Quote:
Originally Posted by alienator .
Thank you for telling me what you think I'm thinking. Here's a hint: I wasn't thinking what your shortsightedness led you to believe that I was thinking. Since I understand you're having great difficulty I'll try to explain further using simple words:
Guy on bike. Guy wear headphones. Car come behind guy on bike. Car guy not see bike guy. This case is bike guy if hear car could save self. Bike guy idiot with headphones not hear car and not save self.
Are you actually going to argue that there are zero cases wherein hearing might be the only thing that saves a cyclist? Really? If you're going to say "no", then you must have some god-like powers.
Originally Posted by alienator .
Thank you for telling me what you think I'm thinking. Here's a hint: I wasn't thinking what your shortsightedness led you to believe that I was thinking. Since I understand you're having great difficulty I'll try to explain further using simple words:
Guy on bike. Guy wear headphones. Car come behind guy on bike. Car guy not see bike guy. This case is bike guy if hear car could save self. Bike guy idiot with headphones not hear car and not save self.
Are you actually going to argue that there are zero cases wherein hearing might be the only thing that saves a cyclist? Really? If you're going to say "no", then you must have some god-like powers.
- Re-read my response - at no point did I tell you what you were thinking ... and I seriously doubt you "understand" much about me
- If I'm being shortsighted, perhaps it's another nail in my coffin in terms of my inability to "perceive my surroundings" ... you should be happy about that
- I wasn't arguing anything ... merely pointing out the weakness in an argument that tries to establish cause and effect with an incomplete set of variables. I suppose next you'll tell me that your hearing allows you to differentiate between a car traveling behind you at 50 mph that is either 2 feet inside our outside the shoulder stripe ... wow, I'm impressed!