Another 'blame the victim' iPod story.

[[email protected]]

Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry 'The
Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing an
iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist for
not wearing a helmet...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391011&in_page_id=1770

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

[email protected] wrote:
> Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
> direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry
> 'The Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing
> an iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist
> for not wearing a helmet...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391011&in_page_id=1770

Strange: it was a head on collision on a wide road. So obviously one of the
two was grossly at fault, regardless of iPod status.

A

 

[Squashme]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
> > direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry
> > 'The Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing
> > an iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist
> > for not wearing a helmet...
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391011&in_page_id=1770
>
> Strange: it was a head on collision on a wide road. So obviously one of the
> two was grossly at fault, regardless of iPod status.
>

Rode home last night with earphones on and tiny Roberts radio in
pocket. I was late leaving work, so decided to listen to Armando
Iannucci's Charm Offensive on Radio 4, while riding. This is not a
common practice for me. I found that my concentration on the road was
not as good as usual, especially when the signal went fuzzy
momentarily. Slight feeling of a "glass wall". I'm sure that motorists
are not distracted by their in-car music or radios, nor indeed by their
mobile phones.
I was wearing a helmet, so I would have been alright whatever.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> I'm sure that motorists
> are not distracted by their in-car music or radios, nor indeed by their
> mobile phones.
> I was wearing a helmet, so I would have been alright whatever.
>
>

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
> direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry
> 'The Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing
> an iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist
> for not wearing a helmet...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391011&in_page_id=1770
>
>

My response alongside Mark's now up at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#c11690512


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[naked_draughtsman]

[email protected] wrote:
> Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
> direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry 'The
> Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing an
> iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist for
> not wearing a helmet...
>
Well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5090304.stm is a
story about a DEAF driver who's car was stolen - obviously the DVLA
don't consider not being able to hear a reason not to be allowed on the
road.

peter

 

[p.k.]

[email protected] wrote:
> Young lad riding on the A6 is hit by a tractor coming in the opposite
> direction, so before there is any chance to conduct a full inquiry
> 'The Daily Mail' blames the death on the fact the cyclist was wearing
> an iPod. First person to comment on the story then blames the cyclist
> for not wearing a helmet...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391011&in_page_id=1770

Last week, I cycled up behind someone on the road section of the thames path
coming ito kingston fron teddington. He was riding no hands, weaving one
side of the narrow road to the other. i-pod plugged in. I dinged my bell, I
repeatedly dinged my bell. I arrived a foot or so behind his rear wheel and
spoke "Excuse me please". A little louder "Excuse me please". Eventually I
bellowed at the top of my voice " *Excuse me please* ". Then he heard me,
panicked and almost fell off.

wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do on
a bike

pk

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Last week, I cycled up behind someone on the road section of the
> thames path coming ito kingston fron teddington. He was riding no
> hands, weaving one side of the narrow road to the other. i-pod plugged
> in. I dinged my bell, I repeatedly dinged my bell. I arrived a foot or
> so behind his rear wheel and spoke "Excuse me please". A little louder
> "Excuse me please". Eventually I bellowed at the top of my voice "
> *Excuse me please* ". Then he heard me, panicked and almost fell off.
>
> wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to
> do on a bike

Noted, and I assume you felt it unnecessary to preach to the choir, and say
that not noticing a person about to go under your wheels is an unwise thing
to do on a tractor.

 

[jtaylor]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
on
> a bike
>

Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
definition.

 

[dkahn400]

jtaylor wrote:

> Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
> definition.

If you can still pay sufficient attention to your surroundings it
clearly is not careless by definition, no matter how smug it makes you
feel to assert it.

--
Dave...

 

[Chris]

That's why some states have laws against the use of headphones while riding,
because not everyone can exercise good judgement, especially those with big
egos who think they can but can't. So, join the rest of society and live by
the laws we all must.


"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
>
>> Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
>> definition.
>
> If you can still pay sufficient attention to your surroundings it
> clearly is not careless by definition, no matter how smug it makes you
> feel to assert it.
>
> --
> Dave...
>

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

jtaylor wrote:
> "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
>
> on
>
>>a bike
>>
>
>
> Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
> definition.
>
>
Let us not forget there are deaf drivers and cyclists who use he roads
every day, are they careless by definition?
There are many factors which make up ones driving or riding skills,
being able to hear is, for most, one of them. It is not as important as
any of the other abilities. Provided one is paying sufficient attention
to the surroundings and is actively engaged in receiving and supplying
information to other road users listening to an I-Pop type device should
have no effect.
Perhaps pedestrians listening to i-pods is also careless by definition?
After all they are far more likely to cross the road without looking and
listening sufficiently, especially in urban settings.

Sniper8052

 

[Tony Raven]

Chris wrote:
> That's why some states have laws against the use of headphones while riding,
> because not everyone can exercise good judgement, especially those with big
> egos who think they can but can't. So, join the rest of society and live by
> the laws we all must.
>

When did Lancashire become a US state?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Al C-F]

jtaylor wrote:
> "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
>
> on
>
>>a bike
>>
>
>
> Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
> definition.
>
>

What a stupid thing to write.

