Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
NOTTINGHAM MARATHON/EARPHONES
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
He mentioned deaf people ... bingo!
It's not the headphones.
It's the proof that you're prepared to break rules you don't care to understand or respect.
Which means the rest of us who follow the rules.
🙂
Deaf = Hard of hearing. hearing impairment, inability to hear things either totally or profoundly.
Symptoms may be mild, moderate, severe or profound.
Don't call house just yet !
Deaf bingo as per usual. Suprise suprise.
Well lets just hope the rules get tighter so his ilk get thrown out of races in the future.
The whole point of the title Marathon/Earphones - is up for debte. It is an unnecssary rule. Millions have run with them and millions without. Either way the resulting accidents of the rule breakers must be tiny to say the least. To not allow them to prevent a possible accident is a bit like saying you must run in trainers as if you don't you might cause an accident to others or you must not cross the centre of the road apart from overtaking as it can cause a delay for others and trip them up. The deaf card is still there - they run and can't hear runners, marshalls etc. The bottom line is it is an needless rule. In 114 marathons I have never seen an incident from the use of earphones.
In well over 150 events I've seen numerous instances of numpties in headphones: not hearing marshals and going the wrong way, needing to be beeped several times to get out of the way of the St Johns ambulance, lurching into you as you try to overtake because they don't know you're behind them. And so on.
Give the guy a break. 115 marathons in 9 days. Eddie Izzard didn't manage that.
Terry, if it's an unnecessary rule, why is it a rule?
🙂
RicF to edge on the side of caution. The reality is, in most marathons there isn't a ban. If we say a ban is 'good' then the majority of marathon organisers are irresponsible and risk being taken to the cleaners. Obviously the risk does not merit a ban on earphones in the majority of runs and Nottingham have over reacted in the interests of health and safety.
So are you saying that unless the wearing of headphones in a race 'always' results in a casualty then it's unnecessary?
It's a bit like saying it's ok to drive cars down the pavement since in your experience no one has ever been hit.
🙂
Nothing against headphones myself. I have a pair of Bose QuietComfort 25's, Acoustic Noise Cancelling jobs.
Do the business very nicely while I'm mowing lawns.
And not even listening to music.
🙂
I am hardly saying that. I am saying the argument to ban them is flawed as there is sufficient evidence from the majority of marathons where they are worn they are worn without the need for a ban threat. The organisers are being over cautious or as I said before the majority of marathon organisers are irresponsible for not banning them, clearly this is not the case. They have risk assessed theeir events and the argument to ban is flawed.
Have no desire to ever run london but - more runners, more headphones, more marshalls, more ambulances, more policemen - it is NOT a realistic problem.
Terry, could it be that you've never had an incident because others have given you a wide berth or taken the precautions on your behalf while you've got Eye of the Tiger blasting in your eardrums, having seen that you're blissfully oblivious to what's going on around you?
Bit late to this.
I must say though, as headphones threads go this is one of the stranger ones.
Muttley I am sure this is possible. You fail to address all of the dubious MAJORITY of marathon organisers who refuse to impose a ban on headphones, primarily because the risk IS MINIMAL.
Keep telling yourself that, Terry
Plenty of empirical evidence in the entry criteria - headphones allowed. Keep telling yourself otherwise to convince yourself that the majority of marathons organised by experienced folk ban headphones. In this respect the argument is a no brainer. Stick to facts. When the tide turns then you will be correct in the argument that marathons ban headphones for a good reason endorsed by the vast majority of marathon organisers. Currently it is not so and the health and safety brigade try to preach their minority view. London - need to ban fancy dress folk as it inhibits their stride and is a danger to others.
I must say I don't really understand it myself. You can be for or against but surely the bottom line is you follow the rules of whatever race it is you choose to take part in, or don't complain when you are DQd.
Is there really any argument about that? Their playground, their rules. If you disagree don't enter.
Terry laws are always getting updated, Mainly through bad circumstances that have arisen. Marathons attendances have grown enormously and one day if someone is seriously hurt or dies through an earphone incident then no doubt a new law will be introduced to ban them from all venues. You cannot say that it is safe just because the majority of race organisers allow them.
Screamapillar - that is true. It would be good if the organisers repealed the ban. Asitis - true point BUT they still in their wisdom regard any possible 'disaster' does not merit a ban. Should there ever be a situation which sees an unusual increase in head injuries from people running enmasse in marathons crash helmets would be called for to reduce injuries. The old addage - if something works don't fix it - Nottingham organisers take note.
Also they may have been unable to get insurance against headphones because certain roads have not been closed.
Think about it, disorientated runner gets knocked down after 23 mile.
Still not relevant for the majority which allow for headphones and get insurance or there is a waver regarding liability. If there is a waver there is NO evidence of a heaphone runner being sued. Still health and safety gone mad.
Relevant ? So if your sister, brother, daughter gets knocked down by a car when they was in a less than aware state of mind and listening to music. You would not even question the organisers as to why they let this happen ?
Its not all about insurance and waivers. It is common sense.
Perhaps, but it still gives a jobsworth a warm glow of satisfaction as they dq someone for ignoring the rules.
Doesn't matter what the rules are, if it's there, you follow it or don't take part.
Whether or not you think a rule is stupid or not is irrelevant. Let's face it, many would say running 26 miles on a road is stupid.
What if headphones hadn't been invented? then what?
🙂
If enough get banned, the ensuing furore might enforce a change of policy.
How ?
🙂
That's somewhat insulting to suggest the majority of organisers don't use common sense in the small chance of an accident.
Yes, the rules are there but rules can be changed. Edinburgh rule for health and safety not to publish results. Health and s can always be justified but it is a question of common sense - most exercising their common sense as organisers allow them.
If enough - as in if enough kick off (like the Edinburgh fiasco) a change of policy is possible.
Maybe the organisers overdo the H & S aspect to make up for the fact running marathons isn't a mark of common sense.
🙂