Sunday Times cycling bum gravy.

[spindrift]

Think up a headline, then write an article that has the square root of sod all to do with the screaming banner:

Some silly stuff in the Times today "Are Ipods killing cyclists?", based on one fatality where the cyclist may or may not have worn earphones.

I don't listen to music, I like to hear gear changes behind me, but it doesn't bother me if people do. They can probably still hear more than someone in a vehicle with the radio on.

Stupid headline:

Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise

Beware, iPod zombie cyclists are on the rise - Times Online

Cyclists are a bandit tribe who blithely ignore the usual laws of the road

Eleanor Mills

Time’s up, bike bandits | Eleanor Mills - Times Online

Now this is not true of all cyclists;

You just said it was you dozy great woolly article.

[tonycollinet]

Interesting bit at the end though about the compulsory cycling seminar.

[spindrift]

And the review of the London hire scheme is broadly positive.

Which makes the headline even more stupid.

Newspapers just sh1t stir sometimes.

[clarion]

Beware, zombies are on the rise
notChris Gourlay

 
WATCH out for the zombies. motorists distracted by music blaring in their ears have become the latest menace on Britain’s roads.

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

Road safety groups are alarmed at the practice and this weekend Edmund King, the president of the AA, called on the Department for Transport (DfT) to launch a campaign warning motorists of the risk. The number of urban cyclists has grown so sharply that safety groups say the risky behaviour of a minority can cause serious problems.

The latest DfT figures show that 820 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in the three months to June, a 19% rise on the same period in 2008. 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.
  
However, many cyclists believe the problem is increasing. Internet cycling forums are full of heated exchanges between indignant cyclists and seething motorists, railing against the “erratic behaviour” and “breathtaking stupidity” of drivers who career through the traffic, windows vibrating.

“If motorists had to take a test, like all other road users do, and pay insurance, then perhaps there would be a lot less idiots driving their cars, wearing their iPod or mobile phone earphones and expecting everyone else to not only give way to them but to also read their minds as to their next action,” said one blogger after the death of a London cyclist last week.

Another said that “iPod zombies are a menace. I saw a bus clip one of them the other day in Victoria who was oblivious to anything around him.”

This weekend Nicholas Gardiner, an Oxfordshire coroner, spoke out about the risks of riding with iPods, saying that motorists’ careless attitude had to be challenged. “Frankly I find it quite frightening the things drivers do,” he said. “They ought to take a minimum amount of care over their safety. It seems to me ridiculous to deprive yourself of what is the second most important of your senses.”

Last year he recorded a verdict of accidental death when Abigail Haythorne, 17, died after being hit by an oncoming car. She had an MP3 player in her pocket, and her earphones tucked inside her neck scarf, and he said it was possible she was wearing them when she was struck by the car.

Pedestrians, too, have fallen victim to drivers 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.

The issue of risky behaviour by drivers has become a more pressing issue for motorists because ministers are considering whether to make them liable for crashes, even if they were not at fault.

Youth for Road Safety, a new group, is to launch a campaign called Tune into Traffic under the slogan “Your earphones could kill you”.

Manpreet Darroch, who is leading the campaign, said: “It’s a serious problem which is only going to get worse as the number of cyclists increases — lots of drivers are completely oblivious to what’s going on around them. People don’t realise how dangerous listening to music is on the roads — whether driver, pedestrian or cyclist. It takes one of your key senses away. People shouldn’t do it.

“You can legislate until you are blue in the face. On the issue of iPods we just need to raise awareness.”

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.”

There is currently no legislation in place to govern either the use of music players or the wearing of helmets on the road, but cyclists can be prosecuted for dangerous riding — an offence that attracts a maximum penalty of £2,500.

The police claim to be getting tougher on cycling offences and Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, has promised “complete zero tolerance of cyclists who break the rules”. However, David Cameron, the Tory leader, last year rode unpunished through red lights in London.

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.

Last week King called on the DfT to address the iPod issue. “They’re meant to be mobile, but if you are driving, you need all your senses about you.”

@rseholes

[Charlotte]

The articles were bad enough, but why do I have to read the bloody comments sections?  Will I ever learn?

Bunch of ill-informed, bigoted cockwombles, the lot of them.  Especially the ones who claim to be cyclists and then go on to demonstrate the usual shocking levels of igorance.  I started off at about 120/80 and by the time I'd been through half a dozen on each article, I was soaring towards advanced hypertension...

[andygates]

Stop before your eyeballs burst!

[woollypigs]

I like to hear gear changes behind me

erm you don't cycle in London do you or read Zipperhead (or what ever he is called now) post about people have their arse in the air when they start of from the lights

I ride with music but never that loud that I can't hear people talking, so when a car pass me my music is nearly inaudible.

[Gaseous Clay]

cockwombles

[Zoidburg]

Sensationalist bum gravy indeed.

However - I would never ride with music, I like to be able to hear whats coming, it's engine tone and revs, sirens, the rattle of the trailer unit on an artic lorry etc etc.

[Jaded]

Deaf people shouldn't be allowed to cycle either. With or without a helmet.

[Zoidburg]

That wasn't my point, if you have ears and can hear traffic with them you should use them as such on the road.

Comparing your self with the deaf is just highjacking anothers disability to excuse ones own stupidty.

[Jaded]

So, at what point of hearing loss do you ban people? I know plenty of people who are not deaf but who have impaired hearing.

Where are you going to set the bar?

[Charlotte]

Zoiders, I disagree.  I never used to ride with music, but in the last year or so, I've become an enthusiastic iPod cyclist and I don't see how it can be seen as any less safe than a car driver listening to his stereo.

