07-01-12, 03:26 PM
“The cyclist was wearing iPod speakers which we think had a big part to play in the accident as he would not have been able to hear the traffic."
So does that mean that deaf people should not cycle?
The ipod is just the angle the journo has used to make the story more interesting and the real detail is:
“Without warning and without looking the cyclist then turned right into the path of the motorcyclist, colliding and causing them to lose control and be unseated from his machine. The witness suffered a broken collar bone which was broken in two places.”
i.e. the cyclist rode into the path of the motorcyclist without looking or indicating and was therefore guilty (which is not as interesting).
So does that mean that deaf people should not cycle?
The ipod is just the angle the journo has used to make the story more interesting and the real detail is:
“Without warning and without looking the cyclist then turned right into the path of the motorcyclist, colliding and causing them to lose control and be unseated from his machine. The witness suffered a broken collar bone which was broken in two places.”
i.e. the cyclist rode into the path of the motorcyclist without looking or indicating and was therefore guilty (which is not as interesting).
![[Image: 151860.png]](http://badges.fuelly.com/images/smallsig-uk/151860.png)