iPod blamed for Aussie death

quote='Aeek'On Tue said:

Hell yes. I like my headphones when I'm riding in traffic, because they
cut the loudness just enough that I'm less likely to jump at a horn beside
me, or a bogan revving beside me. I'm still able to hear the traffic (and
my gears when I forget to oil the chain).

Exactly. I used to swerve towards the traffic when horned.
Radio headphones have taken the edge off so I don't do that anymore.
Bonus: I can still hear but not understand bogan yells.

Andre[/QUOTE]
Personally I think it's bull. I listen to my MP3 player while riding (with headphones rather than earphones, so even when it's on I can hear what is going on around me). When riding on roads with traffic I'll remove one earpeice and/or turn the player down/off, but it's often occured to me if I was to be hit by a car the MP3 player would be blamed. People accept that car drivers can listen to the radio safely, so why can't we?

SuzieB said:

So, today as I rode home from work I tried to work out how I might ride
differently if I had headphones on and to be honest I couldn't really.
I check behind me before moving out, I don't jump at every loud van
that rattles past, I quite simply just ride along the same way I
probably would as if I had something stuck in my ears. We can't tell
from that story what happened but to me it sounds like the article is
trying to blame the cyclist because they were using an ipod. That's a
little like saying it's okay to kill a deaf cyclist because they can't
hear. 🙁

I'm pretty sure there was legislation enacted in NSW in the 1980s to ban
the use of walkmans whilst cycling. Obviously there must have been a
spate of walkman related deaths then.

Jokes aside, what's the difference between zoning in to music and zoning
in to a mobile phone call?

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum said:

iPod blamed for Aussie death

By someone who wasn't there and knows nothing about what
happened. It's not even stated that she was using the player
at the time. FWIW, my bet is that she swerved into its
path without looking - you can /never/ rely on your ears to
do that.

I ride both with and without my MP3 player around town, and it
doesn't make any difference to my perception of what's going on
around me. There's so much noise, from so many sources,
reflected from so many surfaces, that it's not a useful source
of warnings.

OTOH, I don't use it in the hills, because it prevents me from
hearing cars coming up behind me, and I'd have to ride on
the verge on the assumption that there's always one there.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Peter McCallum said:

Jokes aside, what's the difference between zoning in to music and zoning
in to a mobile phone call?

IMHO the difference is that you can tune out music whenever you like,
unlike someone talking to you (that you want to listen to, of course).

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

pase said:

i nearly ko'ed someone in carlton the other week. pedestrian crossing
the road (no not at a crossing) with headphones on, oblivious to the
fact that i was barrelling down in her direction.

It makes no difference. Unless you're in the middle of nowhere they
can't hear you coming anyway, and they rarely bother to look if they
can't hear an engine.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

(Peter McCallum) said:

SuzieB said:

So, today as I rode home from work I tried to work out how I might ride
differently if I had headphones on and to be honest I couldn't really.
I check behind me before moving out, I don't jump at every loud van
that rattles past, I quite simply just ride along the same way I
probably would as if I had something stuck in my ears. We can't tell
from that story what happened but to me it sounds like the article is
trying to blame the cyclist because they were using an ipod. That's a
little like saying it's okay to kill a deaf cyclist because they can't
hear. 🙁

I'm pretty sure there was legislation enacted in NSW in the 1980s to ban
the use of walkmans whilst cycling. Obviously there must have been a
spate of walkman related deaths then.

Jokes aside, what's the difference between zoning in to music and zoning
in to a mobile phone call?

The difference is pretty huge.

Using a mobile 'phone is an interactive process which takes a lot of
brain function away from the task at hand. Much of that brain function
is directed to trying to discern the intent of the person speaking to
you as you're deprived the visual cues one normally has when having a
discussion with someone. That's why using a handsfree kit makes little
to no difference to the risk of using a mobile 'phone.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Graeme Dods said:

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Umm.. when on roads where lorrys travel, do you usually move without
looking?

Quoted message said:

No, but we're not talking about what I do, we're talking about what
somebody round the other side of the world *might* have done.
Something of which we might guess from "normal behaviour" but in
reality know *nothing* about in this case, particularly from the
newspaper report.

