Times attacks Ipod Cyclist "zombies"

biondino

snailracer wrote:

So, my conclusion is that hearing isn't that useful when riding a bike, which is why I have a mirror.

With all due respect, you're a f***ing loon.

vorsprung

BentMikey wrote:

Those who *need* their hearing to ride, are simply not looking back enough. Poor cyclecraft, IMO.

And those who wear headphones aren't using the extra available sense to avoid problems

We've had this discussion several times. There is no causal link between wearing headphones and dying.

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

I've had this argument lots of times. It's the same as helmets - a matter of personal choice.

The day wearing headphones affects the way i ride a bike or compromises my safety i will stop.

What about learning from others? When your safety has been compromised it may be too late....

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I've had this argument lots of times. It's the same as helmets - a matter of personal choice.

The day wearing headphones affects the way i ride a bike or compromises my safety i will stop.

What about learning from others? When your safety has been compromised it may be too late....

I've been cycling for 30 years - I cycle some days without headphones, and some days with. I experience no difference in terms of my ability to ride safely.

what should i expect to change that will compromise my safety other than a gradual deterioration in my own faculties as i get older...which i fully admit may be a factor i need to take in consideration one day.

as for learning from others i can see no corelation between riding like a dick and wearing headphones - so nothing to learn from.

BentMikey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Its not just about hearing cars behind you. I am convinced I would be dead if I had headphones on.

Approaching traffic light "T" junction from the side road, my lights are green, and i want to turn right, buildings along both sides so couldn't see the main road, but I have green and step on the pedals.

However, as I am moving up to the line, I hear a low roar and immediately recognise it as a car at high speed. I brake slightly and then from the right a car appears, going through the red at what I would estimate as 70 mph (in a 30 zone) I slammed on the anchors and it passed me less than 3 foot in front, and I felt the wind from it.

I am certain that if I had not heard the low roar early and braked, I would have been accelerating onto the main road and not had time to avoid it.

I would never wear earphones in traffic.

Green doesn't mean it's safe to go, and I bet I would have heard that vehicle too, despite my music.

Wallace1492

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I've had this argument lots of times. It's the same as helmets - a matter of personal choice.

The day wearing headphones affects the way i ride a bike or compromises my safety i will stop.

What about learning from others? When your safety has been compromised it may be too late....

I've been cycling for 30 years - I cycle some days without headphones, and some days with. I experience no difference in terms of my ability to ride safely.

what should i expect to change that will compromise my safety other than a gradual deterioration in my own faculties as i get older...which i fully admit may be a factor i need to take in consideration one day.

as for learning from others i can see no corelation between riding like a dick and wearing headphones - so nothing to learn from.

What I am getting at is my own experience. If I had been wearing earphones I am convinced I would not be here. I was certainly not riding like a dick.

shouldbeinbed

biondino wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So, my conclusion is that hearing isn't that useful when riding a bike, which is why I have a mirror.

With all due respect, you're a f***ing loon.

and I have a mirror too, ears and eyes aren't mutually exclusive.

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I've had this argument lots of times. It's the same as helmets - a matter of personal choice.

The day wearing headphones affects the way i ride a bike or compromises my safety i will stop.

What about learning from others? When your safety has been compromised it may be too late....

I've been cycling for 30 years - I cycle some days without headphones, and some days with. I experience no difference in terms of my ability to ride safely.

what should i expect to change that will compromise my safety other than a gradual deterioration in my own faculties as i get older...which i fully admit may be a factor i need to take in consideration one day.

as for learning from others i can see no corelation between riding like a dick and wearing headphones - so nothing to learn from.

What I am getting at is my own experience. If I had been wearing earphones I am convinced I would not be here. I was certainly not riding like a dick.

i didn't say you were riding like a dick. blimey - is everyone really sensitive today? :?: :?

maybe you could learn from my experience? 28 years of riding with headphones on and with not a single accident. *


*my accidents have all occured without headphones on - which i regard as just a fluke.

DonDaddyD

DonDaddyD wrote:

Like most of these threads they lack balance and clarity. Ironic really.

