MP3 Players

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B wrote:

["davek" wrote: Right, so I take it you /would/ support a ban on car
stereos, then.]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would simply because I am interested in road safety on bikes?

Because as you say later: "you should pay _full_ attention to the job in
hand as a road user".

This is a cycling group and we are (were) discussing the use of a personal
stereo whilst cycling. I do, however, think that to wear headphones whilst
driving a car would not be a sensible idea.

Quoted message said:

Unless you believe that a car driver can pay full attention with a stereo
on and yet cyclists can't.

Headphones are one thing, background music is another. The mere act of
wearing earphones or headphones, even with no music playing, naturally cuts
out some of the ambient sound cues which it may be advantageous to hear.
IMHO cyclists need to be aware of as much as possible around them, given
that they cannot _rely_ on the skills of other road users, and they tend to
come off worse against tin box traffic. Sight and sound are the most
important senses in this respect - give them both the best chance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In reply to an idiotic statement?

No it wasn't an idiotic statement. Did you mean that to be a question,

Yes. I was testing whether it was thought to be a sensible thing to say.
Your answer appears to be that you think it was.

Quoted message said:

or can you not bring yourself to actually answer something straight?

There was no question, just the statement "Idiotic question".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The PP justified using a personal stereo
on a bike because he could still hear approaching vehicles, AFAIK you
could still _see_ approaching vehicles whilst using video glasses.

Which would presumably be safe in a car for the same reason.

Avoiding the issue. Can _you_ not bring yourself to agree or disagree with
the comment?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You disagree that you should pay _full_ attention to the job in hand as a
road user on a pedal cycle?

FSVO full attention. Since the likely outcome of failing to pay full
attention due to headphone wearing on a bike is death for the rider, I
would suggest that that is their decision to make. They are unlikely to
take anyone with them.

This seems to be a common attitude to road safety amongst those who
contribute to this group. Even _if_ the only casualty was the cyclist there
are knock-on effects to other road users and to the emergency services and
passers by, not to mention family and friends. A less selfish attitude
needs to be encouraged.

Quoted message said:

If they are aware of what is going on around them, then they are in the
same situation that they were in without headphones. Perhaps (by your
reasoning), deaf people shouldn't cycle.

IMHO you should devote _all_ the resources at your disposal to the task. To
miss a safety cue is always a bad thing.

[...]

--
Matt B

"Mistakes are the portals of discovery."
- James Joyce

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

He is also, I suspect, in many people's kilfiles, but their usefulness is
seriously compromised when others insist on replying to him.

Sorry! ;-)

You don't need to grovel to those of that mindset. Be your own person and
thrive on the nourishment of diverse ideas. Those who wear blinkers only
see what they are looking at.

--
Matt B

"Mistakes are the portals of discovery."
- James Joyce

James Annan said:

He is also, I suspect, in many people's kilfiles, but their usefulness
is seriously compromised when others insist on replying to him.

He's in mine, but slipped through the net cos I was reading on google
groups. Very careless of me, I apologise.

d.

Matt B said:

You don't need to grovel to those of that mindset. Be your own person and
thrive on the nourishment of diverse ideas. Those who wear blinkers only
see what they are looking at.

Er... did you recently attend a self-fulfilment course?

Your posting style (intended or otherwise) marks you out as an above
average troll. You repeatedly drag on-topic threads onto your pet
subject of road safety (Which seems to incorporate a large proportion of
anti-cycling attitude) and thus have been killfiled. I'm bored which is
why I'm playing! ;-)

The downside of this is that it does impact on other people (You seem to
be very concerned about this on the roads, but unconcerned by the same
on usenet!). Hence, while I'm not going to stop at James' insistence, I
also acknowledge that my actions are a little selfish.

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Headphones are one thing, background music is another. The mere act of
wearing earphones or headphones, even with no music playing, naturally
cuts out some of the ambient sound cues which it may be advantageous to
hear. IMHO cyclists need to be aware of as much as possible around them,
given that they cannot _rely_ on the skills of other road users, and they
tend to come off worse against tin box traffic. Sight and sound are the
most important senses in this respect - give them both the best chance.

Is the wrong answer.

We'll see ;-)

Quoted message said:

Some headphones (Professional level / noise cancelling) will block out
external sounds.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Earbuds tend to have very little effect,

i.e. greater than zero ;-)

Quoted message said:

especially when compared to the sound proofing of an average car.

Let's keep our eye on the ball...

Quoted message said:

And the comparison does need making, because if one is dangerous, then so
is the other.

To whom? Who is the more vulnerable the cyclist who can't hear or the
motorist?

[...]

Quoted message said:

Hearing is useful, but the impression from your comments is that the deaf
shouldn't ride.

Not at all, but _if_ you can hear why not maxikmise your chances?

Quoted message said:

Cars are not the only thing of which you (as a cyclist) should be aware,
and not everything makes noise.

Of course, but why not maximise your perception of those that do?

Quoted message said:

The ability to see clearly around you is far more useful than the ability
to hear.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This seems to be a common attitude to road safety amongst those who
contribute to this group. Even _if_ the only casualty was the cyclist
there are knock-on effects to other road users and to the emergency
services and passers by, not to mention family and friends. A less
selfish attitude needs to be encouraged.

Ideally, yes. But there are limits. Given a direct comparison of the
consequences of inattention between a cyclist and a driver, it is
undeniable which can cause the most damage.

And, of course, which can suffer the most damage. We all need to do
everything we can to protect ourselves.

Quoted message said:

The reason the comparison is so frequently made is that it underpins the
decisions that the cyclist makes. "Doing this will probably leave me dead"
tends to discourage the same level of arrogant road occupancy that _some_
drivers espouse.

Yes, but the other way to look at it is from the positive, or defensive
viewpoint - doing this, or not doing that, will give me a better chance.

Quoted message said:

The reason? The driver is protected by rollcages, airbags and
crumple-zones.

Yes, armour makes you braver. Without armour you need to be cleverer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMHO you should devote _all_ the resources at your disposal to the task.
To miss a safety cue is always a bad thing.

So don't drive. On of the resources at your disposal is to not ever drive
a car. If you are cycling sensibly with headphones, then you will
naturally compensate for the loss of hearing with more frequent checks
around you.

OK, we all accept certain compromises and take measured risks, we must,
however, take our responsibilities, as road users, seriously.

--
Matt B

"Mistakes are the portals of discovery."
- James Joyce

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

You don't need to grovel to those of that mindset. Be your own person
and thrive on the nourishment of diverse ideas. Those who wear blinkers
only see what they are looking at.

Er... did you recently attend a self-fulfilment course?

If only ;-)

Quoted message said:

Your posting style (intended or otherwise) marks you out as an above
average troll.

Is that a compliment? Trolls tend to light the touch paper and retreat. I
don't think you can accuse me of that ;-)

Quoted message said:

You repeatedly drag on-topic threads onto your pet subject of
road safety

I raise concerns, yes.

Quoted message said:

(Which seems to incorporate a large proportion of anti-cycling attitude)

I hope not, it certainly isn't intended that way. Sometimes a
non-conformist view may come across as "anti", one needs to cut through ones
prejudices.

Quoted message said:

and thus have been killfiled.

The killfile should be reserved for the relentlessly abusive poster (I have
only used it once in 10 years), not for those who you don't see eye to eye
with, or as a means of "censorship".

Quoted message said:

I'm bored which is why I'm playing! ;-)

Good on ya!

Quoted message said:

The downside of this is that it does impact on other people (You seem to
be very concerned about this on the roads, but unconcerned by the same on
usenet!).

Threads I'm not interested I am clever enough to ignore.

Quoted message said:

Hence, while I'm not going to stop at James' insistence, I also
acknowledge that my actions are a little selfish.

I don't think they are. Usenet is for "public" debate and should
accommodate contributions from all comers. Variety is trhe spice of life
:-)

--
Matt B

"Mistakes are the portals of discovery."
- James Joyce

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:29:18 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk said:

Matt B said:

Why would simply because I am interested in road safety on bikes?

Because as you say later: "you should pay _full_ attention to the job in
hand as a road user".

Unless you believe that a car driver can pay full attention with a
stereo on and yet cyclists can't.

I find with the windows closed the noise made by my car means I can
hear little of the external noise anyway. Might as well put the radio
on as I get few clues as to the location of potential threats from
what I can hear.

On a bike I would never listen to music because I can hear the
environment around me much more clearly and find monitoring the sounds
around me an essential contribution to my safety.

--
Stephen Chadfield
http://www.chadfield.com/

Matt B said:

i.e. greater than zero ;-)

0.1 is greater than zero, so is 1,000,000. When all numbers are in the
order of 1,000,000, 0.1 is so close to zero as for the difference to be
meaningless.

Quoted message said:

Let's keep our eye on the ball...

Which is... wait for it... the relevance of having good hearing when
cycling.

Quoted message said:

To whom? Who is the more vulnerable the cyclist who can't hear or the
motorist?

Who is more vulnerable? The cyclist who can't hear, or the cyclist who
is outside the car of the driver who can't hear.

Quoted message said:

Not at all, but _if_ you can hear why not maxikmise your chances?

Because it is not always necessary.

Quoted message said:

Of course, but why not maximise your perception of those that do?

Because as you amply demonstrate, it channels your perceptions in an
unhelpful manner. Despite being a cyclist, when walking I often judged
whether a road was clear by whether or not I could hear traffic. I
stopped doing this after a pedestrian did it to me while I was cycling.
While wearing headphones I always checked because I couldn't hear as
clearly. Not true for everyone, but a data point nonetheless.

Quoted message said:

And, of course, which can suffer the most damage. We all need to do
everything we can to protect ourselves.

Which would involve not leaving the house. Or driving everywhere. There
is a certain amount of risk in cycling with headphones on, but it is
well within manageable limits, and if one misjudges it then the
consequences will be (almost) entirely borne by the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but the other way to look at it is from the positive, or defensive
viewpoint - doing this, or not doing that, will give me a better chance.

ie. Not cycling.

Quoted message said:

Yes, armour makes you braver. Without armour you need to be cleverer.

So look before you leap. Don't rely on sound. My current commuting bike
is of a style that prevents me from looking behind. So I have a mirror.
I check the mirror far more frequently than I used to look around, so
nothing takes me by surprise. Despite limiting my information, I have
adapted to be more aware of my surroundings.

Quoted message said:

OK, we all accept certain compromises and take measured risks, we must,
however, take our responsibilities, as road users, seriously.

It is the concept of "measured risk" that you seem to be having problems
with. The increased risk to a (sensible) cyclist of wearing headphones
is negligible.

Jon

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

Hey, I don't insist. But anyone whose posts have too low a
signal-to-noise level will get binned, and potentially that includes
people who feed the trolls.

But is Matt B really a troll? There can be a fine line between troll and
devil's advocate, which he tends to hover around. ISTM that he usually
falls on the devil's advocate side of the line. He comes up with some
interesting and relevant questions that require a certain amount of
thought to answer, without making the sort of completely unreasoned and
unreasonable posts that we see in tosspot crossposts. Although I often
disagree with his stated opinions, I welcome his presence in urc.

Very astute. Thank you :-)

Quoted message said:

Of course, my opinion may well change now that I seem to have engaged him
in a discussion about PT and bus lanes :-)

I challenge (I hope) preconceptions and prejudices.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
- Edward de Bono

Jon Senior said:

James Annan said:

Hey, I don't insist. But anyone whose posts have too low a
signal-to-noise level will get binned, and potentially that includes
people who feed the trolls.

If I appear to be approaching that level, send me an email. ;-)

I'll usually kill tedious threads first. But if you find I start
ignoring you, it might be too late :-}

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

i.e. greater than zero ;-)

0.1 is greater than zero, so is 1,000,000. When all numbers are in the
order of 1,000,000, 0.1 is so close to zero as for the difference to be
meaningless.

Ah, you think.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's keep our eye on the ball...

Which is... wait for it... the relevance of having good hearing when
cycling.

He he.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To whom? Who is the more vulnerable the cyclist who can't hear or the
motorist?

Who is more vulnerable? The cyclist who can't hear, or the cyclist who is
outside the car of the driver who can't hear.

So, TPIAW, who has more to lose by not being able to hear, so who has more
interest in _being_ able to hear?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not at all, but _if_ you can hear why not maxikmise your chances?

Because it is not always necessary.

Retrospectively, maybe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, but why not maximise your perception of those that do?

Because as you amply demonstrate, it channels your perceptions in an
unhelpful manner. Despite being a cyclist, when walking I often judged
whether a road was clear by whether or not I could hear traffic. I stopped
doing this after a pedestrian did it to me while I was cycling.

Did you hit him?

Quoted message said:

While wearing headphones I always checked because I couldn't hear as
clearly. Not true for everyone, but a data point nonetheless.

You can fool yourself if you like.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And, of course, which can suffer the most damage. We all need to do
everything we can to protect ourselves.

Which would involve not leaving the house. Or driving everywhere. There is
a certain amount of risk in cycling with headphones on, but it is well
within manageable limits, and if one misjudges it then the consequences
will be (almost) entirely borne by the cyclist.

Precisely, and by _all_ others involved at the scene.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but the other way to look at it is from the positive, or defensive
viewpoint - doing this, or not doing that, will give me a better chance.

ie. Not cycling.

At the extreme, yes. But having committed to the act, then there are still
more choices which you can make to improve your odds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, armour makes you braver. Without armour you need to be cleverer.

So look before you leap. Don't rely on sound.

No, not _rely_, but use it to its best advantage. Two senses _Are_ better
than one.

Quoted message said:

My current commuting bike is of a style that prevents me from looking
behind. So I have a mirror. I check the mirror far more frequently than I
used to look around, so nothing takes me by surprise. Despite limiting my
information, I have adapted to be more aware of my surroundings.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, we all accept certain compromises and take measured risks, we must,
however, take our responsibilities, as road users, seriously.

It is the concept of "measured risk" that you seem to be having problems
with. The increased risk to a (sensible) cyclist of wearing headphones is
negligible.

If you say so. I know though, that I feel "more aware" without them.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
- Edward de Bono

Matt B said:

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

i.e. greater than zero ;-)

0.1 is greater than zero, so is 1,000,000. When all numbers are in the
order of 1,000,000, 0.1 is so close to zero as for the difference to be
meaningless.

Ah, you think.

No really. It is!

Quoted message said:

So, TPIAW, who has more to lose by not being able to hear, so who has more
interest in _being_ able to hear?

The cyclist has more to lose. In all situations. The point I'm making
(Which you are so carefully failing to notice) is that it is easily
possible to compensate for the loss of hearing.

Quoted message said:

Retrospectively, maybe.

No... at the time. I'll say this once more before I get tired of it. I
(And I don't believe myself to be alone in this) can compensate for the
loss of hearing by making better use of the other senses. I do this
every winter when I wear a buff over my ears because otherwise I freeze!
This is not rocket science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because as you amply demonstrate, it channels your perceptions in an
unhelpful manner. Despite being a cyclist, when walking I often judged
whether a road was clear by whether or not I could hear traffic. I stopped
doing this after a pedestrian did it to me while I was cycling.

Did you hit him?

No. Although I did pass through the loose folds of his trenchcoat. I
don't know which of us was most surprised by the encounter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While wearing headphones I always checked because I couldn't hear as
clearly. Not true for everyone, but a data point nonetheless.

You can fool yourself if you like.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which would involve not leaving the house. Or driving everywhere. There is
a certain amount of risk in cycling with headphones on, but it is well
within manageable limits, and if one misjudges it then the consequences
will be (almost) entirely borne by the cyclist.

Precisely, and by _all_ others involved at the scene.

The "consequences" is generally understood to mean "serious" ones. Being
a witness to an accident is not the same as being the victim.

Quoted message said:

At the extreme, yes. But having committed to the act, then there are still
more choices which you can make to improve your odds.

Indeed. And having committed to the act of cycling while listening to
MP3s, there are still choices which you can make to improve your odds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, armour makes you braver. Without armour you need to be cleverer.

So look before you leap. Don't rely on sound.

No, not _rely_, but use it to its best advantage. Two senses _Are_ better
than one.

But one sense used properly is better than two unused! I've seen people
on bikes change lanes without ever checking for approaching vehicles.

Quoted message said:

If you say so. I know though, that I feel "more aware" without them.

So do I. And I haven't ridden with headphones for many years. But I
don't believe for a minute that I can't adjust my behaviour to
compensate, just as I compensate for bad weather, or loud noises over
which I have no control.

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, TPIAW, who has more to lose by not being able to hear, so who has
more interest in _being_ able to hear?

The cyclist has more to lose. In all situations. The point I'm making
(Which you are so carefully failing to notice) is that it is easily
possible to compensate for the loss of hearing.

If you insist, but I would say that it is a compromise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Retrospectively, maybe.

No... at the time. I'll say this once more before I get tired of it. I
(And I don't believe myself to be alone in this) can compensate for the
loss of hearing by making better use of the other senses. I do this every
winter when I wear a buff over my ears because otherwise I freeze! This is
not rocket science.

You compromise, given the unavoidable handicap. MP3 players are avoidable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because as you amply demonstrate, it channels your perceptions in an
unhelpful manner. Despite being a cyclist, when walking I often judged
whether a road was clear by whether or not I could hear traffic. I
stopped doing this after a pedestrian did it to me while I was cycling.

Did you hit him?

No. Although I did pass through the loose folds of his trenchcoat. I don't
know which of us was most surprised by the encounter.

LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While wearing headphones I always checked because I couldn't hear as
clearly. Not true for everyone, but a data point nonetheless.

You can fool yourself if you like.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Not at all, I'm suggesting that you were fooling yourself that you were just
as safe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which would involve not leaving the house. Or driving everywhere. There
is a certain amount of risk in cycling with headphones on, but it is well
within manageable limits, and if one misjudges it then the consequences
will be (almost) entirely borne by the cyclist.

Precisely, and by _all_ others involved at the scene.

The "consequences" is generally understood to mean "serious" ones. Being a
witness to an accident is not the same as being the victim.

Although you could say that witnesses and those who have to deal with the
consequences are also victims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the extreme, yes. But having committed to the act, then there are
still more choices which you can make to improve your odds.

Indeed. And having committed to the act of cycling while listening to
MP3s, there are still choices which you can make to improve your odds.

Yes, the most obvious one being... to not wearing it ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Yes, armour makes you braver. Without armour you need to be cleverer.

So look before you leap. Don't rely on sound.

No, not _rely_, but use it to its best advantage. Two senses _Are_
better than one.

But one sense used properly is better than two unused!

Of course.

Quoted message said:

I've seen people on bikes change lanes without ever checking for
approaching vehicles.

Fools.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you say so. I know though, that I feel "more aware" without them.

So do I. And I haven't ridden with headphones for many years. But I don't
believe for a minute that I can't adjust my behaviour to compensate, just
as I compensate for bad weather, or loud noises over which I have no
control.

But you can never _quite_ compensate fully, you add a certain extra amount
of risk.

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein

MattB said:

But you can never _quite_ compensate fully, you add a certain extra
amount of risk.

I never compromise my safety or anyone elses. When driving I never
listen to the radio, I never converse with passengers lest that
distract me. To provide maximum visibility I never drive a hardtop (I
drive a convertible, but with the roof always down). I have removed
all windows and their supports (particularly the ones that support the
windscreen - these are particularly dangerous at junctions). Also, I
never drive at night or other times of reduced visibility (fog, rain
etc) or when the road surface is less than optimum for breaking. (rain,
ice, snow).

I cannot understand why Mr. Senior (surely a troll) has such a blatent
disregard for basic road safety measures as these, and commend my good
friend MattB for his sensible and level headed approach to road use and
safety.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MattB said:

But you can never _quite_ compensate fully, you add a certain extra
amount of risk.

I never compromise my safety or anyone elses. When driving I never
listen to the radio, I never converse with passengers lest that
distract me. To provide maximum visibility I never drive a hardtop (I
drive a convertible, but with the roof always down). I have removed
all windows and their supports (particularly the ones that support the
windscreen - these are particularly dangerous at junctions). Also, I
never drive at night or other times of reduced visibility (fog, rain
etc) or when the road surface is less than optimum for breaking. (rain,
ice, snow).

I cannot understand why Mr. Senior (surely a troll) has such a blatent
disregard for basic road safety measures as these, and commend my good
friend MattB for his sensible and level headed approach to road use and
safety.

LOL.

As a road user who is more vulnerable than the majority of (tin encased)
road users would _you_ engage in a frivolous, non-essential activity, which
may increase your risk?

--
Matt B

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
- Albert Einstein

Quoted message said:

As a road user who is more vulnerable than the majority of (tin encased)
road users would _you_ engage in a frivolous, non-essential activity, which
may increase your risk?

What, like cycling in the first place? No, the bike has been at the
back of the garage for years. I just pretend I'm a cyclist so I can
inflict my pointless, argumentative posts here.

Matt B said:

If you insist, but I would say that it is a compromise.

Then your understanding of the word "compromise" is... how can I put
this? Compromised!

Quoted message said:

You compromise, given the unavoidable handicap. MP3 players are avoidable.

Wrong, I compensate given the avoidable handicap. I could accept the
discomfort of cold ears. I could take the bus instead, or even walk in.
Within limits, everything is avoidable, but where you are going wrong is
in the assumption that compensation cannot be made. Drivers routinely
compensate for enhanced safety features by driving faster. This is not
"compromise". I routinely compensate for temporary changes in
information. This is also not "compromise".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>While wearing headphones I always checked because I couldn't hear as
>clearly. Not true for everyone, but a data point nonetheless.

You can fool yourself if you like.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Not at all, I'm suggesting that you were fooling yourself that you were just
as safe.

But I was you see. I was as aware of the presence of all hazards around
me as I was when walking without. More so in fact as I relied on visual
ID rather than hearing (Which can be flummoxed by a quiet vehicle).

Quoted message said:

Although you could say that witnesses and those who have to deal with the
consequences are also victims.

We are all victims. There is a distinction to be made between death &
serious injury and the mild social trauma of being a witness. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Yes, the most obvious one being... to not wearing it ;-)

And having made the decision to wear it (For reasons of a more
pleasurable journey for example)...

Quoted message said:

But you can never _quite_ compensate fully, you add a certain extra amount
of risk.

I _can_ compensate fully. If while cycling I am continuously aware of
all the hazards around me, and nothing takes me by surprise, I have
sucessfully compensated for the loss of hearing. This _is_ the case.

Jon

Quoted message said:

What, like cycling in the first place? No, the bike has been at the
back of the garage for years. I just pretend I'm a cyclist so I can
inflict my pointless, argumentative posts here.

<fx: quiet sniggers>

Jon

I have a cheap 1GB MP3 player that I got off Ebay for about £60. It
looks and feels a bit cheap but sounds fine and I've not had any
problems with it. I use it for cycling and running, no problem.

Ed.

Daz said:

Sorry if this has come up before, but!!
Could those of you who like listening to music whilst riding recomend an mp3
player/sports case and ear bud/headphone combination that works.I am totaly
confused by all the MP3 players out there, having visited
Dixons,Currys,Comet etc etc etc i am no further forward.

thanks very much
Daz