Dumb Arizona female runner calls out Olympic runner for running with headphones

What should be done about all this headphone wearing? Do we need more laws? Or is it enought to give dirty looks and scold the people who wear them?

Find the right number then, buddy. Your study, your shortcoming, your responsibility to find the right number. I could only work with the tools I was given. I never said that 116 was the total number of headphone accidents, merely that it was the number from the study YOU provided.

Or, let's think about it rationally. Even if the number of accidents was 100 times more than the 116 the study examined...it would still constitute about 1 percent of pedestrian accidents.

Find the right number then, buddy.

Why would I need to, buddy? That study demonstrates my contention perfectly, thank you. What it doesn't do is demonstrate your claim, but if you want to back up your claim then you need to find your on support.

I never said that 116 was the total number of headphone accidents

Yes you did: "So, headphones accounted for .097 percent of all pedestrian fatalities."

Or, let's think about it rationally. Even if the number of accidents was 100 times more than the 116 the study examined...it would still constitute about 1 percent of pedestrian accidents.

A totally avoidable 1%.

A nuclear submarine sinks off the coast of Sweden

Headlines give me headaches when I read them

I had an uncle who once played for Red Star Belgrade

He said some things are really best left unspoken

On closer reading of the study's abstract...I do believe that 116 WAS the total number of deaths and injuries they found.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/5/287.abstract

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/suppl/2012/01/03/injuryprev-2011-040161.DC1/Appendix_1.pdf

There is their handy chart. So yes, if you want to find a different number, you're going to have to go searching. My scientific manipulation of the number was NOT false. Take a hike.

Look at the word difference: "accidents" vs. "fatalities". I know reading isn't your strong point, and I'm sorry. But those little squiggles are clearly in different shapes. I hope that proves the difference in those words to you.

And here is where you're obviously just trolling. I'm not even going to bother answering this part anymore. No one is honestly that devoid of all statistical knowledge.

safe sex doesn't mean no sex

it just means use your imagination

On closer reading of the study's abstract...I do believe that 116 WAS the total number of deaths and injuries they found.

Did I say it wasn't? What it ISN'T is the total number of such accidents (even the study's authors acknowledge that their methodology couldn't identify EVERY such accident).

I know reading isn't your strong point, and I'm sorry.

At least I know enough to read the links I post - since you clearly didn't read the one you put up. If you had you'd realise that it confirms what I'm saying about the total number of accidents.

Ah, clearly ignoring part of my post once again. Care to actually apologize for saying that I falsified data?

Anything you say about the "total" number of accidents is a speculative pipe dream. You'd have to actually find a number. And you, once again, haven't. All you provided was the study that we're discussing. And so that's what I used for the rough calculations. Once again you look foolish.

Care to actually apologize for saying that I falsified data?

No, because you clearly falsified the data.

Anything you say about the "total" number of accidents is a speculative pipe dream.

The only thing I've relied on about the total number of accidents is that your figures are false (and unless you can point me to the part where the authors of the study claim to have found all such accidents that occurred during the specified timeframe, your figures will continue to be false). The total number doesn't affect my argument at all.

Say it with me: accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

Notice how when you pronounce the little squiggles the right way, they sound different? Well that means that they are two different words! And these two words have two exciting different definitions! Isn't it fun to learn new words?!

Also, you're speculating that the authors didn't find every accident. Which sure, you can do, but realize it isn't good practice statistically, and calling my figures false is just a flat out lie. But then again, you're just a troll.

weird it was in my head wrote:

safe sex doesn't mean no sex

it just means use your imagination

safe sex doesn't mean no sex

it just means don't wear headphones during sex

GenericID - you are just getting bludgeoned. I want it to stop because it's getting gruesome, but I just can't stop staring at it.

The Geomathematician wrote:

Say it with me: accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

accidents...fatalities.

Notice how when you pronounce the little squiggles the right way, they sound different? Well that means that they are two different words! And these two words have two exciting different definitions! Isn't it fun to learn new words?!

Also, you're speculating that the authors didn't find every accident. Which sure, you can do, but realize it isn't good practice statistically, and calling my figures false is just a flat out lie. But then again, you're just a troll.

Here's an idea: instead of continuing this pointless argument, why not find a study which actually SUPPORTS your argument?

However many times you try to say it (wasn't it you pointing out the logical fallacy of repetition earlier?), your figures are false because you don't have anything to back them up with. The study I posedt makes no claim whatsoever to be a comprehensive record.

The difference between the number of fatalities and the number of accidents isn't the problem, the total number you are claiming for either or both is where the problem lies - you can't back that up as a definitive total (and one of the reasons I can say that DEFINITIVELY is because of the study that YOU posted - hence my hint about actually reading the links you post).

"Oh wait, how can I continue to bash headphone wearing runners when more and more elite types are admitting that they do it too?"

GenericID wrote:

Here's an idea: instead of continuing this pointless argument, why not find a study which actually SUPPORTS your argument?

Ridiculous. The presumption should of course be that people should do what they enjoy--in this case running with headphones--until someone convincingly demonstrates that it's not worth the risk.

Even looking at your arguments in the most charitable way possible, you're talking about a risk so negligible it's not worth thinking about.

until someone convincingly demonstrates that it's not worth the risk.

So where's the line? How many people have to die before you are convinced?

Aside from that question, the problem is that it isn't just the headphone-wearers who are affected; do you honestly believe that the driver isn't affected in such a collision? Why should a driver, doing nothing wrong, have to be subjected to the trauma of running over another human being, just because that human being is dumb enough to voluntarily act negligently in traffic?

If you can honestly say that running over another human being wouldn't affect you in the slightest, whether or not that other person was at fault, I suggest you need to spend a little more time growing up, and a lot less time posting drivel on here.

It's not worth the risk when you can convincingly demonstrate the headphone wearer is at fault in any or all of these instances. Until then, you haven't come close to convincingly demonstrating anything other than your impressive ability to twist other people's words

Just so I'm clear on this... Your grievance is with anyone who wears headphones in the vicinity of traffic, not exclusively runners? I think you might be fighting a losing battle here

Where do YOU draw the line?

GenericID wrote:

until someone convincingly demonstrates that it's not worth the risk.

So where's the line? How many people have to die before you are convinced?

Aside from that question, the problem is that it isn't just the headphone-wearers who are affected; do you honestly believe that the driver isn't affected in such a collision? Why should a driver, doing nothing wrong, have to be subjected to the trauma of running over another human being, just because that human being is dumb enough to voluntarily act negligently in traffic?

If you can honestly say that running over another human being wouldn't affect you in the slightest, whether or not that other person was at fault, I suggest you need to spend a little more time growing up, and a lot less time posting drivel on here.