radio reception on bike

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
E Willson <[email protected]> writes:
> To most serious cyclists this may seem like blasphemy but I would like
> to listen to a radio on my daily trip. I have tried several portable
> radios, but none can keep a constant volume as the bike changes
> direction. It seems that the antennas are very directional, so that when
> the bike changes direction the signal strength changes drastically. This
> is true on either AM or FM. Any info on how to setup a radio so that the
> signal strength is adequate and uniform would be appreciated.

Anyways, here's a li'l rainy-day, dig-out-the-ol'-soldering-iron
breadboard project for ya, if you're interested:

http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circuits/activeant.html


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Neil Brooks]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> E Willson <[email protected]> writes:
>> To most serious cyclists this may seem like blasphemy but I would like
>> to listen to a radio on my daily trip. I have tried several portable
>> radios, but none can keep a constant volume as the bike changes
>> direction. It seems that the antennas are very directional, so that when
>> the bike changes direction the signal strength changes drastically. This
>> is true on either AM or FM. Any info on how to setup a radio so that the
>> signal strength is adequate and uniform would be appreciated.
>
>Anyways, here's a li'l rainy-day, dig-out-the-ol'-soldering-iron
>breadboard project for ya, if you're interested:
>
>http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circuits/activeant.html

Beautiful, Tom.

EJ: whaddya' think?? You know you want to....
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[AustinMN]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> gds wrote:
> :: Besides blasphemy this is unsafe.
>
> Why? I ride with Mp3 player and I don't feel unsafe at all.

And people who ride the wrong way don't feel unsafe either.

Austin

 

[gds]

Let me try again as I am clearly not making my point clear.

There are myriad ways to make riding less safe.
Among them is paying less attention than needed.
Among the causes of paying less attention than needed are distractions.
Among distractions is music.

Can I quantify it -no.

But let's think of things and set up some sort of scale and you can
make your own choices.
For example, what if you mounted a little TV on your handelbars and
watched it while you pedaled. Would you say that adds some element of
unsafety? Like the argument for just audio you can shut it off at any
time. And like our ears our eyes are used to seeing multiple things.
But I bet mmost folks would think that watching TV while riding was not
a good idea.
So my issue with radio is the same but perhaps a different order of
magnitude. So absent any of the data Frank wants I'd still argue that
audio use increases risk somewhat more than non use but less than
videeo use.
I don't know of any data on this for cycling but there is data on this
for motor vehicles and several states are consideraing bans on video
being viewable from the dirver's seat. We also know that several
jutisdictions have banned hand held cell phone use while driving.
So ther is data on these types of things although not necessarily while
cycling.

And I would never argue that there are not many other causes of unsafe
cycling or that there are many other distraction other than audio
devices.

 

[bryanska]

>What if a driver is playing loud music that can be heard for a mile and I'm
>playing my music software and can hear everything else?

The driver is bad too.

>You're cycling in: turn lanes, the shoulder, the
>:: occasional sidewalk, driveways, alleys, bike paths.


>That's just silly. You can't do all of that at the same time.

Of course not. But a cyclist's potential environment is much more
diverse. Ergo, more threats.

::You're dealing
:: with other cyclists, dogs, kids on skateboards & scooters,
:: squirrels, packs of party people at night, pedestrians, tourists,
:: old people.


>So? You deal with that by looking around.

What about stuff in the shadows you can't see? Or stuff you're not
looking at? My point is, why reduce a potential alerting sense?

:: In short, a cyclist must be MUCH more alert than a car driver.


>Wearing headphones doesn't make one not be alert to what's happenning around
>him...not paying attention does that.

Right, but what's likely to dull you into a false calm? How about
music, introducing a rythym that nobody else shares?


:: So keep your headphones off.


>No.

Your crash, dude. I'll watch this board for your reports of an
incident.

:: Any cyclist that wears headphones, and
:: crashes into me or my family, is going to court for five bucks just
:: so I can make a point.

>And what about the cyclist who isn't paying attention and crashes into you
>or your family?

