Re: Another 'blame the victim' iPod story.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:27:45 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the middle of
>> cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to the hazards because
>> they were plugged into and absorbed by their i-pod.

>What hazard?

Precisely. As with so many things, I found after a long period of
assuming that iPod wearing on a bike was dangerous that, well,
actually it isn't. Riding in traffic, the cagers are stationary.
Riding on open roads you can hear them over the music. Riding on
tracks the overtakers are the ones who need to take care (only last
month somone caught up with me as I was riding along singing Mozart;
it's happened all of twice this year now, once in London where a fit
geezer on a fixer dropped me after a mile or so head-to-head). I am
not as fast as I used to be!

In some circumstances, where tings are complex, I pull the headphones
off and I find the Sennheiser noise-cancelling, reduce wind noise and
make it easier to hear other traffic. Mostly if there is a junction
or whatever I do what just about every car driver does and mentally
tune the music out.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:51 -0700, "Chris M" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I hate these people that do this! I live in California and we have all
>these morons using radios and tape players while exercising so they
>can't hear the SUV running them down with the stereo blasting. The law
>of the seas dictates that the larger craft has the right of way. These
>rights include creating an environment (in or near the vehicle) that
>completely drowns out any sound that may originate from anywhere other
>than the vehicle's speakers.
>
>Given enough time, the survival of the most fit (or should I say
>largest?) determines that in just a few generations we should have
>nothing but SUV driving assholes throughout the state. It also helps
>that riding a bike makes men sterile.

POTM.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:27:45 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the middle of
> >> cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to the hazards because
> >> they were plugged into and absorbed by their i-pod.
>
> >What hazard?
>
> Precisely. As with so many things, I found after a long period of
> assuming that iPod wearing on a bike was dangerous that, well,
> actually it isn't.

I've regularly come up to riders (and pedestrians) who when using iPods or
similar, have not heard my approach, or indeed my greeting. To deliberately
choose to reduce your hearing levels where it affects your awareness is, IMO,
potentially dangerous.

It seems you also disagree with Mr Franklin on this.
I'm surprised.

John B

 

[p.k.]

John B wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:27:45 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the
>>>> middle of cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to
>>>> the hazards because they were plugged into and absorbed by their
>>>> i-pod.
>>
>>> What hazard?
>>
>> Precisely. As with so many things, I found after a long period of
>> assuming that iPod wearing on a bike was dangerous that, well,
>> actually it isn't.
>
> I've regularly come up to riders (and pedestrians) who when using
> iPods or similar, have not heard my approach, or indeed my greeting.
> To deliberately choose to reduce your hearing levels where it affects
> your awareness is, IMO, potentially dangerous.


As so often, there is a defensive stance on urc "people like us can cycle
this way safely, so butt out!"

Well, most people who cycle are not either as competent or considerate or as
safety conscious as most who reside here: I've come across a good number of
I-pod cyclists and pedestrians who were patently oblivious to their
surroundings or the presence of hazards in a way that most
cyclists/pedestrians I come across are not. Anecdotal that may be, but it is
enough to suggest to me that as a general rule, wearing an ipod or anything
else that isolates you from your normal sensory inputs is a pretty daft
thing to do when mixing with other traffic.

I loaded my car to go to the tip the other day, when I got in I realised I
could not see my passenger door mirror or out of the rear window. I could of
course hear as well as normal. Would it have been wise of me to drive the
car as loaded?

pk

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:24:30 +0100, "p.k." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John B wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:27:45 +0100, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the
>>>>> middle of cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to
>>>>> the hazards because they were plugged into and absorbed by their
>>>>> i-pod.
>>>
>>>> What hazard?
>>>
>>> Precisely. As with so many things, I found after a long period of
>>> assuming that iPod wearing on a bike was dangerous that, well,
>>> actually it isn't.
>>
>> I've regularly come up to riders (and pedestrians) who when using
>> iPods or similar, have not heard my approach, or indeed my greeting.
>> To deliberately choose to reduce your hearing levels where it affects
>> your awareness is, IMO, potentially dangerous.
>
>
>As so often, there is a defensive stance on urc "people like us can cycle
>this way safely, so butt out!"
>
>Well, most people who cycle are not either as competent or considerate or as
>safety conscious as most who reside here: I've come across a good number of
>I-pod cyclists and pedestrians who were patently oblivious to their
>surroundings or the presence of hazards in a way that most
>cyclists/pedestrians I come across are not. Anecdotal that may be, but it is
>enough to suggest to me that as a general rule, wearing an ipod or anything
>else that isolates you from your normal sensory inputs is a pretty daft
>thing to do when mixing with other traffic.
>
>I loaded my car to go to the tip the other day, when I got in I realised I
>could not see my passenger door mirror or out of the rear window. I could of
>course hear as well as normal. Would it have been wise of me to drive the
>car as loaded?
>
>pk

