Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    c0rk3r
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭c0rk3r


    TimAllen wrote: »
    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!

    Tell me how?

    This isnt a debate, you arent debating anything you are simplying stating a point over and over without elaborating. Unfortunately i think you;ve learned from your previous bans and are using a new tactic of antagonizing people within the boards.ie rules. You;re adding nothing and are simply an annoyance, nothing more. Maybe thats your goal


  • Options
    #63
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    TimAllen wrote:
    I have already established that I agree that cyclists should not use iPod type devices whilst on a public road
    There. Fixed that for you...

    Oh, and is it time for this?


  • Options
    #64
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    c0rk3r wrote: »
    Tell me how?

    This isnt a debate, you arent debating anything you are simplying stating a point over and over without elaborating. Unfortunately i think you;ve learned from your previous bans and are using a new tactic of antagonizing people within the boards.ie rules. You;re adding nothing and are simply an annoyance, nothing more. Maybe thats your goal
    maybe your goal, with your continued irrational replies, ignoring the substantive point of my post is to antagonise me into making a reply that would result in a ban? The fact that you mentioned a ban betrays your intentions.
    Also you ignored the point I raised for which you have no reply and you are now feebly hoping for a ban


  • Options
    #65
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Four pages of one poster issuing condescending challenges and failing to admit when they're getting mauled.

    Does wearing earbuds on a bike dull your sense of hearing? Yes.

    Does it cut out external noises completely? No. That's why noise cancelling headphone cost five times much as earbuds.

    Does listening to the radio in a car dull your sense of hearing? Yes.

    Does it cut out external noise completely? No.

    Can we draw concrete conclusions from this about using earbuds on a bike or listening to the radio in a car? No.

    Is it facetious to claim that bringing up the parallel of behaviour in a car belongs on the motoring board? Yes, completely. Answer the question or shut the hell up. If you think cyclists should be banned from using earbuds then you need to either declare that car radios should be banned or provide some explanation for why you think they're so different.

    If you say something should be banned, and someone else draws a parallel with something else that's legal, you need to either show why the parallel is invalid or accept that the other currently legal activity should also be banned. Fail to do that, and the debate's over - and you haven't won. Telling someone to bring it up on the motoring board is cowardly and indicates an utter inability to continue to argue your case.

    Finally: if you're going to be condescending and arrogant in the way you treat other posters, at least try not to commit an error or argument so bad that primary school debaters could recognise it from a hundred yards.


  • Options
    #66
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,040 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    TimAllen wrote: »
    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!

    You really don't understand the function of a comparison in a debate do you? I make a point that you cant rebut and you deflect yet again.

    Let's be quite clear yet again since you have such difficulty in understanding my very simple point. Even on a bike with your headphones on the cyclist is well aware of his environment due to the embodied nature of his chosen mode of transport. This includes the audible part of the sensory spectrum. In a car the combination of the cocooned nature of the cabin and the radio on surely makes the use of any sound system irresponsible since there is even less interaction with the environment and thus increased risk of an accident. Why aren't you so concerned about the danger the motorist poses? Surely you should apply the same standards to drivers as well as cyclists...or are you biased and losing this argument? :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    rubadub wrote: »
    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.

    Actually anecdotally I see a lot of injuries related to drivers and stereos, usually they are reaching into the passenger footwell to retrieve a fallen CD.


  • Options
    #68
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    There. Fixed that for you...
    Blatant dishonest post misreprsenting what I said - and I presume in breach of the forum rules? Post reported.


  • Options
    #69
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Actually anecdotally I see a lot of injuries related to drivers and stereos, usually they are reaching into the passenger footwell to retrieve a fallen CD.
    Careful now Traumadoc. Some posters here require scientific artilcles and studies - anecdotal evidence doesnt seem to count for much - sorry!


  • Options
    #70
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    OK, enough of this thread, I am back to stuffing my basket at CRC before their 10% discount ends at midnight. Bad time for a troll Tim, you are more appreciated on Friday lunchtimes.


  • Options
    #71
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    coolbeans wrote: »
    You really don't understand the function of a comparison in a debate do you? I make a point that you cant rebut and you deflect yet again.

