Slashdot Mirror
Man Caught Wearing Earbuds With a Dead Phone Found Guilty of Distracted Driving (www.cbc.ca)
Freshly Exhumed writes: RCMP officers spotted a man driving with earbuds plugged into his iPhone. The phone was not in his hands nor on his lap, was not playing music or video, and the driver was not using it to talk to someone or navigate. The battery was, in fact, completely dead. Nonetheless, a judge has ruled that "by plugging the earbud wire into the iPhone, the defendant had enlarged the device, such that it included not only the iPhone (proper) but also attached speaker or earbuds," he wrote. "Since the earbuds were part of the electronic device and since the earbuds were in the defendant's ears, it necessarily follows that the defendant was holding the device (or part of the device) in a position in which it could be used, i.e. his ears." On the question of the battery, the judge said he relied on a 2015 precedent set in a Canadian provincial court, which says that holding an electronic device in a position where it could be used constitutes an offense, even if it is temporarily not working.
"If you go to where there's a bunch of ice cream and then you don't come back, you haven't actually gotten ice cream, you've just gone where ice cream is.."
I guess watching TV that isn't turned on is still watching TV, then.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
As this is clearly nonsense.
No, but if you shot at someone and hit a cell phone in that person's backpack, you would be guilty of murder. By placing the backpack on that person, someone has extended that person to include the backpack and its contents. So by killing the cell phone, you have killed the person.
Also, by extension, had he held the cell phone in his hand, it would have become an extension of himself, and thus would no longer be a cell phone, and he would have been found not guilty.
Q.E.D.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
We evenn send Canadians to prison in Canada. Or you did not read the summary.
His hearing was partially impaired by the earbuds.
Lock him up and throw away the digital key.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What possible exonerating reason could he have for wearing the earbuds?
To keep his ear canals warm? They don't need to be plugged into the phone for that.
It seems pretty obvious that this guy was planning to listen to something on his phone and just didn't realize the battery had died until he was already driving down the freeway.
But let's hear your explanation.
If anything, a dead phone would be functioning as a minor hearing protection, in case a loud siren went off nearby.
Whatever happened to minimizing assignment of guilt when there's a question? Seems like a case of a judge playing along because a law enforcement officer was slightly annoyed, more than for any practical reason.
I remember the concept that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man to be unjustly punished.
But lately, it seems that only the innocent without means are aggressively punished, while the openly guilty but well-to-do are almost completely above the law.
This seems very much like deeply unethical jurisprudence.
Genius - read the very first line of the fine summary - it's a Canadian court ruling based on Canadian laws and Canadian precedents.
Ken
In many jurisdictions, wearing headsets while driving is illegal (and has been for many years, even before cell phones).
The RCMP Reminds Canadians That You Can Be Fined For Wearing Earphones While Driving
AAA Driving Laws: Headsets
in a place with one of the worst reputations for crime and violence and drug overdoses in an entire country
Canada?
Ken
That this clearly delusional ruling didn't come from an American judge, it came from one in Canada.
In America, less legal gymnastics would be required to convict the driver - for example, in California it is illegal to have ear buds in both ears while driving. Period. No need to dig up obscure precedents, infer anything, the law is crystal clear.
Apparently in Canada it is legal to wear earbuds in both ears while driving, good to know.
Ken
That particular judge has their own interpretation of "holding". That's what judges do: interpret the law. That doesn't mean their interpretation is common or typical. Some rulings will deviate from how an average person or judge would interpret it. I would hope the ruling would be vetted by at least one other judge such that a really odd opinion would get a second chance.
Table-ized A.I.
If I shot a person and hit air , would I be guilty of murder?
No. Don't be stupid. Putting aside the idea of "hitting air" what you seem to want to be describing is attempted murder - to be guilty of murder, someone has to - you know - actually die.
Ken
Your statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Is it just me, or is it poorly written? I've found a way to parse/interpret it 3 different ways, and none of those 3 make any real-world sense.
My best guess is that it's saying that if enough whacky celebrities moved to Canada, then Canadian judges would stop making bad decisions, but not enough have. Would flooding Canada with whacky celebrities result in enough of them becoming judges (changing careers) and thus create a saner judge pool? But I thought they were whacky people? If so, they'd create whacky judges also, no?
Table-ized A.I.