You need your ears (its something to do with your inner ear) to balance. So you need your ears at least to be able to ride a bike. However, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the balance mechanism of the ear is not overly affected by ambient sound or that of an iPod, stereo or car radio. - I.e. When I listen to a iPod I don't suddenly loose the ability to stand, walk and/or ride a bike - unless that sound is of a nature to distort or disorientate my ability to balance. (Most comercially sold music doesn't do that or contains a frequency to do that).

What an iPod can do is make me loose concentration. What inner earphones or headphones that block outside noise do is make me somewhat oblivious to the outside World. This is similar to me winding my car window up and turning my stereo up to 21 (it goes up to 50). In both instances it can be dangerous.

The solution? Turn the car stereo or iPod down. Buy earphones that allow outside noise. Remember you're in a car or riding a bike, maintain concentration, if you can't turn it off. If you still can't don't ride or drive.

Edit: I would also argue that listening to nearly interactive talk radio stations - that by which I mean you are on a concious level you're engaging with the conversation and the opinions - is more dangerous than listening to music in terms of maintaining concentration.

Personally I think this guy is right.

+1

lost_in_thought

Christophe3967 wrote:

We must ban iPods before its too late.

Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children?!

Sewinman

I can't understand why one would reduce the effectiveness of one major sense when riding just to listen to some tunes. The article was rubbish journalism though - no balance.

Porgy

I found back in the 90s that the engine noise around me was causing me quite a lot of stress, so it was either reduce the noise around me or give up cycling.

whenever i've tried to listen to talky things on the mp3 player i find i automatically stop listening at times of increased activity around me.

I tend to listen to comedy podcasts - so you don;t need to listen too closely - when i tried listening to in our times found i needed to play it two or three times to catch everything.

I have plenty of quiet bits on my journey where i can quite happily listen and ride, and can hear all the noises around me too - much good it does me though - just a wall of engine noise. I can discern very little from it.

In the evening - going home I listen to music radio with quite a bit of talking too. Sometimes if I want to listen to something properly I pull over and stop. Other than that - it's just nice to have something going on in the background which i can dip in and out of as i see fit during my pootle home.

DonDaddyD

What gets me is the "no iPod when cycling" argument assumes that motorists of anykind should not have any kind of sound producing devices in their vehicles and have their windows open. As the principle is entirely the same. So to all the naysayers, do you drive with your windows up and/or your radio's on?

(If in my Dad's 5series once you have the windows up you're hard push to hear the outside world. Same with powerful engines can't hear the world over a Vsomething engine as you accelerate to 30 in some single digit seconds).

BentMikey

In my 5 series I could barely even hear emergency vehicles, it was so well insulated.

Porgy

that's so they can't hear the cyclist when they crunch over him/her, nor hear the cries of "hey! stop! cnut!"


seriously though - i get a lot less stressed now i can't hear the offensive comments that chavs shout at me out of their car windows

i can hear that they've shouted something, but can't hear the actual words. 8)

antfly

I feel vindicated by that zombie article. Ban the i-pod on the road, for everyone.

MrChuck

I think the "but drivers can't hear anything with the radio on" argument is a bit misleading. I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.

Porgy

antfly wrote:

I feel vindicated by that zombie article. Ban the i-pod on the road, for everyone.

you feel vindicated by one of the mostly baldy written articles in the history of journalism, with no evidence, and patently made up examples?


You know that no-one is going to take you seriously if you use that article as vindication surely? :?

Also - how do you feel about the CTC's comments?

John Stevenson

I think you're all missing the point. The streets are full of zombie cyclists!. That's even worse that the running zombies in Dead Set.

Surely as decent, upstanding not-zombie cyclists, we all now have a duty to carry round flamethrowers and axes, as every horror film fan knows fire and decapitation are the best ways to stop the living dead.

Or we could just throw records at them. But not Second Coming - I quite liked it.

Porgy

MrChuck wrote:

I think the "but drivers can't hear anything with the radio on" argument is a bit misleading. I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.

the argument about being distracted holds for motorists though

Porgy

John Stevenson wrote:

I think you're all missing the point. The streets are full of zombie cyclists!. That's even worse that the running zombies in Dead Set.

Surely as decent, upstanding not-zombie cyclists, we all now have a duty to carry round flamethrowers and axes, as every horror film fan knows fire and decapitation are the best ways to stop the living dead.

