Skating

So, I bought a new pair of roller skates with, more or less, the intention to eventually skate to work*. This idea may, of course, be completely insane as we all know roller skates have large chunky wheels that are poorly suited to dealing with obstacles - therefore the possibility of my tripping over a rock and falling flat on my face is a very likely one. Then again, let's face it - this is hardly the stupidest idea I've ever had, now, is it?

Anyway, the potential dangers of the activity might not be all I have to worry about.

Turns out that the Queensland Government has changed the road rules recently to declare all manner of wheels one may stand on to be for "recreational" use only, and not allowed on the roads. So, throughout the state, anyone on quads, in-lines, boards or scooters who dares to ride on any road "major" enough to have markings on it is breaking the law and is up for a fine.

Note that: it's still okay for skaters to ride on the streets - just not if the street might actually have a bike lane marked on it. Once a road is big enough to have a space for people who aren't in cars to have a lane to themselves, skaters can just take themselves off, thank you.

Now, I understand why the Queensland Government would believe the road rules need to be changed to specifically deal with skaters. It's to deal with the idiots. There are an awful lot of them out there - morons who seem to be under the mistaken impression that they can behave in a completely unpredictable and somewhat reckless fashion without getting themselves or someone else hurt. These people justifiably earn the hatred of everyone who sees them. Truth is, we all want them to smack into a pole and take themselves out of the picture.

Idiots can, of course, be found commanding any given form of transport out there, from cars right down to skate boards. However, idiots on skateboards are much easier to identify as idiots than idiots in cars. They're slower, so you can hate them for a longer period of time while waiting for them to throw themselves under your car. Drivers will usually hate other road users with a greater passion than fellow drivers. Except maybe P platers in utes. Everyone hates them.

However, I'm pretty sure banning the use of skates on roads is a poor solution to the problem. In fact, it kinda sucks. Sure, if there was a network of well maintained paths to enable people using skates to get through towns without going onto the roads, it would probably be okay. But I challenge you to find any town or city in this state where someone travelling by board can safely and effectively navigate the landscape without going onto the road. Plus, I'd like to point out that roads are periodically cleaned and maintained. Not so the "footpaths". It takes years before someone cleans the broken glass off those, or repairs damage done by wear and weather.

So, essentially, this law is just telling everyone who legitimately travels from A-B using skates to ping off: "You can't be here. I don't care that you don't have anywhere else to be."

A law stating skaters must wear protective clothing when travelling on the roads would make more sense. However, that law does not exist. You can still travel the glass-ridden, damaged footpaths without a helmet or wrist-guards, but you can't go on the roads even if you're wearing plenty of safety equipment. (For anyone who doesn't know, it's illegal to ride a bike on the roads without a helmet in Queensland).

On a side note, I believe (but have not confirmed) that unicycles are classified with skates as being recreational devices. Legally, you don't have to wear a helmet whilst riding a unicycle. And, I guess, now you can't legally ride a unicycle on the roads. However, you would have to be three different shades of stupid to try to try to ride a unicycle along a Queensland road anyway - with or without a helmet.


*I should probably confess that, at this point, I haven't even made it to the park with these skates, let alone anything resembling a street.

Bussita

I've been harbouring a great plan for some weeks, now.

While I try to ride my bike to work three days a week, sometimes I like to shake it up a bit by making my way on foot. It takes me under an hour to "run" to work (well, periods of running interspersed with periods of walking) and not quite an hour and a half to walk.

However, in order to do this, I have to plan it in advanced. I don't want to carry everything on my back while running, so I have to make sure I've got everything I need for work there the day before. Then I have to get out of bed an hour earlier than I normally do and eat half a breakfast before heading out, then work out what to do about the other half when I get there.

And, then, if I run to work for 50 minutes I'm usually much sweatier than when I ride to work for 25, so I need a proper shower instead of a simple "freshen up" (something I can avoid if I walk instead), and my clothes are usually too unpleasant to put them back on again in order to make the return journey on foot (again, something I can avoid when walking), so then I have to arrange for a lift to get back home.

So, after I realised I was actually avoiding making the trip on foot because of these inconveniences, an idea began forming in my mind - I could reverse the order in which I do these things. Instead of bringing my gear to work a day before and running to work, then getting a lift home (after getting up an hour early), I'd get up at my normal time, catch a bus to work and run home, leaving my gear to be collected the next day.

A great plan, I thought. One of those "invert the problem" things that always make me feel like I'm actually doing something with my brain. One problem, though: the bus service in Townsville. It's not exactly easy to navigate.

You see, our bus stops only mention what zone the stop is in. They don't tell you what buses stop at that stop or when one could reasonably expect to see a bus come past.

When you consult the timetables online, they also neglect to mention anything other than the "major" stops on each route. I found one bus that said it would stop in my suburb, and assumed that would be the bus I would catch at the bus stop on the street around the corner from my house.

Alas, that was an erroneous assumption. The bus that goes down that street is a different bus number on a different route - one which gives no indication on the time table that it comes anywhere near my area. The one I thought I was going to catch actually goes down a different street a few blocks over.

The other day I tried walking down to a bus stop which my perusal of the time tables had lead me to believe would be a good and useful bus stop to attend. After waiting for about twenty minutes for a bus which was never going to come, I walked back home and drove to work, finding myself very grateful that I was catching a bus because I felt like it, and not because I had to. Also, very grateful that I tried this experiment with a non-existent bus that was leaving earlier than I would leave if I was taking a car. I still managed to get to work on time.

Talking about this with some friends at work, the general consensus was that they would never take public transport in Townsville, and pitied the poor souls who had no other option. It's "too confusing", "too unreliable" and "too frustrating".

Once again I'm reminded that my home town is absolutely and entirely enslaved by cars. It's just completely impractical to try to live in Townsville if you don't have a car of your own. I know some people who manage it, but I also know they do so out of sheer stubbornness, not because it's a reasonable and viable option.

And it all comes down to bad design. Whoever is designing the bus system isn't using it. Whoever is designing the bike routes isn't riding them. It's like everyone involved in the design of this city assumes every man, woman and child has a car and prefers to use it. All other "options" are afterthoughts.

What we need to do is clear the streets for a couple of weeks. Take everyone out and then put them back in a little at a time. Start with the buses, because they're the most egalitarian form of transport and, in a well designed city, everyone should be able to get to where they need to go with a couple of bus trips and a ten minute walk. Then revise the bike lanes and bike routes to make sure cyclists and skaters* can safely navigate the entire city without risk of being hit by a bus, thrown by a pothole or accosted by a solid object**. After that, bring the cars back in with the clear understanding that buses and bikes take priority in the traffic flow.

Yes, it will become less comfortable to drive a car. But, on the other hand, it will become more comfortable to take a bus or ride a bike, which is better for our health and wallets. It's my personal opinion that the best designed cities are the ones where visitors who have never been here before can find their way around easily without once having to hire a car or catch a taxi. Sadly, Townsville is not a well designed city.


*A post about skating soon to come.
**A post about solid objects soon to come.

Cloudy

This one's for Alice, who's been a bit under the weather lately:

Cloudy

There's a lesson to be learned from this...

... but I'm not sure what it is.

I may have mentioned my "wallet experiment" to some of you in the past. It's the direct result of a number of my "pocket rants", which I know a few of you have been subjected to.

By now, I'm sure you're all aware of how much I truly despise the substandard pockets most garment manufacturers place in women's clothing. You've possibly heard me rabbit on about the pockets in women's shorts being shallower and less secure than those in the male counterparts'. Perhaps you've witnessed one of my tirades about the disparity between the number of pockets in women's jackets compared to men's (such a woefully small number compared to the plethora of pockets found in a good man's jacket! So pitifully proportioned in terms of what you can fit in them!). Maybe you've simply heard me curse my own pants, on occasion, for poor pocket design (something that happens less often now that I refuse to buy pants with poorly designed pockets).

Anyway, one of the arguments I used to bring out concerning why women should be given pockets at least as good as those bestowed upon men is the fact that women carry so much stuff around with them wherever they go.

When your average man leaves the house, he takes with him his wallet, phone and keys. This is completely regardless of his marital or parental status. When your average woman leaves the house (particularly if she happens to be a mother), she takes enough emergency supplies with her to rebuild society should nuclear war happen to strike while she's out. Trust me, if there's even the slightest hint that you may be involved in a natural disaster, find the nearest 30+ woman with a handbag and stay close.

Not too close, though, because that would be creepy.

Anyway, about a year or so ago I decided to see if it actually was possible to survive leaving the house armed with nothing more than a wallet. Surely these menfolk don't actually get by like that? Most of the guys I've seen have a nasty habit of mooching off their girlfriends and wives - like they need the things most women carry around with them, but are trying to a) pretend they don't, and b) get someone else to carry it for them.

You know what? I'll be damned if the only thing I used to have in my handbag that I actually miss is a pen. With a bit of cash, a driver's license and a credit card in my wallet, all I really need beyond that are my keys and phone. Well, and a packet of tissues, because I was raised by my mother.

That's it, though: wallet, keys and phone (and tissues). All of which can fit comfortably in a decent pair of pockets. Heck, if I really cared, I could slip a pen in one of my pockets, too.

And it's strangely liberating. I no longer have to think about what I'm going to do with my bag: where I'm going to put it, how I'm going to keep an eye on it, whether I'll remember to get it when I leave... As long as I know where my pants are, everything's fine.

So, what's the moral of the story, here? "The simple things in life are often the best"? "Men aren't completely stupid"? "We don't need all that crap"?

I'm just going to stick with: "Women's clothing should have better pockets".

You know, it's amazing how versatile that can be, as a moral. I should start applying it to other stories. Stay tuned.

Bicycle

Well, thanks to a combination of the weather and laziness, I've been sadly ignoring my new ordinary*. I got home on Monday and realised it had been a month since I last took it for a spin, and so I decided to spend a good ten minutes meandering around the streets in my immediate vicinity.

Previously, I have been spending a fair bit of my time on the ordinary just practicing getting on and off and turning, so this was really the first time I spent a solid ten minutes riding the bike without stopping.

It seems as though every time I get on the bike I notice something different about the way ordinaries work compared to modern bicycles. This time the thing that struck me the most was the use of my arms.

Okay, the pedals are connected directly to the front wheel, which is connected directly to the forks, which are connected directly to the handlebars, which more or less means I'm using my arms and legs at either end of a "solid" line. Imagine holding onto a pogo stick, only instead of jumping up and down your feet are moving it from side to side.

With a modern bike, I'm really just using my arms to help balance and to occasionally point the handlebars in the direction I want to go. With the ordinary, I'm using them to wrangle the bike - pulling against the movement I'm creating with my legs. I'm sure I'm probably doing something wrong. Trying to hard to keep the bike in a straight line when I should be letting it sinuate more naturally, or something like that. It's hard fighting against the instincts I've developed after years of riding modern bicycles.

Plus, the ordinary is a little closer to my unicycles than my regular bikes, so when I relax my arms I start weaving wildly - the sinuation I usually have on a unicycle is fine on a 20 inch wheel, but at 38 inches it's a bit undesirable.

All I know is I can't just "point and shoot" the thing - I actually have to use my arms in a much more physical way than I first expected.

The things you learn, eh?


* "Ordinary" bicycle: The "I'm more historically accurate than you are" way of referring to a "Penny farthing" bicycle. Use it, and feel slightly intellectually superior.

Bow Tie

I'm not convinced anyone can actually pull off a bow tie unless they are wearing an evening suit - preferably complete with tails.

The "English Professor" look of a brown bow tie with an off-white shirt just looks dorky, I'm afraid. Like someone didn't quite work out that Jimmy Olsen was not a fashion guru.

For future reference, this works:



But this doesn't:

Bats

It may come as no surprise to anyone, but I own a shirt with the Bat Logo on it. You know the logo I'm talking about, it's worn by a number of characters in the DC universe, including Batman.

Now, Batman is the most famous of the Batpeople, I accept that, but every time I wear the shirt someone feels compelled to call me Batman.

Yes, that's right: Batman.

I'd just like to point out something - not only does such a thing as Batgirl exist, but her "secret" identity is Barbara Gordon* - a redheaded librarian at the Gotham Library.

Now, a) I'm a girl - I may not be a terribly feminine one, but I still like to think the people I know have worked this out, b) I'm a librarian, c) I'm a redhead. Let's put all of those facts together and review the concept of the Bat Logo T-shirt.

Even if you don't know I'm a librarian, which you might not, surely the fact that I'm a woman would tip the scales in favour of Batgirl rather than Batman? You know, Batgirl? One of the most popular characters from the TV series and a character who has been in the comics since 1961?

I have two theories for why people would feel compelled to call me Batman whenever I wear the shirt. I don't like either of them, as they both cause me to lose respect for the people around me.

The first is that people are so blinded by the cut of the shirt that they cannot help but apply the incorrect gender to an otherwise ambiguous symbol. Yes, I tend to wear "classic" cut T-Shirts rather than fitted Ts. Once upon a time the classic cut shirts were considered to be unisex apparel and suitable for both sexes. These days it seems as though women are being excluded from that cut and are relegated to fitted Ts only. As per usual, I reject this reality and firmly embrace the concept that the T-Shirt is the ultimate example of egalitarian apparel.

The second theory is that people can't remember the existence of female superheros beyond Wonder Woman. For some reason, even though Supergirl and Batgirl have been around for decades (and Superwoman and Batwoman have also had recurring roles throughout the years), the average Joe on the street just can't accept the fact that they exist. Don't even try asking about the non-derivative heroes like Black Canary and Powergirl**.

Did you ever read the comics? Batgirl is there. Did you ever watch the TV series with Adam West? Batgirl is there. Did you ever watch that horrible, horrible movie starring George Clooney? Batgirl is there. She's all wrong, but she's there. And yet Batgirl doesn't seem to be sharing any real space with her male counterparts in the public consciousness. Sad, really.

* Yes, in the last 15 years the Batgirl identity has been shared by a number of "secret" identities. As far as I'm concerned she'll always be Barbara Gordon.

** You probably shouldn't try asking about Powergirl, it's just too confusing.