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

Run in with an undercover garda

124

Comments

  • #92
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    Some research into the topic.
    www.ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/viewFile/31926/5941
    There's more out there.

    To me its idiotic. Everything is a personal choice to some extent - to view someones personal choice as idiotic is perfectly acceptable.

    So you like to an article who's findings are:
    Listening to music while performing submaximal cycling resulted in no physiological benefit. Yet, the cycling session done in conjunction with music was deemed, by the majority of the subjects, to be easier than the cycling session without music.

    So it doesn't provide you with a measurable physiological benefit, but does provide you with mental benefit and you say that makes it idiotic? Interesting


  • #93
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kippy wrote: »
    Some research into the topic.
    www.ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/viewFile/31926/5941
    There's more out there.

    To me its idiotic. Everything is a personal choice to some extent - to view someones personal choice as idiotic is perfectly acceptable.

    Did you read the article?

    It's about the benefits (or lack there of) from listening to music while training, nothing really to do with the general point of the thread or even the points about cycling with headphones made thereafter.


  • #94
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    Quentinkrisp wrote: »
    A car then beeped me and acting instinctively I gave the driver the middle finger as he passed me by.

    Seems you deserve to be pulled over and have the book thrown at you...
    :)


  • #95
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Sorry, wrong link.........apologies - the one posted has no relevance.
    This is the correct one:
    www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/.../FS_Use_of_media_devices_cyclists.pdf


  • #96
    Officer Giggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Officer Giggles


    There is simply zero chance of anything coming from this


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kippy wrote: »
    Sorry, wrong link.........apologies - the one posted has no relevance.
    This is the correct one:
    www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/.../FS_Use_of_media_devices_cyclists.pdf

    http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Use_of_media_devices_cyclists.pdf

    for some reason your link ain't working


  • #98
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    Sorry, wrong link.........apologies - the one posted has no relevance.
    This is the correct one:
    www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/.../FS_Use_of_media_devices_cyclists.pdf

    Ah yes, the one that states
    This study detected no or only limited effects of listening to music on the cycling behaviour examined

    and then it concludes with
    SWOV still considers the data about the degree of increased risk due to the use of devices as insufficiently hard to take further-reaching measures, such as a legal prohibition.

    so an actual study that found no evidence of effects, and the only negative conclusions were drawn from questionnaires and hearsay, and there's a conclusion that says there's no hard evidence is what you base your "idiotic" comment on? :confused:


  • #99
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Ah yes, the one that states



    and then it concludes with



    so an actual study that found no evidence of effects, and the only negative conclusions were drawn from questionnaires and hearsay, and there's a conclusion that says there's no hard evidence is what you base your "idiotic" comment on? :confused:

    Nice to see some selective quotes being used.........

    Here is an abstract from the report:
    http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?section=repository&repository=Music+and+phone+increase+risks+in+cycling
    The results of this study provide an initial indication of the increased risks of listening to music and using a mobile phone when cycling. It is sensible to abstain from listening to music or using a mobile phone, particularly in circumstances where attention should be paid to participating in traffic and the actual cycling. SWOV recommends taking this problem seriously, but feels at the same time that the data provided by this study are as yet insufficiently conclusive to warrant recommending in favour of or against a legal ban on using these devices when cycling. Other data or studies need to provide more clarity on the possible reductions in injuries. Of course the proportionality of the measure (in relation to other risk factors in traffic as well), practical feasibility and any cost-benefit analyses will have to be considered in this process as well.


  • #100
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    Nice to see some selective quotes being used.........

    But the quotes I used were the relevant ones -you seem to be confusing a self-assessed survey with actual scientific findings -ie people "feel" like an accident is more likely, but there's no empirical evidence to support this assertion, so it's scientifically worthless.

    In a study of 10,000 people, 75% said they thought coca-cola gave them superpowers, does that mean that it is true?

