Borespeed

Borespeed, the is the speed of boredom. This exciting article is about the rate of Borespeed, the measurement of boredom in relation to technology. The theory claims that boredom rises in parallel to technological advancement. The Borespeed particle was not found in a billion pound tunnel with a 17 mile circumference. It was discovered through boredom.

Borespeed implies boredom increases with time.  This suggests that man was at his busiest when he was still exploring with fire. In the days of Caveman, man was incredibly busy. Man couldn’t afford an extra hour in bed. He couldn’t afford to analyse his friend’s latest painting. It was just another depiction of angry stick men cornering a four-legged potato. Man certainly couldn’t argue with his neighbour over the placement of the garden fence. Man was busy, man hunted and it took him hours, days and when man was not hunting, man was eating.

However, man couldn’t survive on food alone; man needed warmth, protection and devices to aid his nomadic lifestyle. Man realised that time was of the essence and the only way to survive was to invent. During this period, man discovered the foundation of shelter, diet, cooking, clothing, transportation and one of the most annoying musical instruments; the flute. Inventing to survive was fundamental and so boredom wasn’t really an option. In fact, if man was bored, he probably wasn’t living.

Boredom only begins to apply through inventions that reduce time and effort but man hasn’t achieved these inventions yet. Man was still trying to explore and build basic civilisations. Around 1000 B.C., man was busy building ships, cranes, dams, locks and bridges. In 1000 A.D. man developed the crankshaft, the water wheel and the paddle boat among other inventions. This period also saw the banknote being developed, however, you can’t have money without power and so gunpowder was next. This period shows man beginning to connect the world with early forms of civilisations, transport and trade with force (gunpowder) and cash. However, clearly life was still a struggle, especially in transportation.

If transport was the same now as it was back then, I think we would struggle to get anywhere on time. You would be going through London at a few miles per hour. Someone would always be breaking down, a wheel would fall off, a horse would decide to stall because it needed refuelling. People would attempt to clean your cart whilst you were stuck in traffic. It would be incredibly congested and expensive. Aren’t we glad that transport has moved on?

The 2nd millennium saw man improve mass communication. Man printed, developed the paper mill, the printing press and the newspaper. Man also eased trade and navigation with the compass, the floating crane and the floating dock. The 15^th century saw revolutionary ideas from Da Vinci who theorised flying machines and parachutes, whilst the next few centuries explored modern science, engineering, navigation and mining. Life was now improving at a dramatic rate. It really eased in the 18^th century as this was the start of automation. Man was now getting machines to do his dirty work. He could now produce whilst on a tea break. Finally the 19^th century saw man fully energised with steam, electricity and petrol. All this was done without Red Bull.

Eventually we enter the age of technology and science, the 20^th century. Man was now an inventing God and churning out creations like butter from milk. The century began with planes, automobiles and radio. Then man developed motion pictures, robots, movies, television, photography, Monopoly, computers, helicopters, microwaves, space travel, P.Cs, video games, cell phones, portable music devices, HD TV, the internet and online TV. Clearly man was now inventing to entertain. Man was now inventing to keep up with trends and fashion. Man wanted to be entertained, to push buttons and make things work without moving, hence the remote control. Man was now inventing to aid his laziness.

We are now in the 21^st century with thousands, millions of inventions that make our lives easy. Thousands of years ago we needed to invent to keep up with time and survive. Over time, we invented to explore and overcome obstacles. Technology improved communication, transportation and living conditions. It allowed us to explore cultures, meet people and eat exotic food. It still took ages to complete some tasks but this was a vast improvement compared to the days of caveman where it took him days to hunt, prepare and cook his food. Now we shove grub in the microwave and ‘hey presto’ it’s cooked in 2 minutes.

Technology has enabled us to annihilate tasks at a fast rate with little effort. We now have a surplus of time and energy which can be used for our personal interests. However, this becomes a problem if we don’t utilise our excess time and energy as it results in our boredom. Technology has increased our time and energy which can increase unproductive feelings if we don’t use the spare time and energy. We forget we have achieved a lot but in a short space of time. Everything nowadays is designed to save time, to function quickly and to perform varied tasks at the same time. Without knowing it, we have created time, we are now ahead of time and this is why we have spare time. If we do not use the time, we become bored.

Technology also enables boredom through procrastination. Procrastination is the act of reversing priorities. We raise the importance of pointless tasks because we do not want to exert time and energy on a task which will exploit our physical and psychological welfare. We try to avoid unexcitable tasks that paralyse our bodies and blow our minds. When we are faced with such a mountainous task, Neville, the technological devil sits on our left shoulder and says, ‘Is that an Android in your pocket or are you pleased that I reminded you? Youtube is just a few clicks away, we could watch cats jumping into mirrors and dogs chasing deer through a park. We could surf the web and research irrelevant issues which for some reason seem really exciting right now. How about the casino?’

Technology makes our routine tasks seem boring and it provides an escape from our mundane activities. It provides us with unlimited options and has the ability to cater for any interest we have. If you have an obscure interest, the internet will have it. Technology seems exciting but once we’ve finished procrastinating we feel guilty, bored and unproductive. These feelings induce unhappiness and we attempt to overcome these feelings through excitement which we obtain through further procrastination. It’s a vicious circle. Don’t listen to Neville.

Since we are surrounded by technology and because it’s in products we use daily, we can’t help but use it. Technology solves many tasks quickly and easily to alleviate our time which we invest on our technological gadgets. We are stimulated by technology and we have picked up a technological addiction. We cannot live without it. We need our hits thick and fast like Haye’s knockouts. We crawl to our dealers, our internet servers. They ask us, ‘What’s your poison? Megabytes? 7 G’s are a good price. How about a dongle? They look small but let me tell you, they pack some bytes. How about some Wi-Fi? This package is shifting. It’s got the hotspots and man do you feel like you can surf.’ If the technological hit isn’t instant or if it’s not as entertaining or as powerful as the previous, we don’t feel stimulated and this results in our boredom.

Technology has sped up our lives so quickly and if it keeps on going at this rate we’ll feel like pensioners by the time we’ve reached 30. Technology has increased the rate at which we experience and the number of experiences we have. It has improved the time to accomplish a task and so when we experience a delay or something freezes, we feel bored. Well really we are just bloody impatient. Technology. It’s given us an addiction, caused chronic procrastination, schizophrenia; well Neville the techno devil is real. It’s caused severe impatience and it has given me battery like qualities. If I’m not required to use the energy, I get shoved in a drawer for later.

Doors. Why we still can’t open them.

So I arrive outside Wagamamas, as I walk towards the entrance I automatically see the automatic door sign and I inevitably know what to do. I have come across this situation before; I understand what I need to do to achieve this task. I say to myself, ‘Bacon, today you don’t need to use your peak, physical prowess for this is an automatic door and automatic doors open themselves. Today, you will walk through this doorway with pride. The door understands you are a man of wants and needs that you have desires of laziness and so it will graciously open for you’. I analyse the situation and I can’t seem to highlight any flaws with my theory. I therefore position myself just in front of the entrance in the middle. I feel this is a solid position, a position of prominence, dominance, a position which leads men into battles against food. Today we will be battling all the elements, the heat, the spice and of course the wind as a consequence of the digestive battles that will be taking place.  I move towards the door ready to brave the elements and the battle ahead of me.

It doesn’t open. I am confused, perplexed, I don’t understand. Have I done this wrong? I take a step back. I thought I had done everything right, that I had prepared well. I repeat my original actions, this time exaggerated. Again, it doesn’t open. I look at the door closely and on another smaller sign there is a miniscule phrase which reads: ‘Push the button on the door to open’. The door is clearly not automatic; it is in fact semi-automatic like an AK47. If it is a semi-automatic door then it should define itself as a semi-automatic door. However, the British are not renowned for their sign posting. This is why every British vehicle owner carries a map; you just can’t trust the signposts.