    Let's be quite clear yet again since you have such difficulty in understanding my very simple point. Even on a bike with your headphones on the cyclist is well aware of his environment due to the embodied nature of his chosen mode of transport. This includes the audible part of the sensory spectrum. In a car the combination of the cocooned nature of the cabin and the radio on surely makes the use of any sound system irresponsible since there is even less interaction with the environment and thus increased risk of an accident. Why aren't you so concerned about the danger the motorist poses? Surely you should apply the same standards to drivers as well as cyclists...or are you biased and losing this argument? :P
    As I have previously stated the crux of the debate is this:
    "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..."
    You continue to igore this becaiuse its the truth and you cant counter it with anything except waffle.
    Argument won... thank you and good night!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    blorg wrote: »
    OK, enough of this thread, I am back to stuffing my basket at CRC before their 10% discount ends at midnight. Bad time for a troll Tim, you are more appreciated on Friday lunchtimes.
    I was defending my viewpoint on multiple fronts - but you were, by far the easiest!:D


  • Options
    #73
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    Tim has left the building!


  • Options
    #74
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    TimAllen wrote: »
    Careful now Traumadoc. Some posters here require scientific artilcles and studies - anecdotal evidence doesnt seem to count for much - sorry!

    please dont report me.


  • Options
    #75
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    TimAllen wrote: »
    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:

    Tim
    The correct answer to that question is yes, no,
    and not known/unsure/no clear evidence one way or the other.

    Givging clear yes or no's in the absence of evidence to back up your opinion simply doesn't cut it.

    And by the way try getting a scientific paper published with "common sense" being your prevailing argument.


  • Options
    #76
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,040 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    TimAllen wrote: »
    As I have previously stated the crux of the debate is this:
    "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..."
    You continue to igore this becaiuse its the truth and you cant counter it with anything except waffle.
    Argument won... thank you and good night!

    Poor Tim got a nasty mauling and has left in a sulk. Altogether now...AWWW.

    By the way I pointed out many times that using earphones increases risk. You ignored that throughout Mr. Pot.


  • Options
    #77
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Originally from Tim:

    "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..."
    You continue to igore this becaiuse its the truth and you cant counter it with anything except waffle.
    Argument won... thank you and good night!

    Asking you to consider the dulling of a driver's senses as compared to a cyclist's is a counterargument.

    Accusing someone else of "waffle" is preposterous.

    Argument won? No, argument lost by dint of the fact that you've avoided answering a very simple point on multiple occasions. Seriously, you are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen or read.


  • Options
    #78
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    TimAllen wrote: »
    As I have previously stated the crux of the debate is this:
    "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..."

    I certainly rely heavily on my hearing to prescan before any move. I do agree that a cyclist would be more aware of their surrounds if they didn't at least partially obscure their hearing.
    I also agree that the article in is poorly written and informed. And that there are many reasonable parallels being drawn with in vehicle sound systems also hampering drivers awareness.

    I'm also aware that calling someone a troll is a bannable offence on many forums on boards, and that rule is quickly becoming appropriate here. If there is a problem with a poster report the post, do not engage, or take to back seat moderating.


  • Options
    #79
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    I wear earphones when cycling in dublin, because really with all the background noise the ability to hear does not make much difference ( I would be able to hear a beeping car).

    But when I am in a rural situation I dont, as given the higher speeds of vehicles .
    Hearing might help, though I am not sure why it should.

    Perhaps it would allow me to 'brace before impact"?


  • Options
    #80
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    TimAllen wrote: »
    maybe your goal, with your continued irrational replies, ignoring the substantive point of my post is to antagonise me into making a reply that would result in a ban? The fact that you mentioned a ban betrays your intentions.
    Also you ignored the point I raised for which you have no reply and you are now feebly hoping for a ban
    TimAllen wrote: »
    Blatant dishonest post misreprsenting what I said - and I presume in breach of the forum rules? Post reported.
    Now I remember you, the pseudo-articulate troll "Hopefully I will not be banned and be taken seriously if I use lots of big fancy words" hope you get that new thesaurus for Christmas.


  • Options
    #81
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    uberwolf wrote: »
    I certainly rely heavily on my hearing to prescan before any move. I do agree that a cyclist would be more aware of their surrounds if they didn't at least partially obscure their hearing.
    I also agree that the article in is poorly written and informed. And that there are many reasonable parallels being drawn with in vehicle sound systems also hampering drivers awareness.