    The most important bit I quoted was
    SWOV still considers the data about the degree of increased risk due to the use of devices as insufficiently hard

    ie, the data is not necessarily accurate.


  • #101
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    But the quotes I used were the relevant ones -you seem to be confusing a self-assessed survey with actual scientific findings -ie people "feel" like an accident is more likely, but there's no empirical evidence to support this assertion, so it's scientifically worthless.

    In a study of 10,000 people, 75% said they thought coca-cola gave them superpowers, does that mean that it is true?

    The most important bit I quoted was



    ie, the data is not necessarily accurate.
    This is the bit I'd be reading.
    Not enough data in this report to suggest the need for a LEGAL BAN.

    SWOV recommends taking this problem seriously, but feels at the same time that the data provided by this study are as yet insufficiently conclusive to warrant recommending in favour of or against a legal ban on using these devices when cycling


    Further Articles - not research:
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/headphone-danger-warning-after-cyclist-using-ipod-hit-by-tram-20100616-yfcc.html
    http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Cyclists-with-headphones---the-next-big-danger-to-lawmakers-114223074.html
    http://www.michaelwharton.co.uk/2009/08/cyclists-wearing-earphones-or-headphones-bad-idea/


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    kippy wrote: »
    Nice to see some selective quotes being used.........

    Here is an abstract from the report:
    http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?section=repository&repository=Music+and+phone+increase+risks+in+cycling
    It is sensible to abstain from listening to music or using a mobile phone, particularly in circumstances where attention should be paid to participating in traffic and the actual cycling. SWOV recommends taking this problem seriously, but feels at the same time that the data provided by this study are as yet insufficiently conclusive to warrant recommending in favour of or against a legal ban on using these devices when cycling.

    Fairly standard caveats for a study whose conclusions are not in line with received wisdom. It's an admission that all they have at the moment is opinion against listening to music while cycling.

    I wouldn't be surprised if researchers do subsequently find that it is associated with higher probability of collisions, but road-safety research is littered with apparent paradoxes.


  • #103
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    This is the bit I'd be reading.
    Not enough data in this report to suggest the need for a LEGAL BAN.

    SWOV recommends taking this problem seriously, but feels at the same time that the data provided by this study are as yet insufficiently conclusive to warrant recommending in favour of or against a legal ban on using these devices when cycling

    Yes, so they think it might be a problem, but that proper research needs to be done. That's a long way from proving anything, and is certainly not something you should base your 'idiotic' comment on!

    It's really a nonsense article mate that doesn't prove your argument one iota as it doesn't contain a proper study


  • #104
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Yes, so they think it might be a problem, but that proper research needs to be done. That's a long way from proving anything, and is certainly not something you should base your 'idiotic' comment on!

    It's really a nonsense article mate that doesn't prove your argument one iota as it doesn't contain a proper study

    The data is not hard enough to suggest a legal ban is required however it is sufficient enough to say that there is an increased risk of accidents.
    Of course it is a proper study - just one that didnt go in depth enough to conclude that a legal ban is required.


  • #105
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    The data is not hard enough to suggest a legal ban is required however it is sufficient enough to say that there is an increased risk of accidents.
    Of course it is a proper study - just one that didnt go in depth enough to conclude that a legal ban is required.

    No it isn't. It's an anecdotal survey based on peoples perceptions that there may be an increased risk of accidents.

    Look, it is the same as if you phoned up 5000 people and said "do you think mobile phones cause cancer", and then saying that because the majority thought yes, it is sufficient to say there's an increased risk.

    Basing results on perceived risk by members of the public is very shaky ground that has no basis in fact. This is very different to a proper, empirical study


  • #106
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    kippy wrote: »
    Of course it is a proper study - just one that didnt go in depth enough to conclude that a legal ban is required.
    It's a fluffy study. In the course of the same study they asked about mobile phones and media players. Two entirely different types of devices with different ways of interacting with the end-user. That these devices are now merging is somewhat irrelevant.
    You might as well do a study about using GPS and surfing the web in-car and then concluding that these are probably dangerous activities.

    It also states that distractions relating to using or focussing on the device while in transit are major factors. If I never interact with the device while moving (have radio or random play on), can I be exempt?

    I have never once been involved in an accident or a near miss which could have been avoided or reduced through not having headphones in. There is far too much weight given to the importance of hearing in traffic environments, to the point that people will substitute hearing for visual cues and may even subconsciously use their hearing for tasks which require visual confirmation, such as estimating the distance of following traffic. It would be a valuable lesson to "deafen" someone while they drive around for an hour to show them the importance of never relying on your hearing for anything.

    Seriously, if you think that cycling around with earphones in is "for idiots" then I'm probably a moron for having the stereo on in my car too.


  • #107
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    seamus wrote: »
    It's a fluffy study. In the course of the same study they asked about mobile phones and media players. Two entirely different types of devices with different ways of interacting with the end-user. That these devices are now merging is somewhat irrelevant.
    You might as well do a study about using GPS and surfing the web in-car and then concluding that these are probably dangerous activities.

    It also states that distractions relating to using or focussing on the device while in transit are major factors. If I never interact with the device while moving (have radio or random play on), can I be exempt?

    I have never once been involved in an accident or a near miss which could have been avoided or reduced through not having headphones in. There is far too much weight given to the importance of hearing in traffic environments, to the point that people will substitute hearing for visual cues and may even subconsciously use their hearing for tasks which require visual confirmation, such as estimating the distance of following traffic. It would be a valuable lesson to "deafen" someone while they drive around for an hour to show them the importance of never relying on your hearing for anything.

    Seriously, if you think that cycling around with earphones in is "for idiots" then I'm probably a moron for having the stereo on in my car too.
    There is a significant difference to having the stereo on in your car (a machine with roll bars, seat belts, side impact bars, multiple safety devices etc and having your hearing almost completely impaired on a device where the only safety equipment in a collision is your helmet - if that's what you are wearing.


  • #108
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kippy wrote: »
    There is a significant difference to having the stereo on in your car (a machine with roll bars, seat belts, side impact bars, multiple safety devices etc and having your hearing almost completely impaired on a device where the only safety equipment in a collision is your helmet - if that's what you are wearing.

    I forgot that part of being a road user where you should only look out for yourself and no one else, it's like that time I ran over a guy because I didn't notice him walk out in front of me. I was fine, who cares that I orphaned his children/robbed his parents of a son.


  • #109
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I forgot that part of being a road user where you should only look out for yourself and no one else, it's like that time I ran over a guy because I didn't notice him walk out in front of me. I was fine, who cares that I orphaned his children/robbed his parents of a son.

    Ah jaysus,
    Of course you dont just look out for yourself - theres not much point in minding your own safety and moving people down to protect yourself.

    All that being said if you dont take care of yourself who will?
    I know from my point of view, that getting on a bike and sticking on earphones to listen to music or otherwise is idiotic.
    If anything, this whole thread and the original post in is should prove that.


  • #110
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    I know from my point of view, that getting on a bike and sticking on earphones to listen to music or otherwise is idiotic.
    If anything, this whole thread and the original post in is should prove that.

    No, you see this is where I think the problem is.... you appear to be making the assumption that anyone who takes a view different to yours is saying that using earphones have no effect on cycling whatsoever, and this is not the case. Indeed, I've said previously in this thread that it does hamper your cycling, but that most people over compensate to make up for it, and that it's a personal choice.

    It's only you coming on and saying that it's idiotic and then posting up a survey that proves nothing in a vain attempt to prove yourself right that is getting peoples backs up!