Harder to prove guilt. But if the cyclist was wearing headphones, I'm
not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Same with driving with loud
music - society will make an assumption.

Overall, it's one of those things a person can do at their own risk.
Even though it's essentially personal responsibility, once a headphone
cyclist DOES cause any damage, I don't believe they'll have an easy
time proving their innocence. It's even more controversial and
difficult to defend in front of a cop than on this board.

So keep 'em on, if you want, but don't whine when you're standing tall
before the man.

 

[bryanska]

>http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/hearing.htm

This guy's legal advice sounds great to cyclists, but will be shaky as
hell under pressure from any personal-injury lawyer. Try convincing
your insurance comapny to use the follow tactics:

"The first question a bicyclist's attorney should raise when faced with
this problem is whether the bicyclist had any duty to act differently
if alerted by sound. Only in this case is it important under the law
whether the bicyclist actually heard the sound. For example, if an
overtaking vehicle strikes a bicyclist riding in the normal position on
the road, the overtaking driver had the duty under the law to avoid
striking the bicyclist. The bicyclist had no duty to swerve out of the
motorist's way, and besides, hearing the car probably would not have
made it possible for the bicyclist to determine whether swerving was
necessary to avoid a collision. Therefore, the wearing of headphones
should not be an issue in such a case. A judge ought to prohibit it
from being discussed in the jury's presence -- but a judge may not do
this. I have seen cases lost over this false issue."

 

[gds]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I suggest being reasonable with volume, and being quick to turn it off
> in any significant traffic.
>
>

OK that response goes to the heart of my problem.

What you are saying sounds reasonable until you brak it down a level.
First, what is "reasonable"? I imagine that would change with the level
of ambient noise. So what is reasoanble at one time might not be at
another. Seems like a lot of monitoring.

Then you suggest, and I think correctly, that it shuld be turned off in
significant traffic. Just by saying that you support the idea that the
music introduces some extra risk in some situations. If not why turn it
off? And forget significant traffic for a moment. Accidents are often
the result of unexpected things happening and people not reacting fast
enough. So how can you turn it off before an unexpected event?

Again, I'm not arguing that thousands of people are dying from this.
But I fail to see how it can be argued that there is NO extra risk
involved.

 

[E Willson]

I love it. I'll have to build one.

BTW for all who have pointed out that a radio would annoy others on a
trail...Where I ride there are no other cyclists or walkers. I stopped
riding in those places because of the people who had earphones turned
up so high they could not hear my warnings as I was passing them.

EJ in NJ

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> E Willson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>To most serious cyclists this may seem like blasphemy but I would like
>>to listen to a radio on my daily trip. I have tried several portable
>>radios, but none can keep a constant volume as the bike changes
>>direction. It seems that the antennas are very directional, so that when
>>the bike changes direction the signal strength changes drastically. This
>>is true on either AM or FM. Any info on how to setup a radio so that the
>>signal strength is adequate and uniform would be appreciated.
>
>
> Anyways, here's a li'l rainy-day, dig-out-the-ol'-soldering-iron
> breadboard project for ya, if you're interested:
>
> http://www.ee.washington.edu/circuit_archive/circuits/activeant.html
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

 

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I suggest being reasonable with volume, and being quick to turn it off
> > in any significant traffic.
> >
> >
>
> OK that response goes to the heart of my problem.
>
> What you are saying sounds reasonable until you brak it down a level.
> First, what is "reasonable"? I imagine that would change with the level
> of ambient noise. So what is reasoanble at one time might not be at
> another. Seems like a lot of monitoring.
>
> Then you suggest, and I think correctly, that it shuld be turned off in
> significant traffic. Just by saying that you support the idea that the
> music introduces some extra risk in some situations. If not why turn it
> off? And forget significant traffic for a moment. Accidents are often
> the result of unexpected things happening and people not reacting fast
> enough. So how can you turn it off before an unexpected event?
>
> Again, I'm not arguing that thousands of people are dying from this.
> But I fail to see how it can be argued that there is NO extra risk
> involved.