Dear P.K.,

The iPod riders are entertaining, swerving aimlessly to the music and
blissfully unaware that anyone else might be using the path.

Then there are the bicyclists busy answering their cell phones as they
round the corner toward me or as I overtake them.

Most cell-phone riders use their left hand to hold their phones
(right-handed people tend to be left-eared, so to speak), so they're
in trouble if they need to use their front brake.

I've only seen one rider drop his cell phone while grabbing for his
handlebars, but it was worth it--his phone bounced off the asphalt and
into the Arkansas River.

Cell phone riders are almost as entertaining as the bicyclists who
ride with large leashed dogs running slowly beside them on narrow bike
paths--you know, the dogs that dodge sideways and knock their owners
down or drag them over sideways when you call out "On the left!" from
well behind them.

Luckily, I've never seen the dogs get hurt.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> p.k. wrote:
> >>> Aeek wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:39:58 +0100, "p.k."
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the
> >>>>> middle of cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to
> >>>>> the hazards because they were plugged into and absorbed by their
> >>>>> i-pod.
> >>>>
> >>>> Likewise, except they had nothing in their ears, ie. no i-pod.
> >>>> The primary cause of being oblivious is being oblivious.
> >>>> i-pods have nothing to do with it.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, but i guess the i-pod had something to do with them not hearing
> >>> me ding my bell and then request passage.
> >>
> >> Not to worry, it shouldn't have been too hard for you to slow down
> >> and go around them.
> >>
> >> Strangely enough, I never find a need for a bell on shared use paths.
> >
> > I always use the bell, as I consider it polite to tell
> > people that I am approaching them on a bicycle at a speed
> > considerably in excess of theirs.
>
> I consider it rude to approach them at a speed considerably in excess of
> theirs.

It is good that you recognize that you cannot handle speed.

--
Michael Press

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> > I always use the bell, as I consider it polite to tell
>> > people that I am approaching them on a bicycle at a speed
>> > considerably in excess of theirs.
>>
>> I consider it rude to approach them at a speed considerably in excess
>> of theirs.
>
> It is good that you recognize that you cannot handle speed.

There are many ways of driving like a loon. Two are:

Going too fast for the road, and spinning off on a corner etc.

Going too fast to successfully avoid a collision after someone does
something that you weren't expecting.

 

[davek]

p.k. wrote:
> Well, most people who cycle are not either as competent or considerate or as
> safety conscious as most who reside here:

That applies whether they are wearing earphones or not. The relative
reduction in safety for an incompetent cyclist wearing earphones is so
minimal as to be irrelevant.

> Would it have been wise of me to drive the
> car as loaded?

No problem - I have faith in your ability to compensate for the
temporary deprivation of the ability to see behind you. ;-)

d.

 

[davek]

p.k. wrote:
> First you draw a flawed comparison now you argue against a straw man!

Do you or do you not believe that cycling with earphones on is unsafe
due to uncertainties and unknown factors? That's the only view I've
attributed to you.

> Whether or not your basic argument is valid, the drawing of a comarison
> between a situation with no extraneous factors in which learned movement
> sequences are sufficient and another where the extraneous facors are
> themselves the issue is patently invalid.

You're deliberately missing the point.

> I've cycled up behind people - pedestrians and cyclists - in the middle of
> cycle tracks or shared use tracks who were obliviuos to the hazards because
> they were plugged into and absorbed by their i-pod.

Did you crash into them? Was their safety even slightly in jeopardy?

> Would you walk around town & cross roads with your eyes closed? A blind
> person can do it after much practice. Can you?

