Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

Beasty

Article in the Sunday Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6936280.ece

"Internet cycling forums are full of heated exchanges between indignant cyclists and seething motorists, railing against the “erratic behaviour” and “breathtaking stupidity” of riders who career through the traffic, sporting the telltale white wires of an iPod."

Wonder what Timothy is up to today?

Obviously the article is based on UK experience, although I don't think there is anything materially different in the approach over here. Interestingly no-one seems to keep record of the number of times where the use of earpieces may have contributed to accidents.

I never use them myself (except on the turbo), as I prefer to have as many senses as possible available (and unimpeded) when cycling on the roads.

DirkVoodoo

ARRGGHHH!

More idiotic journalism. Oblivious, irresponsible cyclists are going to be the same whether they have iPods or not.

Why don't we talk about the real menace here: Zombie umbrella holders.

The number of time I have nearly lost an eye in town because some idiot is swinging an umbrella around, completely oblivious to the rest of the foot traffic around them is amazing.

I have honestly never found earphones impeding my ability to cycle safely. Maybe that means I am reckless even at the best of times.

abcdggs

Eh what about the biggest threat to our way of life

Lumen

This comment particularly irritates me:

"these head phone wearing cycling morons, as well as tempting fate, give all cyclists a bad name"

Why do we have to give cyclists names? Don't they have names already? Why is is necessary to generalise about everything?

72hundred

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

ARRGGHHH!

More idiotic journalism.

Completely agree.

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

The fashion for cyclists to wear earphones on crowded city streets is being held partly responsible for the recent upsurge in cycling injuries and deaths, as well as collisions with pedestrians.

and then...

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

The latest DfT figures show ... a 19% rise ... It is not known how many of these cases were caused by people listening to music because the DfT and the police do not record the information

Contradicts his point within two paragraphs! -Well done sir.


I can't see the difference between listening to an iPod on the bike and 5.1 surround sound system some cars sport. Should we make moves to ban in car audio and make all the windows be open so they have to hear what's about them? ffs

EDIT: Some bit of common sense in the article though;

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

Johnson plans to give even greater leeway to cyclists, to encourage people to switch to one of the greenest forms of transport. He is studying the possibility of allowing cyclists to shoot red lights on left turns at a junction.

blorg

72hundred wrote: »

Should we make moves to ban in car audio and make all the windows be open so they have to hear what's about them? ffs

+1, clearly all car radios should be banned, it is the logical corollary :rolleyes: I expect Murdoch's evil empire will be right on that campaign.

DirkVoodoo

I just think it goes beyond labelling the ipod wearing cyclists as the irresponsible ones.

Maneuvers like changing lanes, making turns, etc. obviously require a great deal of awareness to be executed properly, much like in a car. Much like in a car, to be performed safely then visual awareness is normally enough. It's easy to pin it all on ipods and evil rock n' roll, but I would wager that most of it, like in bad driving, is just people not looking around them, checking behind them for traffic.

Of course, it's easier for the cyclists on "heated forums" to simply point at the "tell-tale white headphones" as the problem. Obviously listening to music at deafening levels is just as dangerous, but for people to assume "well, I don't wear headphones, therefore I am safer than you" is a complete fallacy.

Tired drivers, mobile phones, loud stereos, boy racers, cycling on footpaths, no lights, jay walking, speeding, driving bumper to bumper at 120km/hr in heavy fog (saw this yesterday on the m-fiddy), parking on corners, not checking mirrors before exiting cars....

I can think of plenty of things far worse and more deserving of a useless column than ipod wearing cyclists, just not as fashionable to bitch about.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

iPod earphones barely block out any background noise.

TimAllen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I just think it goes beyond labelling the ipod wearing cyclists as the irresponsible ones.

Maneuvers like changing lanes, making turns, etc. obviously require a great deal of awareness to be executed properly, much like in a car. Much like in a car, to be performed safely then visual awareness is normally enough. It's easy to pin it all on ipods and evil rock n' roll, but I would wager that most of it, like in bad driving, is just people not looking around them, checking behind them for traffic.

Of course, it's easier for the cyclists on "heated forums" to simply point at the "tell-tale white headphones" as the problem. Obviously listening to music at deafening levels is just as dangerous, but for people to assume "well, I don't wear headphones, therefore I am safer than you" is a complete fallacy.