I'm not arguing there is NO extra risk involved. That sort of
statement is never meaningful. There is extra risk involved in taking
one hand off the handlebars to wipe sweat out of your eyes. And there
is extra risk involved in NOT doing so.

The logical question would address the level of risk, and whether the
risk is acceptable. In my limited experience riding with headphones,
the risk is undetectable.

The few times I've tried it (mostly on a super-long tour) I found I
could still talk to my riding partners very normally. I could still
hear cars and other noises. In fact, in past discussions of this type,
people have reported lessening wind noise with earphones. It's
conceivable that's a net benefit.

In any case, AFAIK there is NO data indicating increased risk while
riding with headphones. (If there is some data, I'd love to see it.)
And as has been pointed out in the past, there seem to be no
jurisdictions that prohibit even deaf people from cycling.

My suggestion regarding reasonable volume was just that: a suggestion.
And incidentally, it comes more from my (long ago) professional
responsibility for noise control in a factory. Loud headphones can
make you deaf over time. Don't do that.

When I said "significant traffic" I was envisioning the kind where a
person really does have to be fully alert. IME, that does _not_
include ordinary riding.

When I go for a ride or ride to work, there are long stretches where
I'm perfectly comfortable talking with a riding buddy, watching a hawk
soar, looking at scenery, and indulging in all sorts of irresponsible
distractions. In fact, those distractions are why I ride. While I
rarely do it, I can see why some people might enjoy radio while riding.

If it ever got to the point where I had to be gritting my teeth and
paying 100% attention all the time, I'd probably ride elsewhere.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

AustinMN wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> > gds wrote:
> > :: Besides blasphemy this is unsafe.
> >
> > Why? I ride with Mp3 player and I don't feel unsafe at all.
>
> And people who ride the wrong way don't feel unsafe either.
>

But we've got data on that. Where's the "headphones of death" data?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[POHB]

I rely on my ears a lot to tell me what the traffic is doing, especially
when I'm drunk and can't see straight.

 

[rdclark]

gds wrote:

> Among distractions is music.

Among potential distractions for some riders.

For other riders, music may help them focus. Music may prevent them
from going into "deep thought" mode where they're *really* not paying
attention.

My point (and the reason some of us are reacting so negatively to you
in this thread) is that you are trying codify human behavior based on
your own (not even experience) conjectures.

Some of us who have experience in the matter are telling you you're
wrong to do so. While some people may be distracted by music, others
are not.

Further, you've suggested that hearing is important to situational
awareness. I suggest otherwise, and I believe it was Frank who pointed
you to some evidence to back that up. I think that relying on hearing
for situational awareness is a mistake, and that one should develop
methods for maintaining SA that do not involve hearing.

Ever been overtaken by a Prius? Did you hear it coming? That's the
future.

RichC

 

[gds]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> The logical question would address the level of risk, and whether the
> risk is acceptable.


I agree that is the question.
>
..
>
> In any case, AFAIK there is NO data indicating increased risk while
> riding with headphones. (If there is some data, I'd love to see it.)
> And as has been pointed out in the past, there seem to be no
> jurisdictions that prohibit even deaf people from cycling.

I know of no data on headphones and cycling. But I do remmeber data on
headphones and driving. In that case the negative impact was strong
enough so that several jurisdictions ban headphone use for drivers.



..
>
> When I said "significant traffic" I was envisioning the kind where a
> person really does have to be fully alert. IME, that does _not_
> include ordinary riding.

I understand that the probablities of a bad event change with the
specific environment. But I come back to the idea that many accidents
are the result of UNEXPECTED events. By that very defintion it is
something that is likely to happen when you don't think it will. So
judging aan area to be relatively safe for decreased awareness is just
such a time when unexpected events might happen.


..
>
> If it ever got to the point where I had to be gritting my teeth and
> paying 100% attention all the time, I'd probably ride elsewhere.
>
I agree! I am a purely recreational cyclist. I ride only for the joy of
riding. Other than some health benfits there is nothing utilitarian
about my riding. But I do ride a lot and ave ridden for many years. I
have raced(poorly) and toured but most of my riding is simply going out
for a couple of hours and enjoying the ride. Beyond that I have moved
to an area of the country that I love simply so that I can bike, hike,
and climb here every day.

