Grumpy Old Man -- Drinking Problems

More Than DUI or Alcoholism

There is more to a "Drinking Problem" than driving drunk or under the influence; or issues of alcoholism to my mind — or at least not what I think people might traditionally consider.

Now I am not 100% prudish. If someone were to take a "nip" from a flask on public transit during rush hour or at a sporting event I'd look the other way — especially if they did so discretely and they were not bothering others. You must of course remember that for the most part here in Canada, drinking in public is frowned on. Meaning you aren't really allowed to drink in public unless at a licensed establishment. Of course, now many stadiums do sell alcohol, however they frown — legally — on BYOB¹. Public drunkenness is right out!

Getting back to public transit... I had the pleasure — displeasure — of sharing my bus-ride with two "gentlemen" who were travelling home from some job or practical job training which involved scaling poles or trees. They had their climbing belts and gear with them. That included rather nasty hammers, spikes, and husky ropes. I noted later that it also included some "belts". The one fellow really reminded me of my upstairs neighbour who more often than not would spend his recreational time "boozed up". It was only a short while later where I realized the resemblance -- though I admit I could be wrong and greatly biased. Here too was a man who drank whenever he was not working or at least he drank at any time he could do so. This included the time he might be commuting on the bus. I am going to assume that didn't include the time commuting to work as he likely had to be somewhat sober for work.

Granted he needn't be staggering drunk, but drunk enough that anyone around would note it and many would find themselves uncomfortable around him. His travelling partner, another fellow pole climber — who probably also worked very hard at work — was snorting back a few on the bus with him. The two of them weren't making a huge scene, but — and here is where the "drinking problems I am referring to come into play — were making the young woman (24-25) and young man (14-16) sitting by them very uncomfortable. The young man nearly jumped out of his skin when the empty "mickey²" flew past him to land on the shelf at the back of the bus.

Perhaps the high school student and the young college student should not have been upset by two hard drinking, hard working men enjoying their leisure time in their company... but we aren't talking about a pub or bar, nor even a restaurant or BBQ. We are talking about public transit just at the beginning of the rush hour. Somehow I think that people should be able to take advantage of public transit without being forced to face hard drinking.

The drinking problem is people being made uncomfortable... if I seem out of line consider this. The two men are incapable of restraining themselves from drinking for their trip home -- or even the 20 minutes the bus ride lasts. Twenty minutes is the entire duration of that bus route from start to finish. Perhaps they had had to endure a previous bus ride, but even so... if they could not wait to start drinking until the got where they were getting to, it shows that even sober they had issues of controlling their actions. These also were men carrying piked hammers and hatchets in addition to climbing spurs and ropes. They were rough looking customers who I think would take more than equal numbers of police to subdue if it ever came down to it.

So we have two fellows who "might" have problems controlling their impulses when sober, drinking on the bus while armed.

I think that this is in reality a "drinking problem" and not meaning their drinking problem but that of everyone around them.

I still haven't mentioned them talking about how they always liked to have a bottle in their pocket. That was in case someone came up behind them, so that they would always have something they could hit them across the face with, and how they never liked people who approached them from behind or who might talk behind their back... and when I heard them talking about it, I got the impression that people might pick fights with them half-way regularly. I wondered if their actions brought any of this onto themselves?

But that is the "Drinking Problem" I am referring to... that of making everyone around them uncomfortable without regard.

For that matter — yours truly even felt uncomfortable around them, not knowing what they might do — or not do — and I am not a small person.

Later!
~ Darrell

157.

__________
¹ BYOB -- Bring Your Own Bottle.

² A 375-ml (13.2 imperial fluid oz - 12.7 US fl oz) bottle of liquor such as whiskey.

Walking in a Winter Wonderland

...or trying to.

I rather like walking in the snow. I think snow is beautiful although it seems many of my friends do not care for it. I know they have their reasons and perhaps I might change my mind in time... or maybe I just have too many good memories of it.

