New York wants to outlaw iPods for cyclers!?!? - Page 3

02-10-2007, 03:20 PM

On Feb 10, 3:36 pm, Don Wiss <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> 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).

The important thing is that having one ear covered is expressly
*permitted* by current NY law for bicyclists. It is silly to have
pedestrians forced to obey a more restrictive rule. It is also silly
to include cell phones in the proposal since they are almost always
monophonic and are no less safe than what is currently permitted for
bicyclists (neglecting of course the added distraction of being
engaged in a converation).

02-10-2007, 04:33 PM

On 10 Feb 2007 16:20:40 -0800, amakyonin <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> It is also silly
>to include cell phones in the proposal since they are almost always
>monophonic and are no less safe than what is currently permitted for
>bicyclists (neglecting of course the added distraction of being
>engaged in a converation).

Hand held cell phone use is already prohibited in NY for motorists. And
this clause extends it to bicyclists: "Bicyclists, in-line skaters, and
motor vehicle drivers must all use and obey the same traffic laws."

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

02-10-2007, 06:35 PM

On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:
> WTF is this...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

California Vehicle Code section 27,400 makes it illegal for either a
motorist or bicyclist to wear "earphones." I don't know if iPod's
"earbuds" would be considered "earphones," but I'd certainly argue
they were not.

You can look up the text of the statute on findlaw.com.

Dave

02-10-2007, 06:39 PM

On Feb 10, 7:35 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
> > WTF is this...
>
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> California Vehicle Code section 27,400 makes it illegal for either a
> motorist or bicyclist to wear "earphones." I don't know if iPod's
> "earbuds" would be considered "earphones," but I'd certainly argue
> they were not.
>
> You can look up the text of the statute on findlaw.com.
>
> Dave

Here's the actual code section:
(You can see I got it mixed up. It's "headset covering, or earplugs
in, both ears."

27400. A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a
headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears. This prohibition does
not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person operating authorized emergency vehicles, as defined
in Section 165.
(b) A person engaged in the operation of either special
construction equipment or equipment for use in the maintenance of any
highway.
(c) A person engaged in the operation of refuse collection
equipment who is wearing a safety headset or safety earplugs.
(d) A person wearing personal hearing protectors in the form of
earplugs or molds that are specifically designed to attenuate
injurious noise levels. The plugs or molds shall be designed in a
manner so as to not inhibit the wearer's ability to hear a siren or
horn from an emergency vehicle or a horn from another motor vehicle.

(e) A person using a prosthetic device that aids the hard of
hearing.

02-10-2007, 06:46 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Feb 10, 3:27 am, "Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>> WTF is this...
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> California Vehicle Code section 27,400 makes it illegal for either a
> motorist or bicyclist to wear "earphones." I don't know if iPod's
> "earbuds" would be considered "earphones," but I'd certainly argue
> they were not.
>
> You can look up the text of the statute on findlaw.com.
>
> Dave
>
Anything that impairs your hearing would be in that category but hey,
those who just have to have music in their ears and ignore the world may
just get Darwin'ed out. Scenario #1. A car goes out of control and you
don't hear people shouting "Look out!"....Splat.
#2. A television set gets knocked out of a tenth floor window by
'Fluffy' the cat and once again you don't hear the warning.
#3. You are so into the music that you start to walk across the railroad
tracks and don't hear the high speed commuter train....Splat.
Does this make a point?
Often our ears are the first or only sense to a threat, and if you can't
hear you might just earn a free trip to the next world.
Bill Baka

02-12-2007, 09:46 AM

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:06:06 -0500, Don Wiss <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>When growing up in Livingston NJ in the
>1950's there was a sign on Hobart Gap Road stating to watch out for deaf
>children (child?). Now more than 50 years later one is still there. My
>father wonders if there is a deaf family.

Or a specialised school for deaf children?

02-12-2007, 10:47 AM

"Wayne Pein" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote in message
news:45d0b3d4$0$24761$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:21:01 -0500, "Gooserider"
>>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>It's just more nanny state NONSENSE. I have ridden thousands of miles
>>>while listening to music---no incidents.
>>
>>
>> Anecdote is not proof.
>>
>> Wearing headphones while cycling is just plain stupid;
>
> What's your proof?

And having to ask for proof is proof in itself just how stupid it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1467 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

02-12-2007, 12:02 PM

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:09:58 -0600, "BobT"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>"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
>

I spend at least 1:10 each way. I can't be alone that long with my
thoughts. Mostly I don't listen to music, I listen to talk radio for
the most part. It isn't usually loud enough to drown out anything
nearby.

02-12-2007, 01:33 PM

"dgk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:09:58 -0600, "BobT"
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>"Gorgeous George" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:1171106831.734099.195910@p10g2000cwp.google groups.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
>>
>
>
> I spend at least 1:10 each way. I can't be alone that long with my
> thoughts. Mostly I don't listen to music, I listen to talk radio for
> the most part. It isn't usually loud enough to drown out anything
> nearby.

Exactly right. My commute is about as long as yours, and I don't want to be
alone with my thoughts that long either. Nothing wrong with a little
background music.

02-12-2007, 01:34 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].andara.com> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:21:01 -0500, "Gooserider"
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Daryl Hunt" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:45cf379f$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>
>>> >
>>> Let's see. When my son was 8, he used to use the same arguments.
>>> "Well,
>>> He Does IT". " and "Look at Jimmy". That didn't make it any more
>>> right.
>>> It was wrong. Time to look at the problem by itself.
>>>
>>> Or we can use the argument: "Well, I shouldn't be punished since HE
>>> chopped up 31 people and ate them and I just shot only one person".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's just more nanny state NONSENSE. I have ridden thousands of miles
>>while
>>listening to music---no incidents.
>
> Anecdote is not proof.
>
> Wearing headphones while cycling is just plain stupid; it's no
> surprise that someone who does this will not understand the risk.

Care to cite ANY proof to back up your claim? Or are you just another
nanny-state busybody?