So my reaction is not to take any joy out of riding but is merely an
observation that my perception over the years is that folks who are
listening to music are less aware of what is going on around them. Can
I scientificaly support this? No! But the reality of life is that we
all do lots of things based on perception that we do not have
scientific data to support.
And I must argue against the argument that folks have that say that
they do something and it works for them so it is OK. That is just as
much a perception when extrapolated to the population as is mine.
About 30 years ago I met an Olympic and World champion in track &
field. I was shocked to learn that he smoked a pack of cigarettes a
day. He told me that it didn't effect him and that he could "prove" it
by his gold medals and world record in his event. Of course, I was just
thinking how great he would have been if he didn't smoke. Oh!he is dead
now and died in his 50's.

So those who think my perception is wrong are as entitled to their
opinion as I am to mine. That's fine.

 

[Roger Zoul]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
:> [email protected] wrote:
:>>
:>> The logical question would address the level of risk, and whether
:>> the risk is acceptable.
:>
:>
:> I agree that is the question.

You find the risks associate with racing acceptable (or did), so I think the
question for you is how does the risk of riding with music compare to those
of racing?

:>>
:> .
:>>
:>> In any case, AFAIK there is NO data indicating increased risk while
:>> riding with headphones. (If there is some data, I'd love to see
:>> it.) And as has been pointed out in the past, there seem to be no
:>> jurisdictions that prohibit even deaf people from cycling.
:>
:> I know of no data on headphones and cycling. But I do remmeber data
:> on headphones and driving. In that case the negative impact was
:> strong enough so that several jurisdictions ban headphone use for
:> drivers.

Given how today's cars block out most outside sound, I find that very hard
to believe. Probaby based on ill-conceived notions -- just like leash-free
zones shared by runners and cyclists. And none too surprising.

:>
:>
:>
:> .
:>>
:>> When I said "significant traffic" I was envisioning the kind where a
:>> person really does have to be fully alert. IME, that does _not_
:>> include ordinary riding.
:>
:> I understand that the probablities of a bad event change with the
:> specific environment. But I come back to the idea that many accidents
:> are the result of UNEXPECTED events. By that very defintion it is
:> something that is likely to happen when you don't think it will. So
:> judging aan area to be relatively safe for decreased awareness is
:> just such a time when unexpected events might happen.

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.

:>
:>
:> .
:>>
:>> If it ever got to the point where I had to be gritting my teeth and
:>> paying 100% attention all the time, I'd probably ride elsewhere.
:>>
:> I agree! I am a purely recreational cyclist. I ride only for the joy
:> of riding. Other than some health benfits there is nothing
:> utilitarian about my riding. But I do ride a lot and ave ridden for
:> many years. I have raced(poorly) and toured but most of my riding is
:> simply going out for a couple of hours and enjoying the ride. Beyond
:> that I have moved to an area of the country that I love simply so
:> that I can bike, hike, and climb here every day.
:>
:> So my reaction is not to take any joy out of riding but is merely an
:> observation that my perception over the years is that folks who are
:> listening to music are less aware of what is going on around them.
:> Can I scientificaly support this? No! But the reality of life is
:> that we all do lots of things based on perception that we do not have
:> scientific data to support.

So the obvious answer for you is simply not to ride with music. Period.

:> And I must argue against the argument that folks have that say that
:> they do something and it works for them so it is OK. That is just as
:> much a perception when extrapolated to the population as is mine.
:> About 30 years ago I met an Olympic and World champion in track &
:> field. I was shocked to learn that he smoked a pack of cigarettes a
:> day. He told me that it didn't effect him and that he could "prove"
:> it by his gold medals and world record in his event. Of course, I
:> was just thinking how great he would have been if he didn't smoke.
:> Oh!he is dead now and died in his 50's.

You're comparing smoking....smoking....to riding a bike while listening to
soft music. Weak, Gary, weak.

