Times attacks Ipod Cyclist "zombies"
Comments
-
You won't say "yes Mark, you're right, I didn't think of it that way" because it's not on topic?!
I have deleted my c0ck as it wasn't appropriate, so perhaps you could go back and read again
0 -
biondino wrote:You won't say "yes Mark, you're right, I didn't think of it that way" because it's not on topic?!
I have deleted my c0ck as it wasn't appropriate, so perhaps you could go back and read again
I won't say "yes Mar, you're right, I didn't of it that way" because I don't think that you are right.
OK so to begin:Here's another example. Let's say there is a "danger zone" at a crossroads - for example, the zone in which an HGV turns left. A cyclist traveling at 10mph is in that danger zone for TWICE AS LONG as a cyclist traveling at 20mph. That's the kind of testable, relevant difference speed can give.
Firstly: This is a Schrodinger's car like example and I'm not seeing the relevance to the topic, which is why I dismissed it.
Secondly: What are you trying to say, cyclists should cycle quickly to be safe? What if going slowly is needed to increase your safety? What if there is a manhole on the road and the cyclist going 20mph goes over it too fast, slips and ends up underneath the lorry? What if he was going at 10mph the reduced speed afforded him more control over the bike and he made it out of the dangerzone albeit slower? What if the man hole was a leaf, a bit of oil or the slip was down to the cyclists poor bike handling skills at low or high skills?
Thirdly: The above explains entirely my issue with your example/s. Your example/s assume that all things are equal and in life they very rarely aren't. They don't take account for variables of those you can and cannot measure to be used practically, even for a situational analysis, which this discussion isn't. What it is, in general, is a discussion about whether cycling danagerous when using earphones.
Lastly: I take your point, but I disagree with its relevance and practical application. It's a point nothing more and nothing less and not one that I think is even entirely correct.Relating that to my example above, if you are traveling at ambient speed, you are never in a "danger zone" with relation to the other ambient traffic. If you are not traveling at ambient speed, then whatever else may be going on, ambient traffic must be added as a potential danger.
All of what I've written above is why I have to dismiss this second paragraph. The example above doesn't definitiviely or even accurately express the issues, concerns or dangers of cycling with headphones. It details one such possible scenario, that doesn't account for or eliminate any variables that could affect the outcome. - And I've written this without even reading said paragraph.
So having read it: What i think you haven't done is look at the wider issues and you haven't taken into appreciation the levels of risk that chart between low risk i.e. 'safe' and high risk i.e. dangerous.
Of course you are in a dangerzone while travelling at ambient traffic speed. Any meeting situtaion, any time a person should indicate to switch lanes, any time a pedestrian moves closer to the curb, any time you come to a junction, crossing, traffic lights etc the risk and/or danger levels increases or decreases irrespective of travelling or not travelling at ambient speed.
I mean yes theoretically you are safest travelling at ambient traffic speed in relation to the traffic you are travelling with. All things being equal :roll: See above.
But it is delusion and dangerous to think that doing so [travelling at ambient speed] you are suddenly safe. There are many other things (variables) that account as risk/dangers and that increase the your potential for accident (i.e. increase or decrease you risk/danger levels) while travelling on the road that need to be accounted for.
So again, I take your point, but I disagree with its relevance and practical application. In this instance which is to dicuss the potential dangers of cycling using earphones and listening to music.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
You are incorrigible. You haven't understood my point at all.
Oh, and you've also contradicted yourself - what's the difference between the generalisation (I prefer "starting point", as it gives us a basis on which we can bring other variables into the equation) "travelling at ambient speed reduces the danger of accidents with relation to other things traveling in the same plane at the same speed" and the generalisation "wearing headphones is dangerous when cycling"?
Secondly, you're so keen on all these "variables" and yet when I introduce one - what speed you're travelling relative to other traffic - you can't see how it's pertinent to your discussion. I mean, if I said "when I am cycling on the moon I am perfectly safe wearing headphones", would you ignore the "variable" of being on the moon rather than the A3, and disagree with me?
My whole philosophy with cycling is to reduce risk to a level with which I am happy. This takes in literally hundreds of different "variables". Sadly, you seem set on only discussing the one or two "variables" in which you're interested, despite the relevance of what I'm saying and what others are saying.0 -
biondino wrote:
My whole philosophy with cycling is to reduce risk to a level with which I am happy. This takes in literally hundreds of different "variables". Sadly, you seem set on only discussing the one or two "variables" in which you're interested, despite the relevance of what I'm saying and what others are saying.
