iPod blamed for Aussie death

Well I suppose it's a bit more attention grabbing than the possibly more
accurate "Cyclist killed by driver of truck". However, there's not that
much information in the article to go on, so you can't really say either
way.

Graeme

Graeme Dods said:

Well I suppose it's a bit more attention grabbing than the possibly more
accurate "Cyclist killed by driver of truck". However, there's not that
much information in the article to go on, so you can't really say either
way.

Graeme

Yes you can say. Headphones obstruct the hearing of the wearer. They don't make a cyclist invisible.

(Honestly officer, I couldn't see her 'cos she was listening to an ipod) 🙁

Ritch

Peter McCallum said:

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

Damn that Apple iPod.. if only she had some cheaper mp3 player she would be alive!!!.. sue Sony, they started it all.... http://tinyurl.com/d3fz6

"Peter McCallum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/b7mxf

iPod blamed for Aussie death
February 14, 2006 - 6:36AM

An Australian woman was knocked off her bike and killed, possibly
because she couldn't hear traffic noise because of her iPod music
device, friends say.

Patricia McMillan was knocked from her bike in a London street and
thrown under the wheels of a lorry near her home in Acton, west London,
on February 2, reported Britain's Evening Standard newspaper.

hmmm - yeah, uh huh, that must be it, iPod related death. O-K.

"POSSIBLY" (my shouting) "friends say". Because they were there? Because she
was a boppin' and a jivin' from lane to lane?

Or is it really, "Oh woe, bikes are dangerous, iPods must make them more so,
it could never have been the driver's fault. And I feel guilty because I
gave her the bike."

While it's a terribly tragic incident, from the info supplied, it's not
possible to say the iPod (or the lorry driver) was to blame.

IF she had the thing turned way up and was no longer aware of her
surroundings, causing her to to something foolish, maybe. If she had the
thing turned way up, but was JRA safely in her lane when someone quietly
plowed into her, the iPod couldn't honestly be said to be at fault.

Tony F
who doesn't own any mp3 player, yet

ritcho said:

Yes you can say. Headphones obstruct the hearing of the wearer. They
don't make a cyclist invisible.

That's my thinking, but there's always the (small) chance that she moved
out in front of the lorry having not heard it, but like I said, you can't
tell from the article. Trying to gain a true view of events from the
majority of newspaper reports of accidents (or anything) is next to
impossible. After all, they're there to entertain as well as inform, a
newspaper whose articles reads like an inquest report won't stay in
business for long.

On the few occasions I've worn headphones whilst cycling (before the days
of mp3 players) I found that I was very aware of what was going on around
me. The flip-side of risk compensation for helmet wearing? 😉

Graeme

gplama said:

Damn that Apple iPod.. if only she had some cheaper mp3 player she would be alive!!!.. sue Sony, they started it all.... tinyurl.comd3fz6Open ↗

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.

if it wasnt for my evasive action she would have had 'MET' stamped across her forehead.

Graeme Dods said:

ritcho said:

Yes you can say. Headphones obstruct the hearing of the wearer. They
don't make a cyclist invisible.

That's my thinking, but there's always the (small) chance that she moved
out in front of the lorry having not heard it, but like I said, you can't
tell from the article. Trying to gain a true view of events from the
majority of newspaper reports of accidents (or anything) is next to
impossible.

Amen.

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.)

Quoted message said:

On the few occasions I've worn headphones whilst cycling (before the days
of mp3 players) I found that I was very aware of what was going on around
me. The flip-side of risk compensation for helmet wearing? 😉

Heh. I'd never wear headphones on the bike. Putting aside the question
of whether or not it's an *actual* risk, the *perceived* risk (as seen
by others) means that I'd get more grief from those around me. It isn't
worth it.

--
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".

Maybe it was the kind of music she was listerning to. After all, we know what alleged effects that heavy death metal has on the impressionable.

Just goes to show you that somebody saying: " you know what I reckon..." can make news on the other side of the globe.

PS: I use headphones on my commutes (mostly off-the-road bike paths) , but never on the roadie (w/end road rides)or MTBing (dirty stuff).

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.

A friend of ours is an editor for 9 News in Perth. He must be well versed
in using creative license, he edited our wedding video and made me look
vaguely human in a short, entertaining film rather than an over-long
episode of Beauty and The Beast. 🙂

Graeme

Graeme Dods said:

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.

Ooooooooh yeah. Babylon 5. "The Illusion of Truth". *Very* powerful
episode, and damn hard to watch the second (and subsequent) time(s).

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
- Cardinal Richelieu

--
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".

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. 🙁

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:11:40 +0800

Graeme Dods said:

That's my thinking, but there's always the (small) chance that she moved
out in front of the lorry having not heard it, but like I said, you can't

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

It's not a thing I would recommend to a cyclist wishing to stay
unsquashed.

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

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:11:45 +1100

pase said:

gplama said:

Damn that Apple iPod.. if only she had some cheaper mp3 player she would
be alive!!!.. sue Sony, they started it all.... http://tinyurl.com/d3fz6

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.

What evidence is there that had she been paying attention instead of
zoning out that she'd have paid it to you?

Ain't the headphones, it's the reaction of the user that's the
problem. Nothing stopping her from looking *and* listening to the
music. Except her own bad habits.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

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

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.

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:50:12 +0800

Graeme Dods said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

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

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.

someone who went everywhere on the bike. IN a fairly high traffic
city.

I'd tend to assume they didn't rely on their hearing, especially when
they knew the hearing was impaired.

Rather than assume they had no clue.

We know nothing, but from the only fact we have - that this wasn't
someone who was not used to bikes or traffic - the assumption is "bad
lorry" not "oblivious and/or suicidal cyclist"

Zebee

Zebee

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

It's a good idea to listen to songs you know well enough to fill in the
bits that get replaced by "brrrrreeeeoowwww", unless you like reaching for
the back button a lot.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"Never make any mistaeks." (Anonymous, in a mail discussion.)

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

It's a good idea to listen to songs you know well enough to fill in the
bits that get replaced by "brrrrreeeeoowwww", unless you like reaching for
the back button a lot.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"Never make any mistaeks." (Anonymous, in a mail discussion.)

Random Data 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

Random Data 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