Cyclists riding side-by-side is biggest gripe for rural drivers claims survey

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

Thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

Thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.

In think you mean "sadly", because a lot of people would try harder to avoid causing " accidents"

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

Thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.

I would argue that it does largely work that way (with some exceptions as in all things).

Evidence is critical for the correct application of laws and justice. Thought-crimes would be the opposite whereby someone can be found guilty of pure "intent" without any actual physical wrong-doing. Crimes such as "manslaughter" cover the non-intentional harming of others.

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

Thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.

I would argue that it does largely work that way (with some exceptions as in all things).

Evidence is critical for the correct application of laws and justice. Thought-crimes would be the opposite whereby someone can be found guilty of pure "intent" without any actual physical wrong-doing. Crimes such as "manslaughter" cover the non-intentional harming of others.

I don't think 'largely' is the word I'd use. 'Intent' plays a large part in determining whether something was an accident or deliberate and that forms a large part of the justice system. By 'thought-crimes' I think you might be referring to planning of a crime without getting a chance to carry it out. Simply thinking about something illegal isn't a criminal offence thankfully as we all do this every day (oops). As regards manslaughter, someone can still be guilty of 'negligence' resulting in a death even if there is no intent to kill ... the intent would have been to carryout the negligent action regardless of the risks you were aware of.

nbrus wrote:

I don't think 'largely' is the word I'd use. 'Intent' plays a large part in determining whether something was an accident or deliberate and that forms a large part of the justice system. By 'thought-crimes' I think you might be referring to planning of a crime without getting a chance to carry it out. Simply thinking about something illegal isn't a criminal offence thankfully as we all do this every day (oops). As regards manslaughter, someone can still be guilty of 'negligence' resulting in a death even if there is no intent to kill ... the intent would have been to carryout the negligent action regardless of the risks you were aware of.

You're begging the question with stating that intent is a large part of determining whether something was an accident or deliberate - those are the results of people's intentions.

Here's some examples of modern day thought crimes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/governments-terror-watchdog-warns-against-creating-thought-crime/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/met_police_wastes_2_1m_online_hate_crime_hub/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

I don't think 'largely' is the word I'd use. 'Intent' plays a large part in determining whether something was an accident or deliberate and that forms a large part of the justice system. By 'thought-crimes' I think you might be referring to planning of a crime without getting a chance to carry it out. Simply thinking about something illegal isn't a criminal offence thankfully as we all do this every day (oops). As regards manslaughter, someone can still be guilty of 'negligence' resulting in a death even if there is no intent to kill ... the intent would have been to carryout the negligent action regardless of the risks you were aware of.

You're begging the question with stating that intent is a large part of determining whether something was an accident or deliberate - those are the results of people's intentions.

Here's some examples of modern day thought crimes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/governments-terror-watchdog-warns-against-creating-thought-crime/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/met_police_wastes_2_1m_online_hate_crime_hub/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487

Interesting articles ... I never knew thinking could be considered a crime. However, how would anyone know that someone else was holding extremist views? The crime isn't the thinking ... the crime is displaying and promoting that hate to others, so there is 'intent' to spread hate. That's a physical action and not solely a 'thought'.

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

nbrus wrote:

saladfunky wrote:

Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can't get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven't got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!  

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Maybe that's because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you're taking up on the road etc.

All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don't do so for those reasons.

Agreed.

Luckily, I'm a logical positivist, so I don't put much faith in intangibles like "intent". To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at "justifying" almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).

Thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.

I would argue that it does largely work that way (with some exceptions as in all things).

Evidence is critical for the correct application of laws and justice. Thought-crimes would be the opposite whereby someone can be found guilty of pure "intent" without any actual physical wrong-doing. Crimes such as "manslaughter" cover the non-intentional harming of others.

