Cyclists are idiots.
Actually, that might be generalising a bit. Some cyclists are idiots.
The one currently sitting next to me is, of course, not an idiot. But he has brought an element of cyclist idiocy to my attention.
With the clocks having just changed, it is noticeably darker by 5pm than it was a week ago. The natural reaction for most commuters to this difference is to switch on their lights. But not all.
Some cyclists seem to see themselves as an exception to the rules of the road, particularly when it comes to the use of lights in the dark. Just a few days into dark commuting, I have already seen several unlit bikes on the roads of Leeds, their riders seemingly unaware of the danger they are in.
With bright car headlights filling the streets, a light-free cyclist can be extremely tricky to spot, especially for a motorist turning out of a side street. Focusing on the lights of more distant traffic, the driver can quite easily miss the silent, camouflaged figure rolling down the edge of the road towards him.
It's quite obvious who will come off worse in a fight between a cyclist and a car - so why on earth don't they all put lights on their bikes? For just a few pounds, they can make themselves infinitely safer on the journey home.
The trouble is, anyone stupid or arrogant enough to believe they don't need to use lights like every other road user is unlikely to take kindly to having their idiocy pointed out. I should know - I've tried it.
Well, my other half has. We were driving through Leeds the other day and narrowly missed hitting an invisible cyclist as we pulled out of a junction. Concerned for the man's safety, my other half wound down his window and (quite politely) urged him to get some lights. He was told in no uncertain terms to mind his own business (quite impolitely).
It is, of course, up to the individual to decide how best to equip himself for his journey to work and it is human nature to be defensive if you feel you are being criticised. But when there is a risk of a serious accident, how can you convey this to the cyclist without getting a mouthful of abuse?
Answers on a postcard please.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
As the dust begins to settle...
A few days after what was probably the most controversial Question Time ever, the dust is very slowly beginning to settle.
In some ways, the programme itself was only a small element of the whole fiasco. The surrounding storm was by far more interesting to observe for those who were able to keep some sense of perspective on things.
An appearance on a key political programme on a publicly funded national television station by the leader of a party with extreme views is always going to lead to clashes. There are those who believe such views should not be given such a prominent platform, and I can quite understand why they think that. Among them is Nelson, founder of one of my favourite websites, Speak You're Branes, who blogged on the topic in very strong terms.
Others, like James Dray, said as long as questions were pressed upon him, Grick Niffin would be unable to maintain his attempt at respectability.
On balance, I probably sided with the latter view over the former. As much as I loathe what the party stands for, I couldn't help but feel attempts to smother its pubicity machine would only attract more supporters under the guise of campaigning for free speech.
In the event, Question Time was much as could have been expected. The audience was largely against Niffin and the panelists were also keen to challenge some of his more abhorrent views. David Dimbleby, to his credit, also pressed Niffin for specifics rather than allowing him to get away with vague generalisations about his previous holocaust denial and views on homosexuality.
Naturally, the party has now cried foul and protested their leader had been targeted and bullied. Poor Niffin. Not because he was picked on, but because he was naive enough to think he would get anything less than a severe grilling on such a high-profile edition of the programme. He was clearly not up to the task.
Logged into Twitter as the scene unfolded, I was reassured by the reaction of the vast majority of users. Later, and in the days since, message boards would suggest the balance has seriously shifted. There are hundreds of people claiming that, although they would never have voted PNB before, the targeting of Niffin and the rest of the panel getting off so lightly has changed their minds. Their whole family has been converted.
It makes for depressing reading, if it is taken seriously. Which is exactly why it should not be. Party members have swamped message boards and comment sites making the programme seem far more of a success for them than it ever would be, even if Niffin had expressed himself clearly, fairly and rationally. It is all part of the game-playing and underhand tactics of the party's members. They target any site which mentions the party or leader's name (hence the subtle code I've employed) and simply don't let up.
With one of the party's two MEPs representing Yorkshire, Leeds residents must feel some concern about the attitudes of their neighbours to issues including homosexuality, race, religion and more. The huge number of pro-PNB messages must make members of the mulitcultural communities in Leeds despair. But I have a way to cheer them up: make regular visits to Speak You're Branes and remind yourself that not everyone thinks that way - just the ones who feel the need to flood the internet with their disgusting views.
In some ways, the programme itself was only a small element of the whole fiasco. The surrounding storm was by far more interesting to observe for those who were able to keep some sense of perspective on things.
An appearance on a key political programme on a publicly funded national television station by the leader of a party with extreme views is always going to lead to clashes. There are those who believe such views should not be given such a prominent platform, and I can quite understand why they think that. Among them is Nelson, founder of one of my favourite websites, Speak You're Branes, who blogged on the topic in very strong terms.
Others, like James Dray, said as long as questions were pressed upon him, Grick Niffin would be unable to maintain his attempt at respectability.
On balance, I probably sided with the latter view over the former. As much as I loathe what the party stands for, I couldn't help but feel attempts to smother its pubicity machine would only attract more supporters under the guise of campaigning for free speech.
In the event, Question Time was much as could have been expected. The audience was largely against Niffin and the panelists were also keen to challenge some of his more abhorrent views. David Dimbleby, to his credit, also pressed Niffin for specifics rather than allowing him to get away with vague generalisations about his previous holocaust denial and views on homosexuality.
Naturally, the party has now cried foul and protested their leader had been targeted and bullied. Poor Niffin. Not because he was picked on, but because he was naive enough to think he would get anything less than a severe grilling on such a high-profile edition of the programme. He was clearly not up to the task.
Logged into Twitter as the scene unfolded, I was reassured by the reaction of the vast majority of users. Later, and in the days since, message boards would suggest the balance has seriously shifted. There are hundreds of people claiming that, although they would never have voted PNB before, the targeting of Niffin and the rest of the panel getting off so lightly has changed their minds. Their whole family has been converted.
It makes for depressing reading, if it is taken seriously. Which is exactly why it should not be. Party members have swamped message boards and comment sites making the programme seem far more of a success for them than it ever would be, even if Niffin had expressed himself clearly, fairly and rationally. It is all part of the game-playing and underhand tactics of the party's members. They target any site which mentions the party or leader's name (hence the subtle code I've employed) and simply don't let up.
With one of the party's two MEPs representing Yorkshire, Leeds residents must feel some concern about the attitudes of their neighbours to issues including homosexuality, race, religion and more. The huge number of pro-PNB messages must make members of the mulitcultural communities in Leeds despair. But I have a way to cheer them up: make regular visits to Speak You're Branes and remind yourself that not everyone thinks that way - just the ones who feel the need to flood the internet with their disgusting views.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Review: Up
Preamble:
I am by no means a movie expert, as my friends will attest.
I have never seen many of the classic films which would enable me to understand references to them in popular culture, such as Back to the Future, Pulp Fiction, any of the Star Wars or Bond films or Casablanca. But I know what I like and so, in an attempt to lighten the mood of my blog, here are my thoughts on the new Pixar blockbuster, Up.
Review:
The story begins with a simple premisce: a boy and girl meet and fall in love over a shared urge for adventure. Their life together, while not filled with the kind of excitement they imagined, has plenty of fun and enjoyment, and the pair hold firm onto their dream of one day living at the top of Paradise Falls.
But life has a way of changing our plans for us and, as their savings mount up, the dream is regularly thwarted by unexpected outgoings which keep them firmly rooted in the home they bought as newly-weds.
Many years later, the man is forced into action by the threat of being evicted. He chooses an unusual method to help his dreams take flight - and has some unexpected company along the way.
Up is a very touching animation which had me laughing and crying in equal measure. The saddest moments are mostly lost on the young audience, but the story is no less enjoyable for adults. It is even better for its refusal to rely on the voices of Hollywood A-listers to draw in the crowds. Although there are some notable names - Christopher Plummer and John Ratzenberger (Cliff Clavin of Cheers fame) being the biggest - the film is driven by a strong story and some incredible imagination.
Far from predictable, Up is a breath of fresh air for animation fans growing weary of the formulaic offerings of recent years. Those looking to follow will have to raise their game to match.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Action in the face of inaction
It seems there's something in the water supplying the headquarters of various unions at the moment.
Following several weeks of bin strikes in Leeds and some industrial action at Royal Mail centres elsewhere, things look set to escalate.
Postal workers look likely to extend their strike nationally at the end of the week, while firefighters in South Yorkshire take to the picket lines in a 24-hour strike from tomorrow. Meanwhile, the refuse workers are still out and, despite finally returning to the table, Leeds City Council looks likely to have its improved offer rejected.
But who is to blame for this sudden outpouring of workplace dissatisfaction? Is it simply down to worker greed - the unions firing up individuals to collectively pronounce they deserve more than they are currently getting?
Or is it the companies' fault for stretching, pushing and squeezing their workers beyond all reasonable measure in order to show shareholders the biggest possible profit?
Taking the postal strike as an example, I broke a story last year about postal workers being forced to cover four miles an hour while carrying and delivering their rounds. It was later picked up by national media, showing this was not a policy implemented on a local level. That story first emerged 18 months ago, since when there have been further cuts and closures putting further pressure on the postmen.
And it's not just the problems of the job they have to deal with. As the frontline workers, they bear the brunt of customers' frustrations when, in reality, there is precious little they can do about it. Victoria Cohen put it brilliantly in a piece for the Guardian today.
The postmen's plight is nothing new. Across the country, workers are bearing the brunt of bad management by those whose goal is profit above all else. The newspaper industry is a prime example of this, particularly for local and regional titles. Their owners have pursued impressive figures at the expense of all else - including the quality of their product. Losing sight of what their businesses are all about, they have made editorial staff redundant, put up prices, refused to replace departing staff and piled on a mountain of additional tasks for the already struggling staff to deal with.
The result of this? Morale is at an all-time low. Workers have lost faith in their employers. Sales are plummeting, causing advertising revenue to fall even further than it would have naturally in a recession.
And frontline staff are left trying to explain to readers why there is nobody available to go to the parish council meeting, to review the local amateur dramatics society's latest production, to attend the opening of a new school - or to hold business and council leaders to account for failing to resolve workers' dissatisfaction and avert the threat of strikes.
Following several weeks of bin strikes in Leeds and some industrial action at Royal Mail centres elsewhere, things look set to escalate.
Postal workers look likely to extend their strike nationally at the end of the week, while firefighters in South Yorkshire take to the picket lines in a 24-hour strike from tomorrow. Meanwhile, the refuse workers are still out and, despite finally returning to the table, Leeds City Council looks likely to have its improved offer rejected.
But who is to blame for this sudden outpouring of workplace dissatisfaction? Is it simply down to worker greed - the unions firing up individuals to collectively pronounce they deserve more than they are currently getting?
Or is it the companies' fault for stretching, pushing and squeezing their workers beyond all reasonable measure in order to show shareholders the biggest possible profit?
Taking the postal strike as an example, I broke a story last year about postal workers being forced to cover four miles an hour while carrying and delivering their rounds. It was later picked up by national media, showing this was not a policy implemented on a local level. That story first emerged 18 months ago, since when there have been further cuts and closures putting further pressure on the postmen.
And it's not just the problems of the job they have to deal with. As the frontline workers, they bear the brunt of customers' frustrations when, in reality, there is precious little they can do about it. Victoria Cohen put it brilliantly in a piece for the Guardian today.
The postmen's plight is nothing new. Across the country, workers are bearing the brunt of bad management by those whose goal is profit above all else. The newspaper industry is a prime example of this, particularly for local and regional titles. Their owners have pursued impressive figures at the expense of all else - including the quality of their product. Losing sight of what their businesses are all about, they have made editorial staff redundant, put up prices, refused to replace departing staff and piled on a mountain of additional tasks for the already struggling staff to deal with.
The result of this? Morale is at an all-time low. Workers have lost faith in their employers. Sales are plummeting, causing advertising revenue to fall even further than it would have naturally in a recession.
And frontline staff are left trying to explain to readers why there is nobody available to go to the parish council meeting, to review the local amateur dramatics society's latest production, to attend the opening of a new school - or to hold business and council leaders to account for failing to resolve workers' dissatisfaction and avert the threat of strikes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