I have never heard of anyone, other than a United States citizen/resident, define themselves as an American. Canadians are proud to be Canadian - from Canada. Mexicans likewise, from Mexico. In fact, only ONE nation on the face of the Earth uses the word America in its name - and that is the United States of America. Thus, if someone says "American", it means, in fact, from the USA. You're probably from the EU though, and jealous of the fact you're still a bunch of 2nd rate countries who needed the US to bail you out multiple times in the last 100 years, and save your asses from yourselves...
His iPhone was in the centre cubby hole on his dashboard, with the earbuds plugged in. The battery was dead.
I wonder if the judge thinks this defense is bullshit. i.e. Why are 2 earbuds in his ears, while driving in the first place? If the phone was dead when he got into the car, why did he put the phone in the centre cubby, but keep both earphones in his ears?
Maybe the judge was thinking, "Do we let distracted drivers use the dead battery defense? Or do we counter bullshit defense with bullshit legal reasoning?" Slippery slopes both ways.
The TFA perhaps states the best compromise for the moment:
B.C. RCMP say 1 earbud is fine, but wearing 2 can land you a $368 fine.
This isn't bad, especially since wearing 2 earbuds can lower the volume of what you can hear outside of the car, even without audio playing.
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Listening to music while driving is fine and has been for years. You can't just quietly stare at the road on long highway drives, you will zone out. So you listen to music, watch the scenery or speed to keep your attention from drifting.
If I pair the phone and blast music to max, I am OK. If I use headphones because my car is too old to pair reliably - I am breaking the law. Doesn't make any sense.
Sure, throw a book at someone texting, but what they are doing is criminalizing normal behavior, in effect normalizing undesirable behavior. That is, if listening to music with headphone is distracted driving, then it isn't a big deal.
Whenever I converse with Canadians I make it a point to work in calling them Americans just to hear them indignantly tell me they aren't Americans.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
What is the difference between having headphones in which nothing is playing, and earmuffs, or a hat that covers your ears?
In most modern cars you aren't hearing the outside really well unless the windows are opened, absurd that headphones with nothing playing are considered a problem.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Earmuffs and hats aren't placed in the ear canals like ear buds (like the driver was using).
Even with side-impact air bags, I'm sure there could be a lot of damaged caused by them in an accident.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
in a place with one of the worst reputations for crime and violence and drug overdoses in an entire country
Canada?
Yeah. Surrey BC, Canada.
There is literally a drug war going on there right now, and has been since 2007. The really odd thing is that since it is mostly drug dealers killing other drug dealers, most people really don't care very much. Fortunately there have been remarkably few innocent bystanders killed. (2 if memory serves. 1 in the original "Surrey six" murders, and a young woman who was killed in a case of mistaken identity.)
I live outside Surrey, On the day of the "Surrey six" murders my car was behind police tape as I had parked next to the building where the murders occured.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
Does "use" extend to passively listening?
I don't think I've ever seen the word "use" cover this before.
The reason he got nailed is that if you plugged in headphones to the iphone, it's clear that you were using it, in a manner where you put it in your hand.
If having earbud in, even if the phone is dead, constitutes distracted driving, then by having the phone in the car to begin with, you'd be guilty. In fact if this logic follows then by having any item in the car, that's not solely for the purpose of driving that car, you're breaking the law.
More or less of a distraction than, say, having the car radio turned up to "11"? Which, so far as I know, has never been reason enough to give someone a ticket (or at least, I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for having their radio turned up really loud)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Working or not earbuds block sound thus limiting the driver's ability to perceive his environment which makes it dangerous driving.
anyone wearing those stupid looking iearpods should be arrested.
I'm sure there would be a lot of damage caused by wearing large earrings when a side impact airbag deploys.
Same goes for glasses too.
What's your point exactly?
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
I'm guessing he wanted to add extra justification for the conviction. Just because the legislature writes the law doesn't mean the law is constitutional. If the judge or an appeals court finds it unconstitutional the defendant will get off.
I can see a couple good reasons why the deadness of the battery shouldn't matter.
a) It could have died earlier in the drive, heck the battery could have been completely toast and the phone only worked while the power cable was in (a cable he yanked when he got stopped) or he swapped the working phone for a dead phone.
b) Listening to music isn't distracted driving, that tells me that the problem is the headphones themselves. Certainly with wired earbuds the wire itself inhibits your ability to look around and potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
I stole this Sig
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
When you think about it, those laws are in conflict. Probably the distracted driving one is newer. How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touching is fine. But the judge went and screwed that up....
Obviously Canada. And it's a fine of $386 Canadian or ~ $290 US. No jail.
Authorities everywhere really love to stick it to people whenever they can remotely justify it. We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/cri...
Hooning
Hooning is the common word we use for any anti-social behaviour conducted in a motor vehicle—a car, van or motorbike—such as speeding, street racing, burnouts and playing loud music from a car stereo.
Hooning includes any number of traffic offences, such as dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without reasonable consideration for other people, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke, and racing or conducting speed trials on a public road.
Penalties for hooning
Penalties vary for different hooning offences. For example, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke carries a maximum fine of 20 penalty units ($2611) while the most serious offences, such as careless driving—also known as driving without due care and attention—or street racing, carry a maximum fine of 40 penalty units ($5222) or 6 months in jail.
In addition, for specific offences classed as hooning—anti-social behaviour in a motor vehicle—police now have the power to impound, immobilise and confiscate the vehicle you were driving when you committed the offence.
potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
wut?
check ur neck.
Beware of the Leopard.
The original poster wrote:
You americans just love sending each other to jail
"americans" isn't short for "North Americans"
Ken
We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
Yes, let's start voting out politicians that justify any intrusion into everyone's personal liberties to protect the smallest/weakest among us, we'll only vote for people that promise to repeal intrusive and unconstitutional laws and regulations, you know - like Trump.
Ken
If you are on the shoulder, sitting in the drivers seat, and the key is in the ignition, I believe that is a fair bust in many/most US states.
If you take the keys out of the ignition, sit in the passenger or back seat, your blood alcohol level isn't important. A person sleeping in the driver seat is considered in control of the vehicle, and if on the shoulder, that is part of the road.
Ken
Who do you vote for? All 3 parties are in favour of distracted driving laws, along with the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's relative, a few murders makes Surrey the murder capital. Surrey is also the biggest (or soon will be) city in BC though it is part of the Greater Vancouver Area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Using a phone hands free is legal in BC. You do have to put the earbud in before driving to be legal and the earbud can't be used for music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
According to the fine summary,
And yes, I'm guilty of breaking the tradition and actually read the summary as well as hearing this on the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You could perhaps claim that in North Ireland, but not Ireland.
Ireland is an island near England, but not attached to it.
North Ireland is a country/province/region of the United Kingdom. Ireland is its own nation.
No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
Formulating an activist ruling based on something they have exactly ZERO grasp of.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So if the phone is plugged in to the car, the car becomes part of the phone and touching the steering wheel becomes illegal...
The guy should have been convicted, but the logic used is defective.
The phone didn't distract him.
However, what he SHOULD have gotten nailed for was for having his hearing partially obstructed by means of a foreign object inserted into his ear that blocked some of the sound from getting in. Things like car horns, sirens, and that sort of thing from outside the car.
Either the guy is guilty or the police is at fault. That second one is not really an option.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I mean, look, he had to "hold iphone" so that earbuds are in his ears (for some reason).
Now, had they been of the wireless, sometimes exploding, type? No such problem!
Thank you, Tim Cook, for this amazing innovation! Wireless earbuds invention of Apple is second only to the Apple's invention of the internet!
I'm with the judge on this one. The idea of not wearing earbuds is stupid as people who are deaf aren't barred from driving and neither are people who have loud cars, drive around in 2nd gear at 4k rpm, etc.
However the defense of "it wasn't on I sware" is a shitty one so the legal hoops that were jumped through seemed to make perfect sense. The distraction in this case isn't from listening to music, it's from ... *oooh I like this song, unlock phone with fingerprint, click spotify, click the bar at the bottom, push that big heart button. *
I wear noise cancelling earmuffs when driving in germany because I can't even hear my radio over the sound of my engine when driving down the autobahn at 170 (which is close to where my car redlines).
driving with earphones on, while nothing is playing is more distracting then...
listening to the car's stereo?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Canadian here. Well, British born but lived in Canada for the past ~20 years. I can attest that the difference between Americans and Canadians is paper thin. Despite popular opinion, Canadians aren't "nicer" than Americans, I've met plenty of Americans who are polite, gracious, and well educated. And I've met plenty of Canadians who are not any of those.
The problem is with statements like "Canadians are ". A Canadian might be nice, but I can assure you, in a group of 100 random Canadians, you're gonna find a high percentage of people who are most definitely not nice. Now replace 'Canadian' with some other nationality and the same'll be held true.
Canadians love to look down on Americans and portray them all to be racists or uneducated, or gun-toting maniacs but we have our fair share up here
This is why you should fear the law: It is entirely arbitrary, impossible to predict, and up to the individual judge at the moment.
E Proelio Veritas.
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
That's wrong. In Canada the cop can lay the initial charge, the crown however can lay additional charges or modify the existing charge if the wrong one was laid.
How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I don't know about you, but my car an cellphone both can be operated without even touching it. Pretty much any vehicle with any type of console system has had that support for the last 4-5 years.
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touching is fine. But the judge went and screwed that up....
Nope. BC provincial regs and laws state you can only have one ear in use leaving the other free to hear the environment around you. If the judge really did screw up then the guy on appeal will have his chance to prove it, though I wouldn't expect it to go any further then the BC appeals court that is if they even want to hear the case. Especially with the 8k odd cases that are already in front of them, with some of them getting very close to falling in the realm of charter breaches.
Keep in mind with Canada, we have a unified federal law for felonies(indictable offence) that are the same all across the country. Then there are provincial laws regarding areas that are permitted under the original British North American Act, like bylaws, provincial laws regarding traffic, signage, education, etc. To be honest, the guy should be lucky he didn't get hit with a federal charge like "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle" which is what it falls into as well.
Om, nomnomnom...
The reason often given is that it's impossible for a cop to tell if the headphones are playing anything, so there is no way to enforce such a law except banning the use of anything that can play sound entirely.
It's a stupid reason. Don't shoot the messenger.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There is no law limiting people from driving in Canada, or anywhere in the US.
All these people talking about earbuds limiting your ability to hear things around you being the reason have no idea what they are talking about legally speaking.
Check the laws for Canada, or any of the 50 states, and you will see no limitations for a normal license.
Kids, passengers, radio, etc....
Here around (Switzerland), the FM-RDS's "RT" and "RT+" (Radio Text and Plus) functionality was only implemented by the national radios much later than the rest of Europe, because they were literary afraid that the text would provide too much extra distraction to the driver and take their attention away from driving.
Seriously.
(Or at least that's what they were telling us).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Bullshit as in 'So the device had a dead battery, but you had both earphones in anyway, for no reason? Bullshit.'
Officer, I can't possibly have been the person to fire an entire magazine of bullets into that man in front of me; as you can plainly see, my handgun is empty!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I know some states consider opening a car door "operating" and so sleeping it off in the backseat is still considered illegal because you had to at least open the door. Though maybe you could argue someone else opened the door for you.... It is all kind of silly honestly. But the laws are frequently written such that if you're drunk you had best just stay the hell away from any motor vehicles you could possibly start.
"why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either"
A judge can rule on the specific charges brought*. If the prosecutor brought a charge of distracted driving but did not bring a charge of wearing headphones while driving, the judge can only rule on distracted driving.
*: If specifically included in law in specific jurisdictions, it may be that a charge automatically carries all lesser component charges i.e. a burglary charge may automatically include a theft charge and a breaking and entering charge, so that if some but not all components are proven the lesser charges may still stand. On the other hand, there are cases where the prosecutor could explicitly include the lesser charges. There is a concept of overcharging where a prosecutor fails to include the appropriate lesser charges and winds up losing everything.
I got a dirty look from Canadian border patrol when he asked my citizenship & I said "American".
My Canadian friend explained there's North, South, and Central America, and the US does NOT own the name "American". The US isn't just in North America (Hawaii...); at best part of our country shares 'North America' with at least one other country. The correct term for me and those like me is "US citizen."
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Cops in Canada don't consider it their job to make the judgement call on whether you broke the law due to certain conditions. If they see you, you broke the law. Feel free to wait in line for 7 hours for a chance to state your case. I had a friend that had her purse tip when she stopped at a stop light and she picked up her phone from the floor because the floor was wet and dirty, etc. Well a bike cop was driving by on the curb side and gave her a ticket (still stopped). Didn't matter that the phone wasn't on.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Wouldn't have happened with wireless headphones.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Is that the Trump 2020 campaign slogan, "Fuck you I got mine!"???
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Well, the difference is that one thing has been written up by our politicians as illegal, and the other has not. I think writing absurd laws are a matter of pride for many people in government.
Snark aside, typically there are catch-all laws that forbid unusual distractions or impairments to driving. So don't worry, ear-muff hats are probably illegal too. If you can't hear a siren going off nearby while inside your car, I'm sure there's some regulation that is being broken as well. Certainly, common sense says that you need to be able to hear sirens.
Why should we be the ones to leave North America?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, one can ignore the actual ruling (which seems to be on the technicality of the wording of the laws) and invent plausible-sounding reasons that ignore the ability of deaf people to drive, the standard inclusion of loud radios in cars, and the existence of vehicle soundproofing, but in the end isn't that just apologetics for bad laws? Or thinly veiled and perhaps instinctive toadying to authority?
The cars of the richest are soundproofed. I have ridden in old, cheap cars with road and wind noise too loud to allow normal conversation at highway speed. Almost literally everyone has a car radio loud enough to drown out environmental noise.
The difference? Earmuffs and hats do not produce noise that may make outside sounds even fainter than if you were wearing earplugs.
Canadians love to look down on Americans and portray them all to be racists or uneducated, or gun-toting maniacs but we have our fair share up here
Canadians have good reason to be gun-toting maniacs. Between the bears and the moose and the penguins, you take your life in your hands every time you step outside.
*Was* legal. Now it's not. If I understand correctly (I'm not a lawyer) this case sets the precedent that an earbud plugged into a phone is an extension of the phone, and that earbud in your ear is "holding" the phone in a proscribed way. Somebody is going to have to do some law rewriting to remove the conflict.
I disagree. The cultural stereotypes you mentioned are, just like any stereotypes, inconsistent. There are rude Canadians and polite Canadians, and rude Americans and polite Americans. The concentration of each type usually varies a lot by location within country as well.
There are real differences between Canada and the US. When the American colonies rebelled, Canada not only remained loyal, but a decent chunk of the royalist population in the US ended up moving to Canada. That difference, and subsequent history, has tended to colour each country in a different way. For example, Americans tend more towards individualism and distrust of collective action, including government and other public institutions.
This was small claims court. I suppose the crown could have amended the charges, but that's fantastically unlikely to happen. Read the linked court document. The crown was represented by the officer who wrote the ticket. The defendant represented himself.
Yes, mine too. How is that relevant to my statement? The two laws are in conflict, at least in the light of this court decision. One says you can use (one) earbud to talk hands free on your phone, and the other (plus this decision) says no you can't.
You *quoted* me saying "a single earbud". Were you in a hurry and didn't read carefully? English as a second language? Troll?
Sure. Tell an Irishman in a Belfast pub that he's British (an inhabitant of the British Isles) and see how well it goes.
And around here I see jackasses driving around with full sized cans on their ears pretty often. Be nice for something to happen to them.
My understanding is that the defendant stated he was using it for music, as well as having 2 ear buds inserted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What he was saying breaks down like this:
You frequently hear leftists claiming that they'll move to Canada when something shifts to the right in the US; Trump getting elected was a big one.
All these leftists are obviously implying that Canada is a great place, that would never do something so "stupid" as elect someone like Trump.
This article shows, however, that Canada does some stupid things that make no sense, so it's not as great of a place as the leftists seem to think.
It's pretty obvious what he was meaning. But, as a Canadian, I'm sorry, eh?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
wut?
check ur neck.
Hey, I listen to MP3s on my 1991 6 lb bag phone, you insensitive clod!
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The judge's decision is linked in the summary.
From the CBC article that the summary links to https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...
So it seems to come down to having 2 earplugs plugged in. And yes, I misremembered the music part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Sometimes Slashdot....
The judge's decision, the actual official, legal, record, is linked in the article. You're drawing your conclusions (and arguing them) from a single sentence in a news article about the case? Really?
Go read the ruling. See any references to one earbud or two? Nope. Not a single one. Nothing about ability to hear, playing music or not playing music, either.
What is the difference between having headphones in which nothing is playing, and earmuffs, or a hat that covers your ears?
What is the difference? Nothing according to the law. Exactly that happened to me.
Winter in Southern California is not a serious matter but I got into the habit of wearing my on-ear headphones (1) in the early cold morning when bicycling 7 miles to high school *without* my radio. (2) Wearing headphones also made it *easier* to hear because they blocked the wind noise. One month after California passed a law making it illegal to right a bicycle with headphones, I got an incontestable ticket.
That and other events demonstrating the police state established a deep respect for the legislature, law enforcement, and the courts. Fuck them all.
(1) Pickering OA-4 headphones - does anybody make anything as good anymore?
(2) I bicycled 14 miles every school day for years. In retrospect, I was lucky never to have been killed or seriously injured in city traffic.