Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

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

c0rk3r

TimAllen wrote: »

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.

I dont believe in god nor do i believe dulling my hearing puts me at risk. I use three sense while cycling which are, most importantly sight, equilibrioception, Proprioception coupled with my sixth sense which comes with 8 years cycling experience. I foresee no scenario whereby my hearing would overule any of the senses just listed. If you would specificly like to point out ocassions where it would im all hears but i doubt thats why youre here. Your entire boards career is just for the sake of trolling / aggravating cyclists. Youre of no benefit to this forum or its community or add anything worth while. Why you are still here is a mystery. Obviously still holding a grudge about that cyclist who hit your car, sad really.

blorg

TimAllen wrote: »

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:

Good rebuttal and engagement with my points, top marks. :rolleyes:

TimAllen

coolbeans wrote: »

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.

Why dont you address my reply to you post. You accused me of glossing over posts that dont suit me. "Kettle, you are black" My name is Tim, please dont wear it out by typing it twice, there's a nice chap!

tomasrojo

I don't wear earphones while cycling myself because I find the aural information very useful, but I don't care a jot that others do wear them. I suppose they are on balance safer without earphones, but they're perfectly safe with them, provided they remain aware of their surroundings.

As for the argument that we should take every possible precaution at all times, well, that way madness lies. Of taking precautions there is no end. Soon it will take fifteen minutes to prepare yourself for a five-minute cycle.

TimAllen

c0rk3r wrote: »

I dont believe in god nor do i believe dulling my hearing puts me at risk. I use three sense while cycling which are, most importantly sight, equilibrioception, Proprioception coupled with my sixth sense which comes with 8 years cycling experience. I foresee no scenario whereby my hearing would overule any of the senses just listed. If you would specificly like to point out ocassions where it would im all hears but i doubt thats why youre here. Your entire boards career is just for the sake of trolling / aggravating cyclists. Youre of no benefit to this forum or its community or add anything worth while. Why you are still here is a mystery. Obviously still holding a grudge about that cyclist who hit your car, sad really.

Your continued irrational attempt to justify the unjustifiable is the sad aspect of this debate. Also sad is your feeble attempt to attack the man not the ball (to borrow a soccer analogy).
Your perception of your environment is informed by all 5 senses. To deliberately inhibit one of them put you at risk. That is the simple truth of this debate and one that you continually ignore because it appears to be more important to score points over me rather than engage in honest debate!

coolbeans

TimAllen wrote: »

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

Only the best headphones block out the environment and anyway I wouldn't be using them on a bike. So as someone who has experience of this phenomenon ipod phones drown out some sound but not all thereby marginally increasing risk.
Using the word "compete" is nothing but semantics dreamt up over quite a few mins to serve a fairly ill thought out argument. Sound in the car i.e. the radio, CD player enhances the in-cabin cocoon effect and increases the risk of accident, albeit marginally. However increased risk in a car has potential for more serious consequences for others if this increased risk leads to an accident. So it is probably more worthy to legislate against radios in cars than on bike as the potential for damage with a similar level of increased risk is much higher.

TimAllen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't wear earphones while cycling myself because I find the aural information very useful, but I don't care a jot that others do wear them. I suppose they are on balance safer without earphones,

Reasonable viewpoint, I think

Lumen

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!

I just asked a simple multiple-choice question, the answers to which were handily numbered to save you chipping a nail on the keyboard.

I've spent plenty of time in motoring forums (2446 posts over 111 months in one of them). I'm asking the question here (and I shouldn't really have to spell it out) because it relates to the auditory aspects of operating a vehicle: car, bicycle, whatever.

TimAllen

coolbeans wrote: »

Only the best headphones block out the environment and anyway I wouldn't be using them on a bike. So as someone who has experience of this phenomenon ipod phones drown out some sound but not all thereby marginally increasing risk.
Using the word "compete" is nothing but semantics dreamt up over quite a few mins to serve a fairly ill thought out argument. Sound in the car i.e. the radio, CD player enhances the in-cabin cocoon effect and increases the risk of accident, albeit marginally. However increased risk in a car has potential for more serious consequences for others if this increased risk leads to an accident. So it is probably more worthy to legislate against radios in cars than on bike as the potential for damage with a similar level of increased risk is much higher.

Why dont you make this point to the RSA and see how you get on. In the meantime, lets just discuss the point relevant to this forum i.e. cyclists use of IPod type devices whilst cycling on a public road.
Post 40 comes to mind yet again - please take a look!

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

I just asked a simple multiple-choice question, the answers to which were handily numbered to save you chipping a nail on the keyboard.

I've spent plenty of time in motoring forums (2446 posts over 111 months in one of them). I'm asking the question here (and I shouldn't really have to spell it out) because it relates to the auditory aspects of operating a vehicle: car, bicycle, whatever.

Very sad Lumen, take your beating like a man and dont continue to embarrass yourself. Its cringe worthy at this stage! Guess I'll be engaging with you on the motoring forum then...so be it!