareness is
decreased by the highly focused meditative state.

Re: radio reception on bike

gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>> gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
:>> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>> :>> And just how does one quantify decreased awareness? How much of
:>> :>> that does it take to put one in danger of being in an accident
:>> :>> due to an UNEXPECTED event? Tell, me, are any
:>> :>> crashes/accidents due to expected events? Your arguments lack
:>> :>> depth.
:>> :>
:>> :> Is this a serious question? I would posit that the majority of
:>> :> accidents are the result of unexpected events. If you expected
:>> :> the event to happen it is likely you could avoid it. So, in my
:>> :> experience virtually every single crash I have witnessed was the
:>> :> result of some unexpected event.
:>>
:>> That is exactly my point. Now, quantify decreased awareness and
:>> tell me exactly where it makes one less prepared for the unexpected?
:>
:> At any quantity of decreased awareness you are less prepared than at
:> a higher state of awareness. Are you arguing otherwise?

1) I'm not convinced it decreases awareness.
2) if it does, I'm not convinced it's significant.

So, yes.


:> The current argument I thought was if music make enough of a
:> difference in awareness. I never thought there would be an argument
:> that awareness itself doesn't matter.

Are you having a hard day? I asked you to quantify decreased awareness and
tell me how much will make a meaningful difference to safety. All you could
respond with was "any amount". Boy, that's useful, as well as meaningless.
As you hopefully know, over the course of a several hour bike ride, any
human being's awareness level will peak and dip in an unpredictable manner.
You cannot convincingly argue that headphone use will always degrade
awareness, it might increase it during times when a rider might otherwise
become bored.

Re: radio reception on bike

Roger Zoul wrote:
> gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
> :>> gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
> :>> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
> :>> :>> And just how does one quantify decreased awareness? How much of
> :>> :>> that does it take to put one in danger of being in an accident
> :>> :>> due to an UNEXPECTED event? Tell, me, are any
> :>> :>> crashes/accidents due to expected events? Your arguments lack
> :>> :>> depth.
> :>> :>
> :>> :> Is this a serious question? I would posit that the majority of
> :>> :> accidents are the result of unexpected events. If you expected
> :>> :> the event to happen it is likely you could avoid it. So, in my
> :>> :> experience virtually every single crash I have witnessed was the
> :>> :> result of some unexpected event.
> :>>
> :>> That is exactly my point. Now, quantify decreased awareness and
> :>> tell me exactly where it makes one less prepared for the unexpected?
> :>
> :> At any quantity of decreased awareness you are less prepared than at
> :> a higher state of awareness. Are you arguing otherwise?
>
> 1) I'm not convinced it decreases awareness.
> 2) if it does, I'm not convinced it's significant.
>
> So, yes.
>
>
> :> The current argument I thought was if music make enough of a
> :> difference in awareness. I never thought there would be an argument
> :> that awareness itself doesn't matter.
>
> Are you having a hard day? I asked you to quantify decreased awareness and
> tell me how much will make a meaningful difference to safety. All you could
> respond with was "any amount". Boy, that's useful, as well as meaningless.
> As you hopefully know, over the course of a several hour bike ride, any
> human being's awareness level will peak and dip in an unpredictable manner.
> You cannot convincingly argue that headphone use will always degrade
> awareness, it might increase it during times when a rider might otherwise
> become bored.

OK well we are clearly on such different wavelengths on this that it
seems that neither one of us can make the other understand what we are
saying. So, enjoy your music and have a nice weekend of riding.

Re: radio reception on bike

gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
:>I wouldn't argue with the findings. However I do believe that
:> "awareness" and "concentration" and "focus" as used in the quoted
:> context- that is for studying- is quite different from situational
:> awareness and focus that is the type associated with what we are
:> discussing.

Really? If music won't interrupt the throught process when trying to figure
out a calculus problem where complex relationships must be kept in mind, why
must it hinder one from following the happenings along a road? There, the
situational awareness is much less demanding unless you are in heavy traffic
or something like that, where just being there is likely to be highly risky
anyway.

:>
:> So, for example, deep concentration or focus, is a key component of
:> meditation. But the focus is very much inward and in a meditative
:> state you would not want to be driving your car as situational
:> awareness is decreased by the highly focused meditative state.

Of course you don't want to be meditating while driving your car. But the
fact is on a country road one could get locked in deep thought of an inward
nature (ie, mediation). It's happened to me and nearly caused me to get hit.
Music helps to avoid that situation. Of course, when riding a bike, one
doesn't "focus" on music as if trying to hear every beat or sing every word.
One merely uses the beat to establish a rhythm and thus develop a mind/body
link.