Tired drivers, mobile phones, loud stereos, boy racers, cycling on footpaths, no lights, jay walking, speeding, driving bumper to bumper at 120km/hr in heavy fog (saw this yesterday on the m-fiddy), parking on corners, not checking mirrors before exiting cars....

I can think of plenty of things far worse and more deserving of a useless column than ipod wearing cyclists, just not as fashionable to bitch about.

I think your point, comparing driving and cycling is flawed in that, motorists have the advantage of 3 mirrors which if used as they are supposed to be (cue the boringly predictable charge that motorists dont use them!), lessens the motorists need for reliance on his/her auditory sense.
Cyclists do not have this advantage.
In any case, any viewpoint which suggests that blocking out or impeding one of your senses does not present a risk factor for a cyclist on a public road is mind numbingly ignorant!

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

iPod earphones barely block out any background noise.

Or to put it another way (without the spin) iPod earphones do block out some background noise.
Though I dont believe it for a second. Clearly iPod earphones are defective in some fundamental way and people use them because they are more interested in listening to background noise than music:rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

Beasty wrote: »

Wonder what Timothy is up to today?

Bingo....

Cyclists don't have the large blindspots associated with bigger motor vehicles. Mirrors on pedal cycles would consequently be much less useful. On motorcycles, the greater weight and higher speeds and the restriction of view by a larger helmet make them more useful.

For me, a small mirror allowing only a restricted field of view would be a lot less use on a pedal cycle than proper observation, shoulder-checks, etc. (Even motorcyclists, who do have mirrors, are taught to use the "life saver" shoulder-check.) I don't think mirrors on a pedal cycle would be the advantage that they are on a car.

TimAllen

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Bingo....

Cyclists don't have the large blindspots associated with bigger motor vehicles. Mirrors on pedal cycles would consequently be much less useful. On motorcycles, the greater weight and higher speeds and the restriction of view by a larger helmet make them more useful.

For me, a small mirror allowing only a restricted field of view would be a lot less use on a pedal cycle than proper observation, shoulder-checks, etc. (Even motorcyclists, who do have mirrors, are taught to use the "life saver" shoulder-check.) I don't think mirrors on a pedal cycle would be the advantage that they are on a car.

Yes, very interesting ... but completely pointless ... I wasnt suggesting that cyclists should use mirrors, the topic for debate is whether they should use IPod and similar devices whilst cycling on a public road ... what is your view on the use of IPod's or other devices whilst cycling - increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

Or to put it another way (without the spin) iPod earphones do block out some background noise.
Though I dont believe it for a second. Clearly iPod earphones are defective in some fundamental way and people use them because they are more interested in listening to background noise than music:rolleyes:

It is frankly beyond me why anyone uses iPod earphones. They are pathetic. You can hear everything through them.

/edit: or maybe it is the safety conscious cyclists who use them, knowing that they do not detract from their awareness.

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

It is frankly beyond me why anyone uses iPod earphones. They are pathetic. You can hear everything through them.

/edit: or maybe it is the safety conscious cyclists who use them, knowing that they do not detract from their awareness.

You should seek to return your clearly defective earphones Sean - mine work just fine. Look up the technical specifications for them - yours are clearly the exception!;)

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

You should seek to return your clearly defective earphones Sean - mine work just fine. Look up the technical specifications for them - yours are clearly the exception!;)

Compare them to a decent set of earphones/headphones.

You shouldn't have to crank the volume up to block out the ambient noise, which, I would hazard, is what you do.

rubadub

Lumen wrote: »

"these head phone wearing cycling morons, as well as tempting fate, give all cyclists a bad name"

Why do we have to give cyclists names?

The bitter old US & THEM mentality alive & well. Surely the morons are giving morons a bad name, or just giving humans a bad name. When people see somebody dangerously crossing a dual carriageway do them hang their head in shame going "Oh no, theres another eejit giving us pedestrians a bad name".

TimAllen wrote: »

what is your view on the use of IPod's or other devices whilst cycling - increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

Any time I wore them I was probably safer, since I overcompensated with them on, checking around me a hell of a lot more, sort of reverse risk compensation like people who might be more reckless in a large car, or wearing protective clothing. like they said

However CTC, the national cycling group, argues that people should be left to make their own judgments. “We encourage deaf people to cycle so we don’t think it’s essential to hear traffic in order to ride,” said a spokeswoman. “You have to be sensible. The most important thing is that you look around you all the time — especially over your shoulder.”