I don't think 'largely' is the word I'd use. 'Intent' plays a large part in determining whether something was an accident or deliberate and that forms a large part of the justice system. By 'thought-crimes' I think you might be referring to planning of a crime without getting a chance to carry it out. Simply thinking about something illegal isn't a criminal offence thankfully as we all do this every day (oops). As regards manslaughter, someone can still be guilty of 'negligence' resulting in a death even if there is no intent to kill ... the intent would have been to carryout the negligent action regardless of the risks you were aware of.

I think the topic is much less clear-cut than you would have it. Firstly, people have on numerous occasions been convicted of planning a crime without getting the chance to carry it out (e.g. several Islamist terror plots), and there is a specific offence of 'conspiracy', no?

Secondly I don't agree there's necessarily a significant moral difference between recklessly causing harm and deliberately doing so.

What complicates things hugely is when an entire group collectively decides to be habitually careless with the well-being of others. In that case the moral culpability is shared by the whole group, and it becomes a tricky dilemma to what extent to put the entire blame exclusively on the one who ends up being the instrument of harm. (I think that might to a degree even apply to things like sexual harassment as well as bad driving).

In all cases I think the ideal is to try and remove the power-imbalances that allow the bad behaviour, so as to save the perpetrators from themselves as much as to save their victims.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... people have on numerous occasions been convicted of planning a crime without getting the chance to carry it out (e.g. several Islamist terror plots), and there is a specific offence of 'conspiracy', no? ...

That's the 'intent' part.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... I don't agree there's necessarily a significant moral difference between recklessly causing harm and deliberately doing so ...

There would be a bigger difference between an 'accident' and 'deliberate' ... causing harm by being 'reckless' is still a crime, but is at a lower level than deliberately doing so, as it is still an 'accident', but you increased the risk of that 'accident' happening by 'deliberately' choosing to be 'reckless'.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... What complicates things hugely is when an entire group collectively decides to be habitually careless with the well-being of others. In that case the moral culpability is shared by the whole group ...

We are all individuals, so I don't think its fair to put people into groups in order to apportion blame. None of us are responsible for the actions of others. And what constitutes a 'group'? Is it all road users, or all motor vehicles, or only 4-wheeled motor vehicles? I would think the type of group you are really referring to is the one consisting of inconsiderate drivers, but why not just enlarge the group to include all inconsiderate road users who thankfully are a minority?

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... people have on numerous occasions been convicted of planning a crime without getting the chance to carry it out (e.g. several Islamist terror plots), and there is a specific offence of 'conspiracy', no? ...

That's the 'intent' part.

But in your previous post you didn't talk about 'intent', you talked about not carrying out a planned action.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... I don't agree there's necessarily a significant moral difference between recklessly causing harm and deliberately doing so ...

There would be a bigger difference between an 'accident' and 'deliberate' ... causing harm by being 'reckless' is still a crime, but is at a lower level than deliberately doing so, as it is still an 'accident', but you increased the risk of that 'accident' happening by 'deliberately' choosing to be 'reckless'.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... What complicates things hugely is when an entire group collectively decides to be habitually careless with the well-being of others. In that case the moral culpability is shared by the whole group ...

We are all individuals, so I don't think its fair to put people into groups in order to apportion blame. None of us are responsible for the actions of others. And what constitutes a 'group'? Is it all road users, or all motor vehicles, or only 4-wheeled motor vehicles? I would think the type of group you are really referring to is the one consisting of inconsiderate drivers, but why not just enlarge the group to include all inconsiderate road users who thankfully are a minority?

But we aren't all individuals, we are members of groups. And different groups have different degrees of power.

No, I wouldn't enlarge it to 'inconsiderate road users' because only the ones in motorised vehicles cause significant death and injury. That's the whole point.

Strictly I wouldn't even say it was 'all motorised vehicle users' so much as 'all who support a car-centric transport system and tolerate a low standard of driving' (some of whom don't even drive themselves). It's perfectly fair to apportion blame to that group, because they are the ones to blame!

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But we aren't all individuals, we are members of groups.

Are you Borg?

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But we aren't all individuals, we are members of groups.

Are you Borg?

Nah, I'm just someone who can see reality. Aren't you?

Edit - to be less sarky and expand the point - we aren't autonomous entities with no characteristics or interests shared with anyone else, we don't grow in a vat somewhere and emerge fully formed into the world. We have characteristics and self-interests shared with others (many of them determined by accident of birth, though motoring isn't one of those), and will tend to act collectively in pursuit of those shared-interests, whether consciously or not (and with motorists it often is consciously, when they lobby as an organised group via their various organisations, but other times its quite unconscious when they vote or serve on juries).

It usually tends to be the members of the most powerful groups who insist they are 'individuals' above all.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But we aren't all individuals, we are members of groups.

Are you Borg?

Nah, I'm just someone who can see reality. Aren't you?

I'm just a figment of some elder gods' imagination.

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But we aren't all individuals, we are members of groups.

Are you Borg?

Nah, I'm just someone who can see reality. Aren't you?

I'm just a figment of some elder gods' imagination.

Hmmm, Fair play, I don't have an answer to that one!

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

No, I wouldn't enlarge it to 'inconsiderate road users' because only the ones in motorised vehicles cause significant death and injury. That's the whole point. Strictly I wouldn't even say it was 'all motorised vehicle users' so much as 'all who support a car-centric transport system and tolerate a low standard of driving' (some of whom don't even drive themselves). It's perfectly fair to apportion blame to that group, because they are the ones to blame!

Absolutely this. By and large, 'we' are a reasonable bunch.

@nbrus et al: don't mistake the rhetoric on here for anti-car - it isn't. The noise on here isn't the equivalent of the 'all cyclists are wankers' stuff that takes off on the likes of the Daily Heil.

The venom tends to be directed at problem drivers and people who support the current trajectory of cars taking over the streets. If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

Don't confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.

don simon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

Don't confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.

It's impossible to win an argument with a Jehovah's Witness ... don't confuse that with them being right.

nbrus wrote:

don simon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

Don't confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.

It's impossible to win an argument with a Jehovah's Witness ... don't confuse that with them being right.

just curious how many hours did it take them to get you sussed?

beezus fufoon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

don simon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

Don't confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.

It's impossible to win an argument with a Jehovah's Witness ... don't confuse that with them being right.

just curious how many hours did it take them to get you sussed?

Maybe you can asked them the next time you invite them in for a cup of tea.

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

don simon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

If you think it's difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.

I've tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses ... they couldn't get away fast enough ... so motons should be a walkover. 

Don't confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.

It's impossible to win an argument with a Jehovah's Witness ... don't confuse that with them being right.

just curious how many hours did it take them to get you sussed?

Maybe you can asked them the next time you invite them in for a cup of tea.

yes I will, but how do I make sure they'll know who I'm takling about?

...he can't see the wood for the trees, spends a lot of time on the internet, thinks he knows what reason is but is just a pedant...

eventually I'd have to do some impersonation...

"mam, I think I almost won the internet today...

well no, I almost convinced someone of something...

hmm, well I'm not really sure what it was, the goalposts kept moving... 

well anyway, I wore them down, and the thread was even longer than the raceview cycles one ...

are you still listening mam?

I even told them about that time I scared off the Jehova's witnesses mam...

no, sorry, you're right mam, they did just get bored mam..."

and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.

so you see my problem?

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes I will, but how do I make sure they'll know who I'm takling about?

...he can't see the wood for the trees, spends a lot of time on the internet, thinks he knows what reason is but is just a pedant...

eventually I'd have to do some impersonation...

"mam, I think I almost won the internet today...

well no, I almost convinced someone of something...

hmm, well I'm not really sure what it was, the goalposts kept moving... 

well anyway, I wore them down, and the thread was even longer than the raceview cycles one ...

are you still listening mam?

I even told them about that time I scared off the Jehova's witnesses mam...

no, sorry, you're right mam, they did just get bored mam..."

and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.

so you see my problem?

Yes, indeed I do ... you need to ask your mam for answers.

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

so you see my problem?

