Re: Another 'blame the victim' iPod story.

[Paul Boyd]

Tony Raven said the following on 18/06/2006 08:44:
>
> When did Lancashire become a US state?

Someone's cross-posted this thread to a US group, for some unknown reason.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Paul Boyd wrote on 19/06/2006 12:27 +0100:
> Tony Raven said the following on 18/06/2006 08:44:
>>
>> When did Lancashire become a US state?
>
> Someone's cross-posted this thread to a US group, for some unknown reason.
>

That someone being jtaylor. Perhaps he could explain his motives.

--
Tony

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

 

[jtaylor]

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

> > 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.
>

Too right.

The greatest danger to cyclists by far is bad driving by those in motorized
users of the highways; in a collision with one of them, a cyclist is at
great risk of severe injury or death. While this risk is, in absolute
terms, small, it is practically indefensible. No helmet, body armour,
etcetera, will do anything to protect a cyclist should he or she be struck
in a manner sufficient to cause such injury.

It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of their
surroundings, and to make themselves visible (and ovbious) to other users of
the highways, are being careless in the extreme.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of
> their surroundings, [...] are being careless in the extreme.

Are you sure you didn't mean to cross post this to one of the motoring
groups as well as RBT? Would've helped your trolling.

 

[Tony Raven]

jtaylor wrote on 19/06/2006 13:26 +0100:
>
> It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of their
> surroundings, and to make themselves visible (and ovbious) to other users of
> the highways, are being careless in the extreme.
>

An archaic view that the victim is responsible for the crimes committed
against them.

Its a long time since we've blamed victims of rape or racial attacks for
the clothing they were wearing and its time we stopped blaming cyclists
for not wearing special protective clothing. Do you blame car drivers
in accidents for not driving fluorescent yellow cars?


--
Tony

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

 

[Hadron Quark]

Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> writes:

>> 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.

Did you remove your rear view mirror?

 

[Hadron Quark]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

> jtaylor wrote on 19/06/2006 13:26 +0100:
>> It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of
>> their
>> surroundings, and to make themselves visible (and ovbious) to other users of
>> the highways, are being careless in the extreme.
>>
>
> An archaic view that the victim is responsible for the crimes
> committed against them.

He never said that. He advocated realising that you are liable to
serious injury through no fault of your own and advised on how to
minimise the risk.

>
> Its a long time since we've blamed victims of rape or racial attacks
> for the clothing they were wearing and its time we stopped blaming
> cyclists for not wearing special protective clothing. Do you blame
> car drivers in accidents for not driving fluorescent yellow cars?

Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that attitude and dress dont
contribute to personal attack is too pc for their own good. In your
wonderful world there is probably no racism either eh?

 

[[email protected]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> jtaylor wrote on 19/06/2006 13:26 +0100:
> >
> > It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of their
> > surroundings, and to make themselves visible (and ovbious) to other users of
> > the highways, are being careless in the extreme.
> >
>
> An archaic view that the victim is responsible for the crimes committed
> against them.
>
> Its a long time since we've blamed victims of rape or racial attacks for
> the clothing they were wearing and its time we stopped blaming cyclists
> for not wearing special protective clothing. Do you blame car drivers
> in accidents for not driving fluorescent yellow cars?

As a cyclist, if you're hit by a car, you are going to come off worse,
and that is never going to change.

You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to cycle defensively.

Listening to music through headphones simeltaneously distracts you and
removes one of your sensory channels, thus reducing your ability to
avoid problems on the road. It's a stupid idea. A 5-year-old child
could see that it's a stupid idea.

For those who choose to ignore this reality, remember that the moral
high ground is not much good to you or those who survive you when
you're dead.

 

[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.
>
> Did you remove your rear view mirror?

Your point is? Ah, car drivers don't need hearing 'cos they can see what's
behind them by using the mirror. Was that it?