Pedestrians, too, have fallen victim to cyclists listening to music and apparently oblivious to those around them. In June, a six-year-old girl from Wallasey, Merseyside, suffered serious injuries after she was mown down on the pavement by an iPod-wearing cyclist who didn’t even stop to help her, according to witnesses. The girl underwent hours of surgery to reconstruct her shattered leg.

When I saw pedestrians mentioned I was shocked, thinking they would be rational and talk of pedestrians walking into traffic wearing mp3 players. Ah but of course pedestrians are "one of us, one of us". Its a tolerated target for bigots who are not allowed express bigoted views against other groups anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0

TimAllen

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Posting a Daily Mail article?

Pathetic.

blorg

TimAllen wrote: »

I think your point, comparing driving and cycling is flawed in that, motorists have the advantage of 3 mirrors which if used as they are supposed to be (cue the boringly predictable charge that motorists dont use them!), lessens the motorists need for reliance on his/her auditory sense.
Cyclists do not have this advantage.
In any case, any viewpoint which suggests that blocking out or impeding one of your senses does not present a risk factor for a cyclist on a public road is mind numbingly ignorant!

So you would ban car radios? Sound insulation? How about handsfree phones? Or talking to passengers?

Cyclists don't have a substantial frame around them creating blind spots and so can look over their shoulder; this is FAR more effective than mirrors. I don't think there would be many people who would argue they have more awareness of their surroundings in a car than on a bike.

No question using an iPod increases risk but getting out of bed in the morning does likewise. It is about weighing up the risk. An iPod using cyclist that observes traffic law, stops at red lights, is lit well at night and looks around them before changing course is a lot safer than one without an iPod who doesn't do these things.

Chips Lovell

I never cycle with earphones, but I'd also find the radio in a car equally distracting.

As for iPod wearing zombie pedestrians walking out on the road in front of me... They're almost as dangerous as motorists on mobile phones.

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

Compare them to a decent set of earphones/headphones.

You shouldn't have to crank the volume up to block out the ambient noise, which, I would hazard, is what you do.

Look Sean, you seem to have some irrational desire to "prove" that its ok to use such devices while on a public road. The reference to iPod is a generic reference to all such devices but you decide to ignore the substantive point and try to defend the indefensible by getting stuck in on regarding IPod earphones and igore the big picture.
The big picture: Deliberately blocking out one of your God given senses whilest on a public road is wreckless and risky

rubadub

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?

I bet many dead motorists were found with the evil car stereo turned on which may have caused distraction too, so why not call for a ban on that, or at least implicate it as being the main reason for the crash? This is bizarre logic to attempt to use -the ipod killed her :rolleyes:. She should have been wearing a helmet- apparently they make you invincible, fella in the paper told me so.

blorg

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Driver Christopher Mills told an inquest how Abigail suddenly veered out of a cycle lane into the main carriageway of the A4074, near Benson, Oxfordshire, on October 28 last year.

Especially you Tim I think would accept that the behaviour of the cyclist is more the issue here, rather than the headphones. There are other cases though where the headphone wearer was clearly negligent in not anticipating a hazard.

Mr. Presentable

Why would you not do everything you can to preserve yourself? Use lights, wear a reflective jacket, try to pay full attention. Whether a motorist has a radio or not has nothing to do with your own input to keep yourself as safe as possible.

Oh, I don't use earphones on my bike, and don't like the radio on when I'm driving. I want as much environmental input as possible.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

Look Sean, you seem to have some irrational desire to "prove" that its ok ...

Indeed I do not, it's pretty rare that I ever listen to music while cycling, and even less so while driving.

My original point was that iPod earphones do not block out sound. That was in response to the implication in the article that they are somehow causing a problem on the roads.

Posing a danger to others should be an offence. People who cycle dangerously should be prosecuted. People who listen to music while cycling should not.

TimAllen

blorg wrote: »

An iPod using cyclist that observes traffic law, stops at red lights, is lit well at night and looks around them before changing course is a lot safer than one without an iPod who doesn't do these things.

That is a completely one sided observation. A drunk driver who drives slowly and stops at red lights and doesnt hit anybody is clearly safer than a speeding joyrider - such statements are pointless!
For a rational debate, one must compare like for like i.e. two law abiding cyclists (a stretch I know) one uses an IPod whilst cycling, the other doesn't. Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.
Then the debate centres on the level of risk involved in iPod use. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the risk is substantial - but you seem to see any such assertion as an attack on cyclists to be resisted rather than debated.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

That is a completely one sided observation. A drunk driver who drives slowly and stops at red lights and doesnt hit anybody is clearly safer than a speeding joyrider

All very true

TimAllen wrote: »

- such statements are pointless!