(image to right from Image*After)

Unfortunately -- though when young I used to shovel our walks within 24 hours of every snowfall back when I lived in a city where snow actually came every winter -- here folk don't seem to care much about whether their walks are cleared of snow and ice regardless of municipal bylaw or the convenience of passersby. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that here it snows only for a week or three a year and that the snow most often disappears on its own a day or three after the fall. Sometimes the snow lingers and even when it doesn't it can be a very large problem for some folk.

There are folk who are quite fine travelling on foot on good dry pavement and sidewalks that find ice and snow to be an effective barrier for them even on journeys of a block. Some might have nearly invisible mobility issues like balance problems or coordination problems that you'd never note. They might never even use a cane. Others might use walkers or scooters which are stymied by nearly any level of snow or ice. Some scooters are better at handling it than others in case you are recalling seeing folk using scooters on snowy sidewalks.

(image to left from Image*After)

I know of some people who have artificial legs who can not walk on ice and snow and whose wheelchairs can not navigate it either. They go from independence to requiring special transit either by "Handidart" or specially equipped taxi.

You can't blame all the folk who don't clear their walks...

I often come across a nasty situation where the city and highways departments plough the roads and the icy half melted snow is left on the sidewalks and shoulders of the roads creating near glacial coverage as the dumped ice and snow hardens. It is almost like concrete and probably nearly impossible to shovel without a small tractor. It is also very hard to walk on because of its rough nature and tendency to have hard crust over softer under-layers -- difficult to walk on for able bodied folk, impossible for less able bodied, nearly impossible for a home owner to remove.

(Image to right from Image*After)

I can't really think of a solution for it all. For those places where the city or highways department ploughs the road, perhaps they should be less exuberant and take care not to cover the sidewalks or to provide a service to use municipal or highways equipment to clear the sidewalks. For other sidewalks... well there should be some way to get folk to actually clear their walks. Perhaps if someone actually followed through with one of those small city tractors and cleared the uncleared walks for a special price which would be outlined in a bylaw?

I really don't think people should be trapped in their homes because of inconsideration.

Later!
~ Darrell

150.

Going the Extra Mile - Accessible Often Means Roundabout

The Long Way Around

While sometimes a person might complain when there are no accessible facilities available, it can seem like you are looking a gift horse in the mouth with you complain about the facilities that exist. It can be rough to miss a connection on a bus because you were taking the extra fifty or even hundred metres required to reach an elevator or ramp.

True, a person might say "you should have started out earlier" which might have some truth to it --  but when connecting from one service to the next, you only have a certain amount of time to travel from one mode to another whether it be from bus to train or train to bus or even bus to bus or train to train. When service is every 3-5 minutes it is not so bad, but when service is less frequent than every 15 minutes it can make a large difference.

When you can't run for a bus it can be very frustrating for one to leave when you are so very close at hand -- travelling from one place to another within the station or terminal.

Some places just aren't designed well for people who aren't travelling well on foot. It is like the designers don't actually have a clue what it is to use these facilities if you need the accessible facilities. Perhaps this is just the case. Perhaps they really do need people who use the facilities to be a part of the design and not just part of town hall meetings and open houses on getting building permits approved.

(image to right from Wikipedia)

I know that there is the issue of keeping wheelchair friendly ramps at a slope that is safe and without too long straight lengths and such forth. But sometimes thing should be planned out better. I hope that things are getting better. I also hope that there is planning included for (in no particular order and not inclusive) people with babies in strollers and carriages; people with other impairments such as visual; people with luggage; people with small children; and so many other situations other than a business person on the way to work with a brief case and maybe an umbrella... for that matter... rainy days can sure be a problem with people not having a thing they can do with a wet umbrella.

