Giddyup, baybeee

As I mentioned in the last entry, I thought I'd put some points down on the current problem with getting more people to bike instead of drive.



With that in mind, here are some issues, from my perspective, which must be overcome to make people like me bike to work and save the environment and be contemplative and reconsiderate, and not inflicting, as the author of the craptacular article that I commented on in the last post:





1. Canada is big. We've tried to cover it with sprawl, working out from urban centers. Right or wrong (and I can easily side on the latter), it's the current situation. It is too far to bike for anyone who works in the city and lives more than a 20 minute ride away.





2. It's really a young person's game. I said 20 minutes in the point above because it has to be possible for non-fanatic older folks with plain factory bikes to be able to do it. Perhaps they will miraculously get in shape after biking for a while, but it has to seem possible for them to do it before they actually attempt biking to work. Bike couriers and bike activists may think it's no big deal, but they are already too far into the lifestyle to bike a mile on another man's wheels.



Also, you'd better have a shower at your place of employment, or else you'll be stinking up the place. Perhaps there could be a spot in the bathroom dedicated to changing and wiping down with a towel or something, but it'll still be a poor second cousin to being shower fresh.


3. Rain. I'll have to carry a waterproof clothes carrier of some kind, and that will add to the frustration and sweat and wind resistance, making it all the more miserable.

4. The winter. I've biked an entire winter, in snowstorms, freezing rain, you name it. I have some experience in this matter and it sucks. You just can't put a happy face big enough on this issue for it to convince the majority of the driving world to give up cars. Maybe, just maybe, you could interest people to bike in the summer, but winter for most people would crush it.


5. Bike lanes. The author had a good point about the frustration that cyclists feel coming out as 'more bike lanes', but it's actually something that is needed to get people to consider biking. A very big problem for biking is that most non-cyclists don't take bikes seriously as vehicles. I would say that motorists consider bike traffic more in line with pedestrians than anything else. We expect them to use the crosswalks like pedestrians, not use the left turn lane.

Part of this is not having standard training on how to deal with bikes in such situations. If there is a bike ahead of you in the left turn lane, do you wait your turn behind like you would a car? I'm not sure if that's the law, or if anyone would do it, if it is; similarly, most cyclists don't wait in line behind cars when coming to a stopsign or traffic light, they just squeeze between the cars and the curb to get as far ahead as possible. Furthermore, the only training I've seen for bikes is the kind the police give to young kids when they first learn to ride a bike, and they sure as hell are not going to show a seven year old how to make a left turn from the left turn lane! But, until that level of awareness about the use of bikes as vehicles becomes commonplace, change will not come.


5. Shopping. How the hell am I going to get all the crap I need home on a bike? I don't want to have to shop for food every day after work because I can only carry one day's worth of groceries home from the store in a backpack. If I have to start buying a bike cart to haul stuff around in, I'd rather have a car. And don't hand me that crap about buying less and pulling myself out of the enviromentally unfriendly consumer lifestyle. I don't buy cheap throw-away things. I buy second hand when I can, as well.


6. Kids. If I have more than one kid, a bike ain't gonna cut it unless my wife pedals the other kid around. If she needs to be doing something else, we're shit out of luck. She'd also like to have 3 kids. Then what will we do? That bike cart bullshit again? Not going to happen. We'll get the 6 person bike like I saw going down the street last year, with the whole family on board. I looked it up and it costs $5500. That's a down payment on a good car which will keep us safe and dry and arriving on time, is usable in winter and other inclement weather.

Those are just the ideas that came to me while thinking about it for a few minutes. Each point could be expanded upon, but you get the idea. Bike lovers may be willing to spend large amounts to get their super-bikes caressed into their perfect idea of a bike, but they'll be on the fringe of motorized society for the forseeable future.

Simile when you say that...

A few weeks ago, a cyclist was killed in an altercation between himself and a motorist, and the following article appeared in one of the local indie newspapers. From the title, I thought that it would be about the the issues surrounding cars and bikes, and with luck, some ideas to help solve them.

When I read it, I couldn't believe how little it offered. The author is merely using the article as a shot in a class war between cyclists and motorists. Again and again, it is hammered home that cyclist=good, motorist=bad.

What is it about bikes that makes people sexier? I don’t care who you are, this
is universally true. Why do we say people “drive” cars and “ride” bikes? It’s
clearly the reverse.

In the first paragraph, my teeth are already set on edge by the odd claim and facetious word play. We are not allowed to disagree, for the author has already decided that it is a universal fact that cyclists are sexier, and that the words we use to describe the usage of cars and bikes are incorrect. By telling us what to think, the author sets the tone for the entire article.

“The more aware you are of being threatened, the more
desperate your reaction.... Speeding is a form of aggression.” So wrote Chögyam
Trungpa, in the somewhat self-satisfied tone of a Buddhist rinpoche.

It's difficult to be sure what angle the author is taking with this quote. We can't even be sure that the quoted statements have any relation to each other, or if the author just cherry-picked the quotes to support the argument the author is making (whatever that is). Since the man that was killed was a cyclist, perhaps he is trying to generate sympathy for him due to the fact that he acted violently to the driver of the car that killed him.

I don’t know if, as some say, Sheppard died because he was a
cyclist. But I am reasonably sure he is dead because people drive cars.

If only people didn't drive cars, the poor victim would still be alive. Nevermind that the victim was drunk. Nevermind that the vicitm attacked the driver. Nevermind that the victim clung to the car as the car sped off, so that the attack could continue. None of these facts fit the idea of cars=bad, so they are not mentioned.

Here’s an analogy: If I walk around pointing my index
finger, which I repeatedly flex and extend, I’m a weirdo. Add a loaded handgun,
it’s a shooting spree.

And here is the most blatant show of prejudice and elitism on the part of the author. What he is saying, in other words, is that allowing people to drive cars is exactly the same as giving a mentally unstable person a gun and allowing them to indiscrimiately shoot innocent people. Cars=mass murder. This paragraph is so loaded with emotional wording that I don't know where to begin.

I suppose it should be mentioned that the average reader of this local tabloid is ignorant of, and therefore fearful of, privately owned firearms, with handguns being a particular nightmare. Using this wording can be expected to cause a knee-jerk reaction amongst the regular readership, such that they cannot be bothered to think about the ridiculous comparison the author is making; more than likely the unreasoning fear of handguns would cause instant agreement with an argument of any description. The author could have used some other analogy to imply the danger inherent to cyclist in a bike/car collision (as the motorist would have little chance of injury or even damage to his car, while the cyclist will almost certainly be injured, and very likely killed), as I believe that this is the point that the author is trying to make.

But no, why talk rationally about the issues, when you can use sensationalism to show the virtue of cyclists, and the evil, corrupting influence of the automobile?

We don’t know exactly what happened August 31, but the
wealthy politician in a convertible walked away, while the “troubled” (i.e.,
underprivileged) Metis man on the bike died.

Let's not forget to bend this situation into an example of the class war between the haves and have-nots. What is the point of mentioning the victim was of First Nations ancestry? Are they accusing the driver of being motivated by racism? Why would it have even occured to the driver that he was Metis? What is the point of mentioning the wealth of the driver, or that he was a polititian? What do these things have to do with this fatality? And the driver certainly didn't walk away, he was arrested and thrown in jail until he could make bail.

Still, one may wonder what treatment by the law that the driver may get due to these things (money and political connections seem to be helping, as the driver has hired a public relations company and a highpriced lawyer, and had a shave and change of suits before he gave his public statement; the police were surprised that he was afforded this courtesy). Also, "troubled" does not automatically mean underprivileged. The victim may have been poor, but in this case, it means that the victim was wrestling with alcoholism and other drug use, which contributed greatly to this incident.

We don’t know Bryant’s mental state or what his actions
were, but in general the issue in car-bike spats isn’t anger, it’s the way big
technology facilitates indulgence and infliction rather than reflection and
reconsideration.

What exactly is "big technology"? Are we trying to coin a new word? I've heard of big oil, or big pharma, or big agra, but there's no such thing as big tech. Large technology-based companies may try to assault your mind with constant advertising and other propaganda, but none of them, even lumped together, could be considered along the same lines as big oil. Our author seems to forget that technology plays a primary role in his cycling. Especially for the really dedicated cyclists, with the alloy frames and wheels and other hi-tech advancements. Hell, everything that we have is technology of some kind, from the screwdrivers to milk cartons.

Furthermore, if driving "facilitates indulgence and infliction" contrasted to biking's "reflection and reconsideration", it is an exact copy in a larger scale of the relationship between biking and walking. You can be at your most reflective and reconsiderative at walking speed, so perhaps the author should give up biking.

This leaves one cause of these almost
daily run-ins: cars themselves.

How are cars the cause of the run-ins? If the author is saying that driving leads to arrogance and sloppy operation, the same could be said of cycling compared to walking. Hell, even pedestrians have been caught with their heads in the clouds. Cars don't cause this problem. People's personalities and circumstances do.

Nor is the problem that cyclists “are blind
to the rules.” Believe me, you don’t survive downtown cycling if you don’t have
a system. Sometimes we roll through a stop sign (completely legal in Idaho, by
the way). Sometimes you don’t wash your hands before you eat.

Here the author tries to justify the blatant breaking of the rules as necessary to bike downtown. What the author doesn't seem to realize is that other drivers, be they cyclist or motorist, need themselves and others to follow the established (and therefore expected) rules do decide what to do in a fluid situation. When you start breaking the rules, you introduce uncertainty, which will increase the chances of an accident as the other driver tries to figure out what you are doing.

Not only this, but why does a cyclist get excused for breaking the rules, but not cars? As for not washing your hands, I'd pick another analogy. The one the author used to impress the idea that one sometimes breaks the rules also implies that one is willing to accept a high price for doing so, as eating with contaminated hands could lead, in the worst case, to death from food poisoning; it would follow, then, that death from not following the rules is fine with the author.

Finally, cherrypicking the laws of another part of the world just because you like them does not mean that they apply to the situation here at home. For example, there's legal brothels in Amsterdam, and carrying a concealed handgun in Vermont is as legal as carrying a concealed pencil. Would the author like to have those applied here too?

And in the rare cases when law-abiding does make sense, we
may still find it safer not to – since, as in abusive situations, what’s
expected vacillates wildly.

Oh, brother. If following the law in a given example makes sense, it cannot be safer to break the law; otherwise, it would not make sense to follow the law in the first place. And notice how the author compares motorist-cyclist altercations to abusive situations. Sorry, but wife-beating and child molestation are proper examples of abuse. Don't belittle those horrors by comparing them to traffic incidents, even fatal ones.

Seemingly reasonable calls for cyclists to bottle up their
“irrelevant” anger are really calls to ignore what’s swirling beneath this
disaster. They are above all an anxious avoidance of slowing down and looking
each other in the eye.

Again, motorists are the bad guys, unwilling to reach out to their fellow human beings, moving too fast to be bothered to make a connection. The exact same could be said of cyclists (especially the couriers), who zoom and weave around pedestrians with the same kind of disdain motorists are accused of.

Trungpa, whom I quoted at the top, drank considerably, lost
a tidy sum up his nose and died of liver failure before hitting 50. Did this
make him a sham? Or was it troubles developed while fleeing Tibet that shaped
him? In the end, I decided I didn’t care. The writings he left make it clear he
was on to something.

On to what? That speeding is a form of agression? Speeding can be an expression of fear, love, excitement, despair, and many others. That threats cause desperate acts? Only if you have no training in dealing with emergencies. Otherwise, threats can be handled with calculated responses. There are no insights to be found here.

From what we know, so was Sheppard. Now we’re called on to
seek truth in tragedy, to find something in all this to make a more humane city.
But we’re all moving so fast, and it takes so long to say – so it comes out as
“more bike lanes.”

And what exactly was Sheppard on to? Are you seriously trying to compare his life to that of a buddhist monk, even if they both had problems with drugs? What writings did Sheppard leave for us that would indicate, on any level, that he had put any thought whatsoever in to the mysteries of life? Why would the author ever try to imply such a thing, when the only reason that anything is being written about this man is that he was killed? Did the author even know this guy?

The author brings little truth to this conversation, and certainly finds no solutions; the "more bike lanes" line is the only part of this article that shows any insight or helpful reasoning. All the rest is blame for those evil cars.

Next entry, I'll put down some points I'd like to say about the issue of bikes and their struggle to be recognized as legitmate users of the roads.

The friendly stranger

I would like to know how many people cuddle with members of the opposite sex, if they are not in a sexual relationship with that other person, and have no desire to be. In other words, do you, or have you, engaged in a "friendly cuddle" with someone of the opposite sex, with no expectations of, desires of, or attempts at sexual advances by you or the other person, there being just the two of you in the house?

I'm not going to explore the idea of cuddling with members of the same sex, as that's a different issue.

In other words, if you went over to an acquaintance's home, and that person said, "how's about we cuddle up on the bed together?", would you be shocked and surprised if the person hit on you?

I sure as hell wouldn't. In fact, the idea that the person wanted to hit on me would be the first thing that popped into my head. Especially to suggest cuddling on a bed; going to bed has got to be the biggest and well known euphemism for sex that yet exists, at least in western culture. Anytime the opposite sex suggests an activity which involves close bodily contact, you can bet that sex/sexual activities has crossed their minds. Twister, anyone?

How many guys (with no "game") have offered "massages" to girls just for the chance to touch them in a seemingly innocent way? How many girls have used the "I'm cold" excuse to snuggle up to a guy they like?

If I have no interest in a person, I'm not going to snuggle up with them unless we are lost in winter and will otherwise freeze to death, even if we're good friends. So, I'd like to know if I'm in the minority here, and will give you a set situation to gauge your comfort level.

By cuddle, I mean lying on a bed together close enough for you to have body contact covering most of the side that faces your fellow cuddler.

Would you cuddle with someone you weren't interested in?
How well would you have to know the person in question before you would do it?
What if you only knew them from the internet, for any length of time, and met them in person once or twice?

I wouldn't do it. Would you?

The gatekeepers of sex.

Note that the situation that prompted this woman's blog entry quoted below was not between strangers, but acquaintances. It involved a 'friendly cuddle' that turned sexual on the part of the man in the situation. With that, on to the story...

According to one woman who's blog I have read:

"In our culture we raise women with this belief that they are the gatekeepers of sex. It is our responsibility at all times to hold the gates shut, and it's a man's role to try to storm the gates. The problem is that when a man forces himself on a woman, she feels like it's her fault for not holding the gates tighter. It's her fault for not screaming. It's her fault for not getting up and running away. It's her fault for not hitting him. It's her fault for "giving in" to the insistent pressure. But it isn't. The fault is SOLELY with the person putting the pressure on in the first place."


Here we have someone mixing ideas to get the message she feels comfortable with, which is: "I am not responsible for things that happen to me; I have no way of responding to the world around me; someone else is necessary to tell me what to do in any given situation."

Oh, please. This person complains in another section of this blog entry that society is raising women in outdated sexist roles, and yet uses similar outdated arguments as to why a woman, as the weaker, need-a-man-to-take-care-of-me creature, can't take responsibility for herself.

Everyone is the "gatekeeper" of their own sexuality, men included. If you don't want to have sex with someone, and they force themselves on you,

*then it becomes your job*

to scream, kick, run, bite, scratch, punch, stab, shoot, bend, fold and mutilate the threat. It is not a woman/man's fault that someone is forcing themselves on the woman/man sexually; the decision to act out sexual advances is the responsibility of the person acting them out; that should be blatantly obvious. It *is* the responsibility of the receiver of unwanted attentions, however, to do something about it.

If you just sit there, passively allowing someone to do sexual things to you, how will the person who is giving you the unwanted affections going to know that you don't want them to do it? If you say no, you have to sound like you mean it, because too many people play the "hard to get" game, which always includes a few playful "no"s, until they finally end up having intercourse.

So, yes, it is her fault for not screaming. It is her fault for not getting up and running away, or for not hitting him, and especially for "giving in". Not because society says that she should hold the gates tighter, not because saying "no" somehow caused the unwanted sexual advances, but because she is solely responsible for her own security in this situation.

If she is not responsible for her own security, then who is? Her mommy? Daddy? Older brother? The Government? Channel 5's Action News Team?

The person putting on the pressure? They may be responsible for being an asshole, but if that person constantly puts moves on you, until you finally give in, then *hint hint, you just consented*; through sheer annoyance perhaps, but consented none the less. How are they the authors of your lack of responsibility and accountability? Needless to say there is a long, conflicting, bizarre story behind the above quoted statement, but I don't have permission to post the full situation and comments.

Suffice it to say that the knee-jerk reaction by most commentators on the blog in question was that this is a case of (date) rape. Perhaps I'm stirring the pot, but as an acquaintance of mine said many, many years ago:

"You can't rape the willing".