Why?

The main issue from a legal perspective should be the danger someone poses to others.

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

Indeed I do not, it's pretty rare that I ever listen to music while cycling, and even less so while driving.

My original point was that iPod earphones do not block out sound. That was in response to the implication in the article that they are somehow causing a problem on the roads.

Posing a danger to others should be an offence. People who cycle dangerously should be prosecuted. People who listen to music while cycling should not.

So you seem to agree that they shouldnt use such devices but want to argue that a particular brand of MP3 device does not block out sound???? Do you work for Apple or something? Bizarre to say the least!

rubadub

nipplenuts wrote: »

Why would you not do everything you can to preserve yourself?
...don't like the radio on when I'm driving. I want as much environmental input as possible.

So do you wear a helmet while driving? after all why not do everything you can...

TimAllen wrote: »

For a rational debate, one must compare like for like i.e. two law abiding cyclists (a stretch I know) one uses an IPod whilst cycling, the other doesn't. Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.

No "we" don't agree, when you said it first

increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

As though there are only 2 options, it seemed a rhetorical question, especially with you now answering on all of our behalfs.

I already answered

rubadub wrote: »

Any time I wore them I was probably safer, since I overcompensated with them on, checking around me a hell of a lot more, sort of reverse risk compensation like people who might be more reckless in a large car, or wearing protective clothing.

However CTC, the national cycling group, argues that people should be left to make their own judgments. “We encourage deaf people to cycle so we don’t think it’s essential to hear traffic in order to ride,” said a spokeswoman. “You have to be sensible. The most important thing is that you look around you all the time — especially over your shoulder.”

I expect deaf cyclists also take extra care.

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

All very true

Why?

The main issue from a legal perspective should be the danger someone poses to others.

The main issue should be the danger that someone poses to others and themselves.
We have already established that we agree that cyclists should not use iPod type devices whilst on a public road - so I dont understand what your point is or why you are posting in the context of the topic being debated on this thread? except to be argumentative?

c0rk3r

TimAllen wrote: »

Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.

Why? Can you give me cycling scenarios where a lack of hearing impedes you. You;ve only posted one article from the daily mail which quotes "'If Abigail had looked, she would have been able to see the car because there was a visibility of about 250 metres,' he said." Nullfying their own argument. Can you please not use a trashy loaded article of someones death to further their and your own agenda. Use scientific articles/studies

Im genuinely interested in reading these studies

TimAllen

rubadub wrote: »

No "we" don't agree, when you said it first As though there are only 2 options, it seemed a rhetorical question, especially with you now answering on all of our behalf.

Clearly, when debating whether using an iPod type device whilst cycling poses an extra risk versus not using one then there are only two options - nothing rhetorical about it!
Do you propose that there is no risk in using such a device versus not using one whilst cycling?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

The main issue should be the danger that someone poses to others and themselves.

I don't believe the law should seek to protect adults from themselves.

TimAllen wrote: »

We have already established that we agree that cyclists should not use iPod type devices whilst on a public road - so I dont understand what your point is or why you are posting in the context of the topic being debated on this thread? except to be argumentative?

lol, the elusive 'we'.

I have an issue with people who behave dangerously. I do not have an issue with people who listen to music, be it at home or as they drive or as they cycle.

blorg

TimAllen wrote: »

For a rational debate, one must compare like for like i.e. two law abiding cyclists (a stretch I know) one uses an IPod whilst cycling, the other doesn't. Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.

So take two motorists, one who uses a handsfree phone kit and one who doesn't- which is safer? One who listens to the radio and one who doesn't?

The point is there are an endless number of things that compromise safety yet we need to draw a line somewhere.

Then the debate centres on the level of risk involved in iPod use. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the risk is substantial - but you seem to see any such assertion as an attack on cyclists to be resisted rather than debated.

No, I don't, but the person making the assertion seems to do nothing else on Boards but troll the cycling forum. You have a tendency yourself to skip over any rebuttal, warp and twist arguments and pick out of anything the little fragment that best happens to support your position of the moment.