Yes, indeed I do ... you need to ask your mam for answers.

On another note ... you make a good point about me going on a bit too much, so I'll stop now ... everyone has their own views on the subject of this thread and that's totally fine. 

nbrus wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

yes I will, but how do I make sure they'll know who I'm takling about?

...he can't see the wood for the trees, spends a lot of time on the internet, thinks he knows what reason is but is just a pedant...

eventually I'd have to do some impersonation...

"mam, I think I almost won the internet today...

well no, I almost convinced someone of something...

hmm, well I'm not really sure what it was, the goalposts kept moving... 

well anyway, I wore them down, and the thread was even longer than the raceview cycles one ...

are you still listening mam?

I even told them about that time I scared off the Jehova's witnesses mam...

no, sorry, you're right mam, they did just get bored mam..."

and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.

so you see my problem?

Yes, indeed I do ... you need to ask your mam for answers.

damn you got me - like those Jehova's witnesses you've made me run off due to the power of your relentless and ineffable reasoning skills. (also it's my bedtime)

davel wrote:

@nbrus et al: don't mistake the rhetoric on here for anti-car - it isn't. The noise on here isn't the equivalent of the 'all cyclists are wankers' stuff that takes off on the likes of the Daily Heil.

I think you've just identified the group FK was really aluding to ... its all motons that read the Daily Mail. Sorted. 

nbrus wrote:

Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.

Well no, but it depends on the situation and the 'considerates' are applying blanket principles that aren't always practical and everyone is getting caught up in the semantics.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Exactly, the HC is still massively motorcentric and in my eyes unlawful, it still advises hi-vis and helmets yet doesn't for motorists and pedestrians (though does hi-vis for peds which is another load of BS)it still pushes the might is right style to road safety and many other piss poor aspects that effectively are detrimental to the vulnerable road user.

It fails to recognise/enforce that cycle lanes are a complete other lane and it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are clear before entering them just as they would do changing/entering lanes with other motorvehicles in them (So the motor vehicle left turning  into a cyclist aready there cases have often hinged on the lack of inference that this is wrong/must not scenario to the detriment of cycling safety and THINK have then gone on to victim blame cyclists/push the onus of safety onto the vulnerable in their distgusting 'safety' campaigns backing up the 'get out the fucking way or you'll get squashed' mantra.

I even had a discussion on headphones, I personally don't wear them but in NL cyclists are banned from wearing them as far as I could read, if we go down that route then every single motor should have its stereo system ripped out and listening to music banned plus any pedestria going anywhere near a road banned from listening to music/be on their phone.

Listening to music in a car or other vehicle is not the same as listening to music while cycling, running or walking simply because in a car or other vehicle you aren't wearing headphones.

Headphones block out a lot of the sound around you due to their placement directly over or in your ears.

When you play music in a vehicle like when you play it in a room you can hear other sounds around you if you don't play it too loud. However if you do decide to play it loud as a motorist and the police think so, they can and do fine motorists. Cyclists, runners and walkers aren't fined for this.

Oh and every road user whether using a motor vehicle or shanks pony should banned from fiddling with a smartphone or similar device while in motion.

Bluebug wrote:

Listening to music in a car or other vehicle is not the same as listening to music while cycling, running or walking simply because in a car or other vehicle you aren't wearing headphones. Headphones block out a lot of the sound around you due to their placement directly over or in your ears.

Cars insulate occupants from road noise, it's not different to headphones. I've heard someone recently claim they can hear better with earphones in because it reduces the wind noise. I can't hear much when I cycle due to wind noise, but I hear even less going on outside of a car when I'm driving.

Bluebug wrote:

When you play music in a vehicle like when you play it in a room you can hear other sounds around you if you don't play it too loud. However if you do decide to play it loud as a motorist and the police think so, they can and do fine motorists.

I've never heard of that.

Bluebug wrote:

Cyclists, runners and walkers aren't fined for this.

Yep, because there is far less potential for danger.

Should deaf people not be allowed to walk/run/cycle/drive?