Tales From The Commute I: Passive Aggression

Construction workers, sand-filled plastic barriers, and traffic. Along Collins St the flow of cars and vans and trams stretches and breaks from intersection to intersection - imagine the slow drip of cold treacle from spoon to cereal and you'll get the idea. The crunch of weighted tires on damp asphalt is as crisp as the air - it's too cold to smell the exhaust fumes and the sweat. The sky is grey and blue, and brighter than last week. Not for the first time I wonder if I've missed daylight savings.

Jacketed cyclists rise from their saddles and coast across Russel Exhibition St with the green light, as a car parked behind the last legally parked car (wedged between barriers and the inner lane) pops its front driver side door and produces a largish man in a suit.

Standing in what would have been the bicycle lane but for the seemingly endless/fruitless construction work (I have a sneaking suspicion they're actually running a lucrative inner city construction worker free parking scam), he then swings the passenger door wide to allow yet another cyclist obstacle to disembark.

"Stupid place to stop." A woman in her 30s comments in an untraceable European accent as she pedals past.

"What was that?" Says the man who had heard perfectly well - his accent tracing its origins back to the foothills of Mt. Passive Aggressive.

"... I said, stupid place to stop!"

The man who grew up running through the daffodils on the shores of Lake Infarction considered this for a moment.

"F*$% off."

"Y-you!" Replied the woman, exasperated. Doubtless she was hoping for something better before Doppler robbed her of the opportunity.


What can we learn here? A few things. Firstly, Simon's Third Law of Commuter Cycling;

If a person is doing something stupid, and they see you coming and continue to do that stupid something, then they are obviously impervious to logic. Arguing with them is like arguing with stale porridge.


This relates to Simon's Second Law of Commuter Cycling;

Energy expended on reprimanding idiots should bear a direct and positive correlation to the degree to which their idiocy disrupted (or had the potential to disrupt) your commute.



For example, if some ruddy faced resident of Triplebypassville opens their car door twenty meters ahead of you, causing you to veer slowly out of their way, there's plenty of reason to let it go. For one, you were inconvenienced by only a few seconds and a couple of feet, and two, chastising this person will not result in their begging your forgiveness. More likely it will result in the water-cooler talk at Stomach Ulcer, Heartburn & Sons focusing on how some dope on a bicycle flew into a rage for no good reason.

On the other hand, if the person opens their car door two meters in front of you, causing you to veer wildly to save your own neck, then the potential for commute diruption (i.e. your untimely death by dooring) is severe enough to warrant at least a partial foaming at the mouth (also a call to 000 if you actually make contact with the door, as opening your door into oncomming traffic is an offense, and failure to subsequently exchange details on request is tantamount to a hit and run).

This is important, because working yourself up over small things distracts you, and distraction relates directly to Simon's First Law of Commuter Cycling;

The most dangerous idiots are the ones you're not looking for.


Addendum: This doesn't mean that you can't politely suggest to someone that they modify their behaviour in the future, nor does it mean that you shouldn't correct someone when they misinterpret the law (i.e. geddawfatharoad!). Just don't expect thanks for your efforts, and try not to become preoccupied with it.