Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

Beasty · 29-11-2009 2:29pm #1

Article in the Sunday Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6936280.ece

"Internet cycling forums are full of heated exchanges between indignant cyclists and seething motorists, railing against the “erratic behaviour” and “breathtaking stupidity” of riders who career through the traffic, sporting the telltale white wires of an iPod."

Wonder what Timothy is up to today?

Obviously the article is based on UK experience, although I don't think there is anything materially different in the approach over here. Interestingly no-one seems to keep record of the number of times where the use of earpieces may have contributed to accidents.

I never use them myself (except on the turbo), as I prefer to have as many senses as possible available (and unimpeded) when cycling on the roads.

DirkVoodoo · 29-11-2009 5:13pm

ARRGGHHH!

More idiotic journalism. Oblivious, irresponsible cyclists are going to be the same whether they have iPods or not.

Why don't we talk about the real menace here: Zombie umbrella holders.

The number of time I have nearly lost an eye in town because some idiot is swinging an umbrella around, completely oblivious to the rest of the foot traffic around them is amazing.

I have honestly never found earphones impeding my ability to cycle safely. Maybe that means I am reckless even at the best of times.

abcdggs · 29-11-2009 5:18pm

Eh what about the biggest threat to our way of life

Lumen · 29-11-2009 5:27pm

This comment particularly irritates me:

"these head phone wearing cycling morons, as well as tempting fate, give all cyclists a bad name"

Why do we have to give cyclists names? Don't they have names already? Why is is necessary to generalise about everything?

72hundred · 29-11-2009 5:34pm

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

ARRGGHHH!

More idiotic journalism.

Completely agree.

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

The fashion for cyclists to wear earphones on crowded city streets is being held partly responsible for the recent upsurge in cycling injuries and deaths, as well as collisions with pedestrians.

and then...

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

The latest DfT figures show ... a 19% rise ... It is not known how many of these cases were caused by people listening to music because the DfT and the police do not record the information

Contradicts his point within two paragraphs! -Well done sir.

I can't see the difference between listening to an iPod on the bike and 5.1 surround sound system some cars sport. Should we make moves to ban in car audio and make all the windows be open so they have to hear what's about them? ffs

EDIT: Some bit of common sense in the article though;

Chris Gourlay, Idiot Journalist, The Sunday Times wrote:

Johnson plans to give even greater leeway to cyclists, to encourage people to switch to one of the greenest forms of transport. He is studying the possibility of allowing cyclists to shoot red lights on left turns at a junction.

blorg · 29-11-2009 5:50pm

72hundred wrote: »

Should we make moves to ban in car audio and make all the windows be open so they have to hear what's about them? ffs

+1, clearly all car radios should be banned, it is the logical corollary :rolleyes: I expect Murdoch's evil empire will be right on that campaign.

DirkVoodoo · 29-11-2009 6:07pm

I just think it goes beyond labelling the ipod wearing cyclists as the irresponsible ones.

Maneuvers like changing lanes, making turns, etc. obviously require a great deal of awareness to be executed properly, much like in a car. Much like in a car, to be performed safely then visual awareness is normally enough. It's easy to pin it all on ipods and evil rock n' roll, but I would wager that most of it, like in bad driving, is just people not looking around them, checking behind them for traffic.

Of course, it's easier for the cyclists on "heated forums" to simply point at the "tell-tale white headphones" as the problem. Obviously listening to music at deafening levels is just as dangerous, but for people to assume "well, I don't wear headphones, therefore I am safer than you" is a complete fallacy.

Tired drivers, mobile phones, loud stereos, boy racers, cycling on footpaths, no lights, jay walking, speeding, driving bumper to bumper at 120km/hr in heavy fog (saw this yesterday on the m-fiddy), parking on corners, not checking mirrors before exiting cars....

I can think of plenty of things far worse and more deserving of a useless column than ipod wearing cyclists, just not as fashionable to bitch about.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 6:52pm

iPod earphones barely block out any background noise.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 6:59pm

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I just think it goes beyond labelling the ipod wearing cyclists as the irresponsible ones.

Maneuvers like changing lanes, making turns, etc. obviously require a great deal of awareness to be executed properly, much like in a car. Much like in a car, to be performed safely then visual awareness is normally enough. It's easy to pin it all on ipods and evil rock n' roll, but I would wager that most of it, like in bad driving, is just people not looking around them, checking behind them for traffic.

Of course, it's easier for the cyclists on "heated forums" to simply point at the "tell-tale white headphones" as the problem. Obviously listening to music at deafening levels is just as dangerous, but for people to assume "well, I don't wear headphones, therefore I am safer than you" is a complete fallacy.

Tired drivers, mobile phones, loud stereos, boy racers, cycling on footpaths, no lights, jay walking, speeding, driving bumper to bumper at 120km/hr in heavy fog (saw this yesterday on the m-fiddy), parking on corners, not checking mirrors before exiting cars....

I can think of plenty of things far worse and more deserving of a useless column than ipod wearing cyclists, just not as fashionable to bitch about.

I think your point, comparing driving and cycling is flawed in that, motorists have the advantage of 3 mirrors which if used as they are supposed to be (cue the boringly predictable charge that motorists dont use them!), lessens the motorists need for reliance on his/her auditory sense.
Cyclists do not have this advantage.
In any case, any viewpoint which suggests that blocking out or impeding one of your senses does not present a risk factor for a cyclist on a public road is mind numbingly ignorant!

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 7:03pm

Sean_K wrote: »

iPod earphones barely block out any background noise.

Or to put it another way (without the spin) iPod earphones do block out some background noise.
Though I dont believe it for a second. Clearly iPod earphones are defective in some fundamental way and people use them because they are more interested in listening to background noise than music:rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper · 29-11-2009 7:10pm

Beasty wrote: »

Wonder what Timothy is up to today?

Bingo....

Cyclists don't have the large blindspots associated with bigger motor vehicles. Mirrors on pedal cycles would consequently be much less useful. On motorcycles, the greater weight and higher speeds and the restriction of view by a larger helmet make them more useful.

For me, a small mirror allowing only a restricted field of view would be a lot less use on a pedal cycle than proper observation, shoulder-checks, etc. (Even motorcyclists, who do have mirrors, are taught to use the "life saver" shoulder-check.) I don't think mirrors on a pedal cycle would be the advantage that they are on a car.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 7:15pm

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Bingo....

Cyclists don't have the large blindspots associated with bigger motor vehicles. Mirrors on pedal cycles would consequently be much less useful. On motorcycles, the greater weight and higher speeds and the restriction of view by a larger helmet make them more useful.

For me, a small mirror allowing only a restricted field of view would be a lot less use on a pedal cycle than proper observation, shoulder-checks, etc. (Even motorcyclists, who do have mirrors, are taught to use the "life saver" shoulder-check.) I don't think mirrors on a pedal cycle would be the advantage that they are on a car.

Yes, very interesting ... but completely pointless ... I wasnt suggesting that cyclists should use mirrors, the topic for debate is whether they should use IPod and similar devices whilst cycling on a public road ... what is your view on the use of IPod's or other devices whilst cycling - increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 7:26pm

TimAllen wrote: »

Or to put it another way (without the spin) iPod earphones do block out some background noise.
Though I dont believe it for a second. Clearly iPod earphones are defective in some fundamental way and people use them because they are more interested in listening to background noise than music:rolleyes:

It is frankly beyond me why anyone uses iPod earphones. They are pathetic. You can hear everything through them.

/edit: or maybe it is the safety conscious cyclists who use them, knowing that they do not detract from their awareness.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 7:33pm

Sean_K wrote: »

It is frankly beyond me why anyone uses iPod earphones. They are pathetic. You can hear everything through them.

/edit: or maybe it is the safety conscious cyclists who use them, knowing that they do not detract from their awareness.

You should seek to return your clearly defective earphones Sean - mine work just fine. Look up the technical specifications for them - yours are clearly the exception!;)

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 7:35pm

TimAllen wrote: »

You should seek to return your clearly defective earphones Sean - mine work just fine. Look up the technical specifications for them - yours are clearly the exception!;)

Compare them to a decent set of earphones/headphones.

You shouldn't have to crank the volume up to block out the ambient noise, which, I would hazard, is what you do.

rubadub · 29-11-2009 7:37pm

Lumen wrote: »

"these head phone wearing cycling morons, as well as tempting fate, give all cyclists a bad name"

Why do we have to give cyclists names?

The bitter old US & THEM mentality alive & well. Surely the morons are giving morons a bad name, or just giving humans a bad name. When people see somebody dangerously crossing a dual carriageway do them hang their head in shame going "Oh no, theres another eejit giving us pedestrians a bad name".

TimAllen wrote: »

what is your view on the use of IPod's or other devices whilst cycling - increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

Any time I wore them I was probably safer, since I overcompensated with them on, checking around me a hell of a lot more, sort of reverse risk compensation like people who might be more reckless in a large car, or wearing protective clothing. like they said

However CTC, the national cycling group, argues that people should be left to make their own judgments. “We encourage deaf people to cycle so we don’t think it’s essential to hear traffic in order to ride,” said a spokeswoman. “You have to be sensible. The most important thing is that you look around you all the time — especially over your shoulder.”

Pedestrians, too, have fallen victim to cyclists listening to music and apparently oblivious to those around them. In June, a six-year-old girl from Wallasey, Merseyside, suffered serious injuries after she was mown down on the pavement by an iPod-wearing cyclist who didn’t even stop to help her, according to witnesses. The girl underwent hours of surgery to reconstruct her shattered leg.

When I saw pedestrians mentioned I was shocked, thinking they would be rational and talk of pedestrians walking into traffic wearing mp3 players. Ah but of course pedestrians are "one of us, one of us". Its a tolerated target for bigots who are not allowed express bigoted views against other groups anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 7:40pm

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 7:43pm

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Posting a Daily Mail article?

Pathetic.

blorg · 29-11-2009 7:44pm

TimAllen wrote: »

I think your point, comparing driving and cycling is flawed in that, motorists have the advantage of 3 mirrors which if used as they are supposed to be (cue the boringly predictable charge that motorists dont use them!), lessens the motorists need for reliance on his/her auditory sense.
Cyclists do not have this advantage.
In any case, any viewpoint which suggests that blocking out or impeding one of your senses does not present a risk factor for a cyclist on a public road is mind numbingly ignorant!

So you would ban car radios? Sound insulation? How about handsfree phones? Or talking to passengers?

Cyclists don't have a substantial frame around them creating blind spots and so can look over their shoulder; this is FAR more effective than mirrors. I don't think there would be many people who would argue they have more awareness of their surroundings in a car than on a bike.

No question using an iPod increases risk but getting out of bed in the morning does likewise. It is about weighing up the risk. An iPod using cyclist that observes traffic law, stops at red lights, is lit well at night and looks around them before changing course is a lot safer than one without an iPod who doesn't do these things.

Chips Lovell · 29-11-2009 7:46pm

I never cycle with earphones, but I'd also find the radio in a car equally distracting.

As for iPod wearing zombie pedestrians walking out on the road in front of me... They're almost as dangerous as motorists on mobile phones.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 7:48pm

Sean_K wrote: »

Compare them to a decent set of earphones/headphones.

You shouldn't have to crank the volume up to block out the ambient noise, which, I would hazard, is what you do.

Look Sean, you seem to have some irrational desire to "prove" that its ok to use such devices while on a public road. The reference to iPod is a generic reference to all such devices but you decide to ignore the substantive point and try to defend the indefensible by getting stuck in on regarding IPod earphones and igore the big picture.
The big picture: Deliberately blocking out one of your God given senses whilest on a public road is wreckless and risky

rubadub · 29-11-2009 7:48pm

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?

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.

blorg · 29-11-2009 7:50pm

TimAllen wrote: »

yes, those advocating not using iPod devices whilst cycling are making it all up or are they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1037929/Coroners-warning-teenage-cyclist-wearing-iPod-killed-car-hear.html

Driver Christopher Mills told an inquest how Abigail suddenly veered out of a cycle lane into the main carriageway of the A4074, near Benson, Oxfordshire, on October 28 last year.

Especially you Tim I think would accept that the behaviour of the cyclist is more the issue here, rather than the headphones. There are other cases though where the headphone wearer was clearly negligent in not anticipating a hazard.

Mr. Presentable · 29-11-2009 7:53pm

Why would you not do everything you can to preserve yourself? Use lights, wear a reflective jacket, try to pay full attention. Whether a motorist has a radio or not has nothing to do with your own input to keep yourself as safe as possible.

