quote:

---

Originally posted by NHSenior:

That's the kind of thinking which has the laws all around us quite "in-effective"

The most effective way would be to not have the devices show up.

This isn't about the fairness of crime and punishment. It's about safety and then selfishly for me, as a race worker, not having to work harder because of the twits.

If you make any punishment "fit" the crime (infraction) then you just set up a situation where way too many people decide they don't mind the "price"

Why should races compromise here to only stop some of the use? The use would creep back as does every other infraction on the planet that isn't cover with a stiff enough price. Or am I the only one on the planet who observes the ineffectualness of systems the "fairness" folks blackmail those in charge into.

---

 

Wow, take a pill.

You rant and rave well, but the problem with your argument is you still have not told me WHY we cannot run with headphones. I have already admitted that it's in the rule book, I want to know WHY?

I have run a ton of races and I have never seen a headphone wearer weaving, tripping or flailing their arms like madman. Nope, they are just running. I have never seen it as a problem, never. As a mater of fact, they seem to be the ones off in their own little world enjoying the race through their own eyes. Amazing how that happens, they have their own idea of whats fun. Imagine that, everyone having their own idea of what is fun and how to enjoy a race!

I am strictly talking RUNNING here... Not biking, it would be dangerous on the bike because the faster peeps have to yell at the slowwer bikers, so in that instance I can understand the rule.

Back to the point. Aren't the faster runners seeded up front already? So they really wouldn't even have to be put out to say "on your left"... they would just run.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hazelrah:

Reading the attitudes & ignorance of runners here just reaffirms why I would never want to be a race director.

One volunteer position I would get great pleasure from would be to snap photos of headphoners along the course, get their bib numbers, and omit their data from the final results. When they ask how come there names were not in the results just tell them they were disqualified for wearing headphones, show them the snap shot and the rule stating clearly they are not allowed. No need to pull them off the course, let them finish their marathon and tell them they were DQ'd afterwards.

No point in explaining the obvious to people who won't listen as to why they are not allowed, it has been done 86 bajillion times on Cool Running, and should be common sense.

---

 

Did an Ipod wearer pee in your Wheaties? Has someone with an Ipod EVER interfered in your race at all, ever? Even the slightest? Please share that horrid experience with me. Did you get caught in the headphone wire, or lose your concentration because they were singing out of key?

I notice you did not post a link to the reason or even bother to site it, nope, just said, "it's obvious." It isn't to me or I wouldn't be asking.

 

Sheldon

Bob, need to borrow a lock? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by imfl03:

Did an Ipod wearer pee in your Wheaties? Has someone with an Ipod EVER interfered in your race at all, ever? Even the slightest? Please share that horrid experience with me. Did you get caught in the headphone wire, or lose your concentration because they were singing out of key?

I notice you did not post a link to the reason or even bother to site it, nope, just said, "it's obvious." It isn't to me or I wouldn't be asking.

  

Sheldon

Bob, need to borrow a lock? !http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/biggrin.gif|src=http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/biggrin.gif|border=0!

Well, BS. I've seen headphone wearers blissfully ignorant to the course marshal screaming at them to clear the way for an emergency vehicle and for faster runners in a race where part of the course was multi-purposes and the lead runners needed to pass.

I've also seen headphone-wearing runners who don't have a prayer of breaking 4 hours sneak into the front corral at Chicago and line up right on the starting line.

I suppose they would have attempted to justify their rule-breaking as lamely as most in this thread. The bottom line is, there is a rule and you are free to choose a different event if you don't like it. They don't need a reason to set the rule if they don't want one, so that argument is moot. I consider this a show of weakness of character.

Comparisons to speeding and rolling through a stop sign are equally moot. You WILL get a ticket if you are caught doing either one, and we don't usually have a choice whether to use public roads from point A to B.

Sure I've sped, but I also am not surprised when I got pulled over and got a ticket for it.  I didn't whine about the reasons behind the law.  That's the tone on this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by imfl03:

I notice you did not post a link to the reason or even bother to site it, nope, just said, "it's obvious." It isn't to me or I wouldn't be asking.

---

 

I don't think you are being honest. I think it is obvious to you, you just do not care. No sense on repeating what others have already said, you won't listen to them you won't listen to me. Maryt has written an encyclopedia on this subject.

Insurance companies require it because they fear lawsuit due to past accidents at races involving runners with headphones. You can't hear something coming you either cause or are part of an accident. Your senses are diminished, qualitatively the same as drunk driving. Contact your insurance company who deals with accidents for a living if you want specifics (I can tell you don't). As a result, the race director passes on this simple requirement to participants to avoid liability. I repeat, I would never be a race director and voluntarily put my self exposed to lawsuit to help out people who cannot follow the simplest of safety requests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by imfl03:

Can some tell me WHY you can't race with them?

---

 

RRCA Footnotes, June 2007: The USATF rules package contained the following justification for the rule change: The huge proliferation of MP3 players and other audio devices using headphones by road race participants constitutes a safety hazard. These devices can prevent runners from hearing critical instructions from course monitors, police, and other race officials. Many race directors are reluctant to prohibit these devices in their races for fear of losing entrants. A firm prohibition by USATF will make it easier for these directors to justify bans on these devices in their races.

New York Times, 11/1/07: Jill Geer, spokeswoman for USA Track & Field, said the ban was “basically an insurance issue,” because rates rise substantially if headphones are allowed. Each sanctioned race receives liability insurance from USA Track & Field, and it would be up to each race director to enforce the ban. If the ban were ignored, the races would be liable in the event of an accident caused by someone using headphones, Geer said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hazelrah:

I don't think you are being honest. I think it is obvious to you, you just do not care.

---

 

How many times have you met me? ZERO. DON'T TELL ME WHAT I WANT AND DON'T WANT.

Your first three words are correct, "you don't think"

I run with headphones all the time in training. Iit's freaking boring out there. How much can I take in the scenery? I have never had an instance where my headphones bothered another person.

Want DQ someone? How about the idiot in the first corral that runs the first mile at 6;30 then has to walk, right in the middle of the road. DQ that person.

You win, you all win. Headphones are the devil's tool to ruin races.

Sheldon

Guaranteed it's all about liability.  Fear of the lawsuit.  It doesn't matter whether the statistics substantiate the fear or not.

The analogy between headphones and deafness is exactly on point. Why can deaf people race? Because no one is going to sue the race director for allowing a deaf participant after the deaf person inadvertently causes someone to get hurt. But a headphone-wearing participant? You bet!!


----

Running To My Future
Me[/URL" target="_blank"> and My Log[/URL" target="_blank">
The Newbie Wiki[/URL" target="_blank">

I always love these headphone discussions.  It always brings out the "real runners don't wear headphones" and the "how can you listen to your body with headphones" or the "enjoy nature and meditate" runners.  Funny

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrettBH:

Disagree
Headphones are elective. Can’t compare elective behavior with a disability. I’m sure that you can come up with another analogy.

Point being that it takes only a couple of instances of a behavior to increase legal exposure for an event or business. Until we, as a culture, take a higher degree of personal responsibility for our own actions, rules like this will be enforced.

---

 

If you re-read my post, you'll see that you and I are in complete agreement.  I only use the headphone/deafness analogy as proof that the no-headphones rule is only in place due to fear of lawsuit.  If we were truly worried about people being unable to hear during a race, deaf people would not be allowed to race.  Also, races would not be allowed near airports or other noisy areas.

Of course the race directors are worried about racers being able to hear.  But the rule is in place due to fear of lawsuit.