Lisbon 6 - Innuendo

I'm in a bit of a silly mood, having just bought quarter of a watermelon for about 30p. Apologies for any offence caused...

Because of the big differences in pronunciation between English and Portuguese, some interesting misunderstandings are possible. For example, the lady on the plane who didn't speak English tried explaining, with the help of my phrase book that she was constipated. It turns out she meant that she had a blocked nose.

For some reason, I found this announcement on the plane worth recording. It was part of the safety announcement, and speaking about oxygen masks.

Should there be a lack of pleasure, they will immediately fall out.

The mind boggles.

Still sillier, however, was the Condomiser (TM) - not its real name. TAP (Air Portugal) said that as much security as possible was needed for flying to Brazil, and that they offered a special sealing facility for bags. On seeing this, I thought it too much fun not to use. I was then disappointed, after having my bag so sealed, to find that it cost 5 Euros. So I therefore share some knowledge of the process in order to try to recover some value for money. The bag is wrapped in plastic sheeting, which is sellotaped and then heated for a short time to cause it to melt together. It might have been this that caused some mess on the inside of my bag when my shampoo burst. Or it may not. The final effect is not dissimilar to that which might be produced by enclosing the bag in some kind of giant latex prophylactic device.

Opportunities for innuendo abound. I had to reword what I wrote above to remove some of the more notable examples. Of course, the Brazillian baggage handlers were far more efficient than those in Lisbon (baggage started arriving 40 mins after the advertised time) and probably vastly more efficient than those at Heathrow. They even had the wonderful innovation of a glass window in the baggage collection area so we could see them at work unloading the plane, driving their buggies and putting the bags onto the belt. Imagine if they did that at Heathrow, via CCTV or something. Would it dramatically cut waiting times and baggage loss? Quite possibly.

Brazil 3 - How to Drive Like a Brazilian

Continuing on the banal, painting a picture theme, here are some tips on how to drive like a Brazilian in Brazil:

1. Most major roads are one-way. This is for a very good reason.
2. This does not of course apply to cyclists. Weaving in and out of traffic going at 60 km/h in the opposite direction to you at night with a girl on the handlebars and no reflective clothing or lights is perfectly normal.
3. The reason that the accelerator and brake pedals go all the way down is that they were meant to be used all the way down.
4. If you haven't hit a pot-hole for a good few minutes, it's because you've broken down.
5. You see those dotted white lines on the road? Don't worry - they don't mean anything.
6. If someone phones you, it must be very important. Please answer it, talk, text, etc. while driving. Hands-free sets - what are they?
7. 20's plenty - cm from the car in front, that is. In the picture above, either of both of the cars slightly ahead could cut in without warning. It's only too close if the cars actually hit each other.
8. At night, red lights are optional. (Actually, the people who ignore them do it allegedly because they don't want to get carjacked).
9. If traffic is driving approximately in lanes, don't worry - there isn't a "fast lane" or "slow lane". Just overtake / undertake when you can.
10. If you're near where you want to go, just stop in the road, on the side vaguely near where you are aiming for, and look for a parking space. Don't worry - traffic will swerve round you.

11. If you are getting out of your car, watch out for the wide open gutter down the side of most roads.
12. Do not crash. I am continually surprised by how few crashes and dented cars there are here, especially compared to somewhere like Naples. Some of it might be down to the fact that Brazillian cars seem to be tuned so that 50mph feels like 80mph does in the UK, and that a lot of the other stuff is actually done at 20mph.
13. It's also worth pointing out that one of the greatest racing drivers of all time was a Brazillian.

Taking Risks

Near where I live, there is a big roundabout. It's often regarded as a very dangerous roundabout for cyclists. Coming out of Oxford, most cars go left at the roundabout. Most bikes go right, which causes problems.

The road coming into the roundabout splits into two lanes - the left lane for left (with the cars), the right lane for right. This all makes sense.

For the cyclist who always wants to take the safest course of action, it seems that the correct thing to do is to stay at the left of the traffic. But the problem is that staying at the left then leads to them having to cut very dangerously across the traffic when it is accelerating out of the roundabout. I have narrowly missed hitting a cyclist who was trying just that.

The safe way to cycle round the roundabout is by taking what initially looks like the more risky route - to weave into and through the stream of traffic as it is braking to arrive at the roundabout so that they are in the correct lane for turning right. It feels riskier, but it's much easier to see and to account for for cars, and far fewer people are hit doing that.

This is a parable. Often in life, and in faith, playing it safe is actually the high-risk, low-gain strategy.

The Problem with Cars v Public Transport

The discussions on several recent posts seem to be heading this way. It's worth saying that I tried to cope without a car for several years (10 after leaving school, including 5 in full-time employment). I then gave up, learned to drive, bought a car and now drive more than I should.

The problem with huge and unnecessary car use seems to be in several parts.

1) The way society is (or, more likely, isn't) designed means that people often need to have a car. Visiting family in rural areas, transporting furniture or weekly shopping, etc. I suggest this issue is very difficult to deal with, but its force would be weakened by tackling the others.

2) The cost of a car is heavily split into three categories - initial cost, yearly required stuff (servicing, tax, etc) and incremental cost (fuel, etc) that depends on distance. For convenience, we can split these into owning cost and driving cost - how much it would cost to own the car anyway, and how much it costs to drive it that bit more.

3) Public transport almost always seems to try to compete (if it competes at all) with the total cost of owning a car, whereas to persuade people not to drive, it needs to compete with the driving cost. If I get the bus to my girlfriend's house, it might cost me about £1.50 and take 30 mins or so. If I drive, it costs me about 60p and takes 10 mins. If I walk, it costs me very little and takes about 50 mins. I can't see why a car owner would want to use public transport for that journey. In fact, with things the way they are at the moment, I don't see why a car owner would ever use public transport, except for going somewhere with very poor parking.

4) I used to do a lot of cycling. Again, it's much harder to be motivated when it's competing with the cost of driving rather than owning a car. When I cycled regularly around South Manchester, the main problem was consistent lack of good cycle parking. Yes, there would be places to lock it, and then bits of my bike would get stolen, which was kind of annoying.

Things that Seem Obvious - Car Parks

In Britain, a large number of smaller shops have been shutting for many years now. The most frequently blamed culprits are big supermarkets. I, however, think the blame largely lies elsewhere.

It seems obvious that if faced with three options:
1) walk half a mile to the local shops, then half a mile back with heavy bags
2) drive half a mile to the local shops, pay £2 for parking
3) drive two miles to a big supermarket, parking is free
Most people will take option 3). And yet in lots of places, the local shops continue to close, and people blame the supermarkets. There have even been utterly mad suggestions to force supermarkets to charge for parking.

The real solution seems simple. The availability of free or very cheap parking near to shops increases their attractiveness (as does good public transport). It is therefore in the shopkeepers' interests to make sure that such parking is available. And if the council want to keep the local shops open, it is in their interests as well.

Parking in towns should therefore be controlled either by federations of local shopkeepers or by the council running it at a loss (which may pay for itself indirectly via increased land values or tax paid by the shopkeepers). Subcontracting running car parks out to profit-making firms damages local shops when there is viable competition which does not charge for the use of its car parks.

This just seems obvious...

A Great Birthday Present!

A couple of months ago now, it was my birthday. One of the presents I was given was a copy of the whole ESV being read out in MP3 format. It was a great present.

I do quite a bit of driving. My placement next year, for example, is over 30 mins away by car. It takes 2½ hours to drive to my parents' place. And having the Bible on MP3 means that I can spend a good fraction of that time listening to the Bible.

It makes getting a big picture of books and so on much easier. It makes revising for my Bible exams much easier. It makes studying the Bible while I'm running or walking or something much easier.

So thanks again!

Car Parks

Why it is a bad idea to have lime trees in a car park:

Not my car, of course, but I feel sorry for the owner.

Breakdowns

Cars are odd things. My previous car was also my first car. It was a Fiat Punto. The guidebook to used cars said that Fiat Puntos were meant to be reliable. I didn't buy that guidebook again...

The first big problem was when the oil thingy malfunctioned. Then something made a hole in the side of the cylinder block, so I had that replaced. Then the head gasket blew in the replacement. So I got a different guidebook and bought a Toyota Yaris. Everyone agrees they are reliable.

The reliability has been great so far. I got it on an approved used car thing, so it's on warranty as well. First problem I had was a slow puncture. I took it to Kwik Fit, where they told me that the dodgy tyre was significantly older than the car. Had that replaced. Today I had a tyre blow, as in properly blow while driving down the M4.

If the steering suddenly goes both light and very difficult to control at the same time, the car starts tilting to the right and there's a huge amount of noise and smoke coming from a wheel, chances are you've blown a tyre.

That makes it three times inside a year I've had to get breakdown people out. And the only previous time in my life I've needed them was in 1982.

(Photo added 8th September, 1259 to show what a tyre looks like after such an event)

Random Oxford Stuff

Oxford is odd. Recently, someone decided it would be a good idea if they removed the surface of at least 3 main roads here, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they intend to put it back. This is especially annoying since it includes both main roads into the city that aren't liable to flooding.

There isn't, it seems, one single haberdashers in the whole of Oxford. There are, however, vast numbers of tourists. Tourists in Oxford confuse me. What are they looking at? The Ashmolean (outside of - the good bits of the inside are all closed for rebuilding), the Radcliffe Camera, the view from Carfax, Keble, the Martyrs' Memorial? That's about it, isn't it, and there's better examples of all of that in London or Cambridge? Oh, ok, not the RadCam or the Martyrs' Mem if they are interested in Anglican history, which I very much doubt. (Yes, some of the colleges are nice too, but they're closed to tourists.) Hordes of tourists punting down the Backs in Cambridge, I can understand. Or maybe they're all here for just one morning on their way from London to somewhere else. Stratford maybe.

More Thoughts on Traffic

I've spent a lot of time over the last couple of days driving on motorways, and I have a few more thoughts on traffic. It's worth qualifying this all by saying I'm not (yet) a great or greatly experienced driver, but these are my reflections.

A large proportion of the delays on motorways are caused by one slow vehicle overtaking an even slower vehicle (or even x3 or 4), which slows the faster lanes down. This could be reduced by imposing a minimum speed limit for motorways except in jams.

The rules on motoring offences are illogical. For example, driving safely at 60pmh on a deserted bit of dual carriageway in Manchester is heavily penalised despite having no effect on other users, whereas driving at 30mph down a single lane country road where it is safe to drive at 60mph is legal and carries no penalty whatsoever although it can cause great inconvenience to other road users.

I therefore suggest that hypothetically, road penalties should be linked to inconvenience caused to other users. So driving too fast on a deserted road with unrailed cliffs shouldn't be an offence if you're the only person in the car and there's no-one living at the bottom of the cliffs.

Killing someone by dangerous driving, or running the risk of doing so, would of course be the most serious offence, punishable by a lifetime ban, huge fines, etc. But what if being much too slow turning out of a junction or driving at 30mph in a 60mph limit was a more serious offence and speeding was only an offence if dangerous?

Driving - Random Thoughts

I've been spending quite a bit of the past week driving, and it got me thinking. Some of these thoughts have been developing for a while, through driving lessons and so on.

I guess my key thought is that a 2 second separation between cars isn't enough. That's not a reflection on my reaction time, but in terms of stress levels and also changing lanes, turning at junctions, etc.

I prefer to drive with a 5 or 10 second gap between me and the car in front. That gives enough room for people to pull in, or for the car in front to slow down and turn off without disrupting traffic flow much at all. The stop/start nature of driving in towns is largely because of people having to turn off. If we had bigger gaps between cars, it would be easier to turn through traffic and hence we wouldn't have to stop and start as much. I rather suspect many traffic lights would then become unneccessary.

Motorways also would benefit. If the distance between cars was increased to 10 seconds (for example), then accidents would be much less likely and it would be easier for lanes of traffic to merge. The resultant lane could have a temporarily reduced distance of 5 seconds, for example. It would also mean that the speed limit could be safely raised or even abolished.

I guess the difficulty would be that the capacity of the roads would therefore be decreased - some roads do usually have more than one car per 10 seconds per lane passing. Not many though, and it's usually only the roads where the number of turns has been greatly reduced to stop cars slowing to turn. Those roads could be kept at 2 second separation perhaps.

All just ideas, and there's probably a good reason they aren't being implemented. I just don't know what that reason is.