Crest Fallen

I spend most of my motorcycling time on Highway 2, better known locally as 'Angeles Crest'.  It's a roller-coaster from flatland LA up into the mountains, over the top, and down into the desert.  Something like 60-odd miles or so of the most fun a sporting motorcyclist has any right to expect.

But this road has a bad reputation.  Not entirely justified, and vilified more among the non-riding population than those of us who ride and ought to know... but that reputation is not without reason.

It isn't the most dangerous road I ride.  My commutes by motorcycle through rush-hour LA city traffic pose far more hazards to my safety.  Freeway jaunts at peak traffic times are only slightly less risky.

This is because, for all intents and purposes, motorcyclists are invisible to other motorists.  Even when they aren't distracted by adjusting the radio, checking their GPS, reading (and answering) their email, combing their hair, doing their makeup, or even a phone call, car drivers just don't see bikers much of the time.  When they do see us, they usually don't understand the dynamics of bikes, and as a result do things around us that put us in danger; like tailgating, or cutting in front of us with their brakes hard-on.  (Modern cars with all-wheel ABS brakes can stop much faster than even the most sophisticated motorcycle, even if the bike has ABS.)

This invisibility and lack of empathy among car drivers pose by far the greatest danger to anyone who rides a bike.  Accidents and fatalities due to bike-car collisions are the most common.

The kind of accidents that typically occur on roads like Angeles Crest; however, are single vehicle, bike-only affairs.  This may be why these accidents get the most attention:  they aren't what we've come to think of as daily run-of-the-mill traffic risks;  these are incidents where the riders have put themselves at risk, on purpose, and for recreation.  It's easy for non-riders to see a convenient fix:  ban bikes from those roads and that kind of activity. (Never minding that sports car owners recreate there too - and also crash).

That attitude is a cross and a prejudice all of us who love riding for pleasure are forced to bear in America.  Things are easier for our brethren in Europe;  there are many more bikes per capita on the road there, and people are more comfortable with their presence.  Here, we are still considered by many as an outlaw minority, years after any excuse to believe that cliche has ceased to exist.

But, as I mentioned before, riding the Angeles Crest and roads like it can be dangerous.  Bikes (and cars) can and do crash there on a regular basis, and some of those crashes result in fatal injuries.

I've known people who've crashed - and a few who have died - on that road, but I also know people who've ridden there for decades without any accidents.  Sometimes the difference can be down to simple things:  a deer jumps out in front of you, or it doesn't;  newly fallen rocks have rolled into your path around a tight corner with a steep cliff and empty air your only escape route - or they haven't.  Sometimes the cause might be mechanical; a flat tire, a broken chain, oil spilling onto the rear tire, even braking failure, but these are exceedingly rare.

Usually, single vehicle bike crashes on Angeles Crest are down to rider error.  And even very, very experienced riders can make mistakes.

One rider I knew rode head-on into a metal gate that had been shut to close the road.  In his posthumous defense, that barrier had not been closed for many years, and the concept that it might be shut probably didn't register in his mind, much like the way we sometimes blow through newly-erected stop signs when we first encounter them.

But that accident was a tragic fluke; not down to rider skill apart from human frailty.  Usually, single vehicle accidents have a clear relation to experience.  Experience on a bike, experience with the particular bike the rider is on, and most importantly experience with the road.

For example, another rider who crashed earlier this month took his fall by running wide on a left turn, hitting the dirt, and getting ejected into the hillside. (Street bikes with street tires don't handle or brake well in dirt).  He'll survive, but with a partially-metallic shoulder and future problems with airport scanners.  From all I've heard, the man was an experienced rider, but not on Angeles Crest.

The Crest is not a particularly difficult road to ride, technically, but it does lure you into complacency then throw something unexpected at you:  one turn tightens when you don't think it will; another has an off-camber exit that also makes your bike want to run wide.  There are also lots and lots of otherwise easy turns that bother the inexperienced because they involve changing elevation uphill or downhill.  The uninitiated brake too much or too little, throttle too much or too little.

Just yesterday I witnessed the aftermath of a simple, non-injury low-side fall (where the bike falls over on it's closest side to the pavement, a bit like someone sliding into home base - only without the joy).  The drop took place in a set of two turns that are tighter than you'd think they'd be after the wide-open turns that precede them.  They also feature a significant change in elevation.  These are easy turns for those who have ridden them, but complicated to even experienced riders who haven't seen them before (and made more complicated recently courtesy of slippery tar 'snakes' laid down to seal cracks in the road surface).

Sadly for that faller, his bike was a very expensive Ducati Desmosedici - sort of a high-end Ferrari of the biking world.  Although it ran and he rode it away, I expect that learning experience will be costly.

SUMMING UP

Looking back over this post, it's clear I've been rambling a bit; my brain free-running and not as well-controlled as I'd like.  But that is appropriate in a sense, because my main point in this blog post is that accidents on roads like Angeles Crest are mostly avoidable through experience.  With experience comes control - of your bike and of yourself.  We may be vulnerable and reliant on others for our safety on city streets and highways, but on those mountain, canyon, or back-country roads we motorcyclists love best, it's really up to us.