Or we could just throw records at them. But not Second Coming - I quite liked it.

does this mean i'm about to die :shock:

antfly

Porgy wrote:

antfly wrote:

I feel vindicated by that zombie article. Ban the i-pod on the road, for everyone.

you feel vindicated by one of the mostly baldy written articles in the history of journalism, with no evidence, and patently made up examples?


You know that no-one is going to take you seriously if you use that article as vindication surely? :?

Also - how do you feel about the CTC's comments?

The article was reporting what a coroner said, I don`t think they would make that up.
What did the CTC say?

Porgy

antfly wrote:

Porgy wrote:

antfly wrote:

I feel vindicated by that zombie article. Ban the i-pod on the road, for everyone.

you feel vindicated by one of the mostly baldy written articles in the history of journalism, with no evidence, and patently made up examples?


You know that no-one is going to take you seriously if you use that article as vindication surely? :?

Also - how do you feel about the CTC's comments?

The article was reporting what a coroner said, I don`t think they would make that up.

well in that case it was the coroner who made stuff up.

But I mean the stuff they alledgedly lifted from a web forum. It was ridiculous.

MrChuck

Porgy wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

I think the "but drivers can't hear anything with the radio on" argument is a bit misleading. I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.

the argument about being distracted holds for motorists though

But what's the connection with whether or not cyclists to listen to iPods?

Porgy

MrChuck wrote:

Porgy wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

I think the "but drivers can't hear anything with the radio on" argument is a bit misleading. I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.

the argument about being distracted holds for motorists though

But what's the connection with whether or not cyclists to listen to iPods?

playing loud music or listening to the radio :?

snailracer

biondino wrote:

snailracer wrote:

So, my conclusion is that hearing isn't that useful when riding a bike, which is why I have a mirror.

With all due respect, you're a f***ing loon.

OK, let's see if I can persuade you.
I hear nothing behind me, but there might be a quiet vehicle (Prius, bus, bicycle, etc) about to overtake that I can't hear.
I hear a loud vehicle some way behind me, but there might be a quieter vehicle in front of it (that I didn't hear) that I would conflict with if I pulled out.
A noisy vehicle overtakes me. It is now so loud, I can't hear anything behind me anyway.
I am going above 15mph - I can't hear much, it's too windy.
IMO there are too many if's and but's with hearing, so I don't rely on it, but you can do whatever works for you, biondino.

Sewinman

The whole 'but that logically means cars should not have windows etc.' is a total red herring.

Does wearing ear phones impede hearing - yes. Does hearing improve safety on a bike - yes. Don't wear ear phones.

DonDaddyD

Mr Chuck,

The point being made is one of not being able to hear the outside World. Or in other words the inability to hear what is going on around. There is a clear connection between listening to your iPod when cycling, when doing so prevents you being able to hear the outside World and sitting in a car when merely doing so also prevents you from hearing the outside World.

Despite the method of sound restriction being different the outcome is mostly the same and thus there-in resides the connection or parallel example.

antfly

Porgy wrote:

antfly wrote:

Porgy wrote:

antfly wrote:

I feel vindicated by that zombie article. Ban the i-pod on the road, for everyone.

you feel vindicated by one of the mostly baldy written articles in the history of journalism, with no evidence, and patently made up examples?


You know that no-one is going to take you seriously if you use that article as vindication surely? :?

Also - how do you feel about the CTC's comments?

The article was reporting what a coroner said, I don`t think they would make that up.

well in that case it was the coroner who made stuff up.

But I mean the stuff they alledgedly lifted from a web forum. It was ridiculous.

Not everything is made up
Quoting from forums is a bit of lazy journalism especially when you consider the number of idiots you get on them i`m more interested in the facts and someone was killed.

MrChuck

Porgy wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Porgy wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

I think the "but drivers can't hear anything with the radio on" argument is a bit misleading. I don't think the comparison is that straightforward.

the argument about being distracted holds for motorists though

But what's the connection with whether or not cyclists to listen to iPods?

playing loud music or listening to the radio :?

OK, but what bearing does how distracted drivers might be by the toys in their cars have on whether it's useful to have your hearing or not?