Active Community: Message List

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing - The Real Deal

guest — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:12:34 GMT

wassee wrote:
Ok... here is the real deal on this subject. I just ran the A1A Half Marathon and I did NOT use my iPod. I thought I would try and see what the issues were as a "purist" with iPod Runners being distracted, etc. This is what happened:
Three iPod wearers made some erratic turns and cut me off. In fact one was so bad, I ended up bumping into another runner. However, three runners NOT wearing iPods did the same thing and worse. The first "non-iPodder" tangled feet with me when she cut across to get to another runner. She didn't even look back to see what she did to me. I didn't fall but sorry would have been nice. The second "non iPodder" got two cups of water or G/ade; I was passing on the right. He drank one and threw the other one and hit me with it splashing the water all over me. I was happy for the wet down but if I were wearing an uncovered he would have damaged it. The third "non-iPodder" in the last mile or so was in front of me and I had to pass. She stopped dead in her tracks with no regard for people behind, no water stop, nothing. Well, trying to not bowl her over I bounced her pretty hard. That really upset me... no hazard lights... nothing. The race rules were clear... no iPods. Lots of people wore them, cd players and radio headphones. I will never leave mine behind again. There is no difference between the runners with and without in my view. My memory is clear. This was today. ALL HAIL THE MOTIVATIONAL BENEFITS OF THE IPOD!

wassee

I'm sorry you had some bad experiences during your race, but if there had more iPod users, it's likely you would have had even MORE similar problems. Personally I have never experienced any of that kind of rude behavior from non-headphone wearers - just from those wearing headphones or iPods. Perhaps I'm just lucky in where I race (mainly Massachusetts and the Northeast) or maybe you were just unlucky. However, your third example, a runner stopping dead in her tracks close to the end of a race doesn't sound like rude behavior to me - that sounds like a runner in trouble, one experiencing some kind of problem. I would have checked to see WHY she stopped, asked if she were OK, encouraged her to continue, etc. even if I hadn't come in contact, and I hope you did that.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:35:07 GMT

RunnerChick69 wrote:
I don't know wassee so I don't know his experiences, but if this is what he has encountered, all I can say is that is certainly does NOT match my own experiences. I personally have never encountered any non iPod wearing runners who acted like they were all alone, were rude or dangerous, unless you want to count some football players who were running on our local track not in a race, and I've run or been a volunteer at over 1000 races.

I personally have not encountered any Ipod wearing runners who acted like they were all alone, were rude or dangerous and I've run at least 10,000 races Your biggest problem here is this, when we speak of not seeing or hearing of any problems or when someone posts about problems they have had with non-headphone wearers, it just isn't believable to you. However, in that same breath, we are just supposed to follow blindly behind you and ban all headphones/Ipods based on your personal experiences...huh? Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy here...why yes I do!

Runnerchick

It's not hypocrisy to have doubts when something not only goes against my own experience (and I would be very much surprised if I didn't have lots more experience than wassee) but also doesn't make any sense. You may not give my posts any more credibility than other poster - after all you don't know me. But think about this. It's pretty easy to understand how a runner who is tuned in to his tunes can ignore the outside world. To say that a few headphone-free runners might act the same way I could believe, even though that's not what I have seen myself, but I certainly do have difficulty believing that anyone has seen that kind of unaware behavior to anywhere near the same extent in headphone-free runners. It just doesn't make any sense. Hellooo - having earbuds in your ears and listeining to music is going to make you at least somewhat less aware of what else is going on around you - that's just common sense.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:57:19 GMT

WayneD wrote:
And I would do the same, MaryT. Don't understand the connection.

WayneD

Wayne,

I was just answering parkerand susan's question. She wanted to know about my belief about rude unaware behavior from the headphone-free, I've never seen it. I was just giving an example of the kind of behavior that I've seen that is typical of nonheadphone-wearers who can hear conversations going on around them. You might be willing to help another runner and that might also be the case with other iPod users, but again, in my experience I have never had a headphone-wearer or iPod user offer assistence - too tuned in to their tunes to be aware it might be needed.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:44:40 GMT

parkerand susan wrote:
Hey Maryt...you ignored wassee's post ..Are you ignoring again?..that's Lying by omission..give the truth a try Maryt...

Wassee said other non ipod wearing runners he encountered acted like they were all alone..were rude ..dangerous.. Do they exist or is Wassee lying, making them up ...Is he lying ? Did he NOT see this?

Are there runners without ipods who act like they are alone??..

I am going to post this question untill you answer it ..... ignore it ..and I have your answer..

I don't know wassee so I don't know his experiences, but if this is what he has encountered, all I can say is that is certainly does NOT match my own experiences. I personally have never encountered any non iPod wearing runners who acted like they were all alone, were rude or dangerous, unless you want to count some football players who were running on our local track not in a race, and I've run or been a volunteer at over 1000 races. I have encountered the occasional runners who were "in the zone" but getting their attention if it was necessary (like directing them to the correct finishing chute) was really pretty easy compared trying to get the attention of an unaware headphone wearer and the only outright rude behavior I've encountered has been with headphone wearers who get indignant if you have to yell to answer them or get their attention or startle them if you pass them or ask them to be quiet for a moment of silence to respect fallen soldiers. The majority of headphone-free runners in my experience are just the opposite - aware of what's going on around them and helpful, unlike some (admittedly not all) runners wearing headphones or iPods, off in their own secluded little world, oblivious to what's going on around them.

In fact just today, I was asking a friend of ours who was standing in a race line if he might have an extra GU packet, because my husband had forgotten his for a 10 mIle race. The headphone-free runner in front of him overheard our conversion and offered me an extra GU of his own. That's the kind of behavior I see from headphone-free runnerrs - courteous, aware and willing to help another runner, even one they do not know.

So, there I've answered your question,. Happy, now?

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:19:27 GMT

WayneD wrote:
And I might add... I HAVE NEVER INTERFERED WITH RUNNERS AROUND ME. NEVER EVER. Being a responsible runner does matter Ipod or not.

WayneD

WayneD

How would you know? That's part of the problem. Like cell phone users on the road who swerve into another's lane and are oblivious to the fact, many headphone weares disrupt other's races by slowing down in appopriately causing other runners to avoid them or cause problems with traffic control on the course, and are totally oblivious to the fact that have even caused a problem. You don't have to actually make contact to disrupt another's race. So forgive me if I have zero confidence in your statement that you have never interferred with runners around you.

Granted, if you truly ARE alone, that's a different story - sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier post - it just sounded so much like what I have seen with iPOd wears in the midst of a crowded race, I thought that's what you were talking about. If there's no one around you, it's pretty hard to interfere with the other runners, but that still leaves the possibility of interferring with cars or emergency vehicle that might come onto a course, if are too in tune with your tunes and not in tune with your surroundings. I've seen that happen even on closed coursees.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:09:06 GMT

parkerand susan wrote:

..one day in NH fantasyland the USATF is not the governing body..the next day they are...one day it's not the USATF, it's the insurance companies..one day it's not the USATF it's the RD"s.. one day it's usatf saying ipod use is RD driven.. not by us....one day its a competitive issue ...one day it's safety ...one day its a stupor issue...one day its a distraction issue..one day it's IAAM issue.... what ever mumbo jumbo suits your purpose NH...you keep making it up..and we'll keep shoveling it out the stall.....Heh Lucy! ..we got a job for you!!! come quick!! it's piling up fast!!

Parkerand susan

This kind of post just shows how little you know about race organization. It's ALL of the above and depending on the day and race one may be more important than the others, but they are ALL factors in the world of race management, something you apparently know very little about.

Call it stupor, distraction, or "iPod oblivion" as the condition is becoming called by some sources, it's basically describing the same thing - being unaware of what's going on because of being too tuned in to one's tunes. That lack of awareness can and does cause problems for other runners, for volunteers, raises safety concerns, causes problems with traffic control, and all of the above cause problems for race directors.

Concerns about iPod use have been raised by runners, by race directors who have seen problems themselves (I've heard that's the #1 group who has been raising the issue), by people in the USATF on the competition side, and the RRCA and USATF as major race insurers. It's not coming from just one source. It's all inter-related and many of the people involved on the USATF and RRCA on the insurance side are also runners themselves and race directors. In fact, one of the people some of you have been emailing as a member of the USATF committee on headphone use to tell him headphones are no problem, is also a race director who has had lots of problems with headphone wearers in his own races, and who had a friend come up with the no-headphone design that was in the RRCA email.

When a race director decides to put on a race there are MANY factors involved that can result in a headphone ban. The RD may have had problems in the past and want the ban. That is the RD's choice. You should respect it.

If a race is run on public streets, permits are needed and that brings in others. The race course itself can be changed by the town officials to avoid certain areas, requirements of police at particular intersections, even the side of the road runners run on and where they must cross can be set by town officials as part of the permit and at least in our area, race insurance is required. Now you have yet another party involved, the race insurer. The RRCA in the past has recommended, but not required a no headphone ban as a condition of insurance. From what we are seeing (like the new no-headphone logo) that appears to be changing and going in the direction of requiring a ban.

