New York wants to outlaw iPods for cyclers!?!? - Page 5

02-13-2007, 06:06 AM

Bill Baka wrote:
:: [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.

And what makes you think something else, like wind noise, won't prevent you
from hearing them. A person should simply had bad hearing or not be paying
attention to someone shouting.

:: #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.

You can be so into "thoughts" that the same thing could happen. You gonna
ban thinking? You could be talking to someone. Same thing.

:: 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

It's just so stupid to think that someone wearing earbugs can't hear what's
going on. Are we going to test everyone to ensure that we all have
adequate hearing? If not, then we simply have no way of knowing if we all
hear the same thing. And you can't keep people from thinking or being
distracted by something else.

How easy it is for us to give up personal liberty because of nonsensical
thinking.

02-13-2007, 06:42 AM

Daryl Hunt wrote:
:: One must be able to hear. Especially if you are on two wheels.

Prove that.

02-13-2007, 06:45 AM

Gooserider wrote:
:: It's just more nanny state NONSENSE. I have ridden thousands of
:: miles while listening to music---no incidents. The fear of being hit
:: from behind is overblown. Cyclists are more likely to be hit in
:: intersections or parking lots, and if a cyclist isn't paying
:: attention there I have little sympathy. There seems to be a belief

Anyone can have a lapse of attention. Hence, you should have sympathy for
any cyclist who gets hit because of a lapse of attention.

:: among certain posters in this newsgroup that:
::
:: A) One can differentiate between a car which is passing normally OR
:: one which is about to run you over, simply by listening. Impossible.
::
:: B) If one could HEAR a car about to hit, a cyclist would be able to
:: avoid the hit. Unlikely, at best. I don't know about your road
:: conditions, but if I take my road bike off the shoulder at 20mph I'm
:: likely to endo and break my neck.
::
:: This whole issue cracks me up. I remember not long ago, a cyclist was
:: ticketed in Portland for not having a brake on her fixie, and she
:: had no shortage of support. Now that's crazy. Riding a brakeless
:: bike in traffic is far more dangerous than listening to an iPod, but
:: I guess we have to pick which reckless behavior is cool and which
:: isn't. OK.

02-13-2007, 06:46 AM

[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:
::
:::
::: "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.

Anecdote is not proof

02-13-2007, 06:47 AM

Bill Baka wrote:
:: Gooserider wrote:
::: "Daryl Hunt" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
::: news:45cee84a$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
:::: "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 was a MCylists for decades. The Helmet doesn't stop you from
:::: hearing. Most Helmets are designed to allow full hearing. Now, if
:::: you make one out of Tin Foil and Superglue then it will obstruct
:::: your hearing.
::::
:::: Now, if you do have such a helmet that obstructs the hearing it's
:::: against the NHTA safety Regs and can get you cited and have your
:::: insurance revoked upon a cop noticing.
::::
:::: One must be able to hear. Especially if you are on two wheels.
::::
:::
::: I seriously doubt someone with a full face helmet going 55mph can
::: hear much at all. Then there are the Harley guys with loud pipes
::: and half helmets. They're effectively deaf. Hearing is
::: overrated----unless you think deaf people shouldn't be able to ride
::: bicycles.
:::
:::
:: Different scene entirely. On a motorcycle you mainly want to see far
:: enough ahead to avoid something. The odds of getting rear ended on a
:: motorcycle at speed are far less than on a bike.

The odds of getting creamed while on a motorcycle in an intersection are
significant.

:: Bill Baka

02-13-2007, 06:49 AM

Gooserider wrote:
:: "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.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
::::
:::
:::
::: 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.

When I'm alone with my thoughts, I get seriously distracted. A fast beat
helps, and it doesn't need to be loud enough to overwhelm other sounds. I
don't know why people find this notion so hard to get.

02-13-2007, 09:29 AM

"Wayne Pein" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote in message
news:45d0f5f1$0$24709$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
>>>>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.
>>
>
> Ignoramus, that doesn't make sense to anyone but you. Fools like you used
> to think the world was flat.

I remember pedaling across the atlantic on the Nina along with the Pinta,
Santa Maria and a ship called George. While the rest of us pedaled towards
the earths curvature some stupid cyclists on the George pedaled clean off
the end of the earth into the abyss. And, here you thought, those ships
were powered by Sails. Silly of you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1589 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

02-13-2007, 09:30 AM

"Gooserider" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:45d0eb6f$0$24709$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>
> <[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?

It's okay to throw that temper tantrum now. Start screaming, "You can't
tell ME what to do!" and throw yourself onto the ground and you will
probably miss.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1589 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

02-13-2007, 10:36 AM

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:59:27 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Don Wiss wrote:
>:: 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. ]
>
>The reason is bogus, of course. I'm afraid that NY is engaged in robbing
>its citizens are personal liberty at an alarming rate.
>
>::

No, it has no chance to pass. It was meant to get attention for a
situation and it got it.

02-13-2007, 01:00 PM

"dgk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:59:27 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Don Wiss wrote:
>>:: 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. ]
>>
>>The reason is bogus, of course. I'm afraid that NY is engaged in robbing
>>its citizens are personal liberty at an alarming rate.
>>
>>::
>
> No, it has no chance to pass. It was meant to get attention for a
> situation and it got it.

I believe there are parts of NYC that don't allow them but the various
Municalities have that right. The State probably doesn't since the last
couple of courts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1615 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!