Why Are British Cars Right-Hand Drive?

It still looks unusual, but I'm getting more accustomed to looking at an oncoming vehicle and realizing that there actually is a driver in the car but on the right side where I ordinarily expect a passenger to sit. Having an inquiring mind, I've asked friends here at Tyndale House why the British chose to drive their vehicles on the left side of the roadway from the right side of the vehicle. The answer that I received made sense. See what you think.

It seems that the British driving pattern derives from early days, days of horses and horsemen. Evidently, it seemed only reasonable that a horseman would meet another horseman by keeping to the left. This would enable the horseman to remain in the most advantageous position in the event that he would need to draw his sword quickly to defend himself against the on-coming horseman. Given that most people are right handed, approaching another on the left would enable the horseman to employ his right hand more freely. According to one report that I have read, Pope Benefice issued a Papal Edict around A.D. 1300 requiring all to keep to the left on roadways.

In Britain under King George III the Government issued the General Turnpike Act of 1773. Of its various provisions, one seems to have been commendation of keeping to the left on public roadways and streets.

If meeting oncoming horsemen on the left was advantageous and stuck in Britain, why did other countries decide to have traffic meet oncoming vehicles on the left? One offers the following explanation, at least for France.

Reasons to travel on the right are less clear but the generally accepted version of history is as follows: The French, being Catholics, followed Pope Boneface's edict but in the build up to the French Revolution in 1790 the French Aristocracy drove their carriages at great speed on the left hand side of the road, forcing the peasantry over to the right side for their own safety. Come the Revolution, instincts of self preservation resulted in the remains of the Aristocracy joining the peasants on the right hand side of the road. The first official record of this was a keep right rule introduced in Paris in 1794.

Here is a slight variation on this explanation with finer detail.

Political events in France had a big effect on driving habits. Before the Revolution of 1789, the aristocracy drove its carriages along the left side of the roads, forcing the peasants to the other side. But once the Revolution started, these nobles desperately tried to hide their identity by joining the peasant travelers on the right. By 1794 the French government had introduced a keep-right rule in Paris, which later spread to other regions as the conquering armies of Napoléon I marched through much of continental Europe. It is not surprising that Napoléon favored keeping to the right. One reference work explains that because he was left-handed, “his armies had to march on the right so he could keep his sword arm between him and any opponent.”

An explanation for why the French made the change is not likely to provide explanation why any other country made the change. Why, for example, do Americans drive on the right side of the road from the left hand position in the vehicle? Here is one answer offered.

In the late 1700’s, a shift from left to right took place in countries such as the United States, when teamsters started using large freight wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. The wagons had no driver’s seat, so the driver sat on the left rear horse and held his whip in his right hand. Seated on the left, the driver naturally preferred that other wagons pass him on the left so that he could be sure to keep clear of the wheels of oncoming wagons. He did that by driving on the right side of the road.

It makes sense. Doesn't it? And you all thought I was here at Tyndale House to research only in the area of biblical studies. Inquiring minds want to know, not just biblical stuff.

Reflections upon Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

This sabbatical research time at Tyndale House in Cambridge has given me plenty of opportunity to reflect upon singleness. One of my friends and renewed acquaintances is Barry Danylak. I first met Barry when he was a M.A. student at Wheaton College. He was runner up in the graduate student paper contest sponsored by the Midwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society of which I was Vice President at the time. I sat to hear his paper and offered my observations to assist the judges in making their decision concerning the winner. The winner of the graduate student paper contest that year, as Barry reminded me, was a friend of his and an acquaintance of mine, Matt Harmon, who now serves as Associate Professor of New Testament at Grace Theological Seminary (see Matt's blog). Well, I have digressed. Barry Danylak, who is single, is a reader at Tyndale House who is working on his Ph.D. dissertation on the area of the apostle Paul's instruction concerning singleness from 1 Corinthians 7. This brings me back to my point.

I want to offer a few reflections upon Ecclesiastes 4:9-12.

Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work:
If one falls down,
     his friend can help him up.
     But pity the man who falls
     and has no one to help him up!
Also, if two lie down together,
     they will keep warm.
     But how can one keep warm alone?
Though one may be overpowered,
     two can defend themselves.
     A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

This passage played a role in various conversations when I was a single man, including some conversations with the woman who would become my wife, Lois. I remember well that the portion about keeping warm was a particularly attractive segment of the passage.

Well, singleness has its advantages, some of which the apostle Paul mentions in his great letter to the Corinthians (7:17-39). But, as Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 point out, singleness has its disadvantages, too. I have been keenly reminded of them these several weeks as I have been working on my B.L. (Bachelor of Loneliness). Yes, by choice to step back into singleness for a designated period of time and not for an indefinite amount of time, for one who is married it is a time of loneliness and a time of being reminded of the great benefits of marriage.

Two are truly better than one. If something needs to be done, I am obligated to do it. No one else will do it for me. Everyday, since I have been at Tyndale House, I have been keenly aware of this. Again, today I have been reminded of this because I have been occupied with washing clothes and cleaning my room. I'm not complaining. It's just that in marriage Lois and I divide various household responsibilities. Marriage lightens the load of each partner. How keenly aware of this I have been today. I miss my wife for these reasons and a whole lot more, including the "lying down together" and "keeping warm" parts mentioned in Ecclesiastes 4. I look forward to getting home to Lois.

Henry, the vacuum cleaner, is hardly a substitute companion. He helped me clean my room, but he lives in a closet.

For you in the upper mid-west region of the USA, remember the Midwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, March 16-17, 2007.

White or Wong? That is the Question.

In church today, I witnessed something quite amazing, something that I sincerely doubt would be allowed to pass in any church in the States. Nevertheless, it was accepted at Eden Chapel and with considerable amounts of laughter.

During the morning worship services at Eden a segment is devoted to addressing the children. Some churches in the States do similar things. The last church I pastored reserved a portion of the morning worship for "Kids' Korner." Many adults often commented to me that they received as much profit from my messages to the children as they did from my regular sermons. (Maybe I should have taken that as a clue about my sermons.)

Today, a college-age young man tailored his message, as is regularly done, to dovetail with the sermon. Given that the sermon was on Mark 6:31-44, the narrative of the feeding of the multitude from five loaves and two fish, the children's message focused on bread. The young man had put together a quiz about bread. He called for two contestants. Two boys stepped forward. Then he called for Stewart White to stand to the right and Marvin Wong, assistant pastor and the gentleman who would preach the sermon, to stand to the left. Then he instructed the two boys, "If you think that the statements that I make about bread are right, stand by Stewart White. If you think that they are wrong, go stand by Marvin Wong." Of course, at that point the entire congregation erupted with laughter, sustained laughter. Neither Stewart nor Marvin exhibited the slightest embarrassment or disgust.

As an American, I may have exhibited surprise, though no one surely took notice. All were enjoying the hilarity of the moment. There are numerous aspects of political correctness in Britain that go well beyond its depths in America. State-sponsored politically correct programs run deep and broad in the UK. Yet, what I witnessed today in church, I sincerely doubt I would ever witness in any church in the USA. If the young man who presented the children's message in Eden Chapel were to do the same in a church in the US, I sincerely expect that he would be severely reprimanded if not banned from any leadership role in the church again.

I may be right or wrong in my above assessment, but one thing is surely right, "White or Wong" was hilarious. It was rather refreshing, actually, to witness people laughing at language-based humor (not ethnic-based humor) without shame, without embarrassment, without outrage, and without the humor stormtroopers descending upon the place with their sanctimonious righteous indignation. Pastor Wong laughed as much as everyone else. (His English is excellent. He has no difficulty pronouncing the "r.") Let's all lighten up, Americans. It was funny.

Pastor Marvin Wong's sermon on Mark 6:31-44 was superb. He showed how Jesus dramatized his "New Moses" role by feeding the multitude in the wilderness. As such, Moses foreshadowed the Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled Scripture's prophetic foreshadowing. Pastor Wong rightly showed that details of the biblical story in Mark, such as, "he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd," deliberately echo Moses' prayer, recorded in Numbers 27:16-17, "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd." Pastor Wong demonstrated other Old Testament echoes also. All in all, it was a superb sermon, the best biblically-theologically integrated sermon I have heard for a long time. For anyone who plans to visit Cambridge, I commend Eden Baptist Church. It may take a few days for Pastor Wong's sermon to be uploaded, but if interested in hearing it, you may download it here.

136 Inches--That's a Lot of Snow

Village May Set N.Y. Mark for Snowfall

Inescapable Inequality

I have been busy with research today. During the course of my day I came upon the following from a British minister, J. C. Ryle, from the nineteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, not Cambridge. Below is a portion of his exposition of The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side” (Luke 16:19-23).

J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) was an evangelical Bishop who knew how to apply the teaching of the Scriptures to the society in which people lived. In this extract from his work Practical Religion he challenges the developing ideology which claimed that all men should be equal in wealth. Ryle countered such arguments by demonstrating that inequality is a fact of life in a fallen world and can be an instruction toward challenging character development in the poor and the rich.

Many in every age have disturbed society by stirring up the poor against the rich, and by preaching the popular doctrine that all men ought to be equal. But so long as the world is under the present order of things this universal equality cannot be attained. Those who speak against the vast inequality of men’s fates will doubtless never lack an audience; but so long as human nature is what it is, this inequality cannot be prevented.

So long as some are wise and some are foolish-some strong and some weak-some healthy and some diseased-some lazy and some diligent-some prudent and some careless; so long as children reap the fruit of their parent's bad behavior; so long as sun, and rain, and heat, and cold, and wind, and waves, and drought, and plague, and storms are beyond man’s control-so there will always be some rich and some poor. All the political order in the world will never erase the fact that, “There will always be poor people in the land.” [Deuteronomy 15:11]

Take all the property in our country by force this very day, and divide it equally among the inhabitants. Give every man above the age of twenty an equal portion. Let everyone share and share alike, and begin the world over again. Do this, and see where you would be at the end of fifty years. You would have just come back around to the point where you began. You would find things just as unequal as before. Some would have worked, and some would have been lazy. Some would have always been careless, and some always scheming. Some would have sold, and others would have bought. Some would have wasted, and others would have saved. And the end would be that some would be rich and others poor.

Let no one listen to those vain and foolish talkers who say that all men were meant to be equal. They might as well tell you that all men ought to be of the same height, weight, strength, and skill-or that all oak trees ought to be of the same shape and size-or that all blades of grass ought to always be the same length.

Settle it in your mind that the main cause of all the suffering you see around you is sin. Sin is the great cause of the enormous luxury of the rich, and the painful degradation of the poor-of the heartless selfishness of the highest classes, and the helpless poverty of the lowest class. Sin must first be cast out of the world. The hearts of all men must be renewed and sanctified. The devil must be locked away. The Prince of Peace must come down and take His great power and reign. All this must be done before there can ever be universal happiness, or the gulf filled up that now divides the rich and the poor.

Beware of expecting a millennium to be brought about by any method of government, by any system of education, or by any political party. Work hard to do good to all men. Pity the poor, and help in every reasonable endeavor to raise them from their life of poverty. Seek to help to increase knowledge, to promote morality, and to improve the earthly condition of the poor. But never, never forget that you live in a fallen world, that sin is all around you, and that the devil and the demons are everywhere. And be very sure that the rich man and Lazarus are emblems of two classes, which will always be in the world until the Lord returns.

J. C. Ryle, Practical Religion (from chapter 13).

Brief comment: The fact that we live in this fallen world where inequities abound, where wealth and poverty reside adjacent to one another, provides ample opportunity to conduct ourselves as Christians, extending love and kindness indiscriminately to both the wealthy and the poor and to people who fall along every other kind of disparity and inequity.