Doors. They are not a new concept. No one when walking towards a room is going to have a shock or a heart attack because of some hinged contraption that is temporarily blocking the path, so then why do we still struggle to get through doors? We pull doors that should be pushed, open doors from the left when they should be opened from the right and then walk into the rest. Ok, maybe you don’t, maybe you are all wizards at doors and obtained degrees in door opening.

Plenty of you reading this will have had a tantrum with a door at some point. This annoyance causes your frustration and a chain reaction of other bad events which ruin your day. As people say: ‘Large screw ups happen from small beginnings!’ or as people in my industry say: ‘S.N.A.F.U!’.  The irony is that you are screwing up because a designer has failed. The fact that you are having trouble opening a door is not because you are having a midlife crisis, it’s because the designer is having one. Doors and designers, they have been around since the Egyptian times, so why are designers taking centuries to master door design?

To try and reduce the amount of manuals produced; designers try and incorporate visual clues on products to prevent the user requiring instructions. The visual clues are known as affordances. You need affordances to tell the user how to operate the door and you need to design them as strong as possible, not because the user is visually stupid, but because the user needs to know what to do instinctively. The user should not need to use a manual or read an instruction to open a door. Instead of using instructions, the designer uses visual clues for the operation of a door. For example, a rectangular, vertical plate on one side of the door tells us to push. A short horizontal bar tells us to push. A vertical bar tells us to pull, door knobs are for turning, and vertical inserts imply sliding. The affordances are strong and simple, so why do designers still cause mass produced frustrations?

When you come to a horizontal bar, you push the door because you grab the bar and force it forwards. Easy, so the smart thing would be to put it on the section which requires pushing, as far away from the hinges as possible. Hang on, fire exits; don’t they have a horizontal bar which stretches across the width of the door?

So when you arrive at the fire exit, how do you know whether to exert force on the left or on the right? Unfortunately you don’t know and this is because the design is futile. The door design should be asymmetrical as opposed to symmetrical. It should have a natural indication on the side where the action is required. The bar should be shifted towards one side.

In another case, there are doors that imply push when they should be pulled. There are doors that signal to us a specific action but actually require another force. It’s due to the affordances giving mixed signals; the designer has incorporated two contrasting affordances. For example, on a glass door you may see a horizontal rectangular metallic plate which stretches across the door to a short metallic grab handle at the doors edge. This door will want you to pull it because it has a grab handle but you immediately see the flat metallic plate as the plate takes up a higher percentage of the area and so your focus is turned towards the plate. The handle has also become camouflaged within the design of the door. You therefore try to push the door when it should be pulled.

In the above case the designer has made two mistakes. The first one is merging two separate affordances together and the other is manipulating the user to use the wrong action. One must always give strong clear effective signs which stand out from the design of the door. The user must be able to separate functionality from aesthetics; here the designer has focused more on intertwining these aspects rather than on the operation of the door. The designer was obviously placing higher focus on the elegance. This problem is often found in designer homes or in smart company buildings. The company wants to give off a smooth, impressive and stylish image, but as a result the aesthetics dominate the functionality and the design therefore deteriorates.

When you next come to a door and struggle to open it, remember that it’s not your fault, instead the designer has failed. The designer has forgotten about the simple functionality of a door and has decided to overcomplicate the issue. The designer is trying to seem clever, but how can they be smart when they can’t succeed in meeting the requirements of a door? A door, it opens and closes, that is all. It is one of the simplest inventions in the world yet what does it say about the human race if we make mistakes on simple tasks?

“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you!”

“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you!”

This article is about why cars hit motorcycles and how this is affecting the future of the motorcycling industry. Warning: may contain motorcycle humour.

‘I’m sorry mate, I didn’t see you!’, a common excuse a car driver uses after hitting a motorcyclist. Where did this excuse for car drivers stem from? To me, it sounds like: ‘Sorry mate, I know I’m blind in one eye and I have memory loss for any information I used before passing my driving test but I’m a legal driver.’, or it sounds like: ‘Sorry mate, I haven’t used these roads in the last hundred years and so I haven’t been around for the development of other forms of transport.’.

That excuse may have been accepted over 70 years ago when they were rare forms of transport, but not today, not when there are over 200 million. They are the next most common form of transport after cars and so to not expect them or see them is ‘piffle’. However, the point of this article is to understand why they are still not seen.

Bikers do a lot to be seen nowadays. We go out of way to make sure that we are seen; wearing brightly coloured helmets, riding radiant bikes and being incarcerated within extremely high visibility suits. If you didn’t notice the jam sandwich gliding by, I’m sure you’ll see the giant wasp chasing behind or the transparent tub of glowing nuclear waste floating towards the action.  We don’t choose to resemble a G.C.S.E student’s version of Abstract Picnic, but if we are not looking like we are going to our Salsa classes, then you won’t see us.

This is also how the Naked Bike Ride cropped up. This ride promoted the fact that cyclists will only be seen if they are naked. Obviously I know you would love to stare at a pot-bellied biker, your eyes water as you follow his beard of glory like a waterfall down baggy chest valley, over Beer hill and across to Mordor. The issue is so serious that in 2013, France is establishing their high visibility law which enforces motorcyclists to wear fluorescent suits or they will face fines. Clearly life isn’t a big enough price. It seems we will be paying bills even when we have reached the afterlife. This is the French for you.

So why are motorcyclists often not seen but often hit? Here are some personal interpretations as well as potential solutions to these theories and problems.

Firstly, the excuse can be defended by the natural design and behaviour of the human. Humans are designed to move forwards and the mind tells the body to move forwards unless something is primarily blocking the way. Bicycles and motorcycles often travel down the sides of the road, whilst this is happening the car driver’s brain subconsciously analyses the passage ahead, the car driver’s brain tells them that nothing is predominantly blocking their way and so it is safe to move on. However, the brain doesn’t naturally take the size of the vehicle into account because the brain and the vehicle are not naturally integrated and this is why bikes can often be clipped. This is why motorcycles should drive like cars, down the middle of the road. It is also important for all drivers to not let their natural instincts override common sense, anticipation, awareness of spontaneity, and the awareness of the consistent evolving and diversifying nature of the environment.

Another nature related argument is our flight or fight response. If a human is caught in a situation where their safety is potentially compromised, then they will either try to escape the situation, but if this is not possible, then they will fight their way to safety. Cars have been designed as safe havens so that when it is impossible to avoid a crash they will survive the consequences. Therefore if the car can’t avoid the motorbike, the car will defend its ground. This is why safety related design has made some giant leaps in the motorcycling industry. The most recent triumph for motorcyclists is a suit designed with airbags, a suit which inflates on impact. Some are designed for the head, neck and shoulders (http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/products/dainese-d-air-airbag-suit/) whilst others are aimed at protecting the entire human body (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQr8YkzEEWQ). No one is going to miss a giant peach bouncing in the middle of the road, not even James.

Another reason why motorcycles get hit is because motorbikes don’t steer, they counter-steer. Motorbikes are incredibly stable when going straight, this is due to gyroscopic motion. The force of gyroscopic motion makes it difficult to turn and so in order to try to change the direction,  the motorcyclist leans. Due to the vehicle not being able to steer, this can make it difficult to avoid crashes. However, hybrids, a combined form of car and bike, are now in development. These new enclosed motorcycles which can survive crashes are now in development and are nearly ready for the mass market: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0m-cUxMcJw.

There are plenty of other reasons why motorcycles get hit such as the numerous distractions a car driver has, but I am not going to dwell on these reasons, anyway stop reading this in the car and pay attention to the bikes! The future is on 2 wheels!