Cyclist heads down freeway, blames GPS
A UK man using his phone to find a shortcut ends up cycling down a freeway, until police catch up with him.
If we let cyclists wander down freeways, there would be a fresh outburst of self-righteousness.
It's bad enough with truck drivers and those in Priuses.
However, one perhaps misguided Englishman seemed oblivious to the perils of freeway cycling when he rode his bike on the highly populated freeway known as the M25.
This is a freeway that goes around the outside of London and is well-known for its excessive levels of traffic and road work.
As the local Surrey Police reported on YouTube, its cameras picked up the man as he merrily crossed the freeway with his bike.
Why on earth was he doing this? Why, this was just another example of humanity's blind faith in technology.
Sgt. Phil Dix waited for him to arrive at an exit. He explained on YouTube: "The gentleman told me that he'd been looking for a short cut to get home on his bike -- and that he'd entered his address into the satnav on his mobile phone."
The satnav, should you be unfamiliar with this term, is what some call the GPS.
Sgt. Dix continued that the satnav had given the intrepid cyclist "a route which led him onto the motorway."
You might imagine that those with intact faculties and secondary education would think twice before cycling where everyone is going 70 mph.
"Obviously, he'd not set the button for cyclists and pedestrians," mused Sgt. Dix. Perhaps not, but the cyclist hadn't set the button for thinking before doing either.
"He was blissfully unaware he'd committed any offense," added Sgt. Dix.
This was before issuing him a fine of 50 British pounds (around $83) for being a complete nincompoop. I'm sorry, I meant for contravening a road traffic sign.
Naturally, this isn't by any means this first human being who has blindly followed the directions given to him by an infallible device. It seems only yesterday that a couple followed a GPS, only to become stuck for three days.
Technology requires participation. Ideally, not of the submissive kind.