CYCLIST PIZZA FOR DINNER DEAR
DDC wants to know:
Those coppers are mighty good at staking out the same road everyday. I had to dodge into the crapmarket to avoid them yesterday. It is some nonsense about all those cyclists I knocked into the river the other week. Luckily, no-one saw my number plate because a bright pink cycling top got caught over it. If these guys aren't closet transvestites then my name isn't DDC.
BT3 recons that the bright pink tops are to ensure that motorists can see them, but I think it might be safer if I didn't see them. Anyones else get bored of cyclists wingeing about cyclists' rights and bad drivers and road conditions? I'm not against cyclists per se, just certain members of that group who take the piss. I'm prepared to be reasonable about this.
The right to use the road - no probems. It is a pretty wide track and there is usually enough space for two cars and two bikes.
The right to use bike, road and umbrella symultaneously - yes problems. The track is not wide enough for you to weave in and out, holding the umbrella in variable winds on a busy road. I'm sorry but in these circumstances you have to be aware of the fact that rain is not dangerous whilst your alternative is.
I'm sure that most of you cyclists out there are saying, "I never do that." Right enough, most of us drivers don't pull out in front of cyclists so now we are both on high ground, morally speaking, so let's not take it for granted that cyclists are good and drivers bad.
The right to use the road - yes
The right to use the road and the pavement intermittently - No. Here is the procedure:
- You cycle along the pavement.
- The dirvers see you and dismiss you as no immediate risk because you are on the pavement on the opposite side of the road.
- Driver procedes as normal, occasionally checking his mirrors and potential hazards / hold-ups.
- The cyclist shoots across in front, the cyclist joins the flow of traffic and the driver brakes a little. He thinks, "Stupid twat".
This is what happens most times, varying slightly with the manouvre involved and the level of profanity of the driver. Ok, so the driver doesn't see the cyclist, doesn't brake but does notice the fucker once he goes under the wheels. Whose fault? Who gets the blame, though?
I could keep going with tales of cyclists going through red lights, cyclists getting pssed and riding their bike home, cyclists on the roads with their dogs on leads, cyclists shooting up the inside of moving traffic.
Here is the plan - you stick to the rules and so will we. If the rule book goes out of the window then it is every man for himself and my car is dark red so I am sure i won't be able to see the blood too clearly, eh?
BT3 scratches an ongoing itch:Clearly the funniest thing you've written here is: "I'm prepared to be reasonable about this." When? Where? And other such questions. The rest has some worthwhile recommendations that even the goofiest looking cyclist should understand.
Then there are these elements: You call cyclists closet transvestites; imply that they're better off - with regards to their safety - indoors; admit to knocking over an unsubstantiated number of them and such and such. While I find it has caused quite a few triggers to go off in my own psyche, being the push-ya-bike-with-ya-feet model citizen and former recipient of a front bumper through my leg that I am, I'm somewhere between crushed and resolute in my support of getting cyclists out of harm's way.
DDC, I'd be inclined to disagree with you had this post been fingered a decade ago. You know that. Scooby Doo theme. I was youthful [Revelations 38:187] and a heterosexually overcharged, chunky thighed, protruding calved, shaven [bar goatee], tanned man cursing atop his expensive bike as I made my way through the Adelaide Hills while drivers of all kinds of permutated motor vehicular propulsion sped past.
Forward to now, if you don't mind: I don't give a rat's shrivelled butthole on the end of a wooden skewer about the rights of cyclists, nor their perpetual pleading for a fair go, at least not if they're the cause of a chaotic metal based human sandwich. In the next two paragraphs I will address the two prime causes of car / bicycle crashes: people who drive cars and people who ride bicycles.
Driving is fraught with danger. We established long ago that any yin yang over a certain age may sit for a written and then physical driving test. No front page beckoning there. We also established, off the record, that the vast majority of those who sit the exam will pass. It's a proven fact that generating new drivers keeps insurance companies and private medical insurers afloat, enabling the system's pistons to generate steady forward motion. Still no eye contact from the Editor or anyone in the print room. If it's beginning to sound predictible it's probably because it is. Getting a driver's licence is a procedure, and not a difficult one at that.
But when you take a squiz at the other side of the coin, where one could rationally expect to see similar structure in ensuring kids know what's required in order to become proud owners of leg-powered vehicles, the situation gets murky. A licence is immaterial where hopping onto a bicycle is concerned and rules that apply to motor vehicles on public roads may or may not be taught by parents. I'm leaning on the may not be side of the fence with this one because parents usually tell kids to stay off the road with a justification along the lines of 'or you'll get killed' without delving into complex explanations.
It's here that habits form and eventually mature into problems such as those you've described, DDC. Using a mobile phone and an umbrella while riding a bicycle? Poke my urethra with a corkscrew and label me ticked-off! It's preposterous to think that any certified sane driver wouldn't veer into the slimy little turdeater to thrust homeward the point that an act so devoid of common sense shall not be permitted to go unpunished. There are single celled organisms in France with more common sense than that and I know that as a proud father of three, if one of my kids did anything remotely as numbskulled as that I'd be out in the middle of the road faster than Mighty Mouse on speed forming a single person barrier to enable the driver on the receiving end of such shenanigans to act as nature intended; knock 'em down and don't let 'em get back up.
It may sound radical, possibly even predetermined, but I think that if a few or perhaps three-hundred or so instances such as what I've described occurred in every country for the span of a few years, there'd be no doubt about the role of cyclists in the overall scheme of public road use.
As far as I'm concerned, the picture looks a little something like this:
1. Bikes belong on roads, not footpaths.
2. Under no circumstance should cyclists use mobile phones whilst in motion.
3. Umbrellas and bikes, much like the use of bikes following consumption of alcohol, do not mix.
4. Roads are too narrow and ought to be widened. I'm all for knocking down as many houses as possible to enable this to happen because I believe anyone living on a main road is fucked in the head anyway. I strongly believe there wouldn't be much argument from main road dwellers that couldn't be eradicated with mace or any other potent chemical. [This will be my platform for running for local government when the time is right, by the way].
5. Penultimately, but certainly not leastly, kids - no matter what age - should be aware of road rules before they even dare ride on one. I cannot stress this point enough, DDC, because the very nature of road utopia hinges on this. If your child is six and s/he doesn't know the road rules then get him / her off the fucking road. They don't belong there no matter what misconception you're fiddling with.
6. A road is for those who understand it's a privilege and not playground.
Having said that, admittedly, there's nothing that gives me more of a free thrill than to ride my pushbike home after a night on the slop and the mystic smoke. If you've seen footage of how the Tour de France riders pee on the go you'd agree that it's quite a sight to behold. Well, that ain't nothing, mate. I crap on the go when required, especially when the browns turn to liquid, and I've never dropped or gushed on myself. Not once. Mind you I've turned more than my share of heads and caused countless accidents but it's all fucking funny when you're on the other end and not considered responsible for any likely accident, innit? Ai?
IS THIS YOUR IDEA OF A HOLIDAY 2?
DDC knows that he shouldn't listen to other peoples' conversations but feels that all moral considerations probably didn't make it through customs:
We were sat in a restaurant in another one of Mrs. DCs food-selection nightmares. I had ordered something delicious and mouth watering, whilst Mrs DC has got something so spicy the spoon melted when called upon to dispense said curry. Ho hum, another noble sacrifice from DDC and Mrs. DC got to eat what I had ordered. "No, don't worry darling, I wasn't that fond of my ring-piece anyway. Anyway, I only said 'ask for a mild one' once or twice."
As I was forcing down spoonfuls of magma and the better half was much more happily eating my food, a German walked in with his, for want of a better word, doxy. Alas, just as English is the international language of business, it is also the international language of sleaze. Just like in the victorian times but on a global scale. I don't actually know that the guy was German, but I am filling-in the blanks, as it were.
The atmosphere between them was really quite exquisitely frosty. Neither said a word until well after they had sat down and been looking through the menus for a while. I consider myself a master at spotting these things. The dropping of the bags on the floor was a clue. The speed of page-turning, whap-whap-whap, was another.
German filanderer: So I will be going back to Germany tomorow. (back to my wife and family)
Thai Wench: Yes, I know. You will be back in November? (with your wallet?)
GF: Yes. I will be missing you. (in bed)
TW: I will be waiting. (reluctantly, for the money)
At this point their voices dropped to
sotto level and we were mercifully spared the obviously grizzly details of some conversation, in which she wanted some money and he was damned if he was going to give it to her. There was a thin layer of civility smeared onto the top of the conversation. I have no grounds at all for this assumption, but I think she wanted money for her Grandmothers hip opperation or something equally transparent.
Once again, the conversation rose to the surface, like a stubborn floater.
GF: I've had enough!
TW: I see (I've wasted the morning when I could have been out with Francois)
GF: I've had enough of this chicken.
Up to this point, I had been mildly disgusted with both of them. They had seemed caught up in some kind of ritualistic dance. He was just there for the sex and she was just there for the money. At this point I started to get the impresion that he was just playing with her. I began feeling a bit more for the woman.
Their voices dropped like a pair of hyper-compacted potato-turds (everyone knows that potatoes give the healthiest stools) and we could hear no more. A glance in the mirror showed that the Thai Wench was most likely in anger mode 47. This is composed of rapid-fire questions and most usually employed by teachers and parents. It might typically run along the lines of: "Who do you think you are? What do think you're doing? Do you think I am going to let you do this? What would your mother say?"
The German, like a true cock-sucker, backed down once she got him on the back foot. I couldn't beieve what I was hearing. On the one hand he was cracking cruel jokes about dumping her and on the other he was allowing himself to be bullied into whatever was going on now.
GF: So I am going to the airport now. (thank god)
TW: And I am going home. (likewise)
GF: I will give you the money for the taxi next time. (in your dreams)
TW: OK. (I won't hold my breath)
GF: Bill please!
They stood up, split the bill and left. I was left to ponder the conversation whilst translating for Mrs. DC. My bowels were already rumbling premonitorily.
The whole thing remains one of the strangest conversations I have ever heard. It is more or less verbatim, though I tidied up the grammar and pronunciation a bit. The parentheses are mine, more to give you a clue as to the way the things were said than anything else. This was my first glimpse into the murky life of what emerged to be what Morissey might describe as an international playboy, though an ageing one.
The relationship was obviously not purely financial. Both seemed to know know that he might or might not be back at some point but neither wanted to admit it. What was going on? Any ideas?