I haven't seen the evidence suggesting that the risk is substantial with a cyclist who is otherwise careful and law-abiding. The article you linked to about the girl wearing headphones suggested she swerved into a traffic lane, and would have seen the car had she looked- yet you still hold the headphones primarily responsible?

I linked to the helicopter example as just the most extreme example of media sillyness in missing the entire point on this one.

ednwireland

i dont think cyclists should use earphones at all (sorry guys !) i think you have to be crazy to wear anything that reduces your awareness on a bike you cant hear cars around you inside a car so radio doesnt make the same difference (the boy racers with super loud stereos are a different matter)

and btw you can be done in the uk for careless driving for tuning a radio or

* using a hand held mobile telephone while the vehicle is moving;
* tuning a car radio;
* reading a newspaper/map;
* selecting and lighting a cigarette/cigar/pipe;
* talking to and looking at a passenger;

so i dont think criticising cyclists in a uk newspaper goes nay further than these

TimAllen

c0rk3r wrote: »

Why? Can you give me cycling scenarios where a lack of hearing impedes you. You;ve only posted one article from the daily mail which quotes "'If Abigail had looked, she would have been able to see the car because there was a visibility of about 250 metres,' he said." Nullfying their own argument. Can you please not use a trashy loaded article of someones death to further their and your own agenda. Use scientific articles/studies

Im genuinely interested in reading these studies

I am genuinely interested in whether you suggesting that interfering with or dulling one of your God given senses poses no risk whilst operating a bicycle on a public road?
No need for scientific articles or studies, just your reasoned common sense rationale for such an assertion.

rubadub

TimAllen wrote: »

We have already established that we agree that cyclists should not use iPod type devices whilst on a public road -

For the second time "we" have not.

TimAllen wrote: »

Clearly, when debating whether using an iPod type device whilst cycling poses an extra risk versus not using one then there are only two options - nothing rhetorical about it!

Clearly you have ignored my post for the second time. Your questions were rhetorical in the sense that you did not expect any opposition to your view/question. You are in effect "leading the witness" by only giving 2 possibile options

For the third time....

rubadub wrote: »

Any time I wore them I was probably safer, since I overcompensated with them on, checking around me a hell of a lot more, sort of reverse risk compensation like people who might be more reckless in a large car, or wearing protective clothing...
I expect deaf cyclists also take extra care.

TimAllen

blorg wrote: »

So take two motorists, one who uses a handsfree phone kit and one who doesn't- which is safer? One who listens to the radio and one who doesn't?

The point is there are an endless number of things that compromise safety yet we need to draw a line somewhere.

No, I don't, but the person making the assertion seems to do nothing else on Boards but troll the cycling forum. You have a tendency yourself to skip over any rebuttal, warp and twist arguments and pick out of anything the little fragment that best happens to support your position of the moment.

I haven't seen the evidence suggesting that the risk is substantial with a cyclist who is otherwise careful and law-abiding. The article you linked to about the girl wearing headphones suggested she swerved into a traffic lane, and would have seen the car had she looked- yet you still hold the headphones primarily responsible?

I linked to the helicopter example as just the most extreme example of media sillyness in missing the entire point on this one.

LOL pot calling the kettle black!!! "You have a tendency yourself to skip over any rebuttal, warp and twist arguments and pick out of anything the little fragment that best happens to support your position of the moment" This one is just a peach - you have made my evening! Job done:cool:

TimAllen

rubadub wrote: »

For the second time "we" have not.

Clearly you have ignored my post for the second time. Your questions were rhetorical in the sense that you did not expect any opposition to your view/question. You are in effect "leading the witness" by only giving 2 possibile options

For the third time....

Ok, you seem to be slower than the rest.
The "we" related to me and another poster with whom I was debating and found agreement with - you don't seem to understand this - I thought you would eventually realise your mistake but clearly not, you need it SPELLED out for you

Regarding the rhetorical issue, this is mind numbingly simple. The question is "Is a cyclist safer using an iPod device whilst cycling on a public road versus not using such a device?". Basic logic suggests that there is only two possible answers to such a binary question. I will spell it out for you - 1 yes or 2 no. You seem to have a conceptual problem with this - I dont think I can help you on that!:eek:

Mr. Presentable

rubadub wrote: »

So do you wear a helmet while driving? after all why not do everything you can...

.

But the discussion is cyclists using headphones. Not motorists. Your point is spurious and deflective.

Lumen

Tim, here is something else mind numbingly simple. The question is "Is a driver safer with the windows open whilst driving on a public road versus having the windows closed? Basic logic suggests that there is only two possible answers to such a binary question. I will spell it out for you - 1 yes or 2 no.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

Tim, here is something else mind numbingly simple. The question is "Is a driver safer with the windows open whilst driving on a public road versus having the windows closed? Basic logic suggests that there is only two possible answers to such a binary question. I will spell it out for you - 1 yes or 2 no.

Lumen, I suggest you pose the question on the motoring forum. This forum related to cycling, hence my question. I thought you were a mod on this forum:D
actually post 40 might be a relevant response also

coolbeans

Tim, sometimes I cycle with head-phones. Sometimes I don't. When I cycle with headphones I am probably increasing risk to myself but only marginally so and the increased risk to others is minimal.
When you drive you probably listen to the radio. This act I think you'll agree compromises your "God given senses" so why do it? It results in increased risk for you and more improtantly for others. Please don't gloss over my points as you have with others. That's very rude and makes this whole argument pointless.

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

Lumen, I suggest you pose the question on the motoring forum. This forum related to cycling, hence my question. I thought you were a mod on this forum:D
actually post 40 might be a relevant response also

My question is perfectly relevant. You're being evasive.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

My question is perfectly relevant. You're being evasive.

Maybe you should look at joining the motoring forum Lumen, or take heed of post 40 by a different user.
Take your beating Lumen, you scored an own goal. I didnt expect it from you. You are one of the few posters on this forum that I respect for being honest and reasonable - your previous post is not worthy of you!

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

Maybe you should look at joining the motoring forum Lumen, or take heed of post 40 by a different user.
Take your beating Lumen, you scored an own goal. I didnt expect it from you. You are one of the few posters on this forum that I respect for being honest and reasonable - your previous post is not worthy of you!

You're still not answering my question.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

You're still not answering my question.

If you post your motoring question in the motoring forum I will respond. In the meantime I will continue to contribute to the cycling debate on this forum. Sorry Lumen I really didnt think I would be having this exchange with you, Blorg or NiceOneTom yes, but Lumen? No,I cant believe it!

TimAllen

coolbeans wrote: »

Tim, sometimes I cycle with head-phones. Sometimes I don't. When I cycle with headphones I am probably increasing risk to myself but only marginally so and the increased risk to others is minimal.
When you drive you probably listen to the radio. This act I think you'll agree compromises your "God given senses" so why do it? It results in increased risk for you and more improtantly for others. Please don't gloss over my points as you have with others. That's very rude and makes this whole argument pointless.

The point with headphones is that they are designed to block out the environment. Car radio speakers merely compete with the environment. Big difference.

coolbeans

TimAllen wrote: »

If you post your motoring question in the motoring forum I will respond. In the meantime I will continue to contribute to the cycling debate on this forum. Sorry Lumen I really didnt think I would be having this exchange with you, Blorg or NiceOneTom yes, but Lumen? No,I cant believe it![/QUOTE

Making comparisons is one of the fundamental structures of a good debate. This obviously doesn't suit you though Timtim.

rubadub

TimAllen wrote: »

Ok, you seem to be slower than the rest.
The "we" related to me and another poster with whom I was debating and found agreement with

you had said we in reply to 2 different posters, they did not seem in agreement with you either.

TimAllen wrote: »

I thought you would eventually realise your mistake but clearly not, you need it SPELLED out for you

You eventually realised your lack of clarity and had to spell it out. But in fact I do think you still did mean "we" as in everybody but now have come up with this pathetic excuse to further ignore my comments, -to which you cannot seem to come up with a decent response to.

TimAllen wrote: »

Basic logic suggests that there is only two possible answers to such a binary question. I will spell it out for you - 1 yes or 2 no. You seem to have a conceptual problem with this - I dont think I can help you on that!:eek:

You are at it again, you seem to have difficulty reading and understanding my posts, perhaps you are the one who is slower than most. You seem to have a conceptual problem with the fact not everybody shares the same opinions as you. I can't help you on that either, its quite bizarre.

nipplenuts wrote: »

But the discussion is cyclists using headphones. Not motorists. Your point is spurious and deflective.

I'm the one being deflective! are you taking the piss?? I take it your answer to the question was a simple NO -you do NOT wear a helmet in the car. The discussion is about distractions and what would or would not make things safer. I presume you did not want to answer as your previous comments would make you look like a hypocrite.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Link