Good God! There are some really stupid assumptions being made here, aren't
there?
The next time I hear of a car being squished by a truck should I assume the
car driver was listening to the ABC news on AM radio and this is why they
died, rather tha to blame the poor trucck driver? I rode to work every day,
rain or shine, for ten years and always wore earphones. Music or news does
not kill you, make you oblivious to outside sounds, or make you travel a
zig-zag path.

I-pods don't kill people, trucks driven by idiots kill people.

Theo

On 2006-02-14, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

I worked on the billing system for Citylink. Reading some of the
articles in the paper about the very code I'd worked on (or had looked
at closely with the guy who'd written it) was ... enlightening. The mix
of fact to fiction was probably around 50% in the *better* reports.

It's like that in any field the reader knows.

Hell, I saw a report on the IAU meeting in Sydney a few years ago that
referred to the IAU as the "International Astrological Union", despite
them most likely having copying and pasting the material from some
writeup elsewhere.

--
TimC
Anyone seeking the "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" soft option
course, may wish to leave now. -- Intro lecture to RQM

Aeek said:

Radio headphones have taken the edge off so I don't do that anymore.
Bonus: I can still hear but not understand bogan yells.

You could previously understand bogans?

Theo

On 2006-02-14, Graeme Dods (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Stuart Lamble said:

I worked on the billing system for Citylink. Reading some of the
articles in the paper about the very code I'd worked on (or had looked
at closely with the guy who'd written it) was ... enlightening. The mix
of fact to fiction was probably around 50% in the *better* reports. (In
some cases, the path from fact to fiction was clear -- they'd tried to
simplify, or gloss over "irrelevant" details -- but an honest appraisal
left it at about that ratio.)

It's the same in TV and radio. The common assumption is that it's harder to
misrepresent the facts/opinions expressed by interviewees on TV/radio
compared to print, but it's not. Careful editing can totally change the
impression and because you can see/hear the interviewee then that *must* be
what they said. Friends & relatives of mine have been interviewed for
various reasons and most have said "WTF! That's not what I meant!" when
they saw the end result.

Was it 60 minutes who had an interview with a clock behind the
interviewee? And they receieved complaints about the editing? And
they basically said "OK, we'll promise to make sure there are no
clocks behind the interviewee in the future"?

--
TimC
Beware of bugs in the above program. I proved it correct,
I did not try it. --- D. E. Knuth

On 2006-02-14, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Hearing isn't that helpful in many urban environments, there's a lot of
noise pollution.

Hell yes. I like my headphones when I'm riding in traffic, because they
cut the loudness just enough that I'm less likely to jump at a horn beside
me, or a bogan revving beside me.

What does it say about my part of the city that I rarely jump at such
things anymore?

Quoted message said:

I'm still able to hear the traffic (and
my gears when I forget to oil the chain).

Woops, thanks for reminding me. It was getting a bit loud lastnight.
I think I'm going to ditch this stupid dry lube stuff -- barely lasts
100km.

--
TimC
If you ever fear that machines will surpass humans in intelligence,
just ask Microsoft to write the OS. -- POTU in RHOD

Michael Warner said:

OTOH, I don't use it in the hills, because it prevents me from
hearing cars coming up behind me, and I'd have to ride on
the verge on the assumption that there's always one there.

Why? Because you think a car behind you has right of way?

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I don't use it in the hills, because it prevents me from
hearing cars coming up behind me, and I'd have to ride on
the verge on the assumption that there's always one there.

Why? Because you think a car behind you has right of way?

No - because there's no reason to block it. I like to climb in
the middle of the lane, but I don't mind moving over to let
the odd car past. Forcing them to cross the centre line
to overtake me puts both of us at risk.

Do you intentionally block cars when there's no good reason
to do so? IMHO that's a stupid thing to do.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Blaming an iPod is the worst excuse I've ever heard.

Every single time I get on my bike, I get on knowing I can't hear traffic around me. In 13 years of ridind road, I've never had anything more than a scare as a result of being hearing impaired (moderate to severe in one ear, severe sloping to profound in the other).

"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Good God! There are some really stupid assumptions being made here,
aren't there?

and this looks like another 🙂

Quoted message said:

The next time I hear of a car being squished by a truck should I
assume the car driver was listening to the ABC news on AM radio and
this is why they died, rather tha to blame the poor trucck driver? I
rode to work every day, rain or shine, for ten years and always wore
earphones.

Lots of people smoke and don't get lung cancer, lots of people drink
drive and don't have an accident, lots of people consume to much alchol
and don't have liver problems... I could go on ad nauseum.