An example of bad design is a "Skytrain" station built in the late 80's or early 90's which straddles a major highway interchange and bridge entrance ramp system. The station does have escalators and an elevator to take people up to the elevated track level -- but -- the elevator is on the side of the highway interchange the "Park & Ride" is on while the Transit Loop for catching buses is on the far side. The work-around is to call for a "Handi-dart" bus to come and transfer you from one side of the interchange to the other. Handi-dart is the part of the local transit system that picks up disabled people who are typically unable to ride normal public transit.

The station should have had an elevator designed into both sides. It is not a matter of there not being room. It might have meant a couple fewer parking stalls in the design of the "Park & Ride". I guess nobody on the design team considered that a person who would require the elevator might be taking the bus to continue their journey? It is good that the stations can be built elevated so that they can be above roads and thus make a smaller footprint on the urban groundspace -- But the disabled are often the folk on the low incomes that use the transit system most... perhaps not in a wheelchair, but sometimes a person who gets around with a cane or walking stick has problems with stairs and escalators?

We need more than work-arounds!

Later!
~ Darrell

142.

Tub Needs a Plug!

Ships in Harbour a Source of Air Pollution -- To be Plugged... In.

Commerce and tourism are two important parts of the economy of many communities and MetroVancouver¹ is one of those places where it plays a very important role. With that importance comes a price and there are prices in polution to be paid to do with the port.

Something many people might not consider -- when looking at the powerful freighters moored in the harbour or docked at the term; or watching the graceful cruise ship sailing under Lions Gate Bridge (image to left -- image from Dubman Tours) to dock at the passenger terminals --  is that those ship while parked keep engines running the whole time in order to run generators for electral works and other systems on the ship the whole time in port. Undoubtedly they aren't running their main engines and producing the same amount of exhaust as they would at sea, but they do produce a substantial ammount. I was surprised recently reading how substantial it is and on a percentage basis how much it might become.

The Vancouver Sun²:

Collectively, ship exhaust emissions comprise one of the biggest sources of air pollution in the Metro-Fraser Valley region - port electrification would allow marine vessels to switch off their engines
and plug into the grid instead.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

But the image also has a less obvious, troubling aspect. For every day it's in the harbor, the ship's smokestacks may be spewing as much nitrogen oxide into the city's air as 12,500 cars, as much as an oil refinery.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

A 2003 British Columbia study said marine vessels have produced more than a million tons of pollutants in a year, more than half the total there. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, which put together the study, predicts the marine industry will produce a growing percentage of key pollutants in that region as ship traffic grows and auto pollution is reduced.

A partial solution is to provide some sort of method for ships to connect to the electrical grid of the port that they are docked at. Metro Vancouver is towards implementing that. Port Metro Vancouver wants to see cruise ships plugged in for the 2009 summer cruise season. One of the large issues is a lack of federal money. There is a need for $4 million needed to add to contributions from Metro Vancouver port authority, the region, the marine industry, and the province.²

The system of providing shore power to cruise ships is something that was first implemented on the West Coast at Juno Alaska in 2002 and since then Seattle has provided shore power plugs to tow of their three berths. In  Long Beach, San Pedro, San Francisco and San Diego there are plans to do so as well.⁴

In addition to ports providing the infrastructure to allow ships to plug in to shore power there must also be provision for the ships to be able to take advantage of this as well. Holland America and Princess Cruise ships are able to plug-in in Seattle.⁴

Power provided by the shore electrical grid costs about the same as that generated by diesel on the ship if you discount the investment for a transformer on the ship required to plug-in to the grid.

The cruise ship industry has been a first step because it is in the public eye seem to be more willing to comply with requests. Two container terminals in the inner harbour -- I am assuming that is referring to Coal Harbour or elsewhere on Burrard Inlet between First and Second Narrows -- have the infrastructure in place for wiring to go to the dockside. The new third berth at Deltaport on Robert's Bank will have that infrastructure when it is completed.⁵

There are some hurdles to do with BC Hydro and the BC Utilities Commision in order to develop pricing schems for these customers. The port authority has formally applied to BC Hydro for the interconnecting service.

(image to left, 2005 registration of merchant ships - image from Wikipedia⁶)

There are greater difficulties in dealing with pollution issues in the shipping industry as most of the oceangoing ships are "foreign-flagged" so reducing emissions takes significant amounts of time.³ This action would help with emission issues for when the ships are travelling in and out of harbour -- and of course at sea -- as well as if they have to be running engines for power at anchor. But acting on merchant shipping is something that has to be initiated on an international level -- the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency.³ When regulations are put into effect by the IMO they would be enforced by individual nations and ports. The IMO was looking at revising their 1997 regulations in 2006.⁷

(image to right from Wikipedia⁶)

Plugging into shore power will solve problems of idling ships which are docked, but for ones at anchor in the harbour... Personally I wonder what solutions might there be other than improved air-pollution standards internationally. Somehow I think that providing docking stations in the harbour at anchorages so that ships could plug in would be prohibitive in cost. Perhaps tenders or barges with huge hydrogen fuel cells might provide these plug-ins? They'd be refuelled and moved where needed. Perhaps in future ships might have hydrogen fuel cells or solar panels for in port and other needs on their own? Perhaps a power barge might have fuel cells, solar panels, wind turbines, and wave power generators all in one? (I can really be a dreamer.)

Perhaps someday there might be solutions for ships at sea, but for now while we think globally we have to act locally and work on the pollution on more local selfish levels like the increase to pollution burdens in our cities.

Later!
~ Darrell

137

__________
¹Metro Vancouver is the name of what was once known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) or colloquially as Greater Vancouver and which Statistics Canada defines as "Vancouver CMA" (Census Metropolitan Area) "having perfectly coterminal boundaries with Metro Vancover" -- Metro Vancouver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

² "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Scott Simpson, Sept 4, 2008; Vancouver Sun.

³  "Air pollution from cargo ships stirs growing concern" Larry Lange, January 20, 2004; Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

⁴ John Hansen, President of the NorthWest CruiseShip Association - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁵ Darryl Desjardins,  Environmental programs director for Port Metro Vancouver - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁶ "Ship transport" Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⁷ "Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports" Dan Weikel, July 6, 2006; Los Angeles Times

Unattributed images from Image*After.

Mile i Pod

Watching What You Want to Watch Where You Want to When You Want to

Alright here is something perhaps new for you... Where do your rights start when it comes to where you can watch or surf something on the privacy of your own PED (Personal Electronic Device -- Notebook or Laptop computer; iPod; Portable DVD player; mp4 player; personal video player...)?

American Airlines has an in-flight Wi-Fi service now for passengers which started on some flights August 20th¹ and there are concerns voiced by flight attendants and passengers about people using the service to access porn sites while on flights. An article on Bloomberg.com mentions that there were "a lot of complaints"¹and that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants has brought up the issue with management  They recommend that American filter its Wi-Fi service -- blocking black-listed sites -- in order to block offensive content² as I believe there are plans to screen VoIP service as well³. VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol which basically is the primary way of making telephone calls by way of your Internet connection. (image to left* from Image*After)

There are a number of issues involved. There are the worries that passengers will complain that their neighbouring passengers are watching objectionable material on their PED. Of course there are also worries that passengers might be disturbed that their ability to access any site they could from home would be blocked in a form of censorship. More seem to be accepting of this in the case of the VoIP¹. Perhaps they can see that is in direct competition with the telephone service the airlines already charge for on flights?

Flight Attendants in addition to not wanting to get an eyeful of something they'd rather not see on someone's PED also do not want to become "moral policemen"¹ and have one more area where they might have to lay down the law. They have their hands full with other aspects of the job and likely don't want to have to settle disputes between passengers -- which might be either "they've got something objectionable on their screen" or "the person behind me keeps looking over my shoulder". Another aspect is people doing lewd things while watching explicit content.