 

[[email protected]]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
> >
> > on
> >
> >>a bike
> >>
> >
> >
> > Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
> > definition.
> >
> >
> Let us not forget there are deaf drivers and cyclists who use he roads
> every day, are they careless by definition?
> There are many factors which make up ones driving or riding skills,
> being able to hear is, for most, one of them. It is not as important as
> any of the other abilities. Provided one is paying sufficient attention
> to the surroundings and is actively engaged in receiving and supplying
> information to other road users listening to an I-Pop type device should
> have no effect.
> Perhaps pedestrians listening to i-pods is also careless by definition?
> After all they are far more likely to cross the road without looking and
> listening sufficiently, especially in urban settings.

In Virginia a bicyclist on a bike path ("mixed-use path") is considered
a pedestrian and can use earphones; on the road we're considered
motorists and their use is prohibited.

 

[Squashme]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
> >
> > on
> >
> >>a bike
> >>
> >
> >
> > Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
> > definition.
> >
> >
> Let us not forget there are deaf drivers and cyclists who use he roads
> every day, are they careless by definition?
> There are many factors which make up ones driving or riding skills,
> being able to hear is, for most, one of them. It is not as important as
> any of the other abilities. Provided one is paying sufficient attention
> to the surroundings and is actively engaged in receiving and supplying
> information to other road users listening to an I-Pop type device should
> have no effect.
> Perhaps pedestrians listening to i-pods is also careless by definition?
> After all they are far more likely to cross the road without looking and
> listening sufficiently, especially in urban settings.

Pedestrians with mobile phones in use are a regular hazard for me.

As regards deaf drivers and cyclists, I would assume that over their
lives they have developed their skills, which irregular I-Pod and
mobile phone users have not had a chance to do. The deaf may actually
be less distracted and therefore safer in some ways.

Just turned up this essay:-

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art7765.asp

"In conclusion, Deaf drivers have the same driving skills as hearing
individuals, with a greater degree of visual reliance. However, they
also have equally distracting habits, while driving, which can lead to
increased accidents. What this means, is that both hearing and Deaf
drivers must remain focused on the road and limit their distractions,
in order to achieve safety on the road for all. Neither is the better
driver."

 

[Danny Colyer]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Strange: it was a head on collision on a wide road. So obviously one of the
> two was grossly at fault, regardless of iPod status.

Both the BBC and the victim's local paper say that the cyclist was on
the wrong side of the road:
<url>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/5082196.stm>
"Bradley Thomas Dargavel, from Barton, was riding south on the A6 at
Broughton when he crossed the road into the path of the vehicle."

<url:http://tinyurl.com/sx3ld> leads to:
<url:http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1566900>
"Bradley Thomas Dargavel, 14, from Barton, near Preston, was riding
south on the A6 at Broughton when he crossed the road into the path of
the vehicle."

The Lancashire Evening Post mentions a junction and tractor pointing out
onto the main road. The scenario that springs to my mind is that the
boy was been turning right into a side road that the tractor was coming
out of, and the tractor driver didn't wait for him to finish his turn.
But of course that's just baseless speculation with no evidence, we just
don't know what happened.

The only thing we *do* know is that some idiot has cross-posted this
thread to rbt, for no good reason that I can see.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] wrote:

> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>> > "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> >>wearing an i-pod and allowing it to distract you is an unwise thing to do
>> >
>> > on
>> >
>> >>a bike
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
>> > definition.
>> >
>> >
>> Let us not forget there are deaf drivers and cyclists who use he roads
>> every day, are they careless by definition?
>> There are many factors which make up ones driving or riding skills,
>> being able to hear is, for most, one of them. It is not as important as
>> any of the other abilities. Provided one is paying sufficient attention
>> to the surroundings and is actively engaged in receiving and supplying
>> information to other road users listening to an I-Pop type device should
>> have no effect.
>> Perhaps pedestrians listening to i-pods is also careless by definition?
>> After all they are far more likely to cross the road without looking and
>> listening sufficiently, especially in urban settings.

> In Virginia a bicyclist on a bike path ("mixed-use path") is considered
> a pedestrian and can use earphones; on the road we're considered
> motorists and their use is prohibited.

Is the use of car radios and the carrying of ungagged passengers
in cars prohibited?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Tony Raven]

Danny Colyer wrote on 18/06/2006 12:16 +0100:
>
> The only thing we *do* know is that some idiot has cross-posted this
> thread to rbt, for no good reason that I can see.
>

That would be jtaylor.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

> > In Virginia a bicyclist on a bike path ("mixed-use path") is
> > considered a pedestrian and can use earphones; on the road we're
> > considered motorists and their use is prohibited.
>
> Is the use of car radios and the carrying of ungagged passengers in
> cars prohibited?

This is a laugh given that the UK's distracted driver laws are far more
comprehensive than any in the US. In the Us, while driving is a legally
privilege if it commonly thought of as a right, and lawmakers tread very
tentatively on anything that is perceived as a restriction of that
right. Hence we have SUV pilots talking on the cell phone, drinking
coffee, eating and burger and fries all at the same time. I see drivers
with newspapers or books propped on the steering wheel, too.