  • #111
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    kippy wrote: »
    There is a significant difference to having the stereo on in your car (a machine with roll bars, seat belts, side impact bars, multiple safety devices etc and having your hearing almost completely impaired on a device where the only safety equipment in a collision is your helmet - if that's what you are wearing.
    But that's irrelevant. You have safety equipment installed but the intention is to never have to use it. You don't install safety equipment in a vehicle so that you can be more careless. If the stereo was a big safety concern, you wouldn't be saying, "Ah shure doesn't he have an airbag and seatbelt, he'll be grand", rather you would get rid of the stereo.

    If hearing was such a headline issue, it would be illegal to install stereos in cars, and they would be required to have some form of through-draft vents installed to allow outside noises to come into the cabin.

    The fact that cars are ever increasingly insulated from the outside world while simultaneously improving the driver's ability to see, suggests that safety experts see hearing as being a useful optional supplement to safety, at best, while vision is the primary concern.

    Motorcycle helmet manufacturers likewise use their helmets ability to block out noise as a selling point. The whooshing does get loud at 100km/h.

    I'm convinced that anyone who claims earphones are dangerous either never uses them or uses them incorrectly. Playing Slayer at 100dB is always going to affect your ability to concentrate, regardless of vehicle (or even on foot).


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    seamus wrote: »
    But that's irrelevant. You have safety equipment installed but the intention is to never have to use it. You don't install safety equipment in a vehicle so that you can be more careless. If the stereo was a big safety concern, you wouldn't be saying, "Ah shure doesn't he have an airbag and seatbelt, he'll be grand", rather you would get rid of the stereo.

    If hearing was such a headline issue, it would be illegal to install stereos in cars, and they would be required to have some form of through-draft vents installed to allow outside noises to come into the cabin.

    The fact that cars are ever increasingly insulated from the outside world while simultaneously improving the driver's ability to see, suggests that safety experts see hearing as being a useful optional supplement to safety, at best.

    Motorcycle helmet manufacturers likewise use their helmets ability to block out noise as a selling point. The whoosing does get loud at 100km/h.

    I'm convinced that anyone who claims earphones are dangerous either never uses them or uses them incorrectly. Playing Slayer at 100dB is always going to affect your ability to concentrate, regardless of vehicle (or even on foot).
    Of course you don't intend to be more careless because you have more safety equipment installed. However the very fact that it is installed means you are safer than it not being installed. Even if there is a slight chance (and I believe there to be more than a slight chance) that wearing headphones increases the risk of you being in an accident when cycling then I can only assume its foolish to wear headphones when cycling - where accidents can often be a lot more serious (to yourself) had you had an accident in a car.


    I dont use earphones when cycling (not been cycling that long mind) for the very fact that I believe they are more dangerous than NOT wearing them - anything that makes me feel more safe I will do, high viz jacket, lights, reflectors, helmet. I tend to avoid the things that I perceive to increase my chances of accident - such as earphones.


  • #113
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kippy wrote: »
    There is a significant difference to having the stereo on in your car (a machine with roll bars, seat belts, side impact bars, multiple safety devices etc and having your hearing almost completely impaired on a device where the only safety equipment in a collision is your helmet - if that's what you are wearing.

    My point was that there actually isn't much of a difference IMO (not fact, must make clear the difference).
    kippy wrote: »
    I know from my point of view, that IMO getting on a bike and sticking on earphones to listen to music or otherwise is idiotic.
    If anything, this whole thread and the original post in is should prove possibly indicates that.

    The whole thread proves nothing, the garda in the original post more than likely pulled over the OP because he gave him the finger, not because of his head phones. On this basis you could assert with a view to looking for further proof that being a d1ck is more dangerous than wearing headphones.


  • #114
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    CramCycle wrote: »
    My point was that there actually isn't much of a difference IMO (not fact, must make clear the difference).



    The whole thread proves nothing, the garda in the original post more than likely pulled over the OP because he gave him the finger, not because of his head phones. On this basis you could assert with a view to looking for further proof that being a d1ck is more dangerous than wearing headphones.
    Theres major differences between the safety features on a bike and on a car - thats a fact.