(image to right from Image*After)

This is not something that came up just with the introduction of WiFi and Internet connectivity on airliners. This issue also comes up with whether an airline can prohibit what sorts of DVD or other content a passenger is viewing on their PED. A person can have a DVD with nearly any sort of content imaginable and pop it into a player -- whether computer or not -- and play it with no Internet involved at all. Likewise for video podcasts or even audio ones -- remember the "faked orgasm scene" from "When Harry Met Sally".

Of course these things did not appear with digital electronics. The same problems can be said about explicit magazines. Anyone could flip open the magazine of their choice on the airplane and start "reading the articles". Things like this have been a part of life for quite a while and are not really new.

Anyone who is offering the service of an Internet hookup probably has the right to say what they want to provide or block -- perhaps other than the actual providers? If  coffee shop provides WiFi connection to its customers, they probably can block access to some sites with blocking programs. I know when I go to places that provide such services the first thing I get when I try to access the Web is a screen asking if I accept the limits and risks imposed on me and that I might be exposed to by connecting to the Internet there. I can just imagine someone suing a coffee shop for a virus they picked up on their computer when the were downloading pirated game software.

(Image to left from Image*After)

I am not sure if it is a "non-problem" really. I don't know that it has been a problem with people sitting in coffee shops drinking Latte and watching XXX. For the most part regular people behave themselves in public. The times they don't seem to tend to be the times when they are getting intoxicated or high... and that is an issue on its own whether on land, "see" or airline. Control the booze and you likely won't have to worry  about controlling the people.

(image to right from Notebook Review¹¹)

Of course if you control porn sites, then you'll want to control pirate software sites too. You'll want to screen out any site that would have illegal activity on it. But what about violent video games? ...music with violent lyrics? ...content that might be deemed offensive for racial, religious, or other sexual reasons? What if someone is watching news content from an enemy country? ...or news from a country that has opposing views to your own country? What if one person is offended that the person next to them is watching religious programming?

I think that often the answer given by peace officers is "then don't look" -- though sometimes it is hard when it is presented nearly on your own lap. Luckily nearly everyone has the decency to use headphones or earphones. I think that rather than blocking things, it perhaps should all be taken care of on a case by case basis.

I was remembering back when I was in university and calculators were a novel thing still, but becoming commonplace. There were worries about people cheating by seeing the numbers on someone else's calculator. I think that manufacturers foresaw this because it wasn't very long before calculators -- at least scientific and engineering calculators -- had recessed numbers so that you could only read the display from where you were using it. If you were to the side at all you couldn't read the numbers.

Anti-glare shields that came out for early computer monitors (image to left - image from Ergo in Demand) also had this function and it was considered to be a feature for offices where you wouldn't want confidential information seen by people nearby. With some older laptops it was difficult to see the screen unless you were in front of them. But because many people want to share what they show on their laptop screen, many consider it a bonus to have the screen viewable from a broad range of angles -- otherwise there would be less problem with neighbours seeing what you see.

But there are purposes for such a product for notebooks especially and perhaps there are such products out already... Yup There is a 3M PF14.1 - notebook privacy filter! (image to right - image from CDW Canada)

Perhaps though there might be a market for disposable/resusable "blinders" for computers? Perhaps the airlines might offer them for safe viewing? They could also double as glare shields from the cabin lighting.

Protection provided for your viewing pleasure.

Later!
~ Darrell

135

__________
¹ "American Air Attendants Urge Fiters to Bar Web Porn (Update3)" Mary Schlangenstein, Sept. 10, 2008; Bloomberg.com: News.

² "Porn on a plane: Flight attendants fret over inappropriate Web surfing" David Carnoy, Sept. 12, 2008; Crave, the gadget bog -- CNET, news.cnet.com.

³ "Airlines planning to filter, censor in-flight 'Net access" Jacqui Cheng, Dec. 24, 2007; From the News Desk -- ars technica.
"Porn on a plane! Concerns raised over naughty in-flight WiFi" Jacqui Cheng, Sept. 12 2008; From the News Desk -- ars technica.

¹¹ "Coffee Shop Laptop Zombies" Andrew, May 23, 2007; Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion - Notebook Review

* Images of airliners not intended to represent American Airlines or specific airline

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability

Getting Rid of Unnecessary Barriers

Their are probably many barriers that people simply do not think about and would not until they are faced by them. Perhaps they note them as being a nuisance if they are able bodied and grumble a bit, but they don't consider how much of a barrier they might be to someone who is not able bodied.

Disabled need not mean a person is in a wheelchair either -- it need not even be something that is long term -- except perhaps for the determination of some benefits from government bodies or insurance companies. Some things are pretty obvious: a set of stairs with no reasonable alternate route to access some facility or place; a narrow doorway or passage; an exceptionally rough patch of rocky path or walkway; and others that you can probably add to this list yourself. There are some people who do sports in wheelchairs for sure, and can nearly climb stairs in them -- they can climb simple curbs, I have seen.

But getting on to the less obvious things.

...like the wheelchair symbol to the right of the rather imposing doors... (image to right - image from Image*After)

I know someone who has problems getting around. She uses a mobility scooter for anything outside the apartment. The building has an elevator and the rear door exits to the parking area under the building. The parking is open on one side and there is easy, fairly open access to the lane behind the building. Luckily there is a shopping centre that is fairly well lit there so that it isn't too much like going into a scary dungeon at night and onto a dark alley.

I was surprised to hear that my friend didn't use the bus stop that is just across the street from that shopping centre. Metro Vancouver is pretty progressive and has been replacing nearly 100% of its fleet with low floor buses that can kneel. (image to left - image from buses world news) But why did my friend travel 1 km to the next stop? At the stop close to her building she told me; there was no room between the curb and a steep drop-off into a parking lot adjacent the stop for her to manoeuvre her scooter onto the ramp into the bus! Perhaps a chair with a near zero turning radius could do the manoeuvre simply, or maybe a smaller scooter. But this my friend could not use a smaller scooter.

When they set up the stops for Translink's buses there were no considerations for wheel chair ramps. They placed the stop well up the hill from the controlled intersection to avoid the driveways, and this placed the stop adjacent to a sharp drop-off into a parking lot. I told my friend that she should make sure to talk to the drivers about the problem and perhaps email or telephone the transit company to tell them the situation. The 1km distance might sound excessive, but it is an express bus with limited stops. I took it upon myself to write to Translink as they are open to such things and have people whose job is to listen to such problems and try find solutions. Since then, I have heard that the solution is that the bus merely pulls up about 4 feet further along the street where there is more room for someone to manoeuvre onto the extended ramp.

Recently I was invited to an open house for the development of a new shopping centre. I asked -- with regards to their landscaping on the sidewalk and boulevard -- if they had taken into account such things as room for people to manoeuvre scooters and wheelchairs in and out of the buses that would be stopping outside their centre. This was important to them actually because the anchor for the shopping centre was a major pharmacy chain. They wanted to draw customers who would likely include many who would be using chairs, scooters, walkers and similar aids on the transit system.

(image of Translink bus to right from buses world news)

With all the new construction going on, it can be difficult for any pedestrian to get around. It seems that many concessions are made for getting motor vehicle traffic through the construction zones -- but little is done for the pedestrian and great hurdles might be set into place for anyone who is not able.

This can include simple issues such as doubling the distance someone has to walk on their travels. (image to left from Image*After) This can simply be the closing of a sidewalk on one side of the road blocking it for 9 metres (30 ft approx) so that a person has to backtrack to a crosswalk cross the street, travel a block or two to the next crosswalk and then walk back. With some longish blocks and streets that are just too busy to cross at uncontrolled intersections, this can add up substantially. Such a diversion would not mean very much for a driver, but heavy metal plates might be placed over excavations so that they could be driven over. I have also seen construction debris cover half of sidewalks making them impassible except for people who are light of foot.

Many people do not realize just how impeding ice and snow (or even rain soaked leaves) can be if they do not clean their walks. A narrow swept path can still be impassible for someone in a chair or scooter. Ice and snow might be far to dangerous for someone with brittle bones even if they do walk with only a walking stick. A person with balance problems or lack of feeling in the feet can have great problems on snow. Even if the sidewalks are clear, the city and province have this nasty habit of plowing snow up against the curb making a person have to climb over it to reach the street at intersections in order to cross.

A lot of these barriers could be dealt with simply, without having to change the infrastructure much. Simply being aware and actually clearing snow, planning a bit, and remembering that some people rely on wheels... even babies in carriages -- and you don't want to force them out into traffic or to have to travel a kilometre past the closest bus stop..

Later!
~ Darrell

128.

Here's the Caboose!

What's a Caboose?

When I grew up any child -- at least in Canada and the USA knew what a Caboose was. I figure most folk who spoke English natively might know that. The "caboose" was the special train car that came at the end of a train. In fact it confused me that passenger trains didn't have them!

Now they no longer put cabooses at the end of freight trains, they have been replaced by electronic boxes of some sort they put at the back of the last car in the train. The function of the caboose as a car for the train crew no longer exists and the entire crew is -- I imagine either in the engine or in the various railroad offices.

Perhaps cabooses have become "extinct" on today's railroads, but what does this mean for the caboose in the English language? I don't imagine that many will miss it and people will simply think that those who talk about getting a "swift kick in the caboose" are a bit eccentric. They might wonder at some of the children's books that talk about trains and mention cabooses. (image of CPR caboose to right -- image from "Railway Photography by Chris vanderHeide") Of course "caboose" might not be the only word that gets you weird looks. What do you think kids today make of "Choo choo train"? Other than special tour trains and museums and in movies and on TV they might not see a steam engine or even if so not equate it with "Choo choo trains".

It is something that has happened again and again with changes in society and technology. When was the last time you talked about a "Hi Fi"? "Gramophone" "Victrola". I wonder how long before "record player" disappears from our normal vocabulary and is relegated to Scrabble games or Crossword puzzles?

I hope that doesn't happen with something like "polar bear".

Later!
~ Darrell

112.

Where's the Caboose?

Road Trains!

You might think that reducing fuel costs is a new thing which has been spurred on only in recent times by talk of the environment and increased oil prices -- but any freight company owner or manager who has any idea of keeping their business profitable has been interested in this all along. I can imagine that even in the days of the original teamsters -- the ones who drove and took care of teams of horses and possibly oxen -- kept their eyes on how many coins it cost to haul oats.

One of the ways that were used in bygone days -- probably before the days I remember of my Dad's trucking in the 60's and 70's -- was to pull more than one trailer with a tractor. When I say tractor, you would possibly say "truck" or perhaps "articulated lorry". "Tractor" being a term for the truck that pulls a "semi trailer truck unit". That basically means that the "trailer" doesn't have front wheels of its own, but instead rests its weight on the back axles of the "tractor". That is done through a pivoting plate called a "fifth wheel".

Here is a shot of a "Semi" or "semi trailer truck" from the same company my Dad drove for many years ago in the 1970's. (image to right -- image from Ken Goudy's Collection)* I think most you are familiar with those sorts of rigs on the highways nearly anywhere in the world.

Something that some might be less familiar with are multiple trailer or semitrailer units which are called different things in different places. In some places they are called "Road Trains" in others: "Truck Trains" "Doubles" "Triples" "Rocky Mountain Doubles" "Turnpike Doubles" "Turnpike Triples" "Queen City Triples". Those are some of the Canadian names for them, I guess legally they tend to be called Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs), Extended Length Vehicles (ELVs), or Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles (EEMVs).