    While I agree hearing is useful, as I mentioned before, any maneuver on a bike is made safer by checking over your shoulder. I think plenty of cyclists have near misses because they believe they didn't hear anything and proceeded to execute said maneuver.

    I have certainly come across many cyclists with unplugged ears on Dublin's cycling routes who have performed stupid turns, sudden stops, etc. without so much as a backwards glance.

    If anything, i think that if you made EVERYONE wear headphones, it would make them safer as it would force them to look around on the bike. This would of course allow some elementary darwinism to take hold of those who fail to adapt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    coolbeans wrote: »
    Poor Tim got a nasty mauling and has left in a sulk. Altogether now...AWWW.

    By the way I pointed out many times that using earphones increases risk. You ignored that throughout Mr. Pot.
    I came back to have a look - wow, quite a sad post, claiming victory like a child just because I left the thread for a bit. Not too difficult to hold my own with up to 5 opposing debaters at once when this is the standard of the debate!:cool:


  • Options
    #83
    poochiem
    Registered Users Posts: 690 ✭✭✭poochiem


    ...amazing scenes...


  • Options
    #84
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    DirkVoodoo wrote: »
    While I agree hearing is useful, as I mentioned before, any maneuver on a bike is made safer by checking over your shoulder.

    by prescan, I mean rule out a maneuver. Next step is to look, but by avoiding looking around when I don't need to, I'm looking ahead!


  • Options
    #85
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    DirkVoodoo wrote: »
    While I agree hearing is useful, as I mentioned before, any maneuver on a bike is made safer by checking over your shoulder. .
    I think I agree with that - nobody was arguing that hearing was the primary sense when it comes to cyclist safety. The point I was making is that all 5 senses should be employed - if you are lucky enough to have all 5 senses and the common sense to use them all!


  • Options
    #86
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    uberwolf wrote: »
    by prescan, I mean rule out a maneuver. Next step is to look, but by avoiding looking around when I don't need to, I'm looking ahead!

    Ah I see. I always have an occasional look around, it takes more or less the same time as a quick glance in the mirror when driving.


  • Options
    #87
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    TimAllen wrote: »
    I think I agree with that - nobody was arguing that hearing was the primary sense when it comes to cyclist safety. The point I was making is that all 5 senses should be employed - if you are lucky enough to have all 5 senses and the common sense to use them all!

    I remember mentioning this about a year ago - but where do taste and touch enter the equation? Or smell for that matter?

    One day I got stuck behind the bin lorry, sense of smell was not needed there.


  • Options
    #88
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    DirkVoodoo wrote: »
    I remember mentioning this about a year ago - but where do taste and touch enter the equation? Or smell for that matter?

    One day I got stuck behind the bin lorry, sense of smell was not needed there.
    all your senses are related, lets not turn this into a biology lesson! Your perception of your environment is informed by all 5 senses.


  • Options
    #89
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    As long as it's not so loud that you can't actually hear a car beep its horn. Personally I need my ears to cycle as I don't have the benefit of wing mirrors hanging from my handlebars and I like being able to hear the vehicle coming up behind me so I can concentrate extra hard on not falling off!


  • Options
    #90
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    TimAllen wrote: »
    The big picture: Deliberately blocking out one of your God given senses whilest on a public road is wreckless and risky
    TimAllen wrote: »
    Your perception of your environment is informed by all 5 senses. To deliberately inhibit one of them put you at risk.
    TimAllen wrote: »
    The point I was making is that all 5 senses should be employed - if you are lucky enough to have all 5 senses and the common sense to use them all!
    TimAllen wrote: »
    all your senses are related, lets not turn this into a biology lesson! Your perception of your environment is informed by all 5 senses.

    You should buy a convertible and drive around with the roof down so you don't cut out any enviornmental cues. You'll probably need to muffle the engine more aswell. Actually, you should just cut the roof off altogether so you don't feel tempted to put it up when it rains.

    Edit - make sure to remove all windows which don't have wipers - you wouldn't want to reduce your vision either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    concussion wrote: »
    You should buy a convertible and drive around with the roof down so you don't cut out any enviornmental cues. You'll probably need to muffle the engine more aswell. Actually, you should just cut the roof off altogether so you don't feel tempted to put it up when it rains.
    Thats a lazy and silly reply. Why not post something credible?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement