NOTTINGHAM MARATHON/EARPHONES

123468

Comments

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    I think special measures would be taken by race organisers if half the field were deaf rather than a tiny percentage. 

     

     

  • The needs of the tiny minority are as valid as the needs of the majority.

     

  • asitisasitis ✭✭✭

    Terry you have lost the plot. There is a big comparison to people wearing headphones and deaf runners. All the way through this thread you are always comparing a point to some analogy.

    You seem to think it is justifiable because the majority of race organisers agree with the headphones while the minority are health and safety conscious dimwits. Well for your information most runners disagree with the headphones and find it an annoyance and a distraction when they are confronted with these runners. Many do complain and accidents do occur.

    The race organisers have more than likely had first hand experience with headphone runners before they made there decision. But you seem to assume they just have no idea and are doing it for the sake of it.

    This don't break it if its not broken philosopthy you keep coming out with is rubbish. You can see by this thread that most find it a complete annoyance.

     

  • Asitis - your comment on most runners finding it an annoyance is subjective whereas most marathons not objecting to them is objective.  I have run over 100 marathons and headphones have not as far as I am aware posed problems for those around me.  From experience the slow runners have been a problem and good luck to them.  I am sure the Notts organisers have their reasons but they are out of tune with the vast majority and their reasoning can be questioned because of this reality. Becuse most on the thread are for a ban still does not override the reality that the event is not 'broken' and should not ban them.  As for saying there is a 'big comparison' etc - the reality is that there is clearly a relevant situation where a totally deaf person and a runner with loud music in their headphones are in fact in the same boat.  The plot is far from lost.  I also know of one large event (not to be named) where headphones are banned but this policy will be revisited for an objective conclusion next year.

  • asitisasitis ✭✭✭
    Terry Hindson wrote (see)

      I have run over 100 marathons and headphones have not as far as I am aware posed problems for those around me.

     

    You see now. Headphones makes you totally oblivious.

    I have been inconvenienced but did they know....I doubt it

     

  • There is an assumption that you know they were miffed with me. How on earth are they angry with me if my music can't be heard by them or as I said I give them a wide berth. When near marshalls,it's rather easy to turn my headphones off to hear their comments.  The contrary position is still a dubious unproven one, as to repeat,  the majority see any threat to your health as neglible.  There are greater threats which impact on runners - cars, marshalls not watching the race, slow runners, fancy dress runners.  If there was a growing ban, I would appreciate your position a little more but currently we are a long way from that position.

  • So when an ambulance comes up the road behind you siren going lights flashing and you carry on oblivious... That's fine is it.... Don't say it is silly it does happen in races. 

  • CindersCinders ✭✭✭

    Oh perlease.  What impact do the fancy dress runners have more than headphone wearers?

     

  • The risk assessment in that situation fails in the majority of races, including most people's favourite london. The deaf runners will be equally irresponsible in that scenario, afterall they are a danger to you runners, as well as the headphone runners.  Cinders - their outfits sometimes cover their ears which puts them in the category of the selfish irresponsible headphone runners plus the 100% deaf ones (albeit tiny in number) plus their bulky outfit can take take more space up to be overtaken, making the route narrower than it should be. 

  • Deaf runners often have that written on the back of their vest, so that those around them know that they can't hear.  Blind runners too, for that matter.  I'd be more than happy for headphone wearers to do the same.

    Oh, and Terry, you clearly don't understand the principles of risk assessment. 

  • If I wore headphones, I'd be happy to wear the sign.  On risk assessment - marathon organisers are obliged to carry these out and for some reason the use of heaphones in the vast majority of races poses no substantial risk to other runners to the extent that they pose a real and credible danger.  Why a minority use arguments to prohibit is odd as to repeat, others see that there is no substantial risk. A side issue - runners who chat together for miles are not concentrating on the immediate area around them or are not giving their full concentration, even they pose a risk.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    /members/images/493151/Gallery/dog_0.jpg

     Now that's what I call trouble.

    🙂

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Terry you are entitled to your opinion but you don't seem to think anybody else is.
  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    Ye Gods, is he still banging on about this?

    image

  • Oh dear, I have inadvertently broken the rules.  I have run the Nottingham marathon for a few years listening to audio books not realising that they were banned. I never read the small print. I have the volume on low and can hear what is going on around me. I step aside for people where needed. Someone commented that headphone listeners are slower runners well my slowest marathon is 3 hr 33 m (Female 40's). However, my biggest gripe in races is people promoting themselves in the wrong pen and you spend the first five miles tripping over them.  This is the worst bit of the nottingham marathon. I am in again this year and will more than likely be listening to the three musketeers on route.  See you there!!

