Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

As a cyclist, I think this is another case of some cyclists wanting to have their cake and eat it. The more that happens, the more infuriating some cyclists and motorists will find cyclists in general.

It's not sensible to listen to music while riding. Most occasions you see it happen on what are probably commutes. Anybody can do without music for a short distance. If you're listening to it on a low volume, then there's not much point to it. Hearing what's around you is vital. It's all part of instinct and reflexes.

There's a good reason why it's illegal to drive while using a phone - you're not in full control. A person riding while listening to music is also not in full control, and that which impairs it offers no counter-benefit whatsoever.

So are you saying drivers are not in control while listening to music?

^^^OK - so some people have an idle chat, while others have an involved conversation. One takes more investment, of some kind, than the other.

Same applies to music - you can be half-ignoring it, or consumed by it. The latter must limit whatever other synapses you depend on to concentrate on something else. Who's to say a rider isn't consumed? They'd be concentrating fully on the wrong thing for my liking, if I'm riding nearby.

Where do you get this conclusion about riding with an ipod being less dangerous than listening to music in a car?

Because distracted people in cars are able to do much more damage that a distracted person on a bike (Though riding or driving with an music is not necessarily distracting if the person compensates for the loss of hearing)

^^No, but I have made a comparison of sorts in my reply to Ed.

Because distracted people in cars are able to do much more damage that a distracted person on a bike (Though riding or driving with an music is not necessarily distracting if the person compensates for the loss of hearing)

You are not following this through, the person on the bike counts as a person that can be damaged, so therefore their own "distraction" can pose a clear and present danger to them.

Same applies to music - you can be half-ignoring it, or consumed by it.

The only thing I can says are similar to holding a conversation is when singing "Never Gonna Give You Up" down Clapham South Side as loud as you can while weaving left and right on that mini-motorway.

Because distracted people in cars are able to do much more damage that a distracted person on a bike (Though riding or driving with an music is not necessarily distracting if the person compensates for the loss of hearing)
Ah - I had forgotten that we had decided to redefine dangerous as being active, and not passive.

The article makes not mention of being distracted though, unless I missed something?

^^No, but I have made a comparison of sorts in my reply to Ed.

Given that you are talking to yourself I can not take anything you say sensibly.

You are not following this through, the person on the bike counts as a person that can be damaged, so therefore their own "distraction" can pose a clear and present danger to them.

...only if they are idiots and their distraction makes them make a mistake AND other road users are also distracted enough to cause them harm for their mistake.

^^Lou Reed put it best - you're not interested in my problems, and neither am I.

^^ So your argument is entirely predicated on a straw man then?

...only if they are idiots and their distraction makes them make a mistake AND other road users are also distracted enough to cause them harm for their mistake.

That's simply not true, you don't need two people to create an accident, one person can do it perfectly well.

That's simply not true, you don't need two people to create an accident, one person can do it perfectly well.

True though a person on a bike having a solo crash is not as severe as the rider being hit by a car at 30mph

Erm, what if that person pulls out into the path of said 30mph car?

Or would you blame the car for that?

^^ So your argument is entirely predicated on a straw man then?

No ,my argument is based on the fact that people compensate if they increase risk. When I ride with music I compensate and ensure I never move into a space without checking

Except it's not though.

And you should be checking before you move into a space, twatcans headphones or note.

Have you considered cycle training?

Ride while drunk, falling off will hurt less.

Erm, what if that person pulls out into the path of said 30mph car?

Or would you blame the car for that?

Depends. How close was the driver? Had the driver anticipated that the ride may swerve for any reason and given space.

If you are using a mode that can cause harm (a dangerous form of transport like a car) the onus is on you to keep others safe.

Is the lion wearing headphones?

How long is a piece of string?

Fuck this, time for bed.

Hasn't this all been said before on the thread about listening to music? >>>>>>>>>>>>

Is the lion wearing headphones?

How long is a piece of string?
Absolutely ruined my reply.

I'm trying to say that that people who use benign means of getting around, walking and cycling, skating and swimming, should not get harmed by people who choose more potentially harmful means for listening, because they are music or for riding slowly or for riding two abreast chatting to a mate...

(Night Dammit)

Out.

Fucken helmet thread.

This.

In my opinion (based on my own experience) too many pedestrians and cyclists rely on hearing in favour of proper observation. I'm always surprised at how many people I see on my commute who pull out to overtake another cyclist (or a parked car) without even looking behind them.

But you're assuming that they do this because they rely on sound. You have no evidence. Many cyclists do many stupid things. Maybe they're just stupid. Maybe your interpretation of the evidence suits you.