or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Have you guys seen this on the CNN website?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have you guys seen this on the CNN website?

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/opinion/alford-phone-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Cut and pasted:

 

Skiing or snowboarding while listening to an iPod. In the same way that a preoccupied driver is a menace on the road, so, too, is a hearing-deprived skier or snowboarder a terror on the slopes. When an athlete cuts off a source of outside stimuli thusly, he deprives himself of a valuable auditory cue: bloodcurdling screams. When people near him scream out "Runaway ski!" he thinks they're simply singing along. A federal ban of iPods on the slopes would be easy to institute; its violators would be subject to lift-ticket revocation and reduced hot cocoa.

 

In case you don't want to check the link out, this is from the opinion section linked to the main page. Thought it was interesting.


Edited by AlbanyCO - 12/15/11 at 12:38pm
post #2 of 42

I always ride with just one headphone in for this reason. I do think riding with two makes you dangerous and oblivious.

post #3 of 42

I would like to keep the govt out of my life and off the slopes as much as possible.  I have a helmet that has speakers for my ipod and enjoy listening while skiing. It doesn't distract me at all and adds to my skiing experience.

 

 

post #4 of 42

Given some of the other suggestions in the article (i.e., ban looking over the edge of a skyscraper, ban lighting an oven other then using a pilot light, etc.), I'm pretty sure it was in jest.

 

I'm not a big fan of using headphones on the slopes, but for those that think it's dangerous -- do you think that deaf people shouldn't be allowed to ski?

post #5 of 42

Deaf people learn how to adjust to not being able to hear and hone their other senses accordingly. Also that would be a matter of ADA access and would never happen.

 

People that can hear have no such advantage. I don't think it's the biggest issue and not worth any regulation, but I do think it's potentially dangerous. It's not a distraction (I think music helps your skiing rhythm), but it does decrease or eliminate your ability to hear others around you.

 

I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't stand to diminish your awareness at all.

post #6 of 42

When I ski I take it for granted that nobody else on the slopes is paying attention or aware that I am approaching or passing.  In fact, I act as though they are trying to collide with me if possible.  I drive the same way.  By the same logic we could say that car stereos should have a limit of 10 watts per channel output.  No more deafening amps and subs.  Seriously, how could someone hear an emergency vehicle siren over a stereo so loud that the trim on the fenders is rattling?

 

 

On the bright side, they are moving to ban phone use (even hands free after market blue tooth ear pieces) while driving.  Can we also ban them on chairlifts?duck.gif

post #7 of 42

When are they going to outlaw the car radio?

post #8 of 42

Then they should ban stick shifts as well.  Can't have 2 hands on the wheel - 10 and 2, and white knuckled at that

post #9 of 42

For those who haven't read the article, it's a tongue-in-cheek fantasy list of silly things to legislate. The difference with the "ipod while skiing/boarding" item is that these people actually do endanger others, rather than just themselves. I'd be interested to find out how many skiers/boarders collide with others whilst getting lost in their music (i.e. "spacing out"). 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

I'm not a big fan of using headphones on the slopes, but for those that think it's dangerous -- do you think that deaf people shouldn't be allowed to ski?


Deaf people aren't "spacing out" while listening to their favourite tune. I've even found myself spacing out on the sensation of a good turn--I can only imagine how bad it is when adding music to the mix. Despite what the popular media likes to say, people are terrible at multitasking, and processing music takes away valuable resources from focusing on not colliding with skiers downhill from you. 

 

 

Quote:
When are they going to outlaw the car radio?

 

I'd like to say that cars are a different case:

Radio only occupies a portion of your field of aural focus (how loud are you cranking it?). Headphones can be far more engrossing.

Drivers drive to a prescribed set of rules in a (generally) straight line. Skiers are completely erratic.

Insane sense of entitlement for many folks on skis (park rats, young people) - I don't think this appears as much in cars. 

post #10 of 42

I'm two ways about it, on greens there's not a lot of wind noise so I can see where using these makes you deaf.  On blues and blacks there can be considerable wind noise so what are you going to hear anyways.

 

General rule, if it's crowded and it's not an emergency check your six before making a sudden move.

post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtebor View Post

I would like to keep the govt out of my life and off the slopes as much as possible.  I have a helmet that has speakers for my ipod and enjoy listening while skiing. It doesn't distract me at all and adds to my skiing experience.

