10 useful tips for car drivers

1.)    If you see a cyclist ahead and you can’t pass because of opposing traffic, resist the urge to run over him, even though you can. You know what a mess it can make of your car if you hit a deer; a cyclist will probably do even more damage.

2.)    Don’t throw stuff at cyclists: In some states there is a $250 fine for this; plus there is a $1,000 fine for littering; it can add up. If you feel you must throw something at a cyclist, think of the environment; throw something that is biodegradable.

3.)    Don’t waste time thinking of clever things to yell at cyclists as you drive by at 50mph. Just shout, "Garble, garble, garble, fucking road." It is all they will hear anyway

4.)    If you are approaching a right turn, slow and wait behind the cyclist ahead of you. If you can’t do this at least be consistent and race ahead of other cars, then cut them off by turning right in front of them.

5.)    Use the buddy system. If you can’t resist the urge to text while driving have a buddy ride along to look out for cyclists.

6.)    Pedestrians can also be annoying; they will not stay on one side of the road and are likely to interrupt your texting by crossing over to the other side at some point.

7.)    Resist the urge to lay on the horn. If you can’t do this consider fitting a second horn inside the car a few feet from your head. This will give you a realistic feel of how incredibly fucking loud your car horn is.

8.)    Watch your blind spot: Looking in store windows or at pretty girls as you drive by creates a huge blind spot ahead of you. Cyclists have an annoying habit of riding in this blind spot.

9.)    If a cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane, it could be because he will not ride within five feet of a parked car. (The door zone.) If you expect cyclists to ride within inches of parked cars, set an example by driving within inches of parked cars.

If more cars did this and removed a few car doors, and grazed a few knuckles as a result, it would help by reminding people to look before opening a car door. At the present time cyclists hitting car doors does not have the same impact.

10.)  Avoid hitting cyclists by simply going around them. If you should hit one because he happened to be there when you were applying makeup, don’t say “He swerved in front of me.” Simply tell the police officer, “I didn’t see him.”

This is becoming the more widely accepted defense; after all it is the truth and a driver can’t be expected to see everything. (Don’t try the “I didn’t see it” defense if you run a stop sign. For some strange reason this does not work.)  

                        

Driving Around Cyclists for Dummies

I got an email from a regular reader, Keay Edwards; he said,

“I thought you might be interested in AAA's stance on California's proposed law requiring a three foot passing distance of cyclists by motor vehicles. 

I was surprised to discover that my auto insurance company was lobbying against the proposed law and asked them why." 

Here is their response: 

Thank you for your comments relative to AAA's position on SB 910.

Our official position is not a straight oppose, it is an 'oppose unless amended'. We don't take issue with the 3 foot distance rule when it can be safely accomplished. The problem is how to address situations when a 3 foot distance cannot be maintained or met.

Current language in the bill would require the vehicle to slow to 15 mph of the speed of the bicycle to pass. But this is problematic for several reasons, as pointed out in the bill analysis. Law enforcement has issues with this approach as well because it can cause a drastic decrease in speed differentials between the vehicle passing the bicycle and other vehicles on the road depending on the posted speed limit.

Not only can this cause rear-end collisions, it can create a more dangerous situation for the cyclists. It is the differences in speed that is the number one cause of car crashes. Another suggested approach is to require the car to enter into the opposite lane of traffic (cross a double line) in order to give the cyclists the 3 foot distance. This is something being explored as well as a number of other ideas.

While we can all agree on the concept and goal SB 910, crafting workable legislation usually requires addressing a number of details and issues that arise throughout the process as the concept is flushed out and enforceability is addressed.

The author of the bill, Senator Lowenthal, is committed to working with all interested parties, including law enforcement, AAA and the bicycle coalition sponsors of the bill to find the most appropriate and safest way to address situations, when the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances and there is some disagreement on that level.

Thank you again for allowing us to explain our position on the bill.
Best Regards,
Crista B. (AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah.)

Thank you Keay for forwarding this; here is my take:

Why all the fuss over an issue that should be common sense. Would you pass any vehicle giving less than 3 foot of space? You would give a stray dog at least 3 feet when passing.

Let’s say there is a large object, a refrigerator for example, lying at the side of the road protruding 3 feet into your lane. Would you continue driving at 55 or 60mph and miss it by less than three feet?

Most sensible people would slow, and if they couldn’t go into the opposing lane, they would squeeze by carefully at a slow speed. The 3 foot passing law is calling for what people should do anyway if they were using common sense.

Let me offer another simple scenario: You are driving on any two lane highway or street; a vehicle is waiting to make a left turn. (Right turn in the UK.) The driver cannot make the turn because there is opposing traffic; he stops and waits with his turn signal on.

Other traffic stops and stacks up behind, waiting for the driver to make his turn. There is no danger, no one runs into the rear of anyone; eventually there is a break in opposing traffic, the vehicle makes its turn and everyone goes on their merry way.

And yet to read Crista B’s explanation above, a vehicle slowing because it is not safe to pass a cyclist presents a danger to other road users. I would suggest if a vehicle runs into the rear of another, they were driving too fast for the road conditions, or they were following too close. This is driving 101.

Maybe I should write a “Driving around cyclists for Dummies” book. In it I would say, “If you see a cyclists ahead give him/her plenty of room as you pass. If you can’t go into the opposing lane because there are cars coming the other way, slow down and wait for a break in opposing traffic.”

You only need a small break because a cyclist is about 7 foot long and 3 foot wide, usually traveling at 15 to 20mph; it is not like trying to pass an 18 wheel semi. And you don’t have to go completely over to the opposite lane but at least straddle the center line.

If I am that cyclist quite honestly I have no objections if you squeeze by with less than 3 feet, as long as you do so carefully at slow speed. If you bump me at 5mph over the speed I am doing it would probably not be too serious; but clip me at 55 or 60 and it might be fatal.

This 3 foot passing law is getting way too complicated for the average person to understand. Crista B for the AAA asks:

When the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances.

This situation is no different than a stop sign where cross traffic doesn’t stop. You stop, and then proceed when it is safe to do so. Legislators are not asked, “What do I do when it is not safe to proceed?” The answer is simple; you wait until it is safe. Give a cyclist 3 feet; if you can’t do that safely, then wait until you can.

No need to change the wording; if you slow down and pass a cyclist carefully no one is going to take a yard stick and argue over the exact 3 feet.

Imagine the cyclist is a refrigerator or some other large object in the road.  Just slow down and go around while being careful not to bump into it.

                        

The menace of old guys on bicycles

Ah the sounds of summer, the sound of baseball bat on carbon fiber. It seems the more “Bike friendly” states like Colorado become, the more unfriendly the natives are. First we have the Black Hawk bicycle ban, now this.

A cyclist celebrating his 65th birthday by going on a 65 mile bike ride with a few of his friends, when 24 year old Bryce Barker driving his car, cuts them off, honks at them, then gets out of his vehicle and proceeds to beat the crap out of one of the bikes with an aluminum baseball bat.

The assailant said he was “Tired of old guys on bicycles hogging the road.”  At 24 years of age this youngster must have at least eight years behind the wheel. That much experience is bound to give one a strong sense of entitlement, and a deep-seated feeling of ownership of the public highway.

The cyclist held his bike out in front of him like a shield; not a good idea because that is like inviting the guy to hit it. The Trek carbon fiber bike valued at $4,800 was destroyed. (Not that a steel frame would have fared any better.)

My advice in such circumstances would be this, if your bike has any value, lay it down in a safe spot in the grass, and guard it with your life. You may think the current situation to be bad, but wait ’til you have to explain to your wife that your bike cost $4,800.

Now Barker is claiming self defense, because he felt threatened by the cyclists. I would have thought the best defense would have been to drive away.

The assailant faces felony menacing, harassment and criminal mischief charges. He has an attorney who is trying to work out a plea bargain. I’m sure the attorney told the guy he has no defense and a plea deal would be the only way to go.

I hope such a deal would at least include reimbursing the cyclist for his bike that was destroyed. By the time he has paid that, his attorney’s fees, and any fines that may be levied, this could be one expensive outburst.

Once again I would ask one question: Was it worth it?

You can read more on the story here, and here

Footnote: Forgive me for being flippant, but no one was injured in this one, so I felt I had to poke fun at the absurdness of this incident

                        

Analyzing Depression

 
I came across this map of the world which shows, by country, the percentage of population diagnosed with depression.

The most depressed people it appears live in the United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and France.

The fact that the top three all begin with the letter “U” does not go unnoticed, so it is best to avoid living in countries that begin with “U.”

These top four countries may be the most depressed in the world, but at least they know where they are. As the depression rate drops, it seems people are less sure where in the world they belong on this map.

People in the Netherlands, for example, think they are in Iceland. Germany thinks it is in Shanghai, while Shanghai appears to be in New Zealand, and Beijing thinks it is in Iraq.

People from Shanghai and Beijing are so NOT depressed that they think they are countries, when the last time I checked, they were cities.

Another country with a low depression rate is Italy; which thinks it is on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Could it be the people in these less depressed places have a subconscious desire to move to a more depressing place to tone down their feeling of joy?

Japan meanwhile thinks it is in the Persian Gulf. Maybe their desire is to be nearer the oil. If so they should consider the other Gulf; the Gulf of Mexico where at this moment we have more oil than we need.

The least depressed place in the world, according to this map, is Nigeria; who, it appears, knows what continent it is on. However, it thinks it is several thousand miles away on the east coast of Africa; when last I checked it was on the west coast.

Mexico has a depression rate that is exactly half that of the United States, and it thinks it is in Brazil. It also proves my theory that less depressed people have a desire to move to places where they can be more depressed.

It doesn’t matter how bad things get in America, Arizona recently thought it was necessary to pass tough new immigration laws, and we don’t see a mass exodus south from the US into Mexico.

We can learn a lot from maps like this; that psychologists are poor at geography for example. Of course it couldn’t be that America has the highest depression rate in the world because we have more doctors diagnosing people as depressed?

It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that in the United States we are bombarded nightly with TV ads for anti-depressant medication.

The result being that more people trot off to their doctor to sign up for said medication, when according to this map all they need to do is book a flight to Nigeria.

I hope after reading this, you are now less depressed

                       

Taking the Piss

Britain and America have been described as two countries separated by a common language.

That statement sums it up pretty well I think.

We each use different words when talking about the same things; “Trash” in the US is “Rubbish” in the UK.

To complicate things further a “Trash Can” in America, is a “Dustbin” in Britain.

The problem has been over the years that Americans keep changing things to suit their own ends. Football is called Soccer, to avoid confusion with the game where, out of the whole team, only one player actually kicks the ball with his foot.

They bring this player on the field only when the ball needs to be kicked, because he is the only one who knows how to do it.

Where they don’t change the word, they spell it differently. In America they took the “U” out of colour and spell it color, which is fine, it simplifies things.

However, when Americans come across a name like mine, “Moulton,” they don’t know the rule is; when these two vowels are together, the second one is silent.

They try to put the “U” in there and it comes out sounding something like Mow-ull-ton, instead of Mol-ton. I have to explain, it is like when sheep make love; the ewe (U) is silent.

Here is a joke that no American will get.

What’s the difference between a Kangaroo, and a Kangaroot? A Kangaroo is an animal, and a Kangaroot is a Geordie stuck in a lift.

To translate for those used to American English. From the end of the punch line; a lift is an elevator, a Geordie is a native of Newcastle, which is a town in the far North of England. They speak in a dialect that even most English people can’t understand.

In fact if it wasn’t for Newcastle Brown Ale, most Americans would not have heard of the place. So a person from Newcastle, trapped in an elevator, would make the statement, “I can’t get out.” However, with this strange dialect they speak there, it would sound like “A Kangaroot.”

Of course jokes are never funny when you have to explain them, but it does serve to illustrate the many different dialects that exist within the tiny island made up of England, Scotland and Wales.

I grew up in the East End of London so developed a strong Cockney accent early on. As a teen my parents moved to Luton, which is only 30 miles North of London, so the dialect didn’t change that much. Locals from Luton, leave the “T” out of the name of their town, and call it Lu’on.

In my early twenties I moved back to the East End of London, so my accent was pretty well established; even though I moved to the North of England in the 1960s, and to Worcester in the West in the 1970s. 

When I came to the United States in 1979, I may as well have spoken a foreign language. I had no problem understanding Americans, but they could not understand me.

I remember walking into a Produce Market in New Jersey and asking for Grapefruit; I was met with blank stares. In frustration I walked over to a pile of grapefruit, and holding one up asked, “Was’sat then?”

“Grapefruit,” they answered.

“Wot the faack did I just say?” I responded. Luckily, they didn’t understand that either. I bought my grapefruit and left.

There followed years of frustration until I adapted my version of the English so it could be understood. Now the Cockney dialect, bastardised with American, people think I’m Australian.

The problem is most Americans think that the English all talk like the Monty Python crew. When they realize I am English they say something like, “Pip, pip old chap, absolutely spiffing, jolly good, what.” 

They think it is funny, but after thiry years it is bloody annoying, ‘cos no one in England actually speaks like that. Which lead me to the realization that in America there is no slang for “Taking the Piss.” Which is exactly what they are doing with the mock accent.

To explain once more to my US readers, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, is “Taking the Piss” out of the American News Media. There is no slang expression for that in America; it is not the same as “Are you kidding?” or “Are you shittin’ me?” There is a subtle difference.

John Cleese and the rest of the Monty Python cast were taking the piss out of the British upper class twit, by exaggerating the upper class accent.

The thing is in England, Piss Taking is an art form, and you don’t always realize it is happening. When you do you ask, “Are you taking the piss?”

Every one laughs, and the piss taking stops. Without the “Piss Taking” expression in America the piss taking continues.

Sometimes amongst strangers I can go with the pretence that I'm Australian. Americans think all Australians are like Crocodile Dundee (Paul Hogan.) or Russell Crow, and it's best not to take the piss out of those people.

Other than that, all I can do is endure it and occasionally write piss taking articles like this one.