:>
:> So those who think my perception is wrong are as entitled to their
:> opinion as I am to mine. That's fine.

Absolutely. And your arguments don't sway.

 

[gds]

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.

 

[rdclark]

gds wrote:

> So my reaction is not to take any joy out of riding but is merely an
> observation that my perception over the years is that folks who are
> listening to music are less aware of what is going on around them. Can
> I scientificaly support this? No! But the reality of life is that we
> all do lots of things based on perception that we do not have
> scientific data to support.

I'd suggest that when you're observing, you try to disgage your
tendency to draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.

How do you know these people were listening to music?

Many people I know who use headphones are listening to talk, like NPR.

And if you saw me with headphones, there's about a 75% likelihood that
my player is turned off.

> And I must argue against the argument that folks have that say that
> they do something and it works for them so it is OK. That is just as
> much a perception when extrapolated to the population as is mine.
> About 30 years ago I met an Olympic and World champion in track &
> field. I was shocked to learn that he smoked a pack of cigarettes a
> day. He told me that it didn't effect him and that he could "prove" it
> by his gold medals and world record in his event. Of course, I was just
> thinking how great he would have been if he didn't smoke. Oh!he is dead
> now and died in his 50's.

I understand that ****** wore headphones, too. (He's the ultimate staw
man, I thought he could keep your runner company.)

The part of this you're missing is the role of the individual's
personality and training, which is a factor when discussing distraction
and not a factor when discussing the effects of smoking.

You're quick to judge others based on your own perceptions, though, so
I suppose personality is a factor for you, too.

When Baka talks about wrong-way cycling and says "it works for me," we
all know that there's science to prove that he's taking increased
risks, even if he doesn't believe it.

When I say "music helps me focus and stay alert and prevents me from
falling into a trance, and encourages me to maintain visual situational
awareness at all times; it works for me" there's no science to gainsay
that. If you don't want to consider that possibility, then you should
recognize that as being narrowminded.

> So those who think my perception is wrong are as entitled to their
> opinion as I am to mine. That's fine.

It's not your perception that's wrong. It's your opinion. <g>

Seriously, you're seeing headphones and thinking music. Thinking music
and assuming distraction. Unwilling to entertain the idea that music
isn't always a distraction. Perhaps you're extapolating from your own
experience with headphones in non-cycling contexts. Others' experience
is different. Believe it or not.

RichC

 

[gds]

rdclark wrote:
>>
> I'd suggest that when you're observing, you try to disgage your
> tendency to draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.


Ok this is probably getting to the absurd point but another try.
Insufficient evidence. What does that mean. I ride as much as almost
anyone who posts here. So my evidence (expereince) is at leaast the
same as everyone else's.

>
> How do you know these people were listening to music?
>
> Many people I know who use headphones are listening to talk, like NPR.

True, I would imagine that listening to an interesting conversation on
NPR is even more distracting.

>
> And if you saw me with headphones, there's about a 75% likelihood that
> my player is turned off.

If you are only wearing erphones for decoration none of what I have
said about listening applies.


>
> I understand that ****** wore headphones, too. (He's the ultimate staw
> man, I thought he could keep your runner company.)

That is silly. The point is that one cannot extrapolate from very small
data sets. That is not a straw man argument.

>
> The part of this you're missing is the role of the individual's
> personality and training, which is a factor when discussing distraction
> and not a factor when discussing the effects of smoking.

Sorry, my point was a bit different. It was simply that folks are not
always using the best logic when doing things they like to do. In the
case of safety saying "I do it that way so it is OK!" can not be
extrapolated to good practice for everyone.
So, I agree that the effect of smoking is physiological but the act of
smoking is conscious behavor. So the decision process to do something
is the same.

>
> You're quick to judge others based on your own perceptions, though, so
> I suppose personality is a factor for you, too.
Actually I don't recall judging anyone. I certainly have not insulted
anyone or called anyone any silly names. I am simply stating and
restating my opinion that listening to music (or NPR) while riding
increases risk.

