Clarity

I was driving home last night musing about transport, wishing that I had the time to be able to commute to work on my bike, or maybe bike-and-train if carrying cycles wasn't banned at peak times, and wondering what's going to happen to commuters like me when the cost of motoring gets to the point that we can't afford it any more on our non-inflation-proof mini-salaries.

I've already written to my line manager (at his request) with my suggestions of "intangible incentives" that could be offered to key employees who are in danger of leaving once this year's rounds of appraisals and pay increases is complete. One of my suggestons was that, for those people who are able to, the company might want to be flexible and allow them to work at home for up to two days per week, therefore saving the time in the morning and evening and the transport costs of 40p/mile to get to the office and back. For my round trip of just over fifty miles, that would be a considerable saving! I included links to studies on productivity and stress-reduction when such schemes have been run in places like Leeds County Council. Wonder what they'll think of that one?

I then mused about how nice the roads would be if they were empty of the motorised traffic that I was driving through. They'd be quiet and clean and safe for joggers and cyclists and horses. But what would I do about work? I'd have to move to a vastly populated area instead of the quiet(ish) area I'm lucky enough to live in, unless I could get another job locally, or the company started to have satellite offices that people could use when they have to be directly connected to the company's network..... BOINGGGG!!!! There's the answer - for me anyway. The company already has one, up North somewhere.

I'll keep trying to get a job that enables me to ditch the car, but I have to keep things in perspective. Companies and society as a whole will need to learn to cope with fuel shortages and fuel rationing when it starts - and hopefully I will be ready with suggestions on how I, as an employee, can roll with the punches and still get my work done without beggaring myself.

I wonder how people will cope who are unbending and unwilling to change. I wonder how a Porche or BMW driver would ride a bicycle considering their trademark behaviour??!!

Here's details of a new campaign which I think will definately do some good. It's an idea that was born on the Cycling Plus forum and is the product of a lot of debating. Some will think it's a great idea and some will hate it. It's started off as a sticker designed to go in vehicle windows, and, in the words of the webmaster, "helps drip-feed the message when you're sitting at lights, doing the shopping, parked outside your house, and will make a difference in your area." Here's the sticker:



These can be purchased for GBP1.75 plus P+P from the Give Cyclists Room campaign website. I think it's a good idea, similar to the sticker campaign "I Slow Down For Horses" which I'm sure everyone's seen now.

It's just asking people to be careful, and to follow the Highway Code guidance "139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking (see Rules 188, 189 and 191.)"



ie. please do not squeeeeeze past at 50mph an inch from a cyclist's elbow, scaring the living daylights out of them and endangering their life, your life, and the life of the person on the opposite side of the carriagway should there be an incident.

Yum, yum. How cute is this? Black and silver, too.





They are the only acceptable form of bicycle on trains and buses these days and I made the mistake of looking at the brochure on Brompton's Web Site this evening. Mmmmm. Dynohubs. Front-mounted luggage. Wheels that fit on rear rack. Bike bag. Titanium posts and forks. Mmmmm. Wonder how much my personal, custom job would be??

No, no. Resist. Big Wheels Are Best. Think of the bank account!!!

I've been following the development of the Muslim demonstrations following the publication of "the" cartoons. Strange how no-one is mentioning that in the printed booklet of them that has been circulated in Arab states there are a further two, in addition to the original 12 pieces of work by Kurt Westergaard, which are definitely offensive cartoons. Where did they come from, I wonder? Their quality and penmanship is certainly wildly below that of the original 12. It's almost as if they were deliberately added to the originals to incite further anger. The number of deaths of Muslims, in Muslim countries, is horrific. There's been around 30 deaths so far!

As if that's not enough, also here comes the ever-louder debate on the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science curriculum in state schools. The argument basically is that this idea of an "intelligence" (undefined) being behind the development of life (and therefore refuting the idea of natural selection) and its mechanics should be taught alongside Darwinism to give children the opportunity to be exposed to both schools of thought and to make their own decision. So far, a Federal Judge has ruled that Intelligent Design is a theory religious in nature and not scientific, so cannot be taught in science classes. I think it's only a matter of time, though, there are similar cases being considered in a number of US states.

I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks that both of these situations show a huge, basic and dreadful flaw in human beings' basic psychological makeup? I feel that there are two issues at work here which will cause this situation never to be resolved.

The first is the large and unhealthy ego of people who have to go to any lengths to show that they are right and everyone else's opinion is wrong. I know that some people will be laughing now, thinking that I am demonstrating myself this tendency, but I'm not.

The thing is, I'm not of the opinion that either Darwinism or Intelligent Design is correct. I'm open to the fact that either might be, but I'm more inclined to Darwinism at the moment. The concept of Intelligent Design delighted me when I first heard about it, until I realised that the original idea was being used to back up and "prove" Christian doctrine. Had it remained an idea of an anonymous Designer, I would have been perfectly comfortable with it. As a theory, not as a scientific teaching. The uncomfortable fact is that religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. Opinions. Stories. Not provable. Personally-held opinions on life.

I also don't understand how people can think that it's right to march the streets carrying banners inciting acts of violence on people who may or may not have made comment on one's religious belief, or more honestly, have hurt a damaged ego. Satire is healthy. It creates a balance that is good. It's excellent to be incited to examine doctrine and beliefs and society's changing rules.

One's religious leader may condone it, but every human being ultimately makes the decision as to whether it's an acceptable action or not. I'm not going to delve into the history of religious violence because every nation on the planet is guilty of it in one century or another, and as a human species, we are all guilty, and all share the blame (and shame) of the past.

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most precious things we have in this modern, Western European society.

The second basic flaw in our makeup, I believe, is the need to make a decision about the nature of the Maker. Why is this? Why do we need to believe that we have a personal and documented relationship with this force? Why do we have to feel that we are important in any way? Why do we feel so lonely when this planet is so full, and valuable connections with other human beings are so accessible, and so easy to gain by acts of kindness?

Is it the fear of death that leads to all of this? I'm not ashamed to say that I'm concerned about the issue. It would be nice to know! However, I accept that there's no way of knowing for sure, so I read about various anecdotes with interest, but I don't clutch at them as would a drowning man at straws. I accept the truth that I don't know and won't until it happens, and then it'll either be a surprise or a big sleep! Either is good if I feel I have served my purpose here.

A-hah! Served your purpose? And who can tell you that purpose, if not God? Yes, I heard you thinking that. I feel my way through life, day by day. I love the people close to me and try to understand them. I see the world, and try to make sense of it myself. The only rule I work by is that I instinctively know what behaviour is ugly and hurtful and try to avoid causing it or suffering it. It's not rocket-science, is it??

So, as a species, we either need to cure or grow out of our collective insanity, and you'll notice that I'm saying all of us, or it will be the thing that is the end of us, eventually. It would be a shame if we failed as a species just because our psychological, emotional and social development did not keep pace with our technological development. A real shame.

Mum and I flew out on Monday evening to stay in Prague for two days, and then fly back on the Thursday. We went out for a short wander across St Charles' Bridge on the evening we arrived and dined on, variously, duck and three kinds of dumplings and beef in cream sauce with bread dumplings. We also sampled the local nectar, Beckerovka, which we later dubbed "rocket fuel". It was needed to warm the cockles of the heart though, as it was about -10 degrees centigrade that night.

When I woke up the next day, it had snowed:



We stayed in the Residence Waldstein, in Mala Strana, and had an extremely roomy, warm and quiet apartment. We needed to turn the heating off every day despite the cold outside.



The city deals amazingly well with snow and ice - there are so many features designed to cope with it. We still found some areas up at the top of the hill that looked a touch hazardrous:



I've never seen such a colourful city. Even on a grey, freezing cold day when the streets are covered in snow and there are piles of ice everywhere, it still looks inviting and interesting.



After two very cold days we had a sunny few hours on the Thursday before we flew back to Gatwick. The city showed a different face that morning, though no more or less attractive than the cold and icy Prague.



All in all, a wonderful visit, though far too short. I look forward to going back again, as soon as I can manage.

The consultation process for amendments to the Highway Code has started, and the closing date for comments is the 10th May. There are several proposed amendments that cyclists should be very concerned about. I have commented using the Online form that can be found by clicking here. You will need to register to be able to use the online response form, but it's a once-only registration and you can ask to be advised of future consultations which I, for one, will be keeping an eye on.

Included in the draft document are quite a few proposed amendments to the rules covering cycling. The ones that most concern me are:

When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journeys safer.

The main issue with this is, in the words of Wafflycat, "If that gets through, we have effectively lost our right to use the road anywhere the man from the council has been out with his paint pot, regardless of utility, condition or quality of the "facility"."

Coupled with the following, which is already in the current edition of the Highway Code:

60. Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 134). Keep within the lane wherever possible.

This seems to me to be making clear the intent that cyclists are increasingly to be forced to use routes and segregation techniques however poor or dangerous. It's just a short step to the red MUST. These clearly are still only guidelines, not laws or rules, but I am hearing a lot of worrying stories of these items being used to excuse the actions of other careless road users and shift the blame onto the injured cyclist.... which leads me on to my last concern:

64. You should
be aware of traffic coming up behind you

WHAT??!!!! What is this meant to imply? Does this perhaps refer to the unfortunate young woman who was mown down by an HGV on 2nd February? And might the fact that she was, at the time, wearing an iPod perhaps have prompted this addition? We'll never know. But the onus is not on the cyclist to evade the lorry if it's behind him/her - it's on the lorry driver to not hit the cyclist.....

As for "we don't have to worry about it, it's not law, only guidelines", as the Highway Code itself says:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 103) to establish liability.

We all need to understand that our right to use the Queens Highway is being eroded and that just because these things are not currently law doesn't mean that we should not take their possible inclusion very seriously.

Thanks to Wafflycat of ACF for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Here's a fun thing. Tombstone Generator.