Re: radio reception on bike

an intersting but probably sarcastic comment from a supporter of your
argument is another thread

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6c1090d6fbc91e

Re: radio reception on bike

"gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:

>an intersting but probably sarcastic comment from a supporter of your
>argument is another thread
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6c1090d6fbc91e

Definitely sarcastic.

Even marked it with a big <G> (grin) to indicate the sarcasm.

................ :-) ...............
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Re: radio reception on bike

gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:

:> So, enjoy your music and have a nice weekend of riding.

You too!

Re: radio reception on bike

gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
:> an intersting but probably sarcastic comment from a supporter of your
:> argument is another thread
:>
:>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6c1090d6fbc91e

Well, getting started on rollers is likely to make one take a spill.

Re: radio reception on bike

Rich Clark wrote:
>> I'm talking mostly about commuting, and riding during commuting hours.
>
> The lack of cargo is a strong indicator (not conclusive, certainly), that
> the cyclist is not riding for transportational purposes. So are things like
> lack of lighting in the dark months, ortheir presence in a paceline.
>
> My point is that you are using professional racers as an exemplar when
> discussing safe practices for transportational cyclists. I'm saying that
> they have different standards and different goals, and are willing to take
> risks that I never would.
>
> I would also think that the radio chatter that pro teams listen to through
> their earpieces could be considered a distraction too. And as a final note,
> racers crash and sustain serious injuries at a far higher rate than I would
> find acceptable for transportational cycling. So again, they are not an
> example I have any interest in emulating.
>
> RichC

OK, good points.
I guess I separate out the types of crashes that occur during races
when there is a clear competititve goal to win and folks are riding at
the max-- and as you say a certain amount of mayhem is an acceptable
risk.Hard training rides also red line them and lead to problems.
However, I have ridden with pros in non competitive (for them) settings
and let me tell you their bike handling skills are awesome. With all
the experience I have I do not have nearly the bike control that I have
witnessed in the "average" pro racer.

Re: radio reception on bike

OK thanks, I had a very nice weekend and did an organized century
yesterday. I thought I'd just observe the number of folks using
earphones. I could get a pretty good count as it was an out and back
course. So, I pretty much got a peek at every rider.
I only saw one rider wearing ear phones. There were ~400 riders doing
the full century.
So, even if I missed a few other riders wearing ear phones clearly it
was a miniscule % of the riders.
Doesn't prove a thing about the basic argument - but interesting to me
how few folks used them even though this was clearly a long ride. Seems
like a different distribution than contributors to this thread.

Re: radio reception on bike

"gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:

>OK thanks, I had a very nice weekend and did an organized century
>yesterday. I thought I'd just observe the number of folks using
>earphones. I could get a pretty good count as it was an out and back
>course. So, I pretty much got a peek at every rider.
>I only saw one rider wearing ear phones. There were ~400 riders doing
>the full century.
>So, even if I missed a few other riders wearing ear phones clearly it
>was a miniscule % of the riders.
>Doesn't prove a thing about the basic argument - but interesting to me
>how few folks used them even though this was clearly a long ride. Seems
>like a different distribution than contributors to this thread.

Centuries are social bike rides. If I'm riding with somebody, it's
likely we'll socialize.

If I'm riding alone, I be jammin ... I'm jammin ... and I hope you
like jammin, too.

We jammin, we jammin. We jammin, we jammin.....

<g>
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Re: radio reception on bike

Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> If I'm riding alone, I be jammin ... I'm jammin ... and I hope you
> like jammin, too.
>
> We jammin, we jammin. We jammin, we jammin.....
>
> <g>

And I hope your music doesn't get you into a jam ;-)

Re: radio reception on bike

gds <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
:> OK thanks, I had a very nice weekend and did an organized century
:> yesterday. I thought I'd just observe the number of folks using
:> earphones. I could get a pretty good count as it was an out and back
:> course. So, I pretty much got a peek at every rider.
:> I only saw one rider wearing ear phones. There were ~400 riders doing
:> the full century.
:> So, even if I missed a few other riders wearing ear phones clearly
:> it was a miniscule % of the riders.
:> Doesn't prove a thing about the basic argument - but interesting to
:> me how few folks used them even though this was clearly a long ride.
:> Seems like a different distribution than contributors to this thread.

Glad you had a nice weekend. I did an organized metric a month and a half
or so ago. I had a riding partner and there were plenty of people around.
The route was very different than my normal rides. Even though I had my Mp3
player, I took the headphones off because it was more enjoyable that way.

The last few weekends I've been doing metric+ rides on weekends alone. I
take my mp3 player then.
I'll do an organized century the first weekend in Nov...I don't plan to use
it then...

Isn't it time to let this go?