  • Inattentional Blindness.



    It's real and if you're concentrating on the music (or spoken word) then you're not concentrating on what's going on around you.



    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/16/headphones-can-endanger-life-study
  • VDOT51 - no evidence of me not entitling others to a viewpoint. I thought the title of the topic allowed us all to contribute without prejudice.  Viewpoints allow differences and the potential for individuals to change or maintain an opinion.

    H37 Shame on you, rule breaker. They will catch you.

    Tim - if the Guardian is correct, they should be prohibited. Begs the q why they are not prohibited and possibly the organisers of such events do not agree to the findings of the Guardian.  However the study is confined to walkers in urban areas with free flowing vehicles around them. Transferring the results to marathon runners is questionable and expecting similar results.  Oddly enough today WALKING in a car park wearing them nearly got me into trouble, note the emphasiis on walking which confirms the findings in the study.

  • It's not a Guardian study. You could google Inattentional Blindness. I'm sure you'll find it quite interesting.



    I suggest you'll find that races that don't ban them are the races on closed roads and trail where the route is obvious and uncongested.
  • Those that don't ban them still have them as a suppposed safety risk for other runners and that is applicable I guess to Notts. Also where there is supposed uncongestion one is still allowing the supposed inconsiderate runners to raise the risk of an accident.

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    I have a feeling that if we all agree with you that you may change your opinion...
  • The purpose of debate is to throw none abusive opinion into an appropriate area for others (and oneself) to maintain, alter or change ones said opinion.

  • It is for the race director to decide what unseen hazards present a risk. That's the purpose of his assessment. As a runner you only see the race from one perspective at one very limited period in time.



    Things that he has identified weeks in advance when setting out the route will not be apparent to the runner.



    I recently ran a trail race and the director had put his full assessment on the wall. It ran to 5 pages of typed A4 and was comprehensive and a bit of an eye opener.



    If someone who has done that amount of background work, I'm inclined to heed their advice.
  • Very true. But it begs the question in a traffic free run how wearing headphones poses a danger. In london there are tens of thousands who run and I guess thousands with headphones but there is no ban and if a ban has some sense behind it, it would be sensible to ban them for london.  I guess the ban when it occurs is for insurance purposes and possible cost reductions.  Rare are dsq for wearing headphones which in itself is another issue.

  • I ran a canal half marathon. There was a pile up on a bridge where the path suddenly dropped. A marshal was warning people to be aware of the drop. You wouldn't have seen the drop until very late at which point under normal circumstances when out on your own you would have just swerved it.



    A headphone wearer didn't hear the warning and swerved.



    Add bollards to this equation and it quickly becomes apparent that very early warning of hazards can prevent pile ups.



    If 3% of the runners are wearing headphones it's not a great issue, if no warning or ban is given then that could rise to a percentage that poses issues.
  • Terry - it may be traffic free - but I've seen races where an ambulance had to get through to attend to collapsed runners. It was being held up by people running in the middle of the road oblivious to the vehicle feet behind it.



    If I was that fallen runners relatives I'd want the ambulance to get to them as soon as possible.



    If rules say no headphones - then dont wear them. Simples.
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭
    cougie wrote (see)


    If rules say no headphones - then dont wear them. Simples.

     

    and don't cry about it.

  • Terry Hindson wrote (see)

    Very true. But it begs the question in a traffic free run how wearing headphones poses a danger. In london there are tens of thousands who run and I guess thousands with headphones but there is no ban and if a ban has some sense behind it, it would be sensible to ban them for london.  I guess the ban when it occurs is for insurance purposes and possible cost reductions.  Rare are dsq for wearing headphones which in itself is another issue.

    People don't get DQ'd at VLM for dropping bottles in the middle of the road, but it still causes injuries and is a stupid thing done by thoughtless people .

    But it's not banned, so it must be completely OK and risk-free?

  • Sotty - silly comment, I'm not crying, it's called a discussion. Simples.

    Cheerful D - Perhaps it needs looking at at it compounds danger. However the bottles and headphones don't pose a danger to the vast majority of race organisers.

    Tim - lost count of the marathons I have done on canals, headphones continue not to be on the prohibited list.

    Cougie - then london should ban them for your logical statement, but they don't as they am most others don't see it as an issue.

     

    There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule and headphones can cause a danger but it is an issue of sensible persepctive which is the point which is being missed and taken on by the majority of race organisers.

  • I'd be happy if London banned headphones.



    Ironman bans headphones.



    I dont see why anyone needs them. Sing to yourself if you like.
Sign In or Register to comment.