Quoted message said:

Music or news does not kill you, make you oblivious to
outside sounds, or make you travel a zig-zag path.

Same with speed, it doesn't kill either or all Astronauts would be dead,
The sudden stop into a solid object on the other hand... but that's not
the point.

Quoted message said:

I-pods don't kill people, trucks driven by idiots kill people.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people 🙂

That aside, I tried it, (MP3 player on a pushie and a motorbike) found it
dangerous (distracting) and stopped (both on and off road). Couldn't
give a rats [censored] what others do, I find it dangerous. Let those who ride
decide 🙂

--
Trevor S

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

TimC said:

Hell, I saw a report on the IAU meeting in Sydney a few years ago that
referred to the IAU as the "International Astrological Union", despite
them most likely having copying and pasting the material from some
writeup elsewhere.

It's the Internet Astrological Union isn't it?

What about the Theraputic Goods Administration. It's been referred to as
the Threaputic Goods Authority (or Association), the Theraputic Drugs
Authority, and so on in recent reports. One 7.30 Report item had the
journalist misrepresenting the name while the camera was pointed at the
entry, where it was clearly spelt out.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

It's not a question of "blocking or non-blocking". It's a question of
being hit from behind by a car, or not. You have to assume the worst
about car behaviour or you won't survive.

Peter McCallum wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

McMillan's best friend, Jacques Poullard, said she may still have been
alive if she hadn't been listening to the Apple iPod.

"She was obsessed by that thing. It wasn't that she was careless. I
bought her the bike three years ago and it was how she travelled
everywhere.

"I never said anything to her about wearing the iPod but now I think if
she hadn't had it on she might have heard the lorry.

How lame. How many drivers keep their windows down (aside from me in
summer) and their radios off so they can hear better?

Tam

Michael Warner said:

No - because there's no reason to block it. I like to climb in
the middle of the lane, but I don't mind moving over to let
the odd car past. Forcing them to cross the centre line
to overtake me puts both of us at risk.

There's a strong distinction you need to make here. You being in the
middle of the lane is not about inconveniencing car drivers. It's about
*claiming your space*. If I ride in the gutter, cars will zoom past me
at some crazy speed, with as little as twelve inches of clearance. If,
on the other hand, I ride in the middle of the lane, they'll generally
zoom past me in the next lane.

If you're riding on a road that is one lane each direction, it's a
question that needs to be asked on a case by case basis. The important
things to remember are:
(1) You have the *right* to that space, and it could very well be
dangerous (depending on the road conditions) to give it up for the
convenience of a car driver; and
(2) the onus is on the overtaker to wait until it is safe and legal to
pass. If it's double lines, they need to learn patience. There is
nothing in the road rules that says "Car drivers shall get to
their destination in as short a time as possible."

Quoted message said:

Do you intentionally block cars when there's no good reason
to do so? IMHO that's a stupid thing to do.

If there is no room for a car driver to overtake me, I will try to give
them that room, *provided it does not leave me in an unsafe position*.
It's no different to driving behind farm machinery moving at 30 kph on a
country road.

Of course, if there is a turnout area provided (ie: room for a single
vehicle to pull over and wait for traffic to pass), and I'm moving
significantly slower than the traffic behind, I'll pull over and let
them pass. Lots of car drivers don't have even that much courtesy ...

All of the above two paragraphs does not apply if there are two lanes in
my direction. In that case, I'll claim the lane, and the hell to what
the drivers think; they have enough room to overtake me ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Tamyka Bell said:

Peter McCallum wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

McMillan's best friend, Jacques Poullard, said she may still have been
alive if she hadn't been listening to the Apple iPod.

"She was obsessed by that thing. It wasn't that she was careless. I
bought her the bike three years ago and it was how she travelled
everywhere.

"I never said anything to her about wearing the iPod but now I think if
she hadn't had it on she might have heard the lorry.

How lame. How many drivers keep their windows down (aside from me in
summer) and their radios off so they can hear better?

<patronising>
But Tam, everyone knows that riding a bike is so much more dangerous
than driving a car. Absolutely it's the responsibility of cyclists to
keep themselves out of the way of those big, dangerous trucks. I mean
you can't expect trucks to look out for everyone now can you?

I mean when's the last time you heard of a driver being killed while
driving? It's just not that risky.
</patronising>
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)