Cyclists can do that just by turning their head, or using a mirror. Idiot
cyclists that are careless in the extreme might rely on their sense of
hearing to tell it's safe to do the manouvre.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> As a cyclist, if you're hit by a car, you are going to come off worse,
> and that is never going to change.
>
> You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to cycle defensively.
>
> Listening to music through headphones simeltaneously distracts you and
> removes one of your sensory channels, thus reducing your ability to
> avoid problems on the road. It's a stupid idea. A 5-year-old child
> could see that it's a stupid idea.
>
> For those who choose to ignore this reality, remember that the moral
> high ground is not much good to you or those who survive you when
> you're dead.

So your logic is that it's NOT okay to put my life at a possibly
insignificant amount of extra risk[1] by listening to background music?

But it IS okay to put other people at risk by listening to music when
driving, or by driving with the windows closed?

What were you saying about the moral high ground?



[1] Though I'd imagine that even if it was riskier it'd still be less risky
than, say, walking.
<www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>

 

[Hadron Quark]

Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> writes:

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Did you remove your rear view mirror?
>
> Your point is? Ah, car drivers don't need hearing 'cos they can see what's
> behind them by using the mirror. Was that it?
>
> Cyclists can do that just by turning their head, or using a mirror. Idiot
> cyclists that are careless in the extreme might rely on their sense of
> hearing to tell it's safe to do the manouvre.

You shock me. I'm a cyclist and never really found a mirror soution that
was any good. As for turning, hard to do at speed in traffic sometimes.

Are you arguing that wearing ear plugs is not detrimental to situation
awareness? If so then you're a troll.

Driving a car is not the same thing at all : you have a minimum of a 3
mirror view of behind you. You are generally going at such a speed that
people dont shunt up your backside when actually cruising because they
havent seen you.

 

[davek]

Michael Press wrote:
> As I explained the deaf know they are deaf; therefore they
> have worked at compensatory mechanisms 7 days a week, year
> after year.

So which is the more dangerous cyclist: the one who suddenly lost his
hearing last week after standing too close to the speakers at a death
metal gig, or the one who has been riding with headphones on every day
since the Walkman was first invented c.25 years ago?

d.

 

[Hadron Quark]

[email protected] writes:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> jtaylor wrote on 19/06/2006 13:26 +0100:
>> >
>> > It's clear that cyclists who diminish their capacity to be aware of their
>> > surroundings, and to make themselves visible (and ovbious) to other users of
>> > the highways, are being careless in the extreme.
>> >
>>
>> An archaic view that the victim is responsible for the crimes committed
>> against them.
>>
>> Its a long time since we've blamed victims of rape or racial attacks for
>> the clothing they were wearing and its time we stopped blaming cyclists
>> for not wearing special protective clothing. Do you blame car drivers
>> in accidents for not driving fluorescent yellow cars?
>
> As a cyclist, if you're hit by a car, you are going to come off worse,
> and that is never going to change.
>
> You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to cycle defensively.
>
> Listening to music through headphones simeltaneously distracts you and
> removes one of your sensory channels, thus reducing your ability to
> avoid problems on the road. It's a stupid idea. A 5-year-old child
> could see that it's a stupid idea.

You would think so wouldnt you. There are certain posters here who see
any suggestion as counterprductive to "free cycling". The mind boggles.

I live in a city where cycle paths are very common : and bells are
compulsory on bikes. People with headphones on are always causing bike
accidents because they dont hear oncoming cyclists around the corner and
so forth.

Anyone who defends wearing earphones while cycling is, IMO, quite simply
a bloody idiot.

 

[davek]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> Anyone who defends wearing earphones while cycling is, IMO, quite simply
> a bloody idiot.

Anyone who tries to manoeuvre their way through traffic without looking
behind them to check it's clear, and uses the excuse that "it's
difficult to do at speed", is, IMO, quite simply a bloody idiot.

Think of the children!

d.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> Mark Thompson
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com>
> writes:
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Did you remove your rear view mirror?
>>
>> Your point is? Ah, car drivers don't need hearing 'cos they can see
>> what's behind them by using the mirror. Was that it?
>>
>> Cyclists can do that just by turning their head, or using a mirror.
>> Idiot cyclists that are careless in the extreme might rely on their
>> sense of hearing to tell it's safe to do the manouvre.
>
> You shock me. I'm a cyclist and never really found a mirror soution
> that
> was any good. As for turning, hard to do at speed in traffic
> sometimes.
>
> Are you arguing that wearing ear plugs is not detrimental to situation
> awareness? If so then you're a troll.
>
> Driving a car is not the same thing at all : you have a minimum of a 3
> mirror view of behind you. You are generally going at such a speed
> that
> people dont shunt up your backside when actually cruising because they
> havent seen you.

However, that's not a generally common cause of collisions.

A

followups set.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> You shock me. I'm a cyclist and never really found a mirror soution
> that was any good. As for turning, hard to do at speed in traffic
> sometimes.

You shock me. If I need to look behind but it is too hard to do at
speed in traffic I slow down to a speed that makes it easy (don't use a
mirror). You seem tobe saying that you just **trust your hearing and not
look**?

> Are you arguing that wearing ear plugs is not detrimental to situation
> awareness? If so then you're a troll.

There're a couple of things:

- The headphones I use do not block out sound to any appreciable degree.
- The volume is set to a degree that still enables me to hear my
surroundings. - Hearing is useful for knowing when there is a car behind
you. At no point does your hearing enable you to do a manouvre without
properly checking over your shoulder first. - Not being able to hear so
well forces you to check over your shoulder properly; without 'phones
I'm often tempted assume that because nothing can be heard it's clear. -
Being struck from behind is
a) Pretty much unavoidable unless you dive onto the pavement any
time you're overtaken
b) One of the least likely scenarios (it's being T-boned at
junctions that do it)
- Even being completely deaf would add only an insignificant amount of
risk, and may make me safer (no sloppy shoulder checking).

> Driving a car is not the same thing at all : you have a minimum of a 3
> mirror view of behind you. You are generally going at such a speed
> that people dont shunt up your backside when actually cruising because
> they havent seen you.

Being struck from behind is pretty much unavoidable unless you dive onto
the pavement any time you're overtaken, and being run down from behind
is very, very unlikely compared to the other icky scenarios.

In the car you have two blind spots. The car stereo or the windows
being up means you HAVE to check your blind spot because the sound of
other trafic is drowned out so much. Blind spot mirrors are a good aid,
but shouldn't be relied upon (can you see the chap on the m/b? Is there
still a small blind spot he can sneak into? Are the blind spot mirrors
so pathetically small that it's hard to miss things in them? etc).

The biggest difference between car and bike is that if you **** it up in
a car you are very well protected i.e. the risk is borne primarily by
other people.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I live in a city where cycle paths are very common : and bells are
> compulsory on bikes. People with headphones on are always causing bike
> accidents because they dont hear oncoming cyclists around the corner
> and so forth.

(IMHO) ****THAT IS 100% THE IDIOT CYCLISTS' FAULT!****

Anyone cyclist who relies on someone else hearing a bell and taking
avoiding action, rather than cycling at a speed that will enable them to
stop in time, is quite simply a bloody idiot. Ring the bell, but also be
prepared to stop.

 

[davek]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> Anyone cyclist who relies on someone else hearing a bell and taking
> avoiding action, rather than cycling at a speed that will enable them to
> stop in time, is quite simply a bloody idiot. Ring the bell, but also be
> prepared to stop.

Indeed. Cyclists are quick enough to complain when motorists beep the
horn and expect them to get out of their way.

/Some/ skaters are a bloody menace and seem intent on swerving into my
path at the last possible moment (just what is so wrong with moving in
a straight line, eh?) - this happens frequently as I go through Hyde
Park on my way back to the station in the evening. But thanks to
superior bike-handling skills, including Advanced Use of Brake Levers,
I have not hit one of the sods yet.

d.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:22:51 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> I live in a city where cycle paths are very common : and bells are
> compulsory on bikes.

I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the UK. I was obviously wrong.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote on 19/06/2006 12:27 +0100:
>> Tony Raven said the following on 18/06/2006 08:44:
>>>
>>> When did Lancashire become a US state?
>>
>> Someone's cross-posted this thread to a US group, for some unknown
>> reason.
>
> That someone being jtaylor. Perhaps he could explain his motives.

He doesn't answer simple, direct questions.

HTH.