 

 



The difference between this and another law like a helmet law is that you are only harming yourself if you do something stupid like not wearing a helmet.  But not being able to hear people on the slopes poses danger to others, in which case I am perfectly fine with legislating away your happiness/ability to put ME at risk.

post #12 of 42

I think one of the main issues with mp3 player use is the fact that in almost every case it is done specifically to drown out background noise and other things that are going on around you.  People wear them all the time when they don't want to be bothered by others (sometimes actively, sometimes not).

 

Which I think is a big difference from something like a car stereo.  Some people use them to drown out whats going on around them of course, but most people don't listen to them to the point where they can't hear whats going on around them and its as much background noise as anything else.

 

As an aside, I have recently started running and in reading up on technique and form several sites suggested dropping music when running because you start paying too much attention to the music and less on form and how you are running and its too easy to slow down or speed up based on the music rather then what you should be training for.  Of course its not an issue if you aren't specifically training for anything and you're just running for exercise, but the simple fact that it has a fairly direct impact on how you do phsyical activities is the important part.

 

Personally I love the isolation of outdoors, getting away from the mundane, and listening to music gets in the way of that.  Given at a resort you aren't out by yourself and there is other background noise, like the lifts and other skiers/boarders, but its still a lot different then normal every day life.  I also don't listen when running (and didn't before reading what I mentioned above) if I'm outdoors, even in town on the greenbelt, but it is nice when on a treadmill.

 

As for hearing in general, its already not that easy when the snow is on the icy side, but it makes it easier to hear others.  But also the hat and helmet cut out a lot of noise and it wouldn't take much in music volume to cut out what you can hear from others.

 

As for someone that is deaf, they know they have the issue and go out of their way to make up for it by being more attentive with their other sense.  But with music people very often don't even try to make up for their lose of hearing in other ways and many people probably aren't even really thinking about what important things they are missing by not being able to hear because of the music.

 

Not that I think we need a law banning music players on the slopes, but it is something people should keep in mind.

post #13 of 42

I don't listen to music while skiing for this exact reason, and to be honest it's one of the few things I dislike about wearing a helmet with ear pads (you can't hear very well).  They're super comfortable however so I still rarely take them off, and at least I can hear well enough to get a sense of my surroundings.

post #14 of 42

When was the last time someone yelled "runaway ski"? I think most people would just go "hunh?"

post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post


.... Drivers drive to a prescribed set of rules in a (generally) straight line. Skiers are completely erratic.

Insane sense of entitlement for many folks on skis (park rats, young people) - I don't think this appears as much in cars. 

You've obviously never driven in Massachusetts...
 

 

post #16 of 42



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

When was the last time someone yelled "runaway ski"? I think most people would just go "hunh?"



I think its the more common things like when you're going to pass someone and say something like "on your left" to let them know you are there and going to pass them so they don't turn into you.  Which I hear quite a bit on some of the slower runs like long cat trails where people are more likely to mess around because there isn't anything going on with the trail itself.

Or when ski patrol yells at someone to slow down.  Or simply being aware so you can help or get out of the way if someone gets hurt, because audible warnings and calls for help happen a lot faster then someone marking the situation visually.

 

And of course people have blind spots, you'll often hear someone coming up behind you before you'll ever see them because no one I've meet has had eyes in the back of their head.

 

 

 

post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicX View Post



The difference between this and another law like a helmet law is that you are only harming yourself if you do something stupid like not wearing a helmet.  But not being able to hear people on the slopes poses danger to others, in which case I am perfectly fine with legislating away your happiness/ability to put ME at risk.



Absolutely! And those GoPros on a stick, totally distracting. We should legislate them too. And twintips. Anyone skiing backwards is a risk, so it should be illegal to sell twintips. 

post #18 of 42

Not that I care a lick about what others do, but speaking only for myself, the 'auditory' ski experience has always been important. You glance and listen for sluff. You listen for other skiers. When people are ripping big arcs at high speeds, it's often ears rather than eyes that save you from a collision. By listening to the snow while skinning, traversing, while watching other skiers, you can anticipate quite accurately what conditions you'll encounter on the down. When teaching, I've asked students to tell me what they've heard and what it might mean. There's also nothing like the couple minutes of silence before dropping a nice line when you're out touring. But that's just me. 

post #19 of 42

 

Like most people looking for better snow, I spend much of my time skiing along the tree line.  On many occasions, me being able to hear another skier/boarder before they came flying out of the trees without looking has undoubtedly saved me some serious collisions.  I also like the audible feedback on changing snow conditions when I'm really charging hard...

 

In any case, should there be a law passed to prevent listening to music while skiing?  Of course not, that's absurd.  But to deny that hearing increases your slope awareness and therefore makes you a better and safer skier is also absurd.  Beyond that, unless listening to music makes you dangerous to other people, to each his own...

 

 

post #20 of 42

While that's true, I've often had times teaching when I wish I could put earplugs in my student's ears also. Sometimes I think there is a direct link between the sound of turning on ice and retreating into a defensive posture. In one extreme case, I had a women who would stop and turn to watch every skier on the slope. she got literally frantic, thinking every one of them was about to hit her.

 

Myself, I like nothing better than a backcountry day when the snow is falling fat flakes that muffle any sound...maybe followed by an inbounds powder day when the hootin' and hollerin' just makes everyone all that much more jazzed.

post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by erloas View Post

I think its the more common things like when you're going to pass someone and say something like "on your left" to let them know you are there and going to pass them so they don't turn into you.  Which I hear quite a bit on some of the slower runs like long cat trails where people are more likely to mess around because there isn't anything going on with the trail itself.

th_dunno-1[1].gif

I gave up on that, especially on catwalks.  It seems that 50% of the time when I say "on your left" the fool veers LEFT.  Some people can only turn one direction ya know..   That just makes it more dangerous.   I just wait and slingshot around them so wide that they can't possibly hit me or even really notice me until I'm clear.  If there is adequate coverage I'll use the woods along the edge of the catwalk a little to do so.  Now shouting from the chair that there is someone down just over the knoll or in the blind LZ of a feature they appear to be heading for is a pretty good reason to hope they don't have it cranked up too loud..

post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post



Absolutely! And those GoPros on a stick, totally distracting. We should legislate them too. And twintips. Anyone skiing backwards is a risk, so it should be illegal to sell twintips. 



I hope I don't need to point out how fallacious this post is.

post #23 of 42

I'm just gunna through out that I don't think I have ever heard a skier coming up behind and I don't ski with music.

post #24 of 42

Ok how many times in the last 5-10 seasons have you heard,"On your left". No your other Left.biggrin.gif

 

 

 

post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicX View Post



I hope I don't need to point out how fallacious this post is.



Fallacious. Nice word. Wrong usage.

post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post



Fallacious. Nice word. Wrong usage.


 

Except that your argument was indeed fallacious.  Congratulations, not only is your only response a pathetic (and incorrect) jab at my word choice, you actually don't know what you are talking about.

 

Saying that banning listening to music while skiing means that we should also ban video cameras is fallacious.  You attempted to straw man my argument, and you did it by using another fallacious argument (slippery slope fallacy?  It doesn't really matter, it is indeed some sort of non sequitur).

 

Try again?

post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicX View Post


 

Except that your argument was indeed fallacious.  Congratulations, not only is your only response a pathetic (and incorrect) jab at my word choice, you actually don't know what you are talking about.

 

Saying that banning listening to music while skiing means that we should also ban video cameras is fallacious.  You attempted to straw man my argument, and you did it by using another fallacious argument (slippery slope fallacy?  It doesn't really matter, it is indeed some sort of non sequitur).

 

Try again?

 

To have a fallacy, you must first have an argument. I made no argument, although you inferred one. I made fun of you for your fallacious argument, since you like the word. Assuming it was an argument on my part is where you went wrong. It was nothing more than sarcasm.

 

Since you seem to want to argue your point, let's start from the beginning. Does listening to music while skiing increase the risk of a collision, where the listener is at fault? No. If you are passing a skier and you collide with him or her after having called out "on your left", who is at fault? You are. If you yell "look out" while skiing out of control into another skier, who is at fault? You are. If you and another skier both have trajectories that will cause a collision, and neither skier is entering the trail or overtaking, and you see him or her in enough time to yell "look out", then collide anyway, who is at fault? You are.

 

If you want to move on to the next assumption, that a skier listening to music is more likely to collide with you (and be at fault) due to the proximate cause of listening to music, have at it. It too would be incorrect. Auditory senses are not essential to avoiding collisions with a person in your field of view. If you are not looking where you are going, you are at fault, whether you have music on or not.

 

Once you get past the fault, and proximate cause, you would still need to pose an argument that there is empirical evidence that risk is actually increased. Then move on to the justification that the increased risk warrants imposition of restrictions on another person's enjoyment to offset the minute increase in risk that you suppose exists. That should be a very high bar, and one I can't see ever being met.

 

There is no need to "straw man" your argument. It holds no water.

 

There. Now there is an argument, and you're welcome to try to convince me of any fallacies.
 

 

post #28 of 42

You a lawyer? It doesn't matter who's at fault, the point is to decrease collisions period. And if you don't think someone with no hearing has more of a chance of cutting off an oncoming skier to his side than someone who can hear, well then there's no point in arguing. But I know for myself, I'm definitely more aware of my surroundings without music blasting in my ear.

 

I don't think actual legislation is necessary, but if the number of accidents started rising, I don't think it'd be a bad thing, either. People are too damn dumb and stubborn to do things safely and properly on their own (see texting while driving), so the government is stuck picking up the slack.

post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

 

To have a fallacy, you must first have an argument. I made no argument, although you inferred one. I made fun of you for your fallacious argument, since you like the word. Assuming it was an argument on my part is where you went wrong. It was nothing more than sarcasm.

 

Don't hide behind sarcasm when you commit a fallacy and I call you out on it.  There was definitely an implicit argument in your post.

 

Since you seem to want to argue your point, let's start from the beginning. Does listening to music while skiing increase the risk of a collision, where the listener is at fault? No.

 

Yes, it does.  You are taking away one of your senses and relying solely on sight.  You really think this does not increase your chances of collision?  Wow.

 

If you are passing a skier and you collide with him or her after having called out "on your left", who is at fault? You are. If you yell "look out" while skiing out of control into another skier, who is at fault? You are. If you and another skier both have trajectories that will cause a collision, and neither skier is entering the trail or overtaking, and you see him or her in enough time to yell "look out", then collide anyway, who is at fault? You are.

 

So lets just throw caution to the wind and increase the risk of collision because you wouldn't be at fault?  Ever heard of "defensive driving"?  Just because you CAN remove one of your senses that allows you to avoid collisions that others would be at fault for doesn't mean you should.  Do you think people should have ear buds in while they drive a car?  After all, if you stay in your lane and obey the rules of the road you could probably do it.  But then again, when someone is honking at you it might come in handy to be able to hear them...

 

 

If you want to move on to the next assumption, that a skier listening to music is more likely to collide with you (and be at fault) due to the proximate cause of listening to music, have at it. It too would be incorrect. Auditory senses are not essential to avoiding collisions with a person in your field of view. If you are not looking where you are going, you are at fault, whether you have music on or not.

 

I don't get how you go from "auditory senses are not essential" to "removing auditory senses has no impact on your ability to avoid collisions." 

 

Once you get past the fault, and proximate cause, you would still need to pose an argument that there is empirical evidence that risk is actually increased. Then move on to the justification that the increased risk warrants imposition of restrictions on another person's enjoyment to offset the minute increase in risk that you suppose exists. That should be a very high bar, and one I can't see ever being met.

 

Common sense.  I don't need to do a scientific study to find out that removing one of your senses while skiing is a bad idea.  For the record I don't actually think a law should be passed simply because it would be impossible to enforce.  But skiing resorts already do not allow you to ski with 2 earbuds in (only one allowed).  So this issue has already been decided and the owners of the mountains decided that it is indeed dangerous and not allowed.

 

 


Responses in bold.

 

post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

You a lawyer? It doesn't matter who's at fault, the point is to decrease collisions period. And if you don't think someone with no hearing has more of a chance of cutting off an oncoming skier to his side than someone who can hear, well then there's no point in arguing. But I know for myself, I'm definitely more aware of my surroundings without music blasting in my ear.

 

I don't think actual legislation is necessary, but if the number of accidents started rising, I don't think it'd be a bad thing, either. People are too damn dumb and stubborn to do things safely and properly on their own (see texting while driving), so the government is stuck picking up the slack.



It certainly does matter who's at fault. You're claiming that it would be okay to take away someone else's rights because you perceive an increased risk of collisions where YOU are at fault. That is unethical, and the difference between this topic and driving while texting.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Have you guys seen this on the CNN website?