>
> When Baka talks about wrong-way cycling and says "it works for me," we
> all know that there's science to prove that he's taking increased
> risks, even if he doesn't believe it.
>
> When I say "music helps me focus and stay alert and prevents me from
> falling into a trance, and encourages me to maintain visual situational
> awareness at all times; it works for me" there's no science to gainsay
> that. If you don't want to consider that possibility, then you should
> recognize that as being narrowminded.
>
> > So those who think my perception is wrong are as entitled to their
> > opinion as I am to mine. That's fine.
>
> It's not your perception that's wrong. It's your opinion. <g>

That is nit picking on my grammar. I will freely admit to poor grammar
and spelling in the context of this ng.

>
> Seriously, you're seeing headphones and thinking music. Thinking music
> and assuming distraction. Unwilling to entertain the idea that music
> isn't always a distraction. Perhaps you're extapolating from your own
> experience with headphones in non-cycling contexts. Others' experience
> is different. Believe it or not.

Actually I do beleive it. And if you want to ride with headphones I am
not for preventing or limiting it.
Frank makes the very good point that we all need to evaluate risk and
decide for ourselves if we want to accept it. That is always going to
have a large amount of subjectivity. One of my pastimes is rock
climbing. It always had a high objective risk (lots of data here). But
for a number of years I received enough benefit from the activity so
that I accepted the high risk. About a year ago that calculation
changed for me. The risk didn't change at all but my subjective sense
of the benefit changed and as a result I no longer participate in a
risky type of climbing-trad leading.

So, I think the issue with music and riding is the same. I believe
there is some additional risk. It seems that you feel that if there is
any that you get sufficient benefit so that your calculation is that it
is OK.
And that is OK with me.

 

[rdclark]

gds wrote:

> True, I would imagine that listening to an interesting conversation on
> NPR is even more distracting.

"Imagine." You talk about experience, but you base your opinion on what
you imagine.

> > And if you saw me with headphones, there's about a 75% likelihood that
> > my player is turned off.
>
> If you are only wearing erphones for decoration none of what I have
> said about listening applies.

My point is that by your own statement you see headphones and assume
the wearer is litening to music. That's not necessarily true, but you
base your opinion on the assumption that it is.

> > I understand that ****** wore headphones, too. (He's the ultimate staw
> > man, I thought he could keep your runner company.)
>
> That is silly. The point is that one cannot extrapolate from very small
> data sets. That is not a straw man argument.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. Your data set consists of one
imaginary cyclist: you, if you were listening to music on headphones.
You have no other data except what you imagine.

> Sorry, my point was a bit different. It was simply that folks are not
> always using the best logic when doing things they like to do. In the
> case of safety saying "I do it that way so it is OK!" can not be
> extrapolated to good practice for everyone.

Yet you're willing to to extrapolate your imaginary cyclist into "it's
bad practice for everyone."

> So, I agree that the effect of smoking is physiological but the act of
> smoking is conscious behavor. So the decision process to do something
> is the same.

> Actually I don't recall judging anyone.

Saying that people wearing headphones are taking extra risks is not a
judgement?

>I certainly have not insulted
> anyone or called anyone any silly names. I am simply stating and
> restating my opinion that listening to music (or NPR) while riding
> increases risk.

And I'm saying that it may for some, it may not for some, and it may
actually reduce risk for some. Yet nowhere have you actually responded
to any of these arguments.

> > It's not your perception that's wrong. It's your opinion. <g>
>
> That is nit picking on my grammar. I will freely admit to poor grammar
> and spelling in the context of this ng.

I didn't say anything about your grammar. <g>=<grin>. It's how we used
to smile in text conversations before these new-fangled smileys came
along.

RichC

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"rdclark" <[email protected]> writes:

> How do you know these people were listening to music?
>
> Many people I know who use headphones are listening to talk, like NPR.

Sometimes I take my little portable radio along with
me, to listen for weather and traffic updates on the
all-news AM radio station. I don't listen to it on the
fly, as I have neither earphone nor headphones for it.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Roger Zoul]

gds <[email protected]> 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?