Ride Well and Ride Safe ...

Crusader Duck

What would your ideal be for the leader of this nation?

My thoughts immediately turn to the portrayal of John F. Kennedy by William Devane in the original 'Missiles of October'.  Intelligent, with a fiery personality, but cautious in making decisions.  Someone who, in a crisis, tries to get expert opinion from across the spectrum, but finally makes his own decision, based on the firm belief that less is often more, and respectful is better than vengeful.  A moral person, taking the most humane path possible.

Only in movies?  Probably so.

But it's not a bad model to shoot for.

Our leader should be firmly committed to a form of Hippocratic oath;  first do no harm. The only way to make that so is to hold your fire until you are sure of the path and the action.  A chess game, as it were, where you must think many moves out, and look for the path to your goal that costs both you and your opponent the least.

Passing the two contestants of this Fall's Election through this filter, gives neither a scare nor a smile.  Neither fit the mold exactly, but both do far better than the alternatives that have fallen by the wayside.

You could say we're ahead of the game, but the final outcome is in limbo.

Mitt Romney does not bring to mind JFK or even William Devane's fictional portrayal of him.  When I think of Mr. Romney in that movie I see him caving to the military and bombing the crap out of Cuba, with the likely result we would have received a nuke along our Eastern Seaboard in reply.  Maybe even WWIII.  We could all be living in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic future right now, which, among other interesting possibilities, would have saved Hollywood the cost of countless box office bombs about the subject.

Barrack Obama isn't tons better.  He'd be more thoughtful and he'd push back at the military, but maybe too hard and too brusquely.  They'd be pissed, stage a coup, and bomb Cuba anyway.  Or perhaps he'd dither too long and those missiles would have been activated and, well, game over.

But of these two, I'd rather have the current President Obama in office for the next four years.  He's been a bit of an unsteady Crusader his first term, alternately tilting at windmills and breaking bread with windmill makers, but that hasn't been entirely unproductive.  And at least he's been active, not passive, as I suspect a Romney Presidency would be.

Of course, Obama comes with one deficit.  His next term would be his last, meaning he'll be a Lame Duck.  There's a benefit there, in that he'd be able to focus on issues and not worry about re-election.  Trouble is, there is also no reason anyone will have to work with him, since he'll be out of power before too long, and they can certainly wait out the time, even if the country can't.

There's an antidote to that problem:  have an electable Vice President who is ready and willing to assume the office after Obama's second term ends.  Sadly, that isn't the case with Joe Biden.  Smart, dedicated, and a talented public servant he may be, but he's not electable.  Not by a long shot.

Which leaves the Nation with a tough decision:  do we want our leader to be milquetoast Romney or Obama the Crusader Duck?

I'll take the Duck, and continue to Hope ...

Foolishness

As these words appear on my screen, it's the 23rd of April, yet you'd never know it wasn't still the 1st, Fool's Day.

All sorts of foolishness has oozed up this month, but by far the most foolish, and ooziest, has to be the repeal by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin's law to ensure equal pay for women.  Why a purportedly sentient being living in 21st century America would attempt to reverse nearly seventy years of progress in gender equality baffles me.  The concept that jumping back to pre-WWII conditions is a good idea borders on insanity.  But then, this is the same Governor who took away worker's collective bargaining rights, essentially punting the working man and his not-equally-paid female colleagues right back to the 1930s.

Some conservatives will see Walker's actions as a move to improve family values, by ensuring that at least  one member of a marriage (and that needs to be man-woman, mind you) has to be focused on home, hearth, and family.  And since that was their traditional duty, why not make that one the woman?  So let's discourage her from seeking a career in business, or government, or anything outside the home.

And his take on bargaining rights?  That will ensure a rise in corporate profits due to savings in labor costs.  Sure why not?  If hourly wages drop low enough, Wisconsin could become the new Mexico (make that new Thailand) of exported labor.  To make that official, Walker should secede Wisconsin from the Union and re-apply for protectorate status, sort of like Puerto Rico, or maybe Guam.

But lest I rant on poor Walker too much, let me point out another piece of foolishness that had nothing to do with the Governor, or his downtrodden CheeseHeads:  long-range ballistic missiles. Specifically, why one kind that doesn't work is worse than another that works fearsomely well.

As is becoming a routine spectacle, the North Koreans failed to get their long-range missile to fly.  It sputtered and popped and doggedly avoided leaving home base.  Meanwhile, India got theirs to not only leave Mother Earth, but return successfully at the end of a very long range indeed.  Enough distance to reach most points in China, probably all of the Middle East, and maybe a few European destinations.

The foolish part?  World governments went ballistic about North Korea's flub, but remained absolutely silent on India's success.  Sure India is a democracy, but democracies aren't immune to mistakes (isn't that right, America?)

I could go on;  April's been packed solid with silliness, but taking up any more of your time would be foolish; especially if you live in Wisconsin:  you've got unequally (and poorly) paid work to do...