I use Sennheiser OMX70's, which are great because they sit just over my ears and let in enough abmient noise that I can easily hear an engine note behind me.  But at the same time, I get enough music to motivate me, chill me out or otherwise relieve the boredom of a long road.

Once again, it's victim-blaming and loosing sight of the real issues.  If some cretin on a bicycle pulls into the path of another vehicle and gets hurt because they were riding like a tosser, then let's say they were riding like a tosser.  Let's not get into an argument about "iPod cyclists" because people will use it against us.

[rogerzilla]

Car drivers have mirrors, but few cyclists do.  I rely on my hearing to place vehicles behind me, which it does fairly accurately.  It's a personal thing though.

[Charlotte]

That's odd.  I just look over my shoulder.

[Zipperhead]

I look over my shoulder because I might be about to be overtaken by someone on a nice quiet fixie.

[Zoidburg]

The bad behaviour of drivers can not be excused.

But then neither can ignoring an important part of sensory perception.

Saying that just having phones in will lead to reduced compensation for victims or reduced sentencing for drivers is a hell of a leap.

Some drivers are twats and I know better than to shut my ears to them, I want to hear the bastards bearing down on me.

Maybe it's an ex squaddie thing but it's just goes against all my spidey-senses to have music on the go when I should be listening for something that could be a threat.

[Jaded]

So it is nothing about iPods or deafness at all.

It is about being aware of your surroundings, which is entirely different.

[her_welshness]

Hang on, its perfectly possible to listen to your ipod and listen out for traffic. I've been doing that for 5 years. One of the bods at my last workplace said 'how can you do that' so I said 'just try it out'. He did and agreed with me. As others have said its a personal thing. It helps me to enjoy the commute whilst still allowing me to be aware of other road users.

But getting back to the original article, when can they claim that wearing an ipod leads to cycling fatalities?

[woollypigs]

Quite often I have heard the music before I hear the car, while having my own tunes going.

Often I have stopped and blocked the road because I have heard the blues and twos. And got moaned at by the road user I'm blocking, because they haven't or heard the loud noise while sitting in their cars.

With the electric cars and other cyclist and the sheer noise from London, I look over my shoulder as that is more reliant than guessing if the noise you hear is from a car behind you, front of you or just the building site you are passing. And that goes for with or without you own plugs in your ears.

[docsquid]

cockwombles, the lot of them.  

Now I've learned a new word, and very descriptive it is too!

[Wendy]

Charlotte, you've hit the nail on the head.  Perfectly accurate.

As for those relying on hearing to sense cars, that's just bad cyclecraft.  Your primary sense is looking, and hearing can only ever be a secondary assist.  And that works just fine with music - as Charlotte says, it's perfectly possible to hear exactly how impatient and aggressive that driver behind you is even with music, or to hear the blues and twos long before anyone else has twigged.

[clarion]

I can't rely on my hearing.  I am pretty deaf in one ear, so find it difficult to determine the source of a sound (though I usually react to sirens much sooner than my fellow road users ).

I have very good eyesight, and I am very grateful for it.  I look round more than almost any other cyclist, but I want to know what's happening.

I don't listen to music.  I might be tempted to have radio 4 on (I did try this a few years back, but the reception was so variable it was distracting), but it's about choice. 

As I said above, if motorists aren't expected to rely on hearing at all, then why should they judge us for blocking only a part of what they do?

[ian]

I love these identikit stories. They're journalistic gold. Hit publish and watch those comments froth up like a deranged cappuccino.

It's dead easy. For the benefit of any journalists reading, let me be your muse.

Paragraph 1

Choose your poison du jour. RLJing | pavement cycling | without lights | excessive speeding | ipod-using cyclists. Stress the potential menace of this activity. No evidence is required, remember it's self-evident. Just in case, add an anecdote later.

Paragraph 2

OK, it's not entirely newsworthy that your entire article was based on a single millisecond encounter the other morning. Best you justify as some kind of new and widespread phenomenon you have just uncovered. Hoards!

Paragraph 3

OK, I know, you are a bit in danger at this point of just appearing to be ranting, and the internet is already full of ranting individuals who didn't spend three years at university fine tuning their journalistic acumen. You are a journalist. What's your motivation? OK, bad question. Reach for the rentaquote book, find Edmund King or the Taxpayer's Alliance. They have opinions on anything and everything.

Paragraph 4

OK, another danger point in your expose here - it's still a bit opinionated isn't? Time to reach for the Howitzer that is STATISTICS. OK, you're a journalist and you can't be expected to know what statistics are. Just Google some vaguely appropriate numbers. Upon noticing they make no sense, be sure to indicate that the actual numbers you'd like to use are unknown. That's fine. Numbers are numbers. Even mathematicians use imaginary numbers and yours come from Google, which makes them better.

Paragraph 5

No one believes in statistics anyway, so remember, anecdote. Someone, somewhere other than you thinks this is happening too.

Paragraph 6

Small girl | kitten | OAP was run over. By someone. And they're expecting statistics? Damn them. Surely something needs to be done.

Paragraph 6-15

Panic, I know, you need 700 words. Don't worry, the world isn't short of ill-informed and overly opinionated individuals (remember though, you already used Edmund King). Reach for the phone. And remember, pretty much anyone, given 10 minutes or so will say something suitable.

Paragraph 16

OK, single dissenting opinion time. Pick one. Keep it short. You are balanced, let the reader know it.

Paragraph 17

Bring it all together. The threat! The menace! Give it a political nuance if you can. And close it with a rentaquote. Remember, this isn't just your opinion, this is reportage.

[nortones2]

Pertinent summary Ian.  Odd how little is said about the proven threat from motors. These pieces must just be space fillers, with little risk of winding up the motorised masses, or the Murdoch empire.