Thursday, December 25, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Your Choice
“Climate change” has placed all humankind before a great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.
--Evo Morales
Please read the full article.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Lessons in Greed pt.1
It is often the smallest nuggets of information that are more disturbing than the frequent Grand Mal articles common to media on both sides of the corporate divide. A case in point is this little data point that I found most disturbing. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports that although 89% of drivers are concerned about “driver distraction”, yet informed of the fact that “that cellphone use made them four times more likely to be involved in a collision.”, “60% of drivers would not agree to stop using their cellphones while driving.”
OK? Got that?
So 9 out of 10 drivers see someone doing something stupid on the road, often associated with cell phone use. Ten out of ten bicycle riders would report the same thing. Anecdotally, the connection is often made. “So, I look up after seeing his bumper go by my handlebars with two inches to spare, the guy’s got a cellphone glued to his ear...”
They have been made aware that using a hand held in-car distraction may quadruple their likelihood of an accident. Still, given their own choice, 6 out of ten would choose to ignore this simple collection of pertinent facts, and give a big “fuck you” to all other road users.
We already know that all cagers believe that the roadway and the space enveloping their car is their exclusive property. “Get off the road! You don’t pay for it!” is a common call of the wild cager in flight.
We also know the common cager belief in the idea that one’s own time and personal errands are all that matters. “That guy on the bike is obviously not going anywhere too important. I mean, where could he possibly be going if he can’t even afford a car...”
We know the cager deliberately wants to be isolated from the world, sealed inside his steel and glass cage, lost in a delusion of “freedom”, “individuality” , traffic-free winding seaside roads and other kinds of marketing mythology...see any car commercial for more details.
Now we know that three out of five cagers believe the safety of other road users is inconsequential. The IBC data gobbet drips with the grease of motor mentality, steeped in the shit of marketed car culture.
This is indicative of the greed culture we live in, the me first, stuff my pockets full, ignore the obvious, play the game, screw the future, business as usual, fuck the rest of you, just don’t get caught society we have built.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Rescuing Dinosaurs
Senate Hearing On US Auto Bailout Signals New Attacks On Workers
By Jerry White
19 November, 2008
WSWS.org
Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing on a $25 billion government bailout of the US auto industry underscored the reactionary framework of the official debate on the crisis of the Big Three auto companies. At the center of the dispute between those senators who support an emergency loan and those who oppose it is how best to impose the burden of the crisis on the backs of auto workers and the working class as a whole.
more
By Jerry White
19 November, 2008
WSWS.org
Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing on a $25 billion government bailout of the US auto industry underscored the reactionary framework of the official debate on the crisis of the Big Three auto companies. At the center of the dispute between those senators who support an emergency loan and those who oppose it is how best to impose the burden of the crisis on the backs of auto workers and the working class as a whole.
more
Monday, November 3, 2008
More Good News
U.S. Auto Sales Plummet
TOM KRISHER
The Associated Press
November 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM EST
DETROIT — General Motors Corp. says its October U.S. sales plummeted 45 per cent because of weak consumer confidence and tight credit markets.
The Detroit-based auto maker said Monday that it sold nearly 169,000 light vehicles, down from about 307,000 in the same month last year.
Car sales fell 34 per cent, while light truck sales dropped 51 per cent.
more here
TOM KRISHER
The Associated Press
November 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM EST
DETROIT — General Motors Corp. says its October U.S. sales plummeted 45 per cent because of weak consumer confidence and tight credit markets.
The Detroit-based auto maker said Monday that it sold nearly 169,000 light vehicles, down from about 307,000 in the same month last year.
Car sales fell 34 per cent, while light truck sales dropped 51 per cent.
more here
Monday, October 20, 2008
Couldn't Have Said it Better
Craig McInnes
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, August 11, 2005
VICTORIA - Dear motorist:
Excuse me for not addressing you by name, but given your rage the other day when you wanted to talk to me about my riding habits, I thought it best to press on rather than exchange formal greetings.
My first inkling that you were somewhat irate came when you stomped on the gas as you squeezed by me going down the hill on Fort Street across from the Royal Jubilee Hospital.
I didn't realize your anger was directed at me, however, until you narrowly avoided being run down by that pickup truck after running out on to the road, where I heard you explain heatedly to the driver that you were trying to get to the cyclist who was taking up most of a lane coming down the hill.
As I left the scene of your narrowly avoided accident, I was sorry that we could not have chatted, since although I suspect something else was going on in your life to leave you so tightly wound, you are not alone in your misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of bicycle riders with whom you reluctantly share the road.
In fact your reaction reminded me of the caution in the excellent primer on cycling in traffic contained in the British Columbia Bicycle Operator's Manual, which is available on the web at www.bikesense.bc.ca.
"Be prepared for the occasional frustrated driver who is not familiar with the safe and legal operation of a bicycle."
Before you fly off the handle again at what you may perceive will be another attack on drivers, let me add that there are as many cyclists who are ignorant about the safe and legal operation of a bicycle as there are motorists.
That shared ignorance is not helped by grey areas in the law where what is safe and what is legal are not always the same.
The first thing you should know is that under the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, "a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." So whether you like it or not, bicyclists have a right to use the road. They also have a responsibility to obey all the rules of the road that you do, in addition to a few others.