I wouldn't do it as a rule because I have no need to. But if a blind
person can do it after much practice, I'm confident I could do it
equally well - after much practice, of course.

d.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply
*.com> wrote:

> >> > I always use the bell, as I consider it polite to tell
> >> > people that I am approaching them on a bicycle at a speed
> >> > considerably in excess of theirs.
> >>
> >> I consider it rude to approach them at a speed considerably in excess
> >> of theirs.
> >
> > It is good that you recognize that you cannot handle speed.
>
> There are many ways of driving like a loon. Two are:
>
> Going too fast for the road, and spinning off on a corner etc.
>
> Going too fast to successfully avoid a collision after someone does
> something that you weren't expecting.

Congratulations for recognizing this.

--
Michael Press

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Going too fast to successfully avoid a collision after someone does
>> something that you weren't expecting.
>
> Congratulations for recognizing this.

You came across as feeloing it was someone elses fault for being hit after
doing something like wandering across a footpath. Good to hear that you
drive/ride safely around peds - it seemed the opposite from your posts.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply
*.com> wrote:

> >> Going too fast to successfully avoid a collision after someone does
> >> something that you weren't expecting.
> >
> > Congratulations for recognizing this.
>
> You came across as feeloing it was someone elses fault for being hit after
> doing something like wandering across a footpath. Good to hear that you
> drive/ride safely around peds - it seemed the opposite from your posts.

I am sorry you missed the joke.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply
*.com> wrote:

> >> Going too fast to successfully avoid a collision after someone does
> >> something that you weren't expecting.
> >
> > Congratulations for recognizing this.
>
> You came across as feeloing it was someone elses fault for being hit after
> doing something like wandering across a footpath. Good to hear that you
> drive/ride safely around peds - it seemed the opposite from your posts.

I am sorry you missed the joke.

--
Michael Press

 

[jtaylor]

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

> >
> > As I explained the deaf know they are deaf; therefore they
> > have worked at compensatory mechanisms 7 days a week, year
> > after year. Some yahoo straps an audio field distorter
> > over himself and trundles on obliviously.
>
> Ear bud users know they have ear buds in their ear(s); therefore they have
> developed "compensatory mechanisms". (IOW, they're used to it.)
>

Cite please?

 

[Aeek]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:59:59 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Ear bud users know they have ear buds in their ear(s); therefore they have
>> developed "compensatory mechanisms". (IOW, they're used to it.)
>>
>
>Cite please?

my personal exerience. Aeek 2006-06-25:12:09

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:07:28 +0100, John B <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>I've regularly come up to riders (and pedestrians) who when using iPods or
>similar, have not heard my approach, or indeed my greeting. To deliberately
>choose to reduce your hearing levels where it affects your awareness is, IMO,
>potentially dangerous.

Since I suffer from tinnitus and hyperacusis I am not entirely sure I
*am* reducing my awareness. Of course, I would not be aware of how
unaware I was, but I have noticed no increase in close shaves. As
with most things, I'd say it depends on where (and how) you ride.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:07:28 +0100, John B <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
> >I've regularly come up to riders (and pedestrians) who when using iPods or
> >similar, have not heard my approach, or indeed my greeting. To deliberately
> >choose to reduce your hearing levels where it affects your awareness is, IMO,
> >potentially dangerous.
>
> Since I suffer from tinnitus and hyperacusis I am not entirely sure I
> *am* reducing my awareness. Of course, I would not be aware of how
> unaware I was, but I have noticed no increase in close shaves. As
> with most things, I'd say it depends on where (and how) you ride.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Dear Guy,

It does indeed depend on where (and how) you ride or drive:

http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_180174619.html

(I defy the UK crowd to top that story, no matter how many iPod-wearing
soccer yobbos they dig up.)

Jingoistically yours,

Carl Fogel

 

[Diablo Scott]

[email protected] wrote:

> http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_180174619.html
>

I bet they don't let that one go to trial!

 

[Jim Price]

[email protected] wrote:
> It does indeed depend on where (and how) you ride or drive:
>
> http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_180174619.html
>
> (I defy the UK crowd to top that story, no matter how many iPod-wearing
> soccer yobbos they dig up.)
>
> Jingoistically yours,

Unfortunately it is unknown how you drive in order to emulate this UK
driver:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4493713.stm
Note this is at the start of a 30 mph zone.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage