Fahrradsozialismus

Or One Got Fat, a 1963 propaganda film on bicycle safety.

I’ve never been much of a fan of the horror genre apart from perhaps enjoying them as period pieces in terms of production design & nostalgia for nostalgia sake. I can honestly say, however, that it is by far one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen – and I am including Turkish Star Wars & the 1962 Live action version of Astroboy, despite the fact that I was entranced by its frighteningly mesmerising albeit macabre narration by Edward Everett Horton (not to mention a plethora of good bad puns). You are hereby forewarned.

The messages are of course all perfectly sound, most of which you would expect today from any cycling advocacy campaign or a seasoned cyclist. Its realisation, resides in an entire different dimension of believability.

What construed as friendship or even fundamental human emotions (of course they are monkeys, after all) to the makers of the film is beyond one’s imagination. Just like many a classic horror movie, the members of the gang meet their gruesome demise one-by-one (including being flattened by a steamroller & falling into an uncovered manhole, naturally accompanied by sound-effects of hilarity) through their negligence of safety issues, the rest ride on with steady resolve, seemingly unconcerned towards their destination. The only child arrives safely without harm by following road rules, sits down, and devours the lunch of his companions, hence the title. Upon discovery that this child is in fact human, one probably shouldn’t be surprised at the capability of such cold-heartedness, but I don’t think social commentaries were part of the original intention of the filmmakers.

It really recalls the casualness with which pro-modern fairy-tales portray scenes of unspeakable violence, cruelty & general flagitiousness such as in Hansel & Gretel, The Little Mermaid & Little Red Riding Hood, as allegorical as they maybe, and as it is arguably in this case. Regardless of contemporary sensibilities towards such issues, the inherent experiential difference between the media to me would make the latter far more horrifying, especially as a child.

In addition to what one must be forced to interpret as humour, though undeniably morbid, again we see fear being used to punctuate the message of the film. Exactly how successful it was in enforcing the explicit message is unknown, and I can’t help but wonder just exactly how many children were traumatised & terrified out of cycling forever by this psychedelic Dantean journey through cyclic purgatory.

Came across this BBC programme exploring some current issues in road use in Britain posted here. Regardless of the necessarily limited background information, perspective & purposefully sensationalistic choice of style & subject matter that is almost inevitable in the mainstream media, it is still an excellent documentary providing some wonderful insights, especially as valuable lessons & warnings for Australia in terms of what can happen when a car culture tries to evolve, though some imageries strangely reminiscent of the early days of cycling:

Mao said once that correctly identifying one’s enemies is of principal importance in the revolution. In this case there are no enemies but ourselves.

Ariel in Disney’s Little Mermaid, fascinated by the human artefacts, remarked that no being who can create so much beauty can be evil (or something along those lines). Without entrapping myself too deeply by trying to define good & evil, especially in the context of human activity (though arguably they only apply therein), but many aspects of what is considered to be “evil” are nothing but complex manifestations of natural selection, that of the strong triumphing over the weak, be it in warfare, politics, economics or personal interaction. It is often despairing to think that despite the glossy appearance of civilisation & progress, we are still inherently driven by the natural laws of survival, and being alive is nothing but a struggle for supremacy, be it over one’s peers or one’s surroundings, just like the rest of what we call life. After all, success is defined by the relative failures of others.

One crucial difference however, is that we are aware, or at least are able to decontextualise actions enough to assign some meaning & order to our seemingly inevitable path of struggle, and rationalise them by creating higher purposes & that little thing called posterity. Taoist view on morality suggests that the very inception of such moral values & social norms are nothing but evidence of triumph of the opposite. Indeed due to the limitation of human language and perhaps cognitive processes in general, ideas are inevitably contrastable.

Ultimately then, this is an issue of universal values, something I have battled with ever since that initial curiosity that many are confronted with concerning what is right or wrong.

Take the varying views presented in the video, I have no doubt each individual view presented is sincerely believed. Isn’t the father wanting maximum comfort, convenience & security a perfectly reasonable response to what is perceived to be a hostile environment, even though others might not? Don’t the actions of critical mass “anarchists” demonstrate a sincere desire to defend & exert their rightful respect & recognition as road users, even if it is also perfectly reasonable to view them as confrontational & disruptive by the everyday motorist? Ultimately people will be first and foremost selfish, that again is perhaps animalistic. Tolerance & consideration for others, at least in the way we understand them, would have to be something uniquely human, and are often forgotten when one’s immediate interest is perceived to be threatened. I believe what I believe because I believe it, yet this applies to everyone, and being individualistic creatures without a shared consciousness, the beliefs will necessarily be different, even if they are rendered into identical linguistic symbols.

As communal creatures, we must make judgement on others in order to interact, and inevitably they will be based on one’s own predilections, even if we consciously remind ourselves to consider others’ opinion, for those still will be our own – evident in the irony that is this very post, but dualism is an integral part of human experience.

Having excelled my previous efforts in having an irrelevant interposition, do I really have anything constructive to offer thematically related to cycling, apart from the usual convoluted syntactic travesties? Not really, since I am only too aware of my biases & unreasonable partialities often on purely emotional & aesthetic grounds, but that, too, is something human.

Perhaps it is empathy towards one’s own kind, but my sentiments have often been on the side of the weak & the loser, be it in history, literature or on the rare occasion, sporting events. It’s not just that old rooting for the underdog mentality, but a general distaste for power projection & imposition, at least on a conscious level – such things should be fictitious & facetious only. One can certainly regard such a mentality as weakness itself or even cowardice, and in the animalistic sense it indeed would be, and perhaps a trend evolutionarily undesirable, but I do believe there is something to be said about holding the welfare of the weak, or more precisely those perceived at a disadvantage to yourself, as being paramount, and disengage from the race to the top, even if just a little bit.

In essence, the message is very simple – be considerate to other road users, and in particular, to those road users who are at a disadvantage to you – even if they might not be reciprocal or in the right technically speaking. For example, I tend to ride onto the dirt next to the cycle path when people take their walk occupying both sides. I’ve also often been given way to at zebra crossings which strictly speaking should only be done for pedestrians. Regardless of actual motivation, be it courtesy or caution, it is simply nice to give & receive such consideration to others. Perhaps a principle of least imposition, if a wanky name is called for.

Granted I do commute in the relatively insulated & relaxed traffic environment that is Canberra. Indeed I often have trouble crossing roads in some parts of China where it would be impossible for pedestrians to cross without forcibly cutting cars off. I don’t know whether such ethos is the product of the environment or vice versa, but I suspect it’s a little of both. Like all such idealisations, it’s only workable in any real sense when everyone is willing to give it a go, but when it become natural, the road will be infinitely more pleasant to use. One could go further and say that such attitude should pervade other aspects of human activity, and indeed it’s certainly not novel in the least in the message. That however, would be an ecumenical matter.

Just as the fearless red rider of Velosentai lie awake at night pondering exactly what bike would be represent the symbol of honour and justice on the road, lo and behold, an epiphany was upon him:

Not quite as ostentatious as the undeniably Japanese art of dekochari, but nevertheless like many aspects of Japanese culture, the difference between sincerity & irony is never too clear - to me one of the chief attractions.

Via Bakfiets en meer.

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of cycle socialism, is, undoubtedly, the fact that it would relieve us from the sordid necessity of having to acquire new shoes not because they no longer commensurate aesthetically with one’s buttonholes, but from the utter indecorum of physical deterioration, as any dedicated ambulist can recount with considerable abhorrence.

One simply cannot overstate the vulgarity that is the predilection towards the motor car as a means of conveying oneself from one triviality to the next, leaving in its wake irreversible alterations to one’s mind & the natural environment of Man. Rapidity, like all such excesses & bombastics, should only be enjoyed in moderation & with subtlety. After all, only those who are always in a hurry should have need for speed, by being as noisely and as expensively as possible in doing so. It is a great tragedy when thw world defines worth by what a man owns, what he ought to own, what is owed to him, and not by what is beautiful.

The bicycle, on the other hand, is perfectly charming both in the gracility of its physical form and in the gracefulness of its operation. A well-dressed Adonis enraptured by riding a well-tuned bicycle is the only link between Art and Nature. Ecce Homo, Ecce Birota!

Not since our arboreal days have Man been so effortless with locomotion using what was bestowed by God alone. There’s something intrinsically Greek about the epiphany where one achieve complete harmony with the divine axial gyrations caressing gently the ground upon which one traverses, the contours assuaged with nothing but perfectly spherical, lubricious metallic orbs, so very ideal, and idolised & worshipped by sages of old.

One should either be a work of art, or ride a work of art, that love unspeakable.

May the revolutionary spin eternally.

Thanks for visiting & ride safe.

New years, and its proximal dates, are supposed to be a time for calm reflection over the passing of yet another artificial & arbitrary temporal demarcation, a time to unleash one’s reservations against the over-commerialised way in which people behave & either spoil yourself or people close to you – all in all, a time where the Dionysian should triumph over the Apollonian just a little bit.

That is until reality hits home.

Why is it that during times like Christmas horrific things are more acutely tragic I do not know, but such unimaginable excruciations for those involved makes it difficult to even contemplate the existence of divine providence regardless of religion.

It is however some consolation that the spirit of Christmas is alive & well in this festive Times article about the woes & lamentations endured by the columnist from the heinous acts of cyclists (allegedly) littering. Whilst I’m almost certain that Mr. Parris’ calls for the decapitation of the (alleged) offenders are nothing more than agitation stylistics ever so popular in media today, especially when there’s very little to talk about initially, it is hardly surprising that it came across as being inexcusably vitriolic, as clearly evident in many of the responses. It does make one wonder why such 2-minute hate sessions are still so prevalent even with post-Orwellian awareness, ranging from trivial issues like these to the demonisation of entire groups of people, and exactly what message the author had hoped to spread.

It might be easy to recognise & criticise conceit & bigotry in those with different views, but one can never fully anticipate reactions from others to one’s own, no matter how carefully one tries & how well-meaning it might be. There’s really no fast & hard rules, as the standards will necessarily be personal. Indeed too much hesitance can only lead to complete obfuscation, not to mention being utterly boring, as I am clearly demonstrating here.

Hereafter anything else I might want to add only increases the compunction for rebuttals in whatever succeeding it, and it’ll really get nowhere, which was where it started originally. If there were to be a point at all, it’d probably be the importance of empathy in getting your message through. You will never make everyone happy, and as interesting as agitprop might be, embracing tolerance & compassion can be very effective, too.

So goes the somewhat unkind definition for cyclists who don’t wear helmets, using shock to convey the message, as is done in this German public awareness poster though far more sympathetically:

Australia is one of the few countries with mandatory helmet laws, so what self-respecting (regardless of what little there might be to respect) bike blog can do without at least some form of inane dialectics on the issue. I’m not going argue too much about the enforcement of law itself or the effectiveness of wearing a helmet, since there’s already much discussion covering many aspects. It is one of those topics that tend to generate voluminous amount of rather zealous repartee from all participants (cf. PC vs. Mac, CD vs. Vinyl), and so consciously avoiding the usual convolutions, I will simply say:

I don’t like wearing helmets.

Though of course as with all such generalised statements the clarification one must give in order to elucidate what it actually means would easily devour any genuine intention of trying to make a simple point, but verbosity will at least give a semblance of genuine content.

This being the blogosphere, the formula is often to introduce the subject with a personal anecdote enforcing one’s argument, as it is often more difficult to refute someone, at least openly in polite society, when people relate their own experience – though perhaps there’s less reservation in the virtual world. However lucid narratives are things I can’t even delude myself into being able to write, and it will suffice to say that I have had my share (fair or otherwise) of intimate congresses with geographical features – at least once post-bacchanally. As a result these have left some rather strong impressions on me to this day. Only once was I wearing a helmet, and upon that single occasion, the helmet most certainly did save me from something much more severe than a torn bag, a shattered helmet & nasty grazes.

But I still don’t like wearing helmets.

There’s one crucial difference between that single occasion & other times – I was riding my road bike, and I always wear helmet when I ride my road bike for fun or exercise, as I know that I’m far more likely to get hurt. To me this is the fundamental aspect of road safety for cyclists, i.e. the riding style, or perhaps more precisely, the riding mentality – something I referred to in that drivel about cycling attire, but is of more importance here.

Road bikes are optimisations upon what is already a very optimal design, and you can really appreciate the beauty of its streamlined simplicity when using it, in addition to the rush you’d get from the mental focus & sheer physical exertion. I don’t think there’s much dispute concerning the increased (arguably exponential) risk in going faster, indeed risk taking is a major part of what makes things fun & enjoyable. With such increased risks however, it is only rational to have higher levels of protection against accidents.

Cycling as a sport, that is to say road racing, BMX, mountain biking etc, the inherent risk is far higher than riding your clunker down to the shops for milk. Just like F1 or rally racing is far more dangerous than driving your kids to school. I tend to regard these are two very distinct activities, with the only similarity being the vehicle.

When I’m on my commuters, I adopt a completely different mindset, though often the route might be exactly the same. The pleasure is derived from something entirely different; it is a self-powered transportation with unmatched degrees of freedom that allows you enjoy the surroundings when you are travelling. Indeed sometimes I even think to myself why are these other cyclists go so fast – even though I am probably one of them when I’m on a roadie. Such dualistic, even dichotomous mindsets are too often observed in human beings when perspectives change, often subconsciously. It is probably inherently human, but without some degree of self-righteousness there can be no individuality, one of the defining human qualities.

I ride different bikes differently, but there is nothing to stop you from doing so on a single bike. Admittedly it’d be tough to keep a leisurely pace if you are on full Record carbon razorblade, but that is perhaps a reason to think about getting a more dedicated commuter if you travel frequently by bike.

The risk of hurting myself on a bike when I’m commuting is probably as high as hurting myself whilst taking a shower or going for a walk or cooking a meal, which is not exactly low since I am rather clumsy. I don’t really have too strong a position against mandatory helmet laws, since one life saved should be justification enough. But such overly paternalistic prescription are not exactly consistent considering there are many other “risky” thing left unregulated by law, and it is discouraging at least to some potential commuter cyclists, as biased as I of course am. Perhaps it is selfish, but I tend to think that risk assessment in this case can perhaps be left up to the individual.

Incidentally, Mandatory helmet law is one of the main concerns raised in regard to the possible Vélib’-style bike rental system into Australia, as there would be immediate issues concerning hygiene, storage, tracking & fit.

Having mentioned the possibility of having a Sentai show (re-edited into the Power Rangers series in the West) about cyclists in jest a few posts ago, it occured to me that the stereotypical cyclist, in this country at any rate, have more in common with the your average sentai member than meets the eye, which is plenty in itself.

Or El socialismo puede llegar solo en la bicicleta in the original Spanish by José Antonio Viera Gallo. Came across this quote whilst search for random associations between political movements & the proliferation of bicycles. My knowledge of Spanish rarely extents itself beyond the culinary fields, and thus I have no idea whether the English rendition is a faithful one or not (If any Spanish speaking readers can help out, it’d be muchos bueno. Gracias!). The most obvious interpretation I get politically is that socialism should take place gradually & not through violent & reactionary social changes, evolution, not revolution - to use an over-used phrase.

Irrespective of what he meant, the quote is quite perfect for what the cycle-socialist cause stands for -as confused and confusing ideologically as it maybe, both literally & in its implied message.

There are increasing number of public demonstrations regarding the better recognition & general road rights for cyclists around the developing cycling cultures such as Critical Masses & more arguably more eye-catching World Naked Bike Ride. One must admire the level of energy & devotion the participants have in events such as these, and the level of exposure alone would indeed have some impact on the public perception of cyclists. However as fond of dynamic or even militant political imagery as I am, personally I tend to favour more subtlety in one’s words & actions in reality. And like all forms of political activism, there’s bound to be some hostile reactions to the act itself, regardless of how well-meaning & logically sound the arguments are. There is a great little discussion over at Zakkaliciousness’ site with some helpful suggestions & insights.

Look at Jesus for example, some of the most beautiful ideas to ever grace this earth, and look what happened to him?! Ok perhaps not entirely comparable, not to mention grossly irreligious, but the point is probably valid. so ardent activism aside, perhaps it also will help to take a rather more relaxed position in the promotion of cycling, a form of political passivism if you will. Instead of organised mass rides of power projection & tours of solidarity, try to influence those around you through your own actions through practical examples of using a bike for everyday purposes & not just something for the weekends. Sure the statement you are making won’t have the same “Shock & Awe” as riding an iridescent pink Penny Farthing through CBD in your birthday suit (though to me probably less confusing), but in the long run the permeation is more enduring.

Like what is said in the Tao Te Ching (or was it an episode of Futurama?)

The best sovereigns rule with insouciance. Once his deeds are accomplished, people will say, “This has always been the way it has been before .”