Right, so the bit in bold brings me back to something I've written ages ago:OK some points:
Some earphones allow you to hear outside noise.
You can hear more than one sound.
How is cycling with earphones in these conditions difficult or increasingly dangerous?
Compared to a car:
Some cars do everything to block outside noise:
You can drive having the radio on, while having a conversation, while following a SatNav
Now if my concentration levels are still high enough for me to do all these things and drive the car safely. Then how is cycling with while listening to music (i.e. doing one extra thing to cycling) through earphones that allow me to hear the outside world any more dangerous beyond the danger of cycling in the first place?
Someone explain to me again how is riding with earphones that allow me to hear the outside world so dangerous to a point where I simply shouldn't listen to music when cycling? Especially when my concentration and awareness levels haven't been sufficiently reduced to make me a danger on the road (consider the car example of concentration/awareness levels I gave).
Note the bit in bold.
In my own personal risk assessment cyling with headphones doesn't increase my personal risk levels to the point where I think it is so dangerous that I simply shouldn't wear them. In fact I don't think it significantly increases my risk levels at all.
I think you are wrong. But then this is my own personal opinion. You have yours.
But at this point, I'm merely going to agree to disagree with you.
Go on now, reply, have the last word.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I'm not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me when you're rabbiting on about headphones and ignoring everything I've said...0
-
*Voice from M*A*S*H camp announcements* -
"All future discussions with DDD are to end with the phrase 'Ceteris Paribus' with immediate effect, that is all..."0 -
biondino wrote:I'm not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me when you're rabbiting on about headphones and ignoring everything I've said...
he can't hear you for the headphones 0 -
snailracer wrote:In previous posts I have described commonplace situations where relying on one's hearing can be dangerously misleading. If valid, it would be logical to classify traffic noise as a "distraction" in itself, as it supplies ambiguous information.
So now the choice is between misleading distraction (traffic noise) or pleasant distraction (headphones + music). I find it hard to decide which is safer. Perhaps hearing nothing/being deaf would be safest?
My hearing the relatively quiet (at first) roar of a fast moving car enabled me to slow down and stop before it went though a red light at about 70 mph (in a 30) a couple of feet in front of me. If I had not hard early warning, by the time i heard it above any earphone noise it may well have been too late. I could not see car, as it was hidden by building (hence the reduced noise level too)
It is quite simple for me, having no headphones saved my life. I would never wear headphones on a road, and there can be no arguements about it - It is far safer without earphones.
What you can argue about is personal choice."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
That's far too simple. What if the driver had seen you in front of him, swerved, lost the rear end on a patch of recently spilled Buckfast and taken out a crowd of neds on the opposite side of the road?Wallace1492 wrote:It is quite simple for me, having no headphones saved my life.
Your selfish refusal to impair your hearing is not doing society any favours.0 -
_Brun_ wrote:
That's far too simple. What if the driver had seen you in front of him, swerved, lost the rear end on a patch of recently spilled Buckfast and taken out a crowd of neds on the opposite side of the road?Wallace1492 wrote:It is quite simple for me, having no headphones saved my life.
Your selfish refusal to impair your hearing is not doing society any favours.
My hearing the relatively quiet (at first) roar of a fast moving car enabled me to slow down and stop before it went though a red light at about 70 mph (in a 30) a couple of feet in front of me.
FECK ME! What car is this that can approach a lights going through its gears up to 70mph (how do you know it was going 70mph) and still manage to be quiet while accelerating through its low gears (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc). Even if it was in one gear all the time until 70mph its acceleration would still have made significant noise.
Was the car black, had a scrolling red light on the front and said "Michael" a lot?
I often wonder whether cyclist actually can and do drive with comments like that....Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
biondino wrote:Of course we can measure variables! Let's start with a simple one, with a single variable. A single lane road, and a bike is travelling at 20mph, ambient traffic is travelling at 30mph. There's one car every five seconds. Over a mile, the bike is involved in an overtaking manoeuvre 12 times; each car is involved one time. Therefore there is a massive difference in the number of potential flashpoints.
In practice, it seldom works out so simply, but when using stats in this way, you only need work with the variables you can test. Moving at ambient speed makes a massive, practical, testable difference.
Mark, dude, you cycle in London - you're faster than the ambient traffic...
This argument is so tired. I wear phones, never caused me any trouble. It amazes me how risk averse some folk on this forum are, do you ever leave the house?- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
That's far too simple. What if the driver had seen you in front of him, swerved, lost the rear end on a patch of recently spilled Buckfast and taken out a crowd of neds on the opposite side of the road?Wallace1492 wrote:It is quite simple for me, having no headphones saved my life.
Your selfish refusal to impair your hearing is not doing society any favours.My hearing the relatively quiet (at first) roar of a fast moving car enabled me to slow down and stop before it went though a red light at about 70 mph (in a 30) a couple of feet in front of me.
FECK ME! What car is this that can approach a lights going through its gears up to 70mph (how do you know it was going 70mph) and still manage to be quiet while accelerating through its low gears (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc). Even if it was in one gear all the time until 70mph its acceleration would still have made significant noise.
Was the car black, had a scrolling red light on the front and said "Michael" a lot?
I often wonder whether cyclist actually can and do drive with comments like that....
It was a relatively long, straight road up to the set of lights that the car was approaching from. I am assuming that it had used this to accelerate on. From where I was, sheltered from seeing along the direction it came from by a tall building, the noise when I heard it, was not of acceleration but of speed.
It is obviously an estimation from me that it was doing 70, but with 30 years cycling experience and 24 years driving experience, I think my judgement will not be too far out.
As to what Brun said, I do not think there would have been much reaction time for the driver, should I not have slowed down and found myself in the path.
The car, unfortuneately, was exactly the same as the one I drive, a blue BMW 325 coupe.
That day I stared death in the face. It did not shake me up at the time, but on way home i ended up so angry that I reported to Police (no number, and anyway would have been my word against his)"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
It was a relatively long, straight road up to the set of lights that the car was approaching from. I am assuming that it had used this to accelerate on. From where I was, sheltered from seeing along the direction it came from by a tall building, the noise when I heard it, was not of acceleration but of speed.
Whether accelerating or going at the speed you claim the car would have been making quite a loud noise (louder than most other cars on the road that it was going faster than).It is obviously an estimation from me that it was doing 70, but with 30 years cycling experience and 24 years driving experience, I think my judgement will not be too far out.
Behind the wheel and watching cars from a stationary position are two different things. But fair enough mate, I wasn't there so I'll take your word for it.
If you feel safer not listening to music fair play and each to their own.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
It was a relatively long, straight road up to the set of lights that the car was approaching from. I am assuming that it had used this to accelerate on. From where I was, sheltered from seeing along the direction it came from by a tall building, the noise when I heard it, was not of acceleration but of speed.
Whether accelerating or going at the speed you claim the car would have been making quite a loud noise (louder than most other cars on the road that it was going faster than).It is obviously an estimation from me that it was doing 70, but with 30 years cycling experience and 24 years driving experience, I think my judgement will not be too far out.
Behind the wheel and watching cars from a stationary position are two different things. But fair enough mate, I wasn't there so I'll take your word for it.
Could you be any more patronising?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
It was a relatively long, straight road up to the set of lights that the car was approaching from. I am assuming that it had used this to accelerate on. From where I was, sheltered from seeing along the direction it came from by a tall building, the noise when I heard it, was not of acceleration but of speed.
Whether accelerating or going at the speed you claim the car would have been making quite a loud noise (louder than most other cars on the road that it was going faster than).
correct, but there comes a point that you go from hearing nothing to hearing it low, to it becoming louder, then very loud, as you and the car come towards each other and the obstacles in between reduce.
I estimate that by the time I had deduced what it was, and took the action I did, I was still pretty close to accident. If the delay in me taking the action was a couple of seconds, then there may well be a different outcome. Would headphones have delayed it by a few seconds? Hey, I will never know, but think that there would have been a delay/distraction, I may have thought the revving was part of a track.
I do know that hearing it saved my life. That is unquestioned. Would headphones have led to my death? I think they could well have and that is enough for me never to wear them when on the road (Still wear when off road)
On saying that though, it was a very unusual situation. I do not think I will come across similar ever again. So I am not here to preach and say don't do it, just advising you all of my experience and how I believe no headphones saved my life.
It is not just about cars from behind."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Simple this.....
On a bike, with free-flowing traffic, I get overtaken a lot. I feel a lot safer if I can hear the vehicles coming, and I modify my behaviour according to what I hear. I don't take more risks (like moving out to turn right without checking over my shoulder), but if I can hear someone approaching fast, I wouldn't even bother checking over my shoulder. Because I feel that exposes me to risk of a wobble at the wrong moment and some drivers don't leave much room for a wobble. To me it seems obvious that removing my sense of hearing increases my risk.
Drivers are not exposed to the same types of risks. In free flowing traffic they're not often overtaken. And even if they were (eg on motorways), their sense of hearing isn't much use to them over the ambient noise of their own engine, wind noise etc. So they might as well have the radio on and rely on their mirrors.
To me, all that matters is whether you believe that your risk of injury is materially decreased by not wearing headphones. I believe it is, so I don't wear them. If I were deaf, I would still cycle as I don't feel that the increase in risk is massive, but I do feel that it's there, so why run it if I don't have to?
Any introduction of whether drivers/peds should or should not listen to whatever is a complete red herring. All that matters to me is, given the way the world is now, will I be safer with or without headphones. I think I'll be safer without them, so I don't wear them.0 -
_Brun_ wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:
It was a relatively long, straight road up to the set of lights that the car was approaching from. I am assuming that it had used this to accelerate on. From where I was, sheltered from seeing along the direction it came from by a tall building, the noise when I heard it, was not of acceleration but of speed.
Whether accelerating or going at the speed you claim the car would have been making quite a loud noise (louder than most other cars on the road that it was going faster than).It is obviously an estimation from me that it was doing 70, but with 30 years cycling experience and 24 years driving experience, I think my judgement will not be too far out.
Behind the wheel and watching cars from a stationary position are two different things. But fair enough mate, I wasn't there so I'll take your word for it.
Could you be any more patronising?
Wasn't my intention. I wasn't trying to patronise.
But in answer to your question, yes.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
In your example, not looking when you hear someone approaching fast doesn't improve your safety, it simply delays the need to look around by a few seconds.rhext wrote:...
On a bike, with free-flowing traffic, I get overtaken a lot. I feel a lot safer if I can hear the vehicles coming, and I modify my behaviour according to what I hear. I don't take more risks (like moving out to turn right without checking over my shoulder), but if I can hear someone approaching fast, I wouldn't even bother checking over my shoulder.
....
BTW I do look in my mirror when I hear a fast approach, it could be a maniac :shock:0 -
-
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
snailracer wrote:
In your example, not looking when you hear someone approaching fast doesn't improve your safety, it simply delays the need to look around by a few seconds.rhext wrote:...
On a bike, with free-flowing traffic, I get overtaken a lot. I feel a lot safer if I can hear the vehicles coming, and I modify my behaviour according to what I hear. I don't take more risks (like moving out to turn right without checking over my shoulder), but if I can hear someone approaching fast, I wouldn't even bother checking over my shoulder.
....
BTW I do look in my mirror when I hear a fast approach, it could be a maniac :shock:
Yes, but that's the point. It delays the need to look around until the road behind me is probably clear of maniacs about to overtake me at 40 MPH with 3 inches clearance.
But if you've got a mirror you already understand the desirability of knowing what's behind you. Perhaps I should get one!0 -
Looks like Lotus are on the case, regarding silent electric cars.
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lotus ... 13843.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1CzoqEyACQ0 -
Agent57 wrote:Looks like Lotus are on the case, regarding silent electric cars.
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lotus ... 13843.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1CzoqEyACQ
I find it depressing that they even need to consider this. Just goes to show that stupid people wont always use their eyes. The Tesla is pretty silent and i hear that some have complained about that online and in the papers.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:Sewinman wrote:I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.
And you know it's a zombie cyclist coming up behind you because they're saying "Braaaaains..."
You know how to upset a George romero fan don;t you? :evil:0 -
Porgy wrote:John Stevenson wrote:Sewinman wrote:I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.
And you know it's a zombie cyclist coming up behind you because they're saying "Braaaaains..."
You know how to upset a George romero fan don;t you? :evil:
Or if you go even further back a White Zombie and I Married a Zombie fan 0 -
downfader wrote:Porgy wrote:John Stevenson wrote:Sewinman wrote:I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.
And you know it's a zombie cyclist coming up behind you because they're saying "Braaaaains..."
You know how to upset a George romero fan don;t you? :evil:
Or if you go even further back a White Zombie and I Married a Zombie fan
It's not a question of how back you go it's a question of authority. 0 -
Porgy wrote:downfader wrote:Porgy wrote:John Stevenson wrote:Sewinman wrote:I would have thought for scalping reasons you would forgo the ear phones. Heavy breathing is a tell tale give away of a bandit on one's tail.
And you know it's a zombie cyclist coming up behind you because they're saying "Braaaaains..."
You know how to upset a George romero fan don;t you? :evil:
Or if you go even further back a White Zombie and I Married a Zombie fan
It's not a question of how back you go it's a question of authority.
8)0