For example, they can't pretend to be pedestrians. They can't ride on the sidewalk or across crosswalks. They can't ride side by side, blocking the road. They have to wear a helmet, even though police in Victoria appear to ignore bareheaded bikers, and they have to keep one hand on the handlebars.
Unfortunately, the situation in which you and I first met is one of those grey areas I mentioned.
The Motor Vehicle Act requires a cyclist to ride "as near as practicable to the right side of the highway." If we had been in Vancouver, we would have also been subject to a bylaw that requires slow-moving vehicles to drive "as close as possible" to the right hand edge or curb. Under that bylaw, bicycles are always considered slow-moving vehicles, even when they are not.
Hence the conflict between safety and the law. At times, such as when you found yourself behind me, they travel at or near the speed of cars. Regardless of how the wording of the Motor Vehicle Act is interpreted, it is a violation of my law of personal survival to hug the curb when I am flying down a hill at or near the speed limit.
It may be counter-intuitive to you -- it was to me at first -- but there are times when riding at the speed of other traffic, it is safer to be out in the middle of the lane where other motorists can see you and will be less tempted to squeeze by when there is really not enough room.
Finally you can be sure that if it comes to a choice between claiming my rights or staying alive, you will always have the upper hand. I hope, however, with a little civility on both our parts, as fellow commuters we can learn to share the road.
Sincerely yours,
Craig
© The Vancouver Sun 2005
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Some good news
"As a result of the credit crunch and high oil prices, new car registrations in the UK fell by 21% last month. In the US, sales by the major manufacturers have declined this year by between 20 and 35%." read more
--George Monbiot
--George Monbiot
Monday, September 22, 2008
World Car Free Day
Today is September 22, 2008 and its World Car-free day!
So leave your bucket o bolts pollution machine at home (preferably forever--they make nice car-dens, you know) and ride a bike, take transit and get out and walk.
You will earn bonus points for flipping off people driving Hummers!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
How the U.S. Auto Industry Wrecked Itself
By RALPH NADER
The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it.
Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing.
It is no wonder why their lobbyists were spotted schmoozing with members of Congress at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, liquoring up in their plush suites and private parties while they made their case for direct government loans which, if approved, would likely add to our federal deficit.
Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg -- a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability.
This corporate Congress cannot be expected to issue serious demands, set tough conditions, or impose strict rules on the auto companies to ensure their workers receive fair pay and benefits, and prevent their fat-cat executives from making off big while leaving their companies in shambles.
more
The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it.
Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing.
It is no wonder why their lobbyists were spotted schmoozing with members of Congress at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, liquoring up in their plush suites and private parties while they made their case for direct government loans which, if approved, would likely add to our federal deficit.
Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg -- a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability.
This corporate Congress cannot be expected to issue serious demands, set tough conditions, or impose strict rules on the auto companies to ensure their workers receive fair pay and benefits, and prevent their fat-cat executives from making off big while leaving their companies in shambles.
more
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Duelling with Buses
Anyone who is running a stop sign at full speed and failing to check if the other stops are occupied, is obviously a danger to herself and other road users. It seems that many people never studied rudimentary physics and have no understanding of inertia and braking distance, and the dangers large heavy vehicles can pose. But like the jerk who collided with me, no amount of public campaigning or private instruction will change idiotic behavior in those who are idiots.
Away from stop signs, duelling with buses on busy streets is one of the most dangerous situations facing a rider. The uneducated person on a bike may believe that to suck the curb on the right hand side is the prime directive, whereas experience or skills courses teach us that this is not so.
For example, on a street like Broadway, where parked cars, bikes and buses essentially must share the right hand lane, the dangers posed by passing a bus, especially the elongated ones are extreme. Approaching a stopped and loading bus from behind I will typically check the bus' rear lights and indicators, and have a look down the right hand side to guage the progress of the loading/unloading of passengers. If I see the bus is about to pull out and re-enter traffic lanes, I will yield and try to be visible in the driver's mirrors, as I do not want to suck bus exhaust and leapfrog with the bus all the way down the road.
However, if I am confident i can pass the bus on its leftside before he pulls out, I will do so. The real danger comes, and frequently happens, when the driver fails to check his traffic side mirror, and fails to see or ignores the (always assumed) invisible cyclist. It is indeed terrrifying when you are halfway past the bus, and it starts to roll and edge to the left, back into the traffic lane. This presents the cyclist with a tough dilemma and no place to go but to sprint for the front of the bus, hoping the driver sees you or is slow enough into traffic before you reach the front of the bus. Also hoping a motorist behind you doesn't have the same idea--ie, failing to yield and instead choosing to race past.
When the bicycle rider is already in the right hand flow lane and the bus starts to move, the rider runs the risk of being cut off and/or side-swiped by the merging bus, or else is forced into the lefthand flow lane, a place where no rider wants to find herself.
Yet also implicit in this discussion, although usually unvoiced, is the motorists' (and society in general) perception that bicycles are toys, riders are out for recreation only, and so are not legitimate road users. A bus driver with a schedule to maintain will typically view the cyclist as an annoyance, as an illigitimate road user, and so as someone who deserves no respect as a road user. John Forrester refers to this as "cyclist inferiority".