If a race is just a fun run and nobody involved is in USATF competition, and USATF doesn't provide the insurance, USATF is pretty much out of the picture. On the other hand, if a race director gets insurance from the USATF, they can set whatever stipulations they want, including a headphone ban.

USATF may not govern what happens in fun runs (unless it provides the insurance) but it IS the governing body of our sport from the official competition side. If the race is part of a USATF series, a regional or national championship, for example, or a race where some official records might be set, USATF can and does add a whole lot of stipulations. The course must be certified, of course, and if you want any records to be official, there are other factors involved as well, two independent sets of timers, etc. and NO headphones. We have a member of my club who recently set a national age group record and all those things had to be in place. Not all timing companies can handle all the requirements so often race management companies are involved, which may have their own stipulations of how a course should be set up in order for them to be able to handle the finish area, etc. and they could ask for a headphone ban themselves for all the runnrs, not just those who are USATF runners.

So, in summary, NHSenior is correct. USATF is not the governing body for recreational running (but don't forget they can still make stipulations if they provide the race insurance, even for a simple fun run), but it IS the governing body for competion; USATF is saying banning ipod use is RD driven and that's also what RRCA says for those races where official USATF competition is not a factor. Where offical competition is a factor there's no question - headphones are banned. As for the headphone problems, safety, stupor, distraction, competition, IAAM are ALL involved. I hope that clears it up a bit for you, Parkerand susan. From many of your posts, you seem to be confuseed about what many factors are involved in race directing and mangement.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:04:07 GMT

WayneD wrote:
.

And please, your point on being "hooked" on ipods. I can run with or without an ipod. I ENJOY running with. YOU don't, our choices, but you're trying to take away my choice. I talk to people before the race and after the race, but during the race, I'm all alone. Either passing or being passed. Just me and my music.

Wayne D

You describe very well how many iPod users act - as if they are ALL ALONE in the race - not aware of anyone else or anything else that's going on around them. You bet I'm trying to take away your choice because your choice can interfere with the race for those others who ARE out there - it's NOT just you and your music alone. If you want to run with just you and your music, go run a training run somewhere you won't interfere with others.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:23:04 GMT

RunnerChick69 wrote:
So Mary, please explain to me just how successful it is if people just hide those Ipods until after the race has started? Most volunteers are not going to say anything to the person running the race and even if they report that persons number to officials, it takes but one second to slide that Ipod and headphones into a pocket and hocus pocus, what Ipod are you talking about? Go ahead and frisk me babe...although I admit that just might turn me on...but then you are not my husband so chances are that it won't I ran a race last year where Ipods were banned and had I of not been so naive about the whole thing, I would have used mine as well.

Hey runnerchick

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would disrespect the rules of the race and the race director and the volunteers from the other posts that you have made. You have no understanding, respect or concern for the race organizers; we all get that. If you signed the form agreeing to abide by the rules of a race that posted a no-headphone ban your word and your signature would mean nothing; you would go against your word and do the opposite; we get it.. But ask yourself this, if a race volunteer out on the course were to report someone was using an iPod and the runner denied it, who do you think the RD would believe? Also, here's a new invention you might not have heard of - cameras! Volunteers can carry cell phones on the course and many races have multiple race photographers at various points. Twin Cities went through race photos to pick out those who were wearing iPods, they didn't need to confront the runners in person, just DQ'd them after the fact.

For those of you who talk about the money, in the races my club is involved with, if we couldn't convert them to racing headphone-free and lost every single iPod or headphone user - that would be about 10-20% at most and well worth the loss of the hassles involved, no question whatsoever in my opinion. As for the mega-races, most fill up extremely early anyway, and although some race directors are nervous about numbers, I sincerely doubt any losses of numbers from those who are so addicted to their iPods they would rather not race than run iPod-free, would make any difference whatsoever in the total number of runners in the race (as Grandma's and Twin Cities found out) and would make running the race much easier for the remaining runners and organizers and volunteers. Reminds me of the restaurant owners and bar owners who fought cigarette bans - turned out they didn't have the problems with losing customers they were afraid of having. I would bet race directors would find the same thing with headphone/iPod bans.

It's unfortunate that some headphone and iPod wearers regard this whole idea of leaving them at home and racing without them as such a major confilct. The RRCA and the USATF and the race directors and officals who want the ban are not just out to spoil your fun; they want to make the race safe and fun for EVERYONE. It's not just to prevent accidents that headphone weares might get into themselves, but to prevent problems they can cause other runners, volunteers, organizers, etc.

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:56:54 GMT

orionstarr wrote:

face it people they'll never be banned. you know why? because you start banning i-pods and banning people from listening to music while running then you'll lose a ton of participants. you know what means right? you lose money. race directors and cities don't want that.

so you can try and make us who listen to music while running lesser of runners all you want but the fact is you may as well get used to it. i-pods and music are much more with the masses these days. that won't change but only grow. so get over yourselves you i'm to good for music snobs.

Sorry onionstarrr

I don't think that will be the case as Grandma's Marathon and Twin Cities Marathon found out last year. I think you willl find that more and races will see successful examples like the two above and realize that participation won't be a problem. Did you look at this from the RRCA?

New Universal No Headphones Icon Announced

Arlington, VA - As race directors struggle with the RRCA guideline against the use of headphones in RRCA insured events along with the USATF ban on headphones at sanctioned events, the RRCA is encouraging race directors to adopt the new universal NO HEADPHONES symbol on race entry forms and race materials. Created by veteran race director, Jim Gerweck, the goal of this universal symbol is to send the message that event directors are serious about the headphone ban at the events they manage.

"Race officials don't ban headphones to be mean to runners - it's for their own safety and that of everyone else in the race," says Gerweck, a member of the USATF Long Distance Running sub-comittee studying enforcement of the ban. "It's an education effort more than enforcement issues, as events such as Grandma's and Twin Cities Marathons have successfully proven. This logo is a simple way to send runners the message that headphones aren't permitted in sanctioned events."

The RRCA has promoted a guideline against the use of headphones in running events that dates back to the mid-1980's and this guideline has been re-affirmed several times by the RRCA membership since then.

"Banning headphones or advising participants to leave them at home or in the car is part of the risk management responsibility of a race director. Many participants do not understand or respect the awesome responsibility a race director shoulders to ensure the safety of every single participant in an event," explains Jean Knaack, RRCA executive director. "Respecting an event director's choice to ban headphones is a shared responsibility of every participant to ensure the safety of all runners, the future success of the event and the sport as a whole."

Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

guest — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:02:58 GMT

parkerand susan wrote:
sorry for that last disjointed post..parts omitted.. having keyboard and computer issues

Maryt here is an "accurate" definition that I think may enlighten you to why your arguaments are not persuasive..

consensus gentium fallacy

the fallacy of arguing that an idea is true because most people believe it or because it has been said throughout history..

parkerandsusan

You and your fellow posters who say that headphones are no problem are a perfect example of that. You believe they cause no problems, but where is your proof. Prove that putting earbuds in your ears or wearing headphones doesn't cause you to be less aware of your surroundings, doesn't make it more dificult for you to hear. Hellooo you are blocking your ears and zoning out to music - how can anyone with any sort of an open mind not realize that is going to make you less aware of what's going on around you, even if we hadn't seen it for ourselves?? You remind and many of your fellow posters remind me of the little kids who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la " so they can't hear mom talking to them. At least they don't deny having something in their ears makes them just as aware and able to hear. How about having a little common sense. You and your fellow Ipod users want to go on concensus yourself and anecdotal evidence yourself when it benefits you and the consensus of your fellow headphone wearers that they don't cause problems, but you don't like the fact that many race directors and volunteers who are actually in a position to observe how unaware you are, or the runners who have had problems because of iPod users beng unaware, use their experiences as anecdotal evidence - what they have seen with their own eyes at their own races. The main complaint is that headphone wearers are unaware - oblivious is the word I have used myself, headphone oblivion was the word used in the December RRCA magazine as well, and it's also the word I have heard others use most often - how do expect us to believe the oblivious when they deny being unaware? That's the whole problem - headphone wearers who don't realize how unaware they are!

Talk about denial. I've been out and out called a liar for reporting the problems I have seen. It's not true, I have seen a lot of problems with headphone wearers way more than with the headphone-free, but some headphone wearers are just so oblivious to the problems they can cause, they would rather believe I would lie than that they and some of their fellow headphone wearers might really be less aware than they think. But, do you also believe that race directors like Jim Gerwick (he is quoted on the RRCA release of the no headphone icon) a member of the USATF committee on headphones who want sheadphone bans, even though it might decrease the number of runners at his races is lying about problems he has seen or what? It's race directors who have been pushing for the bans. Do you think they are just stupid and trying to drive a whole group of runners away, or maybe, just maybe many of them actually have seen with their own eyes a lot more problems with headphone and iPod users, and don't need to see it documented in writing somewhere to know that it's a problem. Doesn't there come a time when you see all this activity by the RRCA now as well as the USATF maybe make you stop for just a second and think, hey maybe there really might be more problems with headphone users than the headphone-free? How long can you stay in denial?