New York wants to outlaw iPods for cyclers!?!? - Page 2

02-10-2007, 09:21 AM

"landotter" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1171121521.298192.11690@m58g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 10, 7:56 am, "Gooserider" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> "BobT" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:arjzh.57293$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> >news:1171106831.734099.195910@p10g2000cwp.googleg roups.com...
>> >> WTF is this...
>>
>> >>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> > My libertarian streak makes me think this is a bad law, however anyone
>> > that wears earphones playing music while cycling on a road shared with
>> > other vehicles is quite foolish.
>>
>> > A modest proposal: Perhaps there should be a law that requires anyone
>> > injured while engaging in this particularly stupid activity should only
>> > get medical treatment if they pay for it themselves. This would
>> > achieve
>> > the goal of protecting the public at large from this person's poor
>> > judgement but would not infringe on individual freedom with the only
>> > goal
>> > of "protecting people from themselves".
>>
>> > Please do not respond unless you agree with me.
>>
>> > Ready, set, and go.
>>
>> > BobT
>>
>> Sorry, Bob, but I'm going to respond(and doesn't your request negate your
>> 'libertarian' streak?). Wearing earphones while cycling is already
>> illegal
>> in most places, but that doesn't mean the activity is "stupid". I fail to
>> see how a cyclist wearing earphones removes him from the environment any
>> more than a motorcyclist wearing a helmet, or a motorist in a luxury car
>> with the radio turned up.
>
> You're not thinking hard enough, then. It's virtually impossible to
> use headphones at a reasonable volume when you have to overcome wind
> noise, so the vast majority of cyclists wearing 'phones have them at a
> volume that's the equivalent of a car stereo that's so loud that it
> would get you pulled over. That's right--most sane cities have laws
> against egregious car stereo volume as well.
>
> Oh, and Bob, suggesting the withholding of medical treatment to
> somebody that's stupid enough to wear headphones and get hit makes you
> an *******. Bragging about a "libertarian streak" beforehand makes you
> pitiful. Perhaps you should stick to the Ayn Rand and Push-Up
> creamsicles, and stay off the Usenet.
>
> The whole headphone debate is not a bit different from listening to a
> drunk stagger to the door and slur, "but I'm fine to drive, hic."
>

No you are the DA. Anyone in a car listening to music is too drunk to
drive. Throw away their license forever. They are too distracted to see a
cyclist or care about anyone's safety.

02-10-2007, 09:32 AM

"Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1171106831.734099.195910@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> WTF is this...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

They should ban them for 18 wheelers - far more dangrous to public safety
than a cyclist

Truck spills 40 tons of cow intestines

Sat Feb 10, 6:31 AM ET

About 40 tons of cow intestines and bones spilled onto a major highway after
a truck driver became distracted by his digital music player and his
semitrailer tipped over, officials said.

Authorities closed parts of Interstate 43 for about two hours Thursday while
the beef byproduct was cleaned up, said sheriff's Sgt. Blaine Spicer.

The accident happened in the town of Mosel when 25-year-old Ryan Engle's
truck veered off the road as he adjusted his MP3 player, Spicer said.

Engle, of Kenosha, was cited for inattentive driving and taken to a hospital
with non-life threatening injuries, Spicer said.

The truck had to be towed from the scene. It is owned by Birchwood Transport
of Kenosha.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press.

02-10-2007, 09:36 AM

"Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1171106831.734099.195910@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> WTF is this...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>

It's a paternalistic measure, but something that makes sense. How many
runners, walkers and cyclists get hit by cars while listening to Walkmans
since their introduction in the 80s? Now iPods. Although, in NYC at least,
it's usually the hipsters who sport the ubiquitous white Q-tip earphones all
over the streets, subways and curbs, bridges, wherever, and there's
something to be said about Darwinism.

02-10-2007, 10:05 AM

"bdbafh" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1171130866.356990.238880@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 10, 9:50 am, "Gooserider" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> "Pat" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I fail to
>> >> see how a cyclist wearing earphones removes him from the environment
>> >> any
>> >> more than a motorcyclist wearing a helmet, or a motorist in a luxury
>> >> car
>> >> with the radio turned up.
>>
>> > It's because the motorist is protected by a steel cage and the cyclist
>> > is
>> > many times more vulnerable. That's what makes it "stupid."
>>
>> Moreso than the MOTORCYCLIST? People on Harleys with loud pipes and
>> helmets
>> can't hear a thing.
>
> Loud is safe.
>
> The louder the hawg, the more that the motorists are aware of its
> presence.
>
> I've found that a booming voice is far more effective than a measly
> bell when notifying a moron behind the wheel as to their errant ways.
>
> Airhorn, anyone?
>
> -bdbafh
>

That must be why I see so many bikers missing left legs, because people hear
them enough not to turn in front of them. Not. The loud pipes save lives
argument is overblown. And with the soundproofing of today's vehichles, your
"booming voice" isn't likely to register over the radio and air
conditioning.

02-10-2007, 10:13 AM

"Bill Sornson" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:45cdf996$0$4893$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> Pat wrote:
>> I fail to
>>> see how a cyclist wearing earphones removes him from the environment
>>> any more than a motorcyclist wearing a helmet, or a motorist in a
>>> luxury car with the radio turned up.
>>
>> It's because the motorist is protected by a steel cage and the
>> cyclist is many times more vulnerable. That's what makes it "stupid."
>
> Ah, so not wearing headphones makes the rider impervious to this
> imbalance? I use a mirror, and even that will very likely not prevent me
> getting hit from behind should some dolt driver drift to the right. Cars
> /sound/ the same whether they're in their lane or about to cream me.
>
> Bill "I use ear buds, bud, but not the type that block out all sound" S.

Exactly. I'm more likely to get hit in an intersection or parking lot than
from behind. I'm also more able to avoid those hits than I am able to avoid
being hit from behind, iPod or not.

02-10-2007, 10:39 AM

"Gooserider" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:45cdcef7$0$16997$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> "BobT" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:arjzh.57293$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>> "Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:1171106831.734099.195910@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>>> WTF is this...
>>>
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
>> My libertarian streak makes me think this is a bad law, however anyone
>> that wears earphones playing music while cycling on a road shared with
>> other vehicles is quite foolish.
>>
>> A modest proposal: Perhaps there should be a law that requires anyone
>> injured while engaging in this particularly stupid activity should only
>> get medical treatment if they pay for it themselves. This would achieve
>> the goal of protecting the public at large from this person's poor
>> judgement but would not infringe on individual freedom with the only goal
>> of "protecting people from themselves".
>>
>> Please do not respond unless you agree with me.
>>
>> Ready, set, and go.
>>
>> BobT
>>
>
> Sorry, Bob, but I'm going to respond(and doesn't your request negate your
> 'libertarian' streak?). Wearing earphones while cycling is already illegal
> in most places, but that doesn't mean the activity is "stupid". I fail to
> see how a cyclist wearing earphones removes him from the environment any
> more than a motorcyclist wearing a helmet, or a motorist in a luxury car
> with the radio turned up. Cyclists are more likely to be hit in
> intersections than from behind. Even IF you happen to hear a car coming up
> behind you---what are the chances one can dodge to the right to avoid the
> hit?
>
I agree that a motorist in a luxury car is sonically insulated from the
environment as much or more than a cyclist, or a runner for that matter,
wearing headphones playing music. On the other hand, I feel that I need to
protect myself from motorized traffic more when I'm cycling on the road than
when I'm in my luxuary car (2000 Dodge truck with 120K miles and major hail
damage). In the ideal world, motorists would watch out for me better and
always be courteous etc., but in the USA where I ride, there's room for
improvement. I want to use all my senses, including my ears, to be aware of
motor vehicles on the road when I'm riding or running.

I don't think we need a law to enforce my personal view on everyeone else.
My "modest proposal" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek although we all should
realize that behaviors that some think don't have effects on others may have
broader effects on society like paying for head injuries in motorcycle
riders that don't wear helments.

My sarcastic comment after the proposal was intended to provoke debate and
perhaps it worked.

BobT

02-10-2007, 10:51 AM

"landotter" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1171121521.298192.11690@m58g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> Oh, and Bob, suggesting the withholding of medical treatment to
> somebody that's stupid enough to wear headphones and get hit makes you
> an *******. Bragging about a "libertarian streak" beforehand makes you
> pitiful. Perhaps you should stick to the Ayn Rand and Push-Up
> creamsicles, and stay off the Usenet.

Awesome comment! I'm too dense to get the Push-Up creamsicle reference,
please help. Please see my second post in the thread.

BobT

P.S.: Ayn Rand, "A desire presupposes the possibility of action to achieve
it; action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving." I don't know what
this means either. Please help.

02-10-2007, 10:56 AM

On 10 Feb 2007 07:32:01 -0800, "landotter" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>You're not thinking hard enough, then. It's virtually impossible to
>use headphones at a reasonable volume when you have to overcome wind
>noise, so the vast majority of cyclists wearing 'phones have them at a
>volume that's the equivalent of a car stereo that's so loud that it
>would get you pulled over. That's right--most sane cities have laws
>against egregious car stereo volume as well.

And let's keep deaf people off bikes.

Why not be blunt - any competent cyclist can ride safely with no
ability to hear sounds around them. In all of my years, the only
person that I know that might have been killed for that reason was
someone hit by the high speed Amtrak going through Greenbelt, MD
(IIRC). And taking off the headphones may not have saved him - I saw
the guy ride and he was a general doofus, headphones or not.

And that's really the ones everyone is trying to save - the clueless
doofuses that are an emininent danger with or without earphones. Good
luck with that.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

02-10-2007, 11:36 AM

On 10 Feb 2007, Gorgeous George <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>WTF is this...
>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Listening to iPods with two ear buds when cycling is already illegal in NY
State. Just like it is when driving a car. The reason has nothing to do
with distraction. With both ears covered you can't hear signs of danger.

See: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

What I found interesting in the link is he wants to ban them while running?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

02-10-2007, 12:52 PM

In article <s9pzh.3127$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
"BobT" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> I want to use all my senses, including my ears, to be aware of
> motor vehicles on the road when I'm riding or running.
>
> I don't think we need a law to enforce my personal view on everyeone else.
> My "modest proposal" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek although we all should
> realize that behaviors that some think don't have effects on others may have
> broader effects on society like paying for head injuries in motorcycle
> riders that don't wear helments.

Folks might be interested in the thoughts of John S. Allen
on this topic, so here they are:

<http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/hearing.htm>

Personally I find when riding on quieter city side streets
and through back alleys or access lanes my auditory sense
can be useful for hearing trucks' back-up beepers
(especially on garbage pickup day.) On the arterials,
all I hear is pretty much a grey-noise ambience of the
rumble of all season tires and wind noise that conceals
most other sounds. If I do manage to hear anything
over that dull rumble, my own hearing isn't very
directional so it's hard to determine the direction
of its source.

If there's anything wrong with listening to tunes
while riding or running or walking, perhaps it has
more to do with distracted attention than with
sensory deprivation.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca