Thursday, July 28, 2005
Only the briefest of updates today, but I couldn't leave without mentioning our weekend destination. We are traveling to a Wild West theme park in darkest Cornwall to attend the Tapestry Goes West music festival. We went last year, so we (think we) know what to expect this time around. Except that maybe the entire place will be flooded out after this week's torrential downpours. I'll make a snorkel out of paper towel rolls just in case. Expect a detailed report next week (and I mean it this time, not like those other detailed reports which haven't quite materialized).
Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:38:27 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Wednesday, July 27, 2005
As promised yesterday, here are all the photos from my cycle commute to work this morning:
Caption 1: It's raining. And chilly. So I decided not to take the camera on my cycle commute.
Caption 2: I decided not to take the cycle either.
Caption 3: So why am I bothering to write captions for nonexistent photos of a nonexistent journey? Hmmm I'll have to think about that one.

One of the disadvantages of being close to several useful bus routes is that it's very easy to take the lazy way out and leave the bike behind. It adds about 20 minutes to my commuting time, but gives me a chance to read. Those of you who may think my reading choices are unusual, individualistic or somehow out of the mainstream will be very disappointed to learn that I am following a massive public trend with my current choice of reading material. Yes, I have joined in the fad and am now reading Trilby by George du Maurier (OK, I'm a little behind the bleeding edge of this fad which had its heyday nearly 100 years ago, but I'm a follower not a leader). As for reading it, well, it's certainly a product of its time: it's set in Paris and chock full of clever French bons mots, well, even entire conversations that are not entirely transparent to a dullard/simpleton reader who does not read French (surely the sign of an inferior education). But the real delight is being introduced to the original Svengali, whose name has of course entered the English lexicon " to designate one who exercises a controlling or mesmeric influence on another, freq. for some sinister purpose." (Oxford English Dictionary). But he is introduced in a very subtle manner which gives no clues whatsoever that he may have sinister motives:

First, a tall bony individual of any age between thirty and forty-five, of Jewish aspect, wll-featured but sinister. He was very shabby and dirty, and wore a red béret and a large velveteen cloak, with a big metal clasp at the collar. His thick heavy, languid lustreless black hair fell down behind his ears on to his shoulders, in that musician-like way that is so offensive to the normal Englishman. He had bold, brilliant black eyes, with long heavy lids, a thin, sallow face, and a beard of burnt-up black, which grew almost from under his eyelids, and over it his moustache, a shade lighter, fell in two long spiral twists. He went by the name Svengali, and spoke fluent French with a German accent and humourous German twists and idioms, and his voice was very thin and mean and harsh, and often broke into a disagreeable falsetto.

There is no shortage of Svengali figures in the news: GhanaWeb describes Karl Rove as Bush's Svengali (and wishes for even half-a-Rove behind Ghana's President Kufuor, perhaps missing the "sinister" implications of the term), and many other news or "news" articles use the term in the same contexts. Other Svengalis appear (like the original Svengali) in the music business (Suge Knight to Snoop Dogg, Alanis Morissette's "producer/collaborator/svengali" Glenn Ballard, Dr. Dre [who I believe is NOT a real DOCTOR!] to The Game, and numerous others). Maybe some day I too will become a Svengali, but first I'll need a velveteen cloak and a bad dye job.
bike | read
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:03:11 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Tuesday, July 26, 2005
With the recent events in London, massive numbers of commuters have dusted off their old bicycles and taken to the streets. This will eventually be a good thing for those who keep at it, but while we wait for the wheat to be separated from the chaff, there's a lot of irritation to be found from those who have not yet learned the simple rules of the road (well, maybe not that simple). My favorite this week was a young gentleman on a shuddering rattletrap, swerving back and forth in front of a large truck (perhaps the swerving was due to the loud music coming from his headphones, or maybe from the lack of balance as he was using one hand to write a text message). So what is it like to commute by bicycle in London? A friend of mine has recently posted a series of photos showing his own morning commute (check them out here), and it's inspired me to do the same. So that's my plan for tomorrow. I will of course be forced to break a Highway Code or three in the process, but that's a long-term challenge.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:23:04 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Friday, July 22, 2005
In a previous entry I highlighted the limited number of London bus routes served by the classic Routemaster buses with a Routemaster-only bus map of London. Today is the last day for two more routes, 14 and 22 (some nice pictures at Casino Avenue (sorry, I'm not sure how to link to the exact post)). So I thought I should update my Routemaster-only bus map to indicate this change. Here's where you can get in London by Routemaster bus:

Larger image
(Please click on thumbnail for a very large version).

Friday, July 22, 2005 3:18:22 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
Today's journey to work was much easier due to what seemed like a substantially reduced amount of road traffic. Probably this was related to yesterday's attempted bombings; people have chosen to "work" from home or simply start the weekend a day early. My department looks like a ghost town even relative to a normal summer Friday. Anyway this seemed an ideal situation to attempt my legal cycle ride to work (see my previous two entries). Although I previously decided to take the conservative approach when it comes to "crossing" zebra crossings, and dismount and walk the bike across them (or to avoid them), it turns out that I did not need to do so, as Code 64 (do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing) is actually listed under a heading "Crossing the road". Therefore I need not be concerned with this Code as I do not use such crossings to cross roads. Careful reading of the Code suggests that not all violations are prosecutable (only those which include the words MUST or MUST NOT) but the challenge remains.

Anyway, to today's journey. Rather than bore you with the details of all the legal close calls (I'll bore you with something else), I'll jump right to the point of failure, which relates to overtaking (covered in Codes 138-145)1. If there is sufficient room on the roadway (and quite often there is), and if there is no marked cycle path, accepted practice is for bicyclists to remain on the left side of the road surface and let motor traffic proceed on the right. Often, however, the motor traffic backs up but the bike space remains open, letting me whiz right by the stopped traffic (one of the major benefits of cycling). But overtaking a vehicle on the left side is permitted only under specific circumstances. The first is definitely not relevant to my situation: "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right"; the second is more of a possibility: "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left." As a cyclist traveling on the left side of the road surface, I'm not exactly in a lane, and definitely not in a queue. However, traffic was moving slowly in queues (in the right lane), therefore I was entitled to remain in the left lane and overtake from that side (as long as I did not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left, code 57). Unfortunately I didn't have the Highway Code at hand, so I chose instead to pass (carefully and considerately) between two of the cars and overtake them on the right side, failing to notice the solid white road marking ("no overtaking", like the solid yellow line in the US). When the traffic queue started moving, I joined the flow but quickly came to a traffic signal where I foolishly stopped beyond the stop line (many feet short of the intersection itself -- short enough that two cars were ahead of it). About 10 minutes' ride into a 25-minute journey (or longer under "following the code" conditions), and another failure. But now that I know the Code a lot better, I'm ready to face the challenge again on my ride home, and I think I'll stop writing about it until I succeed.

1I am very pleased to note that code 139 requires that drivers give cyclists "at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking". Of course they do not, but it's good to see official recognition of cyclists' road space.
Friday, July 22, 2005 11:12:40 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, July 21, 2005
I decided to take on the "Ride Legal" challenge on my way home, keeping the Code in mind throughout (see yesterday's post for details). The bicycle was still not fitted with reflectors (Code 46) so the challenge was already impossible, but I decided to try it out anyway to assess its difficulty. As it turned out I failed at the very beginning: intentionally respecting Code 54 (not cycling on a pavement) I moved the bike onto the street before mounting it (under the glow of a red traffic signal). Unfortunately I failed to notice that I was several feet in front of the stop line, in apparent violation of Code 55 (crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red). However as I did not actually pass the stop line, but entered the road beyond it, I considered this a technical "pass". I waited for the light to turn green, signaled my intentions to turn right (safely, carefully and considerately [Code 53]) into a designated cycle lane (Code 49). But at the next intersection the traffic signal was red, so I took one foot from the pedal and stopped (well behind the line, in a queue of other cyclists). Keeping both feet on the pedals is part of Code 51, so by touching the ground I may have failed the challenge. Here I argue that the pedal rule (as well as the other parts of Code 51) applies to the act of riding itself, and that stopping is an interruption in riding and as such not subject to Code 51 (i.e. it is no longer required to keep both hands on the handlebars and both feet on the pedals).

When the light turned green I proceeded, legally passing a couple of painfully-slow cyclists but remaining within the cycle lane. But an obstacle loomed at the next intersection: an ambulance occupied most of the cycle path. Most cyclists gave it a wide berth (even passing through gaps in the barrier between the cycle path and the main road) but I rode very close to the ambulance, again observing Code 49 by remaining in the cycle lane (as it was possible to do so). The forward path was blocked by construction barriers: ordinarily I would have gone straight anyway as the barriers are clearly in place to block four-wheel traffic (the cycle lane is a clear and open path despite the construction), but there was no signage permitting cycles. Therefore I signaled my intentions and turned left, followed by another signal and a right turn1, after which I planned to turn left and rejoin my original path (rather than the alternate route which involves negotiating the nasty snarl of traffic at Kings Cross station).

Unfortunately I had forgotten that a zebra crossing was between me and my desired turning (the next one). There were no pedestrians crossing, but according to Code 64, I should apparently dismount and wheel my cycle across. Unfortunately I was at the head of a string of cycle traffic (some following me very closely), with a line of four-wheelers passing as well, so I thought it would be dangerous to suddenly stop and dismount, so I zoomed right through. No question, I had violated Code 64 and thus failed the challenge. Within five minutes, no less. Despondent, I rode the rest of the way home without obeying the Codes, riding through at least eight more zebra crossings, stopping in front of no fewer than six stop lines2, continuing through a very stale yellow light as it turned red, riding outside a cycle lane (which looked more like the lunar surface than anything someone should be required to ride on), failing to signal my intentions on frequent occasions (never mind the countless times I took a hand off the handlebars). Today I was so depressed about the likelihood of meeting the challenge that I took a bus to work instead of cycling.3

Since then, thought, it's occurred to me that I may be misinterpreting the Highway Code thanks to ambiguity in the English preposition "across". The sentence "Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing." (henceforth, PPZC) could be interpreted in several different ways. Putting aside those interpretations which involve actual contact with animals, this sentence could refer to crossing the PPZC itself (perpendicular to the path of the pedestrians who would use the PPZC), or to crossing the road using the PPZC (parallel to the pedestrian path). The Oxford English Dictionary's entries for "across" seem to favor the former: "1. Direction: In a direction forming a cross with, or transverse to; a. at right angles with. b. at any angle with; sideways or obliquely against. 2. Motion: From side to side of; quite through, over, in any direction except lengthwise." Therefore I think the challenge still must stand as is, at least concerning PPZCs. I think my best hope is to choose a route with a minimum of PPZCs; unfortunately my feeling is that this coincides with the greatest amount of road traffic.

1I should note here for the reader unfamiliar with London/UK traffic management practices that stop signs are virtually unheard of; unless there is a traffic signal every intersection is a "yield" situation, either in the form of a roundabout (especially common where there might be a four-way-stop in the US), or in the form of pavement markings which indicate that traffic from one direction must yield. This makes it much easier to travel without stopping (and without disregarding traffic signs).

2Some intersections have "advanced cycle stopping zones" which are in front of the stop lines, and in which cycles are expressly permitted to wait according to the Highway Code. However, these are nearly always fully occupied by four-wheelers. Stopping behind a stop line where these zones are not present is not only a good way to be shouted at by other cyclists (and motorcyclists) whose path closer to the intersection is being obstructed, but also a good way to be squeezed out if the first vehicle in line is planning to make a left turn (and most likely has crept up past the line before the light has gone green). Besides, going past the line is a deeply-ingrained habit for me, it'll be very hard to follow this one.

3Or I may have decided to leave the bike behind because after work I am going to a gig and would rather not leave the bike on Oxford Street where it's very likely to be stolen no matter how well it's locked. I could of course leave it overnight at work, but then I'd have to take the bus the next day.
Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:44:13 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Be sure to visit all the options under "Configuration" in the Admin Menu Bar above. There are 16 themes to choose from, and you can also create your own.

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:00:00 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, July 19, 2005
It's time to announce the official awards for stupidity and idiocy. My good friend Google has been pressed into service to determine the winners. The domains of stupidity and idiocy fall into three categories: WORLD, UNIVERSE and "EVER", and the winner is whichever entity chosen by Google as the top search result for sentences of the form "* is the (stupidest person/biggest idiot) (in the (world/universe)/ever)". Let the following serve as benchmarks of stupidity/idiocy against which we can all measure our own stupid or idiotic acts.

Stupidest Person in the World
Mark David [Chapman], murderer of John Lennon. From John Lennon memorial page (HK). You may think you're stupid for locking your keys in the house, but at least you didn't murder any of the Beatles (there are still two left if you want to try).

Stupidest Person in the Universe
"Richard": "well i guess that is about it for this entry besides that fact that Richard is the stupidest person in the universe... he says that he didnt post the GOD messages on melissas xanga but yet he says he posted the last one that means he posted them all because the times is 1 minute btwn the entrys of Richard and GOD so it is obvious...". From xanga of "Nightfoenix" aka "xskaterchicx" (don't follow the link unless you are a masochist). I suspect M.D. Chapman would have done something even more stupid than posting the GOD messages, but he's still imprisoned as far as I know.

Stupidest Person Ever
This award goes to Bam Margera famous skater-boarder and star of intellectual fare such as Jackass and Viva La Bam. Mr. Margera is also "the worst skater ever.... his show viva la bam is dumb and every1 that has met him thinks hes a jerk and when like little kids ask him for his autograph he will be like screw u and all the little kids look up to him i really think that no shops or websites should should support and sell bams products cause hes a jerk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". From a letter to CCS Connect. It clearly takes a concerted effort to be the stupidest person ever.

Biggest Idiot in the World
Guy who wrote the article "Is your son a computer hackor" [sic] on Adequacy.org. Unfortunately certain posters on a techimo.com forum didn't seem to realize the article was a joke, so perhaps this title should remain vacant for the moment.

Biggest Idiot in the Universe
Steve Lyons for his book "Doctor Who: The Witch Hunters" (The TARDIS arrives in Salem Village, Massachusetts, 1692....). According to reviewer Finn Clark, "no Doctor Who book has ever taken me this long to read... Even if you personally accept this story's rationalisation of a steerable TARDIS, you've got to accept that it's startlingly atypical for the period....." and concludes "Steve Lyons is the biggest idiot in the universe to try to write a sequel to The Crucible. I've seen it done properly, and only about a year ago. No way could he have lived up to that. Ever, ever, ever.". This suggests that anyone could become the biggest idiot in the universe simply by trying to write a sequel to The Crucible. Here's my effort: "Parris comes back to Salem after all and becomes a successful businessman. The end." Maybe I'll win next year's competition.

Biggest Idiot Ever
Apaprently an inside joke on Baseball Think Factory referring to a forum troll named "Randal" who posted the question "Are you the biggest idiot ever?" on multiple discussion threads. Apparently taken from the animated series "Clerks", according to the Baseball Think Factory's wiki. But as no "biggest idiot ever" has actually been identified, this title must remain vacant.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:51:14 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, July 18, 2005
This weekend the Dunces took an excursion to Pitzhanger Manor House, after seeing a brief mention in this week's Time Out.

Pitzhanger Manor House

It was designed as a country home by architect John Soane, whose London house (Sir John Soane's Museum in Lincoln's Inn Fields) is perhaps my favorite museum at the moment. The latter is a fascinating combination of architectural design features (Soane was not afraid to knock down and rebuild in his preferred style) and an impressive collection shoehorned into every conceivable space. The preservation of its appearance, contents and general state (as well as its accessibility to the public) were preserved through an act of Parliament negotiated by Soane before his death. Pitzhanger Manor, on the other hand, was not similarly preserved. Soane bought it in 1800 and completed his renovations (tear down most everything and rebuild it entirely) in 1804; for the next six years the family used it as a weekend country retreat before selling it on (from Ealing history site). Subsequent residents included the four spinster daughters of former Prime Minister Spencer Perceval (1843-?) before it was sold to the Ealing council in 1901 for use as a library (and doubtless renovated many, many times by its different residents). In 1985 the library moved to a new location and the council began restoration of the house to reflect its appearance in Soane's time. But because the collections have been moved to Soane's museum in Lincoln's Inn Fields, the focus here is more upon the architecture and design. It's an excellent companion to Soane's museum, which contains many similar architectural features but in which the focus is upon the items he collected, which are displayed on (under, against) every surface (and sometimes hidden behind other items). After seeing the clutter of the collection, it's fascinating to go to Pitzhanger and see the design features essentially on their own (rooms contain basic period furnishings but virtually none of Soane's collections or personal effects). Our next Soane-themed visit will have to be Moggerhanger House near Biggleswade, a house designed by Soane for the director of the Bank of England, which has only very recently reopened following extensive restoration work.

After visiting Pitzhanger House we had an excellent dinner at Taqueria, a new Mexican restaurant in west London which seems to go a long way toward answering concerns about the dire lack of authentic (and/or interesting) Mexican food in London (and we're not the only ones to complain). It's a different take on Mexican than I'm familiar with, more like tapas than anything else. I've already exceeded my allotted writing time so let me just say briefly, YUM.
Monday, July 18, 2005 1:52:37 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, July 15, 2005
As someone with perhaps more than my share of obsessive-compulsive behavior patterns1, I have always engaged in various informal personal challenges when it comes from getting from one place to another. In my younger years these typically revolved around exact routine and/or counting. For example, one long-running challenge was to make the number of steps in my walk from home to school an exact power of four. There were numerous rules to this challenge: The starting and ending points were exactly determined (threshold of the front door of home, threshold of the school door). I also had to proceed with a (fairly) uniform stride throughout (no giant steps or baby steps to artifically reach a target), although this rule was somewhat flexible in that I could walk faster or slower (but naturally so) in order to maintain a uniform stride. I also had to proceed "directly", rather than taking any detours solely for the purpose of adding to the step count (I allowed myself to select the angle at which I crossed streets, but in practice the route only allowed one such decision as it was a fairly straight shot). Finally (and perhaps most importantly) I had to keep the challenge secret from others. That wasn't so hard; my attention to walking may have been noticed, but it was easily disguised as a (childish, I thought) attention to avoiding stepping on cracks (which, by the way, offered an excellent means of assessing and controlling stride length). Sadly I have no memory of how well I did (even though I remember keeping track of my day-to-day performance on graph paper), but I'm sure I did quite well.

Nowadays, though, I'm very different. I do occasionally count my steps, but not for personal challenges! Instead it provides a good answer to questions like "which shop is closer?" and "exactly how much further is it to walk than to take the bus?" and "how many steps is it to the pub?" (errrrr, scratch that last one). But I do occasionally participate in challenges like those of my youth, and I'm happy to say that I completed one today. This challenge is bicycle-related and can be described very simply: Ride to work without touching a foot to the ground. Of course there are many fine-grained details: it's ok to MOMENTARILY come to a stop and balance, but only MOMENTARILY. Trackstands (and their ilk) are considered cheating. It's also not acceptable to ride in circles or loop back and forth to wait for a gap in traffic, and definitely not acceptable to do things like riding up onto the pavement (sidewalk) to avoid a line of traffic, a stopped vehicle, a traffic signal, etc.). Due to the many different reasonable paths from home to work, however, I did allow myself to take alternative routes to achieve this challenge (it's best to avoid high-traffic routes unless they have few traffic signals, definitely wise to avoid areas with lots of pedestrians, and the fewer crossings of major streets the better). Well, today I completed the challenge for the first time from my current residence (even though I still needed to take several blocks' detour around police cordons). This means I can lay the challenge to rest, at least until I live somewhere else. It's pointless to consider more difficult alternatives (getting to work without braking? Far too dangerous and practically impossible; I braked at least thirty times on my way here) so I have a feeling of (very minor) success.

1Pulling up my knee-length tube socks until the tops frayed to death, pushing up my glasses continuously, counting for the sake of counting, creating histograms of surnames by frequency in the telephone book, memorizing from the (1976) Guinness Book of World Records, and many more. Good thing I married a "checker" and not a "counter".
Friday, July 15, 2005 12:22:12 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  | 
 Thursday, July 14, 2005
...in my last entry when I said that the journalists seemed to have moved on. I was just looking in the wrong place and at the wrong time. When I left work, I could hardly move for the crush of journalists. Well, not exactly, but there were an awful lot of them scrambling to get good spots for their live reports on the evening news. Mostly British and European although I didn't exactly stop to ask (I was busy making shouting noises at people who were aimlessly wandering into the path of my bike with ladders, tripods and the like). The police cordon has shrunk yet again, although I still have to go a few blocks out of my way to get home.

As I write this it's approaching the moment when, one week ago, the bus explosion happened. I was rather surprised not to see more cameras and crews converging on the area to note the moment. Probably, though, I was just at the wrong place at the right time. I rode past the Kings Cross area on my way in, and it seemed like business as usual (hurrying commuters, befuddled tourists, near-gridlock), but for a few minor differences (police everywhere, media vehicles parked in every back road I could see). I didn't actually see any journalists in action, so maybe they were undercover (or more likely I'd missed the rush by arriving later than the precise moment ["Exactly one week ago, London's Olympic celebration was shattered forever...", "I am here live at the scene, well not exactly the scene, but the scene out of the tunnel, up the escalators, out of the station, across the street and over the way, from where one of the bombs exploded...", and so on]). Despite wandering on foot with my bike in hand (or at least, guiding my bike with my hand), and trying to look "informed" I was not interviewed or even journalistically approached (I was asked for directions a couple of times. Just keep going that way/immer geradeaus).
Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:52:45 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Wednesday, July 13, 2005
As the days pass, the cordons around my workplace become fewer and fewer, gradually narrowing down to only a block or so around the site of the bus explosion (and the entrance to Russell Street tube station). A few police officers are hanging around each one, remarkably patient at having to answer the same few questions over and over and over and over. Here are the answers in case you'd like to play at police:

I'm sorry, you can't go through there.
I'm sorry, Russell Square station is shut.
No, I don't know when it will re-open.
Just keep walking that way to Holborn.
Go around that way, take the first left you can, then left on the Euston Road to Euston station.
Go around that way, take the first right you can, then right on the Euston Road to Euston station.
Go around that way, take the first left you can, then right on the Euston Road to Kings Cross.
The nearest (taxi/bus) is a few minutes' walk that way (point in any direction other than through a cordon).

There are very few journalists now at the sites immediately around my office; I suspect many of them have bolted for Luton or Leeds (or anywhere else that starts with L) now that this area is old news. Doubtless there are still a lot around Kings Cross which lends a good scene for a stand-up on the evening news. I'll go around that way on my way home to see. Rumor has it they're drinking the local pubs dry, although thirsty local workers and gawkers may also be playing a part.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:17:35 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, July 11, 2005
It's a busy day today (totally back to normal as far as work is concerned) so I don't have time to write much. I wasn't going to write anything at all but this changed my mind. I was walking my bike along the pavements near Euston Station (too gridlocked to ride at that point, and those who ride their cycles on pavements [US = "sidewalks"] are idiots) and was approached by someone from BBC radio (at least that's what he said). He asked me "After the events of last week do you find you're cycling more?" I replied that no, I cycle every day1, and that I think everyone should cycle more, so he wasn't interested in talking to me any more. I'm sure he found someone, and I can only imagine the story he ended up with. After the break, (oh yeah, if it's BBC there won't be a break) meet a terrified commuter who took to the pushbike to avoid public transport hell, and met a hell of his own on the snarled streets of London. Sigh. Or maybe he was just looking for someone whose commute was altered by the closure of the Piccadilly line. That could have been me except these days I prefer to take the bus if I'm not on the bike.

1 Not exactly true as I will accept many excuses to leave the bike behind.

A side note, a reader of one of my previous posts reported being "disappointed ... in that there isn't a British term for speed bump. That seems like the quintessential American term that could be improved by a spot of the Queen's English." I must have forgotten to take my clever pill that day, for there is in fact a truly British term for a speed bump: "sleeping policeman". I was aware of this term but have never heard it used. But it's in the UK lexicon, at least enough to warrant a (side) entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (under "sleeping" and "policeman", A person or object regarded as a deterrent or obstacle. In phr. sleeping policeman: a ramp in the road intended to jolt a moving motor vehicle, thereby encouraging motorists to reduce their speed.).
Monday, July 11, 2005 2:20:40 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 
 Friday, July 08, 2005
After finishing off yesterday's entry, I decided to make a move and head for home. Leaving the area I had to pass through three or four police cordons which were letting people out but not in. Except for the extremely large number of journalists who were within the second or third circle. I was briefly interviewed by one of them as I wheeled my bike under the police tape, but as I didn't have much to say and didn't look suitably disheveled (I did look somewhat disheveled but that is my everyday appearance), it's extremely unlikely that I'll appear in the news as a result ("Coming up after the break, meet the cycling psycholinguist who heard a boom and then browsed the web looking for news!!"). By the time I got to Mrs. Dunce's office the scene had changed -- the roads that remained open were jammed with traffic, and a swarm of pedestrians was headed north. We joined the walkers for the 5.2-mile trek (at least according to Multimap's route planner). Some buses were running from Camden Town, but we decided not to bother (I had my bike, Mrs. Dunce wasn't interested in fighting the crowds, and it was sunny but cool). Rather than stay in the swarm, we wandered off the main roads and took a more residential approach through the back streets (4 bedroom house for sale, in need of modernisation, Camden Borders, £525,000). Eventually (just under an hour and a half) we got home, and flopped down on the couch in front of the television.

Today's travel news suggested that travel into London was ok, except for the affected tube lines, so we decided to come in as usual (well, not entirely as usual as we took our sweet time getting out of bed and getting ready). I biked in without incident... until I came to the affected area within a block of my workplace (and just by the site of the bus explosion). Streets were still cordoned off, and all traffic was diverted around (including foot and cycle traffic). The picture below indicates my route to work (marked in green, starting on the right side of the image).



I was first turned back as I approached the nearest intersection to the bus investigation site, proceeded around until I reached the (Quaker) Friends House where I was able to cut through. I approached my department again from the west, coming within spitting distance before I was turned away again. The officer suggested that entry was being permitted from the south, so that's where I went. Denied entry at the top left corner of Russell Square, then once again at the top right corner (exhausting all possibilities by road). Finally I retraced my steps back around Russell Square to the rear of the Institute of Education. I went in through the back door (with my bike), exited through the front door and zipped right into my building. After all that, I find that some of my cow-orkers and collie-gues got in without incident. Maybe I looked like a wild-eyed loony (fair enough) or perhaps they were intimidated by my bike. And that's where I am now.
bike | travel
Friday, July 08, 2005 10:13:48 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Thursday, July 07, 2005
I am here at work just around the corner from the bus explosion on Tavistock Square. The area is completely cordoned off and eerily silent except for passing ambulances on occasion. Other folks who came to work late didn't manage to get here, being turned away at Holborn (for example). It's hard to know much about what's going on, I finally managed to catch an online radio station (first Resonance FM, then LBC once Resonance started playing music; everything else is overloaded) but most of my time is assuring everyone I know that I'm ok. Phone contact is irregular, I guess because the lines are overloaded and/or limited for security/emergency purposes

This morning I took a #253 bus to get here, when it stopped at Euston station there had already been some trouble as the station was being evacuated and vans full of police officers in an extremely frantic state zooming in the direction of Kings Cross station. I walked to work from Euston, right down Tavistock Square, the eventual site of the bus explosion. I heard the explosion from inside the building, but I'd not been here long at all. Mrs. Dunce was on the tube (Victoria Line), passed through Kings Cross on the way to work, but had arrived very promptly before anything happened (the station was closed, or being closed, but they passed without incident). Now all zone 1 buses are on hold, and the entire tube is shut down.

For now, we're just waiting around and gathering news (online), gearing up for a six-mile walk home when the time comes (update: it'll be a while -- the police are "suggesting" to people going outside that they go back in). But we're OK.

UPDATE: official advice from university officials is to stay put. They're looking into the availability of temporary university housing for those who won't be able to get home.

The view from the 5th floor balcony of our building is something else. The streets are completely deserted except for quite a few police officers at the intersections. Not even the sound of traffic reaches us here.


ANOTHER UPDATE: official advice has been modified: "
The current advice from the police is still that people should stay in their place of business.  We acknowledge however that staff/students will foresee that getting home or to friends tonight will take much longer than usual, and, notwithstanding the current police advice, if they think it wise to set off earlier than usual they should feel free to do so."

So with that I'll be setting off within the next hour or so; I'm unlikely to add any further updates in the immediate future.

P.S. I (still) am not sure what is going on in the Big Brother house at the moment.
Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:49:28 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  | 
 Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Well, it's now been decided that London will host the 2012 Olympics. Rather than ranting about its expense and lack of value to me as an individual (or cheering the regeneration of a massively deprived area), I've decided to focus instead upon my own Olympic dream. After all, it'd be a shame if I didn't participate, since it'll be practically right around the corner; I could probably even walk there, although I'm sure athletes will have special transport opportunities (the Olympics will be held in the future, so athletes will probably get there by jet-packs or matter transporters). But first I need to decide upon an event! The list of sports can be found here on the Olympic site. I can rule out team sports as I have neither the time, nor the energy (nor, some would argue, the interpersonal skills) to assemble a suitable team. That eliminates baseball, basketball, football, handball, hockey, softball and volleyball. I'm also not much of a violent person and haven't been involved in a fight since my little brother stopped beating up on me (and I don't want to start again just for the sake of winning another gold for the U!!S!!A!!), so that's a big no for boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling (and I should probably avoid fencing as well). I don't especially like horses (and am about at the limits of my abilities as a provider to deal with the demands of a lone house cat), so I'd better not take up equestrian or modern pentathlon. The remaining sports, however, all seem possible (especially since I have plenty of time to prepare). I could rule out the boating sports (canoe/kayak, rowing, sailing) on the grounds of equipment, but I have previously achieved waterborne success (2nd place, Father & Son canoe race, Wildcat Creek). Therefore I have decided to let chance determine the category of sport I will pursue in the hope of winning gold in 2012. Here are the categories:

1. Aquatics
2. Archery
3. Athletics
4. Badminton
5. Canoe / kayak
6. Cycling
7. Gymnastics
8. Rowing
9. Sailing
10.Shooting
11.Table Tennis
12.Tennis
13.Triathlon
14.Weightlifting

In order to choose my sporting category I went to random.org which generates numbers using atmospheric noise. I selected a single random integer from the range 1:14 (corresponding to the digits above) (I realize this may give unfair weight to those classifications with fewer individual events). As it turns out, random.org gave me #4, so I will be chasing gold in BADMINTON. Men's singles to be precise, as this is the only individual event for which I qualify in this category. I have even played badminton before, although perhaps a more leisurely version than is played in international competition.

So who is my competition? Badminton has been an Olympic sport since 1992, Indonesia has 7 medals (two gold), China has two (one gold), Denmark one gold, South Korea one silver, and Malaysia one bronze. And that's it. In 2004 the gold and bronze were both won by Indonesia, and Korea took silver. The winner, Taufik Hidayat, is often described as temperamental and called the "bad boy of badminton" (and for good reason as he has had his Eric Cantona moment, maybe even more than one). But he's only listed as being 5'9 and 141 pounds, so I'm sure I could take him. Besides, he'll be really old in 2012 (31!) so I'm sure he'll be past his prime, while I instead will be right at the peak of my badminton career.

Now I just need to decide whether I should participate for the U!!S!!A!! or take on British citizenship and win my medal for the Queen. I think there's only one way to go, really. If the Olympics were in New York it might be different.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:29:42 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Monday, July 04, 2005
A brief question ("Where does the word ‘nerd’ come from?") on Arcite's Day (a blog tenuously linked to mine, in that we both contain Diamond Geezer on our blogrolls) led me to wonder about the origins of the vocabulary of insult. There's an interesting discussion on the typology of social misfits at the cul de sac and this discussion thread [among many others], but as these terms are extremely flexible in use (one man's geek may be another man's nerd; exactly what distinguishes a swot from a boffin may simply reflect local preferences rather than universals, and who uses terms "egghead" and "sissy" to refer to nerds these days?), I decided instead to look at the origins of some of these terms (there are just too many of them to cover the entire spectrum of them, so I just picked some that seemed interesting). Unless specified otherwise my references are taken from the Oxford English dictionary (the definitions may reflect UK use, but the etymological information is quite well-documented).

NERD:
"An insignificant, foolish, or socially inept person; a person who is boringly conventional or studious. Now also: spec. a person who pursues an unfashionable or highly technical interest with obsessive or exclusive dedication." The origin of "nerd", as it turns out, is a matter of some contention. In fact, "nerd" is one of the target words on the BBC Word Hunt list (a "major forthcoming BBC2 series"... intended to involve the public in helping to "rewrite 'the greatest book in the English language'."). The OED suggests that the origins of "nerd" may lie with Dr. Seuss: "nerd, a fictional animal in the children's story If I ran the Zoo (1950) by ‘Dr. Seuss’, depicted as a small, unkempt, humanoid creature with a large head and a comically disapproving expression. Alternatively, sometimes explained as a euphemistic alteration of TURD ... , although given the predominance of early spellings in -e-, this seems unlikely. The suggestion that the word is back-slang for DRUNK n. is also unsupported by the spellings, as is derivation from the name of Mortimer Snerd, a dummy used by the U.S. ventriloquist Edgar Bergen in the 1930s."
So we start with a bit of a dead end. Perhaps the BBC series will discover a use of "nerd" predating the publication of Dr. Suess's original text, otherwise we'll have to stick with the possibility that Seuss may have invented nerds.

GEEK:
Most everyone knows the US slang term referring to sideshow performers (especially those who bite the heads off animals), but oddly it appears that this use of "geek" may be a "recent" development. OED suggests that "geek" may originate from the English regional term "geck" (although the origin is uncertain). "Geck" is defined as A fool, simpleton; one who is befooled or derided, a dupe, and has been documented as far back as the 16th century. It seems closely related to the verb "geck", to mock, deceive or cheat (derived in turn from the Germanic verb "gecken").

DWEEB:
Like many terms of nerddom, has a rather atypical spelling/sound pattern. Again the OED's etymology is uncertain (described as North American slang, with origin Probably from -dw (arbitrarily, or as in DWARF), + FEEB, c.f. WEED [feeb being of course short for feeble-minded, though I'm not sure about weed {except in the compound "dickweed", who knows if it's related}]). This seems fairly recent: OED's first quote is 1982, although Etymonline says 1968.

SPAZ:
For once no surprise, and no doubt as to the origin: abbreviation of SPASTIC. One of the OED's reference quotes is amusing (and brings in "square", another term I'm not able to cover): The term that American teen-agers now use as the opposite of ‘tough’ is ‘spaz’. A spaz is a person who is courteous to teachers, plans for a career..and believes in official values. A spaz is something like what adults still call a square. (1965). This term has a special place for me, as during my formative years (age 10) I had a very unfortunate resemblance to the film character Spaz (played by Jack Blum in Meatballs (1979)). Fortunately the nickname didn't stick. As far as I know.

DORK:
And back we go to the realm of the (somewhat) unknown. Dork is not only a foolish or stupid person but also a Midwestern term for penis. Described as "Of uncertain origin: perhaps a variant of DIRK, influenced by DICK" (and the term "dirk" in this sense originates from the bladed weapon of the same name [the origin of this term is also not known, according to the OED]). Although terms of this nature are also freely used to describe nerds and their ilk, I'm going to step slowly and gingerly away from the topic of male genitals. After all I am talking about nerds.

WIMP:
Another instance of US slang, with early use in 1920 according to the OED. Again the origin is described as uncertain: perhaps from whimper (c.f. English dialect wimp (of a dog): to whine). I've seen it spelled as "whimp" but this is not listed in the OED. Etymonline cites the role of J. Wellington Wimpy, "a comparatively unaggressive character in "Popeye" comics", in increased subsequent use of this term.

SWOT:
I wasn't especially familiar with this one until I started looking for information on nerds. This is an English term with fairly straightforward origins: a dialectal variation of SWEAT, and used to refer to someone who works or studies hard (c.f. grind). I suspect it's not in such current use, people might think of me as a nerd if I start calling people swots.

BOFFIN:
Another term of UK origin, specifically referring to scientific or technical researchers, "boffin" is especially common in news articles deriding the work of scientists (Boffins create zombie dogs, Seaweed boffins seek local Vanuatu samples and many more). This one is also in the list for the BBC Word Hunt (see above), as the OED simply has no answer for its origin (Etymology unknown. Numerous conjectures have been made about the origin of the word but all lack foundation) but only suggests it has its origins somehow in World War II ("The term seems to have been first applied by members of the Royal Air Force to scientists working on radar"). I am not aware of the various conjectures, but the etymological guessing game is one that anyone can play, whether with or without evidence of any sort. The OED's frequent "unknowns" really highlight the difficulty of finding accurate source information for linguistic origins, even for terms that have come into use quite recently (relatively speaking).

TWIT:
As referring to "a fool, a stupid or ineffectual person" (which perhaps moves a bit far from "nerd" which implies some sort of intelligence along with the absence of other desirable traits), its origin is from the verb "twit" (light censure, reproach, scold, taunt) which seems to have been a popular term in the 1500s (and in much older sources as "atwite"). So a twit is someone you twit (or atwite), not to be confused with its extremely close lexical neighbor (described as "low slang" and "of obscure origin", and again I will edge carefully away from the gutter).

NINNY:
Like a twit, a ninny is a nerd without the intelligence. It also goes back to the 16th century. OED gives the now very familiar "origin uncertain" plus speculation. In this case the OED suggests that the origin may lie in the term "innocent" plus the diminutive -y, and points out its relation to the slightly-earlier-documented term "ninnyhammer" (a blockhead, fool, or braggart) (a nice instance of usage from 1712: "That Clod-pated, Numskull'd Ninny-hammer of yours....").

Given current trends in usage, I think I'd rather be a geek than a nerd, a spaz than a dweeb, a swot or boffin rather than a twit or a ninny, and definitely not a dork. Please feel free to comment on any important ones I've left out.
Monday, July 04, 2005 2:01:37 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Friday, July 01, 2005
Numerous different techniques are being used to manage (or mismanage) the flow of traffic around London; I pass so many different varieties on my (~5.5 mile) bike commute I thought I'd take a few minutes to describe the different varieties. Most common is the speed bump. Although I haven't counted them (mainly because I haven't exactly settled upon a regular route) my previous commute included about 70 speed bumps of various types. As it turns out the different types are explained in great detail on sites like this one (where speed bumps are within the "vertical deflection" category), and ranted against on sites like this and this.

Speed humps are the most common sort I encounter (distributed across just about all of the back roads I follow wherever possible), distinguished from other sorts by extending all the way across the road. For motorized traffic, the spacing between them seems to be the biggest issue: the closer they are together, the greater the reduction in vehicle speed (and the greater the impact on larger vehicles that bounce over them -- especially ambulances [one of the big arguments against humps of this sort is that ambulances are forced to slow down, thus increasing response times {and transit-to-hospital times}]). As a cyclist my biggest concern is instead the angle of impact: a sinusoidal hump is much smoother to ride over than a "standard" hump (i.e., one which rises at a sudden angle). The latter can be incredibly jarring to run into (just like hitting a small curb/kerb), especially when the adjoining road surface has sunk or deteriorated. This depends on the neighborhood, and the amount of heavy traffic.


One solution to the concerns for large motor vehicles is the plateau. In its simplest form the plateau is just a longer-than-normal (wider-than-normal?) speed hump with a flat surface on the top (also known as a "speed table"). This apparently prevents some of the "bounce effect" on motor vehicles; the issues for cyclists are the same as for speed humps (it all depends on the quality of the transition from the road surface to the edge of the plateau). These are especially common in intersections: most intersections in our neighborhood has recently been converted into fairly elaborate brick plateaus, although they've already been scarred by fast-moving cars (which hit the not-at-all sinusoidal edge of the raised brick section with a loud kerthump, and many of which seem to spew oil as a result).


Yes another alternative is the speed cushion. This is like a speed hump but with gaps to allow cycles (or the wheels of ambulances) to zoom right by without any vertical deflection whatsoever. Sounds like a great solution to emergency vehicles and cyclists alike, but in practice, this seems to provide even more danger, as car drivers tend to swerve so as to place at least one set of wheels in the "no vertical deflection" area (where there may or may not be a bicycle). Somehow I always seem to be riding over speed cushions in order to avoid being run over.


Another class of vertical deflection traffic calming measures is the "uneven road surface" like rumble strips and jiggle bars. Fortunately I don't experience any of these in my daily commute, as these can be really nasty to a cyclist. They're better suited as warning devices on high-speed roads (motorways and the like), not very well suited to any sort of residential areas as they're incredibly loud.

And that's just vertical deflections. I haven't even gotten to horizontal deflections (chicanes and half-chicanes), road narrowings, false one-way systems, islands, gates, speed cameras, pseudoroundabouts, or any of the futile attempts to keep pedestrians alive. Anyway, there are numerous official UK documents on traffic calming here, including the official traffic calming regulations, and just about anything else (PDF about traffic calming in Bird
Friday, July 01, 2005 12:51:16 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |