Re: Another 'blame the victim' iPod story.

[wvantwiller]

Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

....

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

Due to the unfortunate presence of a student driver in the house, I've had
the chance to read the bike riders equivalent of the booklet for getting a
normal Learner's Permit, and it's interesting the actual laws here.

On a bicycle, you can ride two abreast, you can take up the whole lane when
it's unsafe for someone in a car to pass you, and, SURPRISE, it's illegal
to even SELL pedals without reflectors on them.

No mention of riding with even sports ear buds, though.

And, I was sitting at the computer the other night being serenaded by some
fool with a military-grade low frequency sonar installation masquarading as
a car stereo thinking about all this. It seems a little ridiculous to
allow cars to insulate you from driving, but not allow ear buds in them.
Guess there's more money behind the car accessory/car stereo bund to outlaw
earbuds and boost their sales, just like there
s more money behind the cell phone bund than there is common-sense to
outlaw them.

But, then, even kids can ride bikes, so the law should be like the local
helmet rule: Under 16 you can't use ear buds, but above it's up to you and
your insurance company.

 

[Tony Raven]

wvantwiller wrote on 18/06/2006 20:09 +0100:
>
> But, then, even kids can ride bikes, so the law should be like the local
> helmet rule: Under 16 you can't use ear buds, but above it's up to you and
> your insurance company.

You keep your laws and we'll keep ours thank you.

--
Tony

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

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email protected]> 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?

Deaf people know they are deaf. Most people using
headphones in traffic do not know how dependent they are
on low volume audio cues.

> 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.

Audio cues are too important to ignore.

> Provided one is paying sufficient attention

Big hypothesis, and seldom satisfied.

> 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.

Skaters with headphones on bicycle paths weaving all over,
deaf to bicycle bells and shouts. But they blame _me_ for
running down the morons.

--
Michael Press

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:35:54 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>Audio cues are too important to ignore.

So how do the deaf manage?

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Rick 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?
>
>
> But the hearing impaired are used to the nuances of living without, or
> with fewer, aural inputs. Those who are not hearing impaired usually
> are less used to compensating with other senses. I lost a good deal
> of my hearing in SE Asia in the early 70's, and it took me quite a
> while after returning to train my mind and body to use what hearing I
> had left along with other senses to get along. There is simply NO
> comparison between someone who lives with impaired hearing and someone
> who temporarily blocks their hearing.
>
> - rick
>


Dependent on what? I agree that in general terms a hearing impaired
person will have greater visual skills. I do not agree that the
difference is so marked as to sufficiently impair the normal
observational information of a hearing person using an I-Pod since
auditory information has the least input into the 'driving/observation'
panorama.

Sniper8052

 

[p.k.]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>>
>> 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?


Deaf people learn to use other sensory clues

pk

 

[Tony Raven]

p.k. wrote on 18/06/2006 20:53 +0100:
>
>
> Deaf people learn to use other sensory clues
>

Blind drivers, of whom I see a few, don't seem to use any sensory clues.

--
Tony

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

 

[Mark Thompson]

> But they blame _me_ for running down the morons.

So you see they're moving erratically yet you don't reduce speed or take
some other avoiding action? Glad you're only on a bike instead of a car.

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Let us not forget there are deaf drivers and cyclists who use he roads
>> every day, are they careless by definition?

> Deaf people learn to use other sensory clues

Dunno 'bout you PK, but I'm not deaf and yet have still learnt to use other
'sensory clues'.

 

[Rick]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> Rick 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?
> >
> >
> > But the hearing impaired are used to the nuances of living without, or
> > with fewer, aural inputs. Those who are not hearing impaired usually
> > are less used to compensating with other senses. I lost a good deal
> > of my hearing in SE Asia in the early 70's, and it took me quite a
> > while after returning to train my mind and body to use what hearing I
> > had left along with other senses to get along. There is simply NO
> > comparison between someone who lives with impaired hearing and someone
> > who temporarily blocks their hearing.
> >
> > - rick
> >
>
>
> Dependent on what? I agree that in general terms a hearing impaired
> person will have greater visual skills. I do not agree that the
> difference is so marked as to sufficiently impair the normal
> observational information of a hearing person using an I-Pod since
> auditory information has the least input into the 'driving/observation'
> panorama.

But you cannot know. Having been on both sides of the fence (excellent
hearing going down to seriously impaired, I can say that there is a lot
of information being gathered via auditory inputs ... far more than you
suspect. Without having learned how to compensate for that loss, the
person who temporarily blocks/lessens their hearing is at a
disadvantage.

- rick

 

[[email protected]]

Rick wrote:
> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> > Rick 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?
> > >
> > >
> > > But the hearing impaired are used to the nuances of living without, or
> > > with fewer, aural inputs. Those who are not hearing impaired usually
> > > are less used to compensating with other senses. I lost a good deal
> > > of my hearing in SE Asia in the early 70's, and it took me quite a
> > > while after returning to train my mind and body to use what hearing I
> > > had left along with other senses to get along. There is simply NO
> > > comparison between someone who lives with impaired hearing and someone
> > > who temporarily blocks their hearing.
> > >
> > > - rick
> > >
> >
> >
> > Dependent on what? I agree that in general terms a hearing impaired
> > person will have greater visual skills. I do not agree that the
> > difference is so marked as to sufficiently impair the normal
> > observational information of a hearing person using an I-Pod since
> > auditory information has the least input into the 'driving/observation'
> > panorama.
>
> But you cannot know. Having been on both sides of the fence (excellent
> hearing going down to seriously impaired, I can say that there is a lot
> of information being gathered via auditory inputs ... far more than you
> suspect. Without having learned how to compensate for that loss, the
> person who temporarily blocks/lessens their hearing is at a
> disadvantage.
>
> - rick

Dear Rick,

As a sidelight, it has often been observed on RBT that we can improve
how smoothly a bicycle rides by simply wearing ear-plugs.