    The OP said he was "In his own world" - the Garda had beeped him before he "gave him the finger" - why did he beep him in the first place?


  • #115
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Quentinkrisp wrote: »
    Today, however, I wasn't in the best of moods and was cycling up tara street, i was on the broken white line between the two lines and had the headphones in, was kind of lost in my own world. A car then beeped me and acting instinctively I gave the driver the middle finger as he passed me by. he was on the inside lane, he slowed down ahead of me and then stopped,
    kippy wrote: »
    Theres major differences between the safety features on a bike and on a car - thats a fact.

    The OP said he was "In his own world" - the Garda had beeped him before he "gave him the finger" - why did he beep him in the first place?

    I meant difference to your hearing, I thought my post made that clear but no matter.

    The garda probably beeped him for road position issues, never mentioned the headphones.


  • #116
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    kippy wrote: »
    I tend to avoid the things that I perceive to increase my chances of accident - such as earphones.
    As is your perogative. Would it not have been easier to state that originally? Instead of "wearing earphones is idiotic", it might have been easier to say, "I perceive earphones to increase my chances of having an accident, so I avoid wearing them".
    why did he beep him in the first place?
    I get the impression from the OP that he was drifting along in his own little world, unaware of the vehicle behind attempting to overtake and the Garda gave him a beep to alert him to the fact that there was a vehicle behind (as he is legally entitled to do).
    Nothing to suggest that earphones were an issue; when I go into my own little world I go effectively deaf and don't hear anything.


  • #117
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I meant difference to your hearing, I thought my post made that clear but no matter.

    The garda probably beeped him for road position issues, never mentioned the headphones.

    So, was the fact that the OP was wearing headphones and "in his own world" anything to do with his road position?


    Being in a car means you have more protection should anything happen - that doesnt give you the right to act the eejit in a car and doesnt absolve you of blame should anything happen while you are in that car but its something that you HAVE to take into account when you talk about getting into a car or getting onto a bike. I do get your point about hearing but its a relative danger in my opinion.


  • #118
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,207 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    seamus wrote: »
    As is your perogative. Would it not have been easier to state that originally? Instead of "wearing earphones is idiotic", it might have been easier to say, "I perceive earphones to increase my chances of having an accident, so I avoid wearing them".

    IMO wearing earphones is idiotic.
    Is that close enough?


  • #119
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    kippy wrote: »
    IMO wearing earphones is idiotic.
    Is that close enough?

    That'll do :)


  • #120
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kippy wrote: »
    So, was the fact that the OP was wearing headphones and "in his own world" anything to do with his road position?


    Being in a car means you have more protection should anything happen - that doesnt give you the right to act the eejit in a car and doesnt absolve you of blame should anything happen while you are in that car but its something that you HAVE to take into account when you talk about getting into a car or getting onto a bike. I do get your point about hearing but its a relative danger in my opinion.

    Relative danger? I'm lost on that statement, if its relative then its important to the situation, ie if wearing headphones is inherently dangerous, so is listening to music on the radio, driving with your windows up etc

    He stated he was riding along the broken white line, presumably in a position where cars where squeezing by him on either side, not certain though but thats what I took from his post, also him being in a world of his own means it may have been apparent to the Garda that he was unaware or wobbling to and fro in a dangerous position. AFAIK, it appears he only pulled him over for sticking up his finger.

    I have been pulled over by the Gardai when I was younger and wearing headphones. I got an earful for nearly hitting a parked car at speed (I didn't), I apologised and told them I didn't know they were Gardai (unmarked and no lights on or siren but apparently I wouldn't have noticed :P)) but that I thought they were chasing me for offending them in some way that I had not realised but nothing about the headphones.

    Headphones never affected my cycling but like so many others have said I pry made more of an effort while wearing them. i don't wear them anymore but thats cause I just don't.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    It's a good thing I never mentioned that I like a few stiff drinks before cycling to steady my nerves.


Advertisement