Lately I have been wondering about exactly what instruction does the typical sixteen year old beginning driver recieve in 'driver's ed" courses in regard to dealing safely with bicycles--my guess is none. Similarly, what instruction do city bus drivers get in relation to co-mingling with bicycles on the road. Here again, my guess would be next to none.
Away from stop signs, duelling with buses on busy streets is one of the most dangerous situations facing a rider. The uneducated person on a bike may believe that to suck the curb on the right hand side is the prime directive, whereas experience or skills courses teach us that this is not so.
For example, on a street like Broadway, where parked cars, bikes and buses essentially must share the right hand lane, the dangers posed by passing a bus, especially the elongated ones are extreme. Approaching a stopped and loading bus from behind I will typically check the bus' rear lights and indicators, and have a look down the right hand side to guage the progress of the loading/unloading of passengers. If I see the bus is about to pull out and re-enter traffic lanes, I will yield and try to be visible in the driver's mirrors, as I do not want to suck bus exhaust and leapfrog with the bus all the way down the road.
However, if I am confident i can pass the bus on its leftside before he pulls out, I will do so. The real danger comes, and frequently happens, when the driver fails to check his traffic side mirror, and fails to see or ignores the (always assumed) invisible cyclist. It is indeed terrrifying when you are halfway past the bus, and it starts to roll and edge to the left, back into the traffic lane. This presents the cyclist with a tough dilemma and no place to go but to sprint for the front of the bus, hoping the driver sees you or is slow enough into traffic before you reach the front of the bus. Also hoping a motorist behind you doesn't have the same idea--ie, failing to yield and instead choosing to race past.
When the bicycle rider is already in the right hand flow lane and the bus starts to move, the rider runs the risk of being cut off and/or side-swiped by the merging bus, or else is forced into the lefthand flow lane, a place where no rider wants to find herself.
Yet also implicit in this discussion, although usually unvoiced, is the motorists' (and society in general) perception that bicycles are toys, riders are out for recreation only, and so are not legitimate road users. A bus driver with a schedule to maintain will typically view the cyclist as an annoyance, as an illigitimate road user, and so as someone who deserves no respect as a road user. John Forrester refers to this as "cyclist inferiority".
Lately I have been wondering about exactly what instruction does the typical sixteen year old beginning driver recieve in 'driver's ed" courses in regard to dealing safely with bicycles--my guess is none. Similarly, what instruction do city bus drivers get in relation to co-mingling with bicycles on the road. Here again, my guess would be next to none.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Around the Neighbourhood
CHIMBY: Can't Happen in My Back Yard: People, who despite both scientific and anecdotal evidence of man made climate change happening around us everyday, refuse to see the wider implications and refuse to face up to the real decisions that must be made. People who have a firm belief that the worst will always happen elsewhere.
Monday, July 14, 2008
SPUD*
*SPontaneous Unplanned Dismount
Most people who ride bicycles are very aware of the dangers of automobile traffic, so it is somewhat ironic I should be the victim of a hit and run bicycle/bicycle collision. Here's what happened:
Smoked on Sunday
Last Sunday (July 6) I was riding my road bike westbound on Lougheed Highway. I wasn’t going anywhere in particular, just out for a lazy Sunday spin. I am a very experienced cyclist. I was wearing a helmet and operating a well tuned and perfectly functional bicycle. I was travelling about 20-25 kph, slightly off the traffic lane, about six inches off the fog line. I was positioned exactly where I feel I should have been. There was a fresh green light in my favour, it had just changed as I approached the intersection. I ensured that no approaching car travelling in the opposite direction was going to turn left in front of me.
From my right hand field of vision, a man on a bicycle appeared in an instant and within a second he collided into me. He appeared to make no effort to avoid this collision. He was travelling southbound down a very steep hill on Beta St. in Burnaby.
He obviously made the conscious decision to ignore the yellow light, ran through the red light and was planning on travelling down the highway on the wrong side of the road in the wrong direction. Coming down the hill and around the corner this man cut through the lane of opposite traffic on Beta St., and apexed his turn in the crosswalk/corner of Lougheed and Beta.
By my estimate and crude calculations of force, I figured this guy hit me with more than twice the force of impact than I had on him. (me: 140 lbs x 25 kph. the jerk: ~175 lbs x ~ 40 kph) You do the math. Its no wonder that he was able to walk away unscathed, as I took the brunt of impact.
When I saw this jerk on a bike there was no time to react. Collision was imminent and unavoidable. I hit my brakes and tried to avoid him to the outside (my left) but with no chance.
We collided with a mighty whack.
I didn’t lose consciousness, and ended up in the right hand traffic lane. I landed on my left side and was fortunate that my pedals both released and I didn’t get twisted up in the bike at all. Still I landed in a twisted position, but again, fortunately, don’t seem to be suffering any ill effects from that.
So I landed on my left hip and felt relatively unscathed, more angry than hurt, until I went to pick myself up and could not raise my hip off the pavement. I realised immediately that my leg was probably broken.
I saw that the other bike rider had been dismounted as well. He was almost directly behind me, I could see him when I looked back over my shoulder. I suppose I should have relaxed some and took a very good look at him, because I think the description I ended up giving to the police was pretty much useless. Also I had a small digital camera in my jersey pocket--but totally forgot about it, or I could have snapped a few candids of the jerk on a bike.
I was lucid enough to be righteously pissed and began a blue streaked harangue at the jerk. I think I less than politely mentioned what a stupid fool he was for his stupid and criminal actions. “You broke my f-in leg, you c***” was an oft repeated phrase. The jerk started to get up. “Stay there! Don’t you go anywhere!” I was screaming at him.
By this time I noticed that traffic had stopped on my side of the highway. I saw that a large SUV was stopped in the right hand lane, a vehicle that would have been my agent of doom if it had been passing me at the time of the collision. I clearly saw a blond woman in the passenger seat of a small silver car was stopped directly beside me, but in the left hand lane. She had a look of detached curiosity, even though by this time i was shouting for someone to help me, as I saw that the jerk was getting up and picking up his bike.
It seemed a police cruiser was there very quickly, the officers later said they were driving down the highway and moved up to investigate when they saw traffic had stopped. And although the police told me they spoke to some witnesses, they said no-one actually saw the collision. This is not too surprising, considering that it happened so quickly, and both cyclists and jerks on bikes are pretty much invisible to car drivers.
When I saw that the other bike rider was on his feet and pushing his bike back up the hill through the intersection, in the direction from which he had originally come, is when my visible distress became acute. I began to flair my arms about and yelling for someone to help. It seemed many people were quite content to sit in their cars and watch things unfold, as if it were on TV.
So I was flailing about, begging for someone to help, begging for someone to stop the jerk who I could see was getting away. I saw a man in glasses and a faded red tee-shirt approach from the stopped traffic. I asked him to stop the guy who had hit me, that he was getting away. Apparently the jerk’s bike was still functional, as I was later told he rode off through Brentwood Mall parking lot, and was not found by the bystander or police.
In time, fire fighters and paramedics arrived where I lay. The mandatory neck brace was put in place, my helmet removed, then they managed to get a spine board underneath me. One of the paramedics put his index fingers together in an L shape and said my femur was broken like this, and they were going to have to pull the leg bone back into alignment. So they attempted to fill me up with nitrous, but that doesn’t really mitigate the pain, just makes it seem not so important to you. Then they gave my left leg the big yank to rejoin the ends of the fractured bone.
I was taken to Burnaby General Hospital where a surgery was performed, round about eight in the evening. The collision occurred about 3:30. The surgeons put a rod in my leg to stabilize the bone and also some kind of clamp around the upper part of the break as there were longitudinal fractures up the bone towards the hip joint.
I spent four nights in hospital, fortunately without complication, only discomfort and pain. I’m back home now in my little north Burnaby apartment.
The real challenges begin now, though, as I live alone and don’t know too many people here in town. I seem to be managing so far, but everything now requires three times the effort. I am trying to remain positive.
Every medical professional I talked to asked if I was wearing a helmet, and of course I was, although the other guy wasn’t. He rode away, and I’m left appreciating what a nice day it would be for a bike ride...
So just another reminder to be careful out there (as if we need that) and to always wear your helmet. Most of us are very cognizant of the dangers of auto traffic , but remember too that the SUV with your name on it might just be a jerk on a bike.
Most people who ride bicycles are very aware of the dangers of automobile traffic, so it is somewhat ironic I should be the victim of a hit and run bicycle/bicycle collision. Here's what happened:
Smoked on Sunday
Last Sunday (July 6) I was riding my road bike westbound on Lougheed Highway. I wasn’t going anywhere in particular, just out for a lazy Sunday spin. I am a very experienced cyclist. I was wearing a helmet and operating a well tuned and perfectly functional bicycle. I was travelling about 20-25 kph, slightly off the traffic lane, about six inches off the fog line. I was positioned exactly where I feel I should have been. There was a fresh green light in my favour, it had just changed as I approached the intersection. I ensured that no approaching car travelling in the opposite direction was going to turn left in front of me.
From my right hand field of vision, a man on a bicycle appeared in an instant and within a second he collided into me. He appeared to make no effort to avoid this collision. He was travelling southbound down a very steep hill on Beta St. in Burnaby.
He obviously made the conscious decision to ignore the yellow light, ran through the red light and was planning on travelling down the highway on the wrong side of the road in the wrong direction. Coming down the hill and around the corner this man cut through the lane of opposite traffic on Beta St., and apexed his turn in the crosswalk/corner of Lougheed and Beta.
By my estimate and crude calculations of force, I figured this guy hit me with more than twice the force of impact than I had on him. (me: 140 lbs x 25 kph. the jerk: ~175 lbs x ~ 40 kph) You do the math. Its no wonder that he was able to walk away unscathed, as I took the brunt of impact.
When I saw this jerk on a bike there was no time to react. Collision was imminent and unavoidable. I hit my brakes and tried to avoid him to the outside (my left) but with no chance.
We collided with a mighty whack.
I didn’t lose consciousness, and ended up in the right hand traffic lane. I landed on my left side and was fortunate that my pedals both released and I didn’t get twisted up in the bike at all. Still I landed in a twisted position, but again, fortunately, don’t seem to be suffering any ill effects from that.
So I landed on my left hip and felt relatively unscathed, more angry than hurt, until I went to pick myself up and could not raise my hip off the pavement. I realised immediately that my leg was probably broken.
I saw that the other bike rider had been dismounted as well. He was almost directly behind me, I could see him when I looked back over my shoulder. I suppose I should have relaxed some and took a very good look at him, because I think the description I ended up giving to the police was pretty much useless. Also I had a small digital camera in my jersey pocket--but totally forgot about it, or I could have snapped a few candids of the jerk on a bike.
I was lucid enough to be righteously pissed and began a blue streaked harangue at the jerk. I think I less than politely mentioned what a stupid fool he was for his stupid and criminal actions. “You broke my f-in leg, you c***” was an oft repeated phrase. The jerk started to get up. “Stay there! Don’t you go anywhere!” I was screaming at him.
By this time I noticed that traffic had stopped on my side of the highway. I saw that a large SUV was stopped in the right hand lane, a vehicle that would have been my agent of doom if it had been passing me at the time of the collision. I clearly saw a blond woman in the passenger seat of a small silver car was stopped directly beside me, but in the left hand lane. She had a look of detached curiosity, even though by this time i was shouting for someone to help me, as I saw that the jerk was getting up and picking up his bike.
It seemed a police cruiser was there very quickly, the officers later said they were driving down the highway and moved up to investigate when they saw traffic had stopped. And although the police told me they spoke to some witnesses, they said no-one actually saw the collision. This is not too surprising, considering that it happened so quickly, and both cyclists and jerks on bikes are pretty much invisible to car drivers.
When I saw that the other bike rider was on his feet and pushing his bike back up the hill through the intersection, in the direction from which he had originally come, is when my visible distress became acute. I began to flair my arms about and yelling for someone to help. It seemed many people were quite content to sit in their cars and watch things unfold, as if it were on TV.
So I was flailing about, begging for someone to help, begging for someone to stop the jerk who I could see was getting away. I saw a man in glasses and a faded red tee-shirt approach from the stopped traffic. I asked him to stop the guy who had hit me, that he was getting away. Apparently the jerk’s bike was still functional, as I was later told he rode off through Brentwood Mall parking lot, and was not found by the bystander or police.
In time, fire fighters and paramedics arrived where I lay. The mandatory neck brace was put in place, my helmet removed, then they managed to get a spine board underneath me. One of the paramedics put his index fingers together in an L shape and said my femur was broken like this, and they were going to have to pull the leg bone back into alignment. So they attempted to fill me up with nitrous, but that doesn’t really mitigate the pain, just makes it seem not so important to you. Then they gave my left leg the big yank to rejoin the ends of the fractured bone.
I was taken to Burnaby General Hospital where a surgery was performed, round about eight in the evening. The collision occurred about 3:30. The surgeons put a rod in my leg to stabilize the bone and also some kind of clamp around the upper part of the break as there were longitudinal fractures up the bone towards the hip joint.
I spent four nights in hospital, fortunately without complication, only discomfort and pain. I’m back home now in my little north Burnaby apartment.
The real challenges begin now, though, as I live alone and don’t know too many people here in town. I seem to be managing so far, but everything now requires three times the effort. I am trying to remain positive.
Every medical professional I talked to asked if I was wearing a helmet, and of course I was, although the other guy wasn’t. He rode away, and I’m left appreciating what a nice day it would be for a bike ride...
So just another reminder to be careful out there (as if we need that) and to always wear your helmet. Most of us are very cognizant of the dangers of auto traffic , but remember too that the SUV with your name on it might just be a jerk on a bike.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Desperate Times Call for...
The reek of desperation among the automobile manufacturers is palpable. "Free" financing has been a staple of auto enticemnents for years, now dealers are promising "free" gas, or some convoluted scheme to guarantee future gas price for increasingly desperate customers.
I wonder if the future of the oil/car pushers will be modeled upon a one-time fantasy of the computer industry. It was once opined that the price of computer hardware will fall towards zero and the profits for suppliers will be realized through the sale of software. This has been a pipe-dream of the computer industry, as it's seen now that almost the opposite is true. The price of Macs keeps going up, yet a company like Google can provide a number of useful applications for free.
Will we soon see advertisements offering a free car with the purchase of gasoline?
It wouldn't surprise me, as nothing does anymore.
I wonder if the future of the oil/car pushers will be modeled upon a one-time fantasy of the computer industry. It was once opined that the price of computer hardware will fall towards zero and the profits for suppliers will be realized through the sale of software. This has been a pipe-dream of the computer industry, as it's seen now that almost the opposite is true. The price of Macs keeps going up, yet a company like Google can provide a number of useful applications for free.
Will we soon see advertisements offering a free car with the purchase of gasoline?
It wouldn't surprise me, as nothing does anymore.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Who Pays?
A local bicycle rider has written:
“Every spring I hear the same two complaints from motorists. Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, and they do not pay to use them.”
Leaving aside the first complaint for the moment, I had some thoughts about the second.
The counter-argument to the false idea of “my taxes pay for the roads” are many. The simplest one is that taxes are taxes and everybody pays them. Saying that this kind of tax is earmarked for that kind of program is a false argument. Its like saying I can’t pay you the $20 dollars I owe, because its in my left pocket....
--Sure I have the $20, but its in my left pocket and that’s for something else.
--See, my right pocket is empty.
--If I had the $20 to pay you, it would be in my right pocket....
It’s all about priorities.
The most elegant one is that if everybody rode bicycles [by using the word “bicycle”, generally I mean any self-propelled, lightweight, emission free vehicle], we’d likely never have to build another road. Ever. Think about that for a moment.
Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but maintenance budgets would drop to a quarter or a tenth of current levels. In the absence of free and easy (read subsidy and society-enabled) motor vehicle traffic, we have already built every road we are likely to ever need.
Ten thousand cyclists a day passing over any given piece of road for a hundred years will not equal the damage done to roads that a year’s worth of motor traffic will inflict.
Currently, the motorist ensures he will be paying high taxes simply by being a motorist. Most car owners have never even considered how much society subsidizes their “right” to drive.
A sane system would demand the demonstration of “cause for use”. In the short term, this would allow a road user such as a contractor who absolutely requires a vehicle to still make a living. But the single use motor driven commuter would no longer be a viable option. It is ridiculous how we preserve some of the most expensive real estate in Canada for keeping our cars happily waiting for us at the end of an office-bound day.
Getting people out of personal use cars will free traffic gridlock and allow once again the efficient use of roads. Dedicated routes could then be maintained for heavy and light truck/service traffic along commercial routes. Other routes would be exclusively for transit--maxi and mini buses, and clean-air taxis. Still others would be dedicated to bicycles. Many neighbourhood streets would gratefully succumb to depaving.
By creating separate traffic streams, one of the three major impediments to getting people out on bikes is removed, as conflict with motorised traffic is limited to infrequent intersections. Imagine how quickly you could get from SFU to ScienceWorld if you only had to stop at lights at Willingdon, Boundary and Main streets, with the Boundary overpass coming online next year!
It’s all about priorities.
“Every spring I hear the same two complaints from motorists. Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, and they do not pay to use them.”
Leaving aside the first complaint for the moment, I had some thoughts about the second.
The counter-argument to the false idea of “my taxes pay for the roads” are many. The simplest one is that taxes are taxes and everybody pays them. Saying that this kind of tax is earmarked for that kind of program is a false argument. Its like saying I can’t pay you the $20 dollars I owe, because its in my left pocket....
--Sure I have the $20, but its in my left pocket and that’s for something else.
--See, my right pocket is empty.
--If I had the $20 to pay you, it would be in my right pocket....
It’s all about priorities.
The most elegant one is that if everybody rode bicycles [by using the word “bicycle”, generally I mean any self-propelled, lightweight, emission free vehicle], we’d likely never have to build another road. Ever. Think about that for a moment.
Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but maintenance budgets would drop to a quarter or a tenth of current levels. In the absence of free and easy (read subsidy and society-enabled) motor vehicle traffic, we have already built every road we are likely to ever need.
Ten thousand cyclists a day passing over any given piece of road for a hundred years will not equal the damage done to roads that a year’s worth of motor traffic will inflict.
Currently, the motorist ensures he will be paying high taxes simply by being a motorist. Most car owners have never even considered how much society subsidizes their “right” to drive.
A sane system would demand the demonstration of “cause for use”. In the short term, this would allow a road user such as a contractor who absolutely requires a vehicle to still make a living. But the single use motor driven commuter would no longer be a viable option. It is ridiculous how we preserve some of the most expensive real estate in Canada for keeping our cars happily waiting for us at the end of an office-bound day.
Getting people out of personal use cars will free traffic gridlock and allow once again the efficient use of roads. Dedicated routes could then be maintained for heavy and light truck/service traffic along commercial routes. Other routes would be exclusively for transit--maxi and mini buses, and clean-air taxis. Still others would be dedicated to bicycles. Many neighbourhood streets would gratefully succumb to depaving.
By creating separate traffic streams, one of the three major impediments to getting people out on bikes is removed, as conflict with motorised traffic is limited to infrequent intersections. Imagine how quickly you could get from SFU to ScienceWorld if you only had to stop at lights at Willingdon, Boundary and Main streets, with the Boundary overpass coming online next year!
It’s all about priorities.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Switching to Glide
excerpt by Bill Reynolds in The Walrus
The bicycle, according to scholar Donald Zaldin, revolutionized nineteenth-century culture. Its progenitor was the two-wheeled velocipede, invented in 1817 by Germany’s Baron Karl von Drais. The velocipede looked like a bike, but it had no crankshaft or drive train. The rider was propelled along by foot power alone. Then, sometime in the mid-1860s, a French metalworker figured out how to add a crankshaft. Two decades later, in 1885, England’s John Kemp Starley attached gears to the rear wheel instead of the front. Three years later, John Boyd Dunlop, a Scottish veterinarian, improved pneumatic tires and introduced the smooth ride. Suddenly, anyone, rich or poor, young or old, could travel beyond his or her immediate surroundings at no extra cost and with little wear on the body. The past century has seen numerous design upgrades and innovations — the three-speed Raleigh, the ten-speed derailleur, the mountain bike, the hybrid — but the concept remains the same.
And that concept’s irreducible nut is the body defying gravity. Riding is governed by physics, specifically by torque-induced precession. Gravity causes a stationary bike to fall over, but applying torque — using the legs and feet to push down on two pedals attached to a crank — changes the equation. The drive train transfers the rider’s energy directly into movement. The wheels turn and stay upright, and torque allows 182 pounds of human tissue to move on two flimsy pieces of rubber filled with air.
The thinner the bicycle’s frame, the less wind resistance, and aerodynamics only increases efficiency; leaning over the handlebars, especially going downhill, reduces drag and boosts speed. Spoked wheels are almost as strong as solid ones, at a fraction of the weight. Using a derailleur, a transmission system invented by the French in the late nineteenth century, the rider easily switches the chain to a smaller sprocket and — voila! — more torque, more distance in less time. As the rider increases cadence — the number of revolutions per minute — he injects pure power, especially in higher gear ratios. The work is hard but satisfying.
The bicycle, according to scholar Donald Zaldin, revolutionized nineteenth-century culture. Its progenitor was the two-wheeled velocipede, invented in 1817 by Germany’s Baron Karl von Drais. The velocipede looked like a bike, but it had no crankshaft or drive train. The rider was propelled along by foot power alone. Then, sometime in the mid-1860s, a French metalworker figured out how to add a crankshaft. Two decades later, in 1885, England’s John Kemp Starley attached gears to the rear wheel instead of the front. Three years later, John Boyd Dunlop, a Scottish veterinarian, improved pneumatic tires and introduced the smooth ride. Suddenly, anyone, rich or poor, young or old, could travel beyond his or her immediate surroundings at no extra cost and with little wear on the body. The past century has seen numerous design upgrades and innovations — the three-speed Raleigh, the ten-speed derailleur, the mountain bike, the hybrid — but the concept remains the same.
And that concept’s irreducible nut is the body defying gravity. Riding is governed by physics, specifically by torque-induced precession. Gravity causes a stationary bike to fall over, but applying torque — using the legs and feet to push down on two pedals attached to a crank — changes the equation. The drive train transfers the rider’s energy directly into movement. The wheels turn and stay upright, and torque allows 182 pounds of human tissue to move on two flimsy pieces of rubber filled with air.
The thinner the bicycle’s frame, the less wind resistance, and aerodynamics only increases efficiency; leaning over the handlebars, especially going downhill, reduces drag and boosts speed. Spoked wheels are almost as strong as solid ones, at a fraction of the weight. Using a derailleur, a transmission system invented by the French in the late nineteenth century, the rider easily switches the chain to a smaller sprocket and — voila! — more torque, more distance in less time. As the rider increases cadence — the number of revolutions per minute — he injects pure power, especially in higher gear ratios. The work is hard but satisfying.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Party's Over
The automobile is one of the most energy intensive modes of transportation ever invented. This is true not just because of its direct use of fuel, but for the energy embodied in the construction [and maintenance] of so many individual units that require replacement every few years. The rate of car ownership in the US is now 775 per thousand people [2005] --nearly the highest in the world -- and many less-consuming nations, such as China, are foolishly seeking to emulate the American love affair with the [mostly single use (aka three empty seats), personal] automobile. Because increased car ownership results in changed patterns of urban development and resource distribution, it creates [a false and market manipulated] social dependency. Wherever this dependency has taken hold, it will have ruinous consequences in the coming century.
--Richard Heinberg. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New Society Publishers, 2005. p.191 [with ed. additions]
Monday, May 26, 2008
People are Strange
It's Saturday afternoon and I am riding along a usual route. There is no traffic so I am admiring some of the gardens and landscaping of the houses along the way. This is a typical eastside neighbourhood street--about half the houses are 60's style smaller bungalows. The other half of the properties have houses that have replaced the older smaller ones with much larger and grandiose. All are landscaped within an inch of their lives.
As I am riding by, I see a woman who has obviously just spent the afternoon engaged in the maintenance of that most curious of bourgeois affectations--the lawn. I can see that it has been freshly mown, I can smell the cut grass. As a typical suburban conformist, she stands and admires her fruitless work.
At the moment I am approaching, she notices a piece of paper that the wind has carried onto the edge of her lawn. She swiftly marches over to seize the offending candy bar wrapper. She bends down to pick it up and I expect her to turn towards the house, the garage where I see trash cans awaiting. However, she turns instead towards the street and deliberately, carefully, almost reverentially, places the flotsam into the street.
I see this happening in about three seconds it takes me to roll by. I am astounded.
I am left wondering how a person who obviously takes pride in yard maintenance and should have some awareness of the natural world would be so blithe. Is it a matter of a fortress/island mentality--once the offense is off my property it's of no more concern? Is it a matter of the wrapper being another daily annoyance and affront to her own sense of my/mine, some sort of material tresspass? Is it simple laziness and the path of least effort?
I'll never understand people.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Three Days
The Long Weekend: three days where people think they would be happier if only they were somewhere else.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Tell me why
Why is it that if I am crazy enough to take a large and powerful weapon out of my house, travel for a short while and then begin to target individuals out enjoying their day; peaceable law-abiding people causing no harm to no one, if I should target guys wearing hats, or kids playing basketball or any random assortment of people engaged in a mutual activity like walking down the street or riding bicycles, if I should maliciously and willfully try to cause grievous injury or death--why is it that the consequences of this certifiably insane act of mayhem should be weighed in the balance of my choice of weapon?
Now to create mayhem without consequence, the choice of weapon is one to be pondered before a hasty decision is reached. Maximum effectiveness might be realized through the use of an M1A1, a highly efficient and manoeuvrable killing machine. The trouble is that deniability is hard to claim as they drag your smoking corpse from the hull of your shattered tank. Besides, those babies are really hard to get a hold of.
No I'll need something more practical, more personal, more American--I need a gun. Not just any gun. I need a big gun. A really big gun....
So now that I got my Mr.Keaton giant earthworm killin' death bringer loaded, one must decide upon a target, say, bicyclists...NO--short people. Yes that's it, short people. They are always getting in front of you when you're walking and because they have small little legs they take short little steps, so they're slow as jam and you're in a damn hurry and why are you so slow??! They usually wear weird clothes too, a fine enough reason right there.
--But wait.
I must admit that I have been watching a lot of NCIS on the tube lately and you know them crafty coppers have a million and one ways to tie you to a gun like that. Shoot a bunch of people down and your options become few--a bullet self administered, die in a hail of police gunfire, or spend the rest of your mortality swapping out brutality, sodomy and boredom.
--There must be a better way. Hmmmm, there must be a better way. Think think think.
--I know. I've got it! I've been overthinking this all along. The answer is sitting right there. Right there in my driveway.
I can get behind the wheel and for the most part can give my attention to my cell phone, changing the CD, making a grocery list, checking my email, balancing a cup of coffee, burning a cigarette, swattin' the kids--anything and everything expect paying attention to actually driving. This is viewed and is fully accepted as normal and rational behavior.
I can get behind the wheel and injure, maim and kill others, usually with minimal consequence. The word "accident" will be falsely applied to many of my sins, so long as I keep it alcohol free (cuz those Muthas will put a quick end to all the fun) . When the accident excuse fails, it is of little matter, for remember always that it is very rare that you will be labeled as "killer" or "attempted murderer" because first and foremost you are a "driver", and that supercedes all.
I can kill a man with a gun and receive twenty-five years to life as punishment, kill the same man with my car and, most often, I'll see NO jail time.
Routinely we view a driver's license as a right and not a privilege. Driver's licenses are handed out to wild-eyed sixteen year olds like ritalin is handed out to their little brothers. At the other end of the scale, old men who can barely walk and barely see still motor around in their oversized ancient automobiles, yet it cannot be argued that those whose wisdom has increased are shown to have decreased reaction times.
All organisms degenerate, all systems will slow to zero.
How do we acknowledge this fact when it comes to making the tough decision about our very old relatives, within our families and within our societies, about their "right" to drive? We rely on self-assessment, or more often, wait for the inevitable "accident" to happen.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Dollar short and a day late
As usual I am kind of slow catching on to these new fangled things like the world wild web and the whole blogosphere, aka, nattering away into the void. I have been mostly a lurker and a commenter on other people's missives, but was inspired today to get this going by stumbling upon this delightful and new blog.
I 'm not "super-fit" or "super-brave" or even "really stupid", as I have been called in the past. If anything, I became more and more conscious of the superior lifestyle that the committed cyclist enjoys. Upon some of these virtues I hope to extol in the coming pages.
I have been solely self-propelled for a lifetime; the elegance and simplicity, the beauty and the reliability of the bicycle capturing my soul from the start. I don't mind to walk, but most walks of any length will usually result in my comment: "We should've rode our bikes."
Back in the day when we were kids, when gas was cheap and smog was plentiful, when the post-war dream was still in rem stage, when we had seemed to indeed achieve "better living through chemistry," the parentals dragged us back and forth across the country from Ontario to California, a number of times. Back then I seemed to be enjoying the scenery and the "freedom of the open road" that would soon become only a marketing slogan, as the realities of the first oil crisis took hold of the nation, gas lines formed, and a strange new, ominous 'word' appeared on everyone's lips: "OPEC."
I was too young to really be effected by any of this, and perhaps it had left no real impression, as I dutifully played with my hot wheels cars and GI Joe's. My family was no different than any other in our neighbourhood--two cars in the driveway that were relied upon for 100% of the journeys made that were more than a block away. A distant "Uncle" owned a classic car, which we appreciated and were appropriately thrilled to get a ride in such a beautiful old touring car. I enjoyed building the model cars in my basement, and I knew who "Big Daddy" Don Garlits was.
In short, my automobile indoctrination was proceeding apace.
So, what went wrong? Where did the indoctrination fail? Today, I hold no driver's license, and go about my daily business quite capably on two wheels.
Still, this is a question I don't ponder much, as the bicycle is my first love and preferred conveyance.
I 'm not "super-fit" or "super-brave" or even "really stupid", as I have been called in the past. If anything, I became more and more conscious of the superior lifestyle that the committed cyclist enjoys. Upon some of these virtues I hope to extol in the coming pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