Without the ordinary noises of bicycling, the road seems eerily
smoother.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Sorni]

Rick wrote:

> ... Having been on both sides of the fence
> (excellent hearing going down to seriously impaired, I can say that
> there is a lot of information being gathered via auditory inputs ...
> far more than you suspect. Without having learned how to compensate
> for that loss, the person who temporarily blocks/lessens their
> hearing is at a disadvantage.

Unless, of course, they've done it a lot for a long time and have adapted.
You know, like humans tend to do.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>> Dependent on what? I agree that in general terms a hearing impaired
>> person will have greater visual skills. I do not agree that the
>> difference is so marked as to sufficiently impair the normal
>> observational information of a hearing person using an I-Pod since
>> auditory information has the least input into the 'driving/observation'
>> panorama.
>
> But you cannot know. Having been on both sides of the fence (excellent
> hearing going down to seriously impaired, I can say that there is a lot
> of information being gathered via auditory inputs ... far more than you
> suspect. Without having learned how to compensate for that loss, the
> person who temporarily blocks/lessens their hearing is at a
> disadvantage.

This is also completely neglecting that a normally hearing person wearing
headphones which are providing an external auditory distraction is not
equivalent to a deaf person.

--
Benjamin Lewis

 

[Rick]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> >> Dependent on what? I agree that in general terms a hearing impaired
> >> person will have greater visual skills. I do not agree that the
> >> difference is so marked as to sufficiently impair the normal
> >> observational information of a hearing person using an I-Pod since
> >> auditory information has the least input into the 'driving/observation'
> >> panorama.
> >
> > But you cannot know. Having been on both sides of the fence (excellent
> > hearing going down to seriously impaired, I can say that there is a lot
> > of information being gathered via auditory inputs ... far more than you
> > suspect. Without having learned how to compensate for that loss, the
> > person who temporarily blocks/lessens their hearing is at a
> > disadvantage.
>
> This is also completely neglecting that a normally hearing person wearing
> headphones which are providing an external auditory distraction is not
> equivalent to a deaf person.
>

Who said deaf person. Re-read what I wrote. There is a large
continuum in the realm of hearing impairment.

- rick

 

[[email protected]]

Rick wrote:
> There is a large
> continuum in the realm of hearing impairment.

There is also a large continuum of volunary auditory distraction - from
sealed headphones cranked up loud, through open air head phones,
through earbuds played quietly, and radios mounted on handlebars, down
to whistling a tune while riding, or just talking to a fellow rider.

Having tried earbuds a few times on quiet roads, I think the "No
earphones" proclamation is unnecessarily strict.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:35:54 GMT someone who may be Michael Press
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Skaters with headphones on bicycle paths weaving all over,
>deaf to bicycle bells and shouts.

Does your bike not have brakes?

>But they blame _me_ for running down the morons.

So far that looks likely.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:35:54 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Audio cues are too important to ignore.
>
> So how do the deaf manage?

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.

Do you know exactly what my remark was addressed to? It
was to the suggestion that other cues are more important
than auditory cues, and (implicitly) therefore
unimportant.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

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

> > But they blame _me_ for running down the morons.
>
> So you see they're moving erratically yet you don't reduce speed or take
> some other avoiding action? Glad you're only on a bike instead of a car.


then I nail the hide to the shed door pour l'encouragement
des autres.

--
Michael Press

 

[Hadron Quark]

[email protected] writes:

> Rick wrote:
>> There is a large
>> continuum in the realm of hearing impairment.
>
> There is also a large continuum of volunary auditory distraction - from
> sealed headphones cranked up loud, through open air head phones,
> through earbuds played quietly, and radios mounted on handlebars, down
> to whistling a tune while riding, or just talking to a fellow rider.
>
> Having tried earbuds a few times on quiet roads, I think the "No
> earphones" proclamation is unnecessarily strict.


Wearing any form of ear/headphone on a bike is simply stupid. It is
ridiculous in the extreme to rid yourself of, or diminish, such a useful
sense as hearing when on a bike. It is always, on a bike as in a car,
important to know what might be coming up behind you. A small speaker on
the handlebars, maybe since it is not directly blocking audio waves from
approaching cars.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Wearing any form of ear/headphone on a bike is simply stupid. It is
> ridiculous in the extreme to rid yourself of, or diminish, such a useful
> sense as hearing when on a bike. It is always, on a bike as in a car,
> important to know what might be coming up behind you. A small speaker on
> the handlebars, maybe since it is not directly blocking audio waves from
> approaching cars.

Right on. I've disconnected the car stereo and removed the windows for the
same reason.