In Canada and the US you get A, B, and C-train variants which can be two and more rarely three trailer units. The three designations refer to how the trailers are attached to each other. Some places in Canada and the US allow them and some do not and there are differing restrictions as to just where and when they can travel; who can operate them; and how big they can get.

In the first half of the 1970's and perhaps later '60's my Father drove A-train doubles through the Rocky Mountains between Calgary, AB and Vancouver, BC as well as A-train triples between Calgary and Edmonton, AB. He was driving for B-Line Express at the time though with a bit more modern equipment than in this picture of single axle tractor with twin pups. (image to left -- image from Ken Goudy's Collection)* Dad always drove a tandem tractor and often both trailers had tandem axles too -- although the converter had only the single axle if I recall correctly.

Dad mostly hauled hanging beef from Calgary to Vancouver. That meant a load of beef hanging in refrigerated trailers from the roof of the trailer on hooks. You have to keep in mind that the entire load hung from the ceiling of the truck and could swing. Dad just called them "A-trains" or "Doubles" at the time, but I think today they would call them "Rocky Mountain Doubles" like the one to the right. (image to right -- image from Rigs, part of Bear's Trucking Glossary)** The "Triples" might have looked something like this to the left. (image to left -- image from Rigs, part of Bear's Trucking Glossary)** I wasn't sure if the "pups" were single or tandem axle trailers.

That was back in the 60's and 70's though and it was done because it was more efficient from the viewpoint of wages, equipment, and fuel. Perhaps you might recall there was an "energy crisis" back then too...

But that is history. Still history really isn't something to forget and really we are no different from people back then. (Some of us are people from back then.) Some of use were already environmentally conscious back then as well.

These "Truck Trains" or "Road Trains" are nothing compared with what they do in places like Australia. I don't mean everywhere in Australia. Their cities are no different than cities in Western nations anywhere else, they'd be too congested for even the shortest "trains". (There have been shown to be benefits to using short tractor-trailer units in cities rather than larger body-trucks/lorries though.)

In the "Outback" just like in Canada's North long straight stretches beg for interesting transportation solutions. This is where "Road Trains" come into their own and where they really were invented... (image to right from 009's Car Blog) Though this is even just small compared to some of the record setting ones in Australia that I have read about in another blog: Youngistan - Incredible Road Trains!!!

While more typical road trains might top out at 200 tonnes with the majority being between 80 and 120 tonnes - 80 - 120 being similar to Canadian and US sizes.

Monster trains in the outback in Guinness Book of Records in 1999 was for 45 trailers and 603t (601m long) in 2003 87 trailers (1,235m long) (no weight given) in 2006 112 trailers (1,474m long).

It all started out with someone buying a very powerful army surplus tractor and a bunch of army surplus "Bren-gun carriers" and wanting to carry more bulls across the outback.

Wikipedia - Road Train, History***

Australian Kurt Johansson is recognised as the inventor of the road-train. After transporting stud bulls 200 miles (320 km) to an outback property, Johansson was challenged to build a truck to carry 100 head of cattle instead of the original load of 20. Provided with financing of a couple thousand pounds to develop the vehicle, two years later his first road train was running.

Something different are the "Trackless Train" used in parking lots or fairgrounds for pedestrians or similar to the luggage trains in airports. There are also bus systems which actually put buses on track-like systems and articulated bus systems. But I will talk of them elsewhere.

It is a way to reduce the amount of fuel used in transporting goods on the highways, though it does take a bit of planning so that these long rigs can mix with other traffic.

Later!
~ Darrell

110

__________
* "Ken Goudy's Collection", Ken Goudy's Canadian Trucking Pictures -- Canadian Carrier Collection; "Hank's Web Site".

** "Bear's Trucking Glossary"

*** "Road Train" Wikipedia