Oh, I don't use earphones on my bike, and don't like the radio on when I'm driving. I want as much environmental input as possible.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 7:54pm

TimAllen wrote: »

Look Sean, you seem to have some irrational desire to "prove" that its ok ...

Indeed I do not, it's pretty rare that I ever listen to music while cycling, and even less so while driving.

My original point was that iPod earphones do not block out sound. That was in response to the implication in the article that they are somehow causing a problem on the roads.

Posing a danger to others should be an offence. People who cycle dangerously should be prosecuted. People who listen to music while cycling should not.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 8:00pm

blorg wrote: »

An iPod using cyclist that observes traffic law, stops at red lights, is lit well at night and looks around them before changing course is a lot safer than one without an iPod who doesn't do these things.

That is a completely one sided observation. A drunk driver who drives slowly and stops at red lights and doesnt hit anybody is clearly safer than a speeding joyrider - such statements are pointless!
For a rational debate, one must compare like for like i.e. two law abiding cyclists (a stretch I know) one uses an IPod whilst cycling, the other doesn't. Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.
Then the debate centres on the level of risk involved in iPod use. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the risk is substantial - but you seem to see any such assertion as an attack on cyclists to be resisted rather than debated.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-11-2009 8:03pm

TimAllen wrote: »

That is a completely one sided observation. A drunk driver who drives slowly and stops at red lights and doesnt hit anybody is clearly safer than a speeding joyrider

All very true

TimAllen wrote: »

- such statements are pointless!

Why?

The main issue from a legal perspective should be the danger someone poses to others.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 8:05pm

Sean_K wrote: »

Indeed I do not, it's pretty rare that I ever listen to music while cycling, and even less so while driving.

My original point was that iPod earphones do not block out sound. That was in response to the implication in the article that they are somehow causing a problem on the roads.

Posing a danger to others should be an offence. People who cycle dangerously should be prosecuted. People who listen to music while cycling should not.

So you seem to agree that they shouldnt use such devices but want to argue that a particular brand of MP3 device does not block out sound???? Do you work for Apple or something? Bizarre to say the least!

rubadub · 29-11-2009 8:08pm

nipplenuts wrote: »

Why would you not do everything you can to preserve yourself?
...don't like the radio on when I'm driving. I want as much environmental input as possible.

So do you wear a helmet while driving? after all why not do everything you can...

TimAllen wrote: »

For a rational debate, one must compare like for like i.e. two law abiding cyclists (a stretch I know) one uses an IPod whilst cycling, the other doesn't. Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.

No "we" don't agree, when you said it first

increases risk or no risk at all versus not using such equipment?

As though there are only 2 options, it seemed a rhetorical question, especially with you now answering on all of our behalfs.

I already answered

rubadub wrote: »

Any time I wore them I was probably safer, since I overcompensated with them on, checking around me a hell of a lot more, sort of reverse risk compensation like people who might be more reckless in a large car, or wearing protective clothing.

However CTC, the national cycling group, argues that people should be left to make their own judgments. “We encourage deaf people to cycle so we don’t think it’s essential to hear traffic in order to ride,” said a spokeswoman. “You have to be sensible. The most important thing is that you look around you all the time — especially over your shoulder.”

I expect deaf cyclists also take extra care.

TimAllen · 29-11-2009 8:09pm

Sean_K wrote: »

All very true

Why?

The main issue from a legal perspective should be the danger someone poses to others.

The main issue should be the danger that someone poses to others and themselves.
We have already established that we agree that cyclists should not use iPod type devices whilst on a public road - so I dont understand what your point is or why you are posting in the context of the topic being debated on this thread? except to be argumentative?

c0rk3r · 29-11-2009 8:13pm

TimAllen wrote: »

Which one is safer? - I think we agree that the cyclist without the iPod is safer.

Why? Can you give me cycling scenarios where a lack of hearing impedes you. You;ve only posted one article from the daily mail which quotes "'If Abigail had looked, she would have been able to see the car because there was a visibility of about 250 metres,' he said." Nullfying their own argument. Can you please not use a trashy loaded article of someones death to further their and your own agenda. Use scientific articles/studies

Im genuinely interested in reading these studies

Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

Comments