Saturday 17 July 2010

the art of slow travel

'Only poor people travel by bus.' Even if those words aren't actually spoken, that is the subtext of so many conversations about transport in Britain. Buses are for people who can't afford cars, for old people, who at least don't have to pay to travel on them, and for those who live out in the sticks. Conveniently, many bus travellers are in all three categories. Buses are infrequent, unreliable and squalid. A neighbour recently surprised me by implying that taking a bus journey would be equivalent to walking around in a black plastic bin bag.
Well, I often travel by bus, not because I'm poor, because I'm no poorer than most, or because I live out in the sticks, as I live on the edge of a small town within thirty miles of London, or because I'm old and don't have to pay, although I am and I don't. My poor sight made me give up driving forty-odd years ago, and I don't want to rely entirely on lifts, so I find short-distance bus travel convenient. The bus service in my area isn't marvellous but it isn't bad either, if I plan my journeys. Most of the buses turn up at more or less the expected times, the drivers are generally efficient and courteous, and the buses themselves, although they vary in standards of cleanliness and comfort according to the company and the season, are generally tolerable over short distances.
Sometimes people talk to each other at bus stops and on buses. The conversations may be predominantly phatic, but at least there is occasionally a sense of community. There is always the risk of encountering someone boorish, aggressive, over-familiar or loudly garrulous, or who takes up more than half the seat, but I enjoy the brief, polite conversations, whether on matters of parish pump, national or global importance, with people I half-know. It certainly beats standing in a tube while avoiding eye contact with utter strangers, but that is hardly a fair comparison.
Any road up, as a friend from the north used to say when leaving the B-road of chat to get back on to the A-road of relevance, this week I had one of my more extensive, intensive and interesting bus travel experiences. Partly as a joke and partly as an encouraging challenge, over a year ago I suggested to a friend who had had major surgery that, when he felt strong enough, we and our wives should see how far we could get by public service bus in a day, spend the next day sightseeing and return by bus the following day. This later crystallised into a plan, researched in detail on t'internet, to travel from the Chilterns to the Cotswolds. So it was that on Monday, taking only essential luggage, we travelled from Chesham to High Wycombe, changed for Aylesbury, where we had coffee, changed for Oxford, where we had lunch, changed for Swindon, where we spent only a few minutes, and changed for Cirencester, our destination (the locals just call it 'Ciren'). We stayed in a small hotel on the edge of town and spent Tuesday looking around, visiting the huge, ancient parish church, the outstanding Corinium Museum, recently placed in the top thirty out of thirty-four thousand entrants in Europe, and in the afternoon taking yet another bus to Bibury, a small village of great beauty. On Wednesday we came back via Cheltenham, Oxford and Wycombe. As the crow flies, Chesham and Cirencester are not very far apart; by car the journey would have taken only two or three hours, far less than the time we spent in transit. But that was and is not the point. We enjoyed the slow pace, the varied scenery, the changing accents. All the buses, from several different companies, including big ones such as Arriva and small ones such as Red Rose, departed and arrived within a few minutes of the scheduled times. Some were more comfortable, less noisy and less crowded than others, but every driver was unfailingly courteous. In short, the system worked, and we are already thinking about our next trip.

Saturday 10 July 2010

ripeness isn't all

King Lear may be a play about literal, metaphorical and symbolic loss of vision, yet Edgar wasn't talking about cataracts but about life and death (it's just as well he didn't get on to football). I have often heard that cataracts have to 'ripen' before they can be removed, but that no longer seems to be the case. The leaflet I was given on my last visit to my optometrist made that clear, but whether either of my cataracts, for I have one on each eye, is 'ripe' is unimportant now. What matters is that at a recent hospital visit the consultant ophthalmologist, aware that my sight had rapidly deteriorated recently, to the extent that it caused problems daily, offered me day surgery. I could have had both eyes 'done', but because of the poor vision in my left eye, a result of the 'lazy eye' I was born with, and despite two operations when I was nine and thirteen, I decided to leave the left eye cataract alone, although it is more extensive than the one on the right eye, and have my 'good' eye 'done'. This will happen in August.
Whenever the topic of cataracts comes up - and the frequency increases with age - the standard response is for somebody to trot out an example of successful surgery, either their own or a friend's or relative's, and say how safe, painless and easy it all was, and how everything has been so much better since. And of course it usually is, but not always. My mother was registered partially sighted after (I do not say because of) unsuccessful operations on both eyes. It was hardly reassuring, but at least honest, when a ninety-four-year-old patient at the clinic I attended announced to everybody, without being asked, that 'they' had made a complete mess of her cataract removal years ago.
Before deciding to go ahead with the operation I had been offered, I asked about the success rate and the risks. The consultant told me that there is a 1 in 100 risk that I shall need a further operation and a 1 in 1000 risk that I shall lose all vision in that eye. The latter would affect my life drastically, to the extend that I could no longer read. I would be able to get about, with difficulty, recognising people but severely limited in my daily life. (I had been practising by covering my right eye for short periods when watching television or walking about the house.) Whatever happens will affect both of us, and it was a joint decision, but I thought the risk small enough to take, especially as I shall almost certainly need to have the cataract removed sooner or later, and when I am older and perhaps in poorer health there could be additional problems. There is every chance that before the new football season is a month old I shall be able to read the names and numbers on players' shirts and on the screens at the Emirates, to read without having to shield my right eye from glare, and to manage without having to ask Sue to read scores and captions on television. The tiny but unignorable risk is that I may stumble closer to unlikely empathy with Samson and Milton, despite my lack of resemblance on either count.