Re: Another 'blame the victim' iPod story.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>In Virginia a bicyclist on a bike path ("mixed-use path") is considered
>a pedestrian and can use earphones; on the road we're considered
>motorists and their use is prohibited.

Another reason I hate bike paths.
-------------
Alex

 

[Tony Raven]

Hadron Quark wrote on 19/06/2006 15:20 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

Well slow down then. You & jtaylor castigate people for wearing
headphones or not wearing hi-viz clothing but then you fail to do what
the motorcycle trainers call a "life saver" aka looking over your
shoulder, because you are too intent on keeping your speed up. Pots,
black kettles and all that.

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Hadron Quark wrote on 19/06/2006 16:42 +0100:
>
> No I didnt seem to be saying that at all : I am saying that wearing
> earphones on a bike is a bloody stupid thing to do as it affects your
> peripheral vision/awareness.
>

Perhaps if you put them on your ears rather than your eyes, they
wouldn't affect your peripheral vision ;-)

--
Tony

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

 

[[email protected]]

<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Just because you can't walk and chew gum at the same time doesn't make
it dangerous for everyone. Riding a bike while listening to music is
perfectly safe if you aren't an idiot. Obviously it's too much for you
to handle. But many others are enjoying their rides without getting run
over.

 

[Sorni]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> If you can still pay sufficient attention to your surroundings it
>> clearly is not careless by definition, no matter how smug it makes
>> you feel to assert it.

> If you can't hear what's going on around you, you are not paying as
> much attention as you should be. Some folks can actually keep the
> volume low enough so that they can hear what is going on around them,
> but most don't. ----------------

And this adds to the discussion.../what/ exactly? (Hint: no one is arguing
that having the sound turned up so high that one can barely hear anything
else is smart, desirable or even excusable. HTH.)

 

[Andrew Price]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:59:27 +0200, Hadron Quark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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

It's true, he did say that.

>and advised on how to
>minimise the risk.

Which it totally illogical, in view of his earlier statement that:

"While this risk is, in absolute terms, small, it is practically
indefensible"

Methinks the gentleman has confused himself and lost the thread, by
being too disingenuous in his attempts at trolling.

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Michael Press wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Ear bud users know they have ear buds in their ear(s); therefore they have
> developed "compensatory mechanisms". (IOW, they're used to it.)

Close, but not the same as a deaf person.

> > 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.
>
> Once more, with clarity?

That audio cues are less important than visual does not
mean loss or diminution of auditory cues is not a serious
handicap.

Am I the only one who finds earphone-earbud wearing
cyclists, pedestrians, jogger, and skates to be a hazard?

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ear bud users know they have ear buds in their ear(s); therefore they have
> > developed "compensatory mechanisms". (IOW, they're used to it.)
>
> Close, but not the same as a deaf person.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Once more, with clarity?
>
> That audio cues are less important than visual does not
> mean loss or diminution of auditory cues is not a serious
> handicap.
>
> Am I the only one who finds earphone-earbud wearing
> cyclists, pedestrians, jogger, and skates to be a hazard?
>
> --
> Michael Press

Dear Michael,

What?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> 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.

>> Once more, with clarity?

> That audio cues are less important than visual does not
> mean loss or diminution of auditory cues is not a serious
> handicap.

I knew what you meant. Your first paragraph just didn't /say/ that. (You
left out a "which are" and instead put an "and" in there.)

HTH.

> Am I the only one who finds earphone-earbud wearing
> cyclists, pedestrians, jogger, and skates to be a hazard?

The stupid ones who don't know (how) to reduce the volume are "hazards".
(Others may be hazardous, too, but it's not /because/ of their ear buds.)

HTH.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Michael Press wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ear bud users know they have ear buds in their ear(s); therefore they have
>> developed "compensatory mechanisms". (IOW, they're used to it.)

> Close, but not the same as a deaf person.

>> > 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.
>>
>> Once more, with clarity?

> That audio cues are less important than visual does not
> mean loss or diminution of auditory cues is not a serious
> handicap.

> Am I the only one who finds earphone-earbud wearing
> cyclists, pedestrians, jogger, and skates to be a hazard?

I've discovered that earbuds with foam covers actually reduce wind
noise in my ears so that I can hear external noises more clearly, so I
often wear them without listening to anything, especially on windy
days. I also note that there is a low but comfortable volume level of
listening at which the noise from the radio masks external noises to
the same degree as wind noise at my average cruising speed does
without them.

Obviously speed and winds are also factors here. I note too that when
listening to the radio (or podcasts) I ride quite significantly more
slowly because I'm not concentrating so much on the traffic
conditions. It's natural risk compensation, not deliberate.

Matters of safety and risk are rarely as simple as armchair theorists
assume.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Tony Raven]

Andrew Price wrote on 19/06/2006 19:25 +0100:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:59:27 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> It's true, he did say that.
>

He also said:
"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."

I just don't accept that not wearing hi-viz clothing is being careless
in the extreme. Cycling in ordinary clothes should be perfectly
acceptable and not an excuse to blame the cyclist for extreme
carelessness if the worst happens. YMMV

--
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]

> I just don't accept that not wearing hi-viz clothing is being careless
> in the extreme. Cycling in ordinary clothes should be perfectly
> acceptable and not an excuse to blame the cyclist for extreme
> carelessness if the worst happens.

aol

 

[[email protected]]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> writes:
>
> >
> > - The headphones I use do not block out sound to any appreciable
> > degree.
>
> Yes they do. If the music is on. Sorry.

Really?

Have you tried them?


(Interested parties may want to read
http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/hearing.htm)



- Frank Krygowski

 

[Paul Boyd]

[email protected] said the following on 19/06/2006 19:13:

> Just because you can't walk and chew gum at the same time doesn't make
> it dangerous for everyone.

Wasn't there a certain US President who injured a Scottish bodyguard
because he couldn't ride a bike and chew gum at the same time?

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

 

[davek]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> You equate a bike bell with a car horn?

Yes. The bell/horn is meant to be used to warn other road users of your
presence, not to assert your self-importance.

However, many motorists use their horn to tell other road users (ie
cyclists) to get out of their way. This is Not Nice!

Using the bell on your bike to tell other users of a shared path (ie
skaters) to get out of your way is /exactly/ the same.

> Very impressive I'm sure.

Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector and you might get my point.

d.

 

[davek]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> Who tries to manoevre through traffic without looking?

You do. You said it yourself.

> Again : if you think wearing headphones or earphones while cycling does
> not impede your situational awareness then you are a fool. No IMO about
> it.

The only thing you can say for sure is that using earphones impairs
your hearing. The side-effects of impaired hearing are less clear-cut.

> To say it is not in some way degrading your awareness is simply trolling
> or incredibly naive.

It's all about context. In my daily life, I rely on my eyes to help me
get about without bumping into things. But in my home I can navigate my
way from the kitchen to the bedroom in pitch darkness without so much
as a trip.

In other words, I have developed the ability in a certain context to do
without one of my senses. Is it so hard to grasp the idea that with
practise I might be able to do without another of my senses in a
different context?

d.

 

[Al C-F]

Sorni wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>
>
>>>Wearing anything that uses headphones while cycling is careless by
>>>definition.
>
>
>>What a stupid thing to write.
>
>
> You seem surprised.
>
>
Now I see who wrote it, perhaps I shouldn't be.

 

[p.k.]

davek wrote:
>
> It's all about context. In my daily life, I rely on my eyes to help me
> get about without bumping into things. But in my home I can navigate
> my way from the kitchen to the bedroom in pitch darkness without so
> much as a trip.
>
> In other words, I have developed the ability in a certain context to
> do without one of my senses. Is it so hard to grasp the idea that with
> practise I might be able to do without another of my senses in a
> different context?


Not a valid comparison.

The one situation is known and ceratin allowing learned/memorised patterns
of movment.

The other is unknown, uncertain and unpredicatable.

pk

 

[Marz]

Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm guessing you've learnt to chew gum and walk at the same time,
because we can see you've picked up the skill to type and produce ****
simultaneously.

If you're such a nervous rider that you need to hear everything going
on around you, then maybe you should get back in your car. I don't need
to hear the car behind me, because I'm already aware of the fact I'm on
a public highway and therefore there will be a car behind and I ride
accordingly.

Laters,

Marz

 

[davek]

p.k. wrote:
> The other is unknown, uncertain and unpredicatable.

All cycling on public roads involves a large degree of uncertainty and
unpredictability. If you think cycling in those circumstances is unsafe
then it you would have to concede that is is unsafe at all times
regardless of whether or not you're wearing headphones. Which would be
a nonsense. Besides which it is utterly missing the point.

If you want to show the comparison to be invalid you'll have to prove
that it is not possible for humans to adapt to the loss/impairment of
one or more senses. But to do that you'll be arguing againts the
experience of countless blind and deaf people.

d.