View Full Version : Kate Hoey's Mail on Sunday Lycra Lout Article
Kate Hoey's Mail on Sunday Lycra Lout Article
The Mail has once again churned out a sweeping anti-cycling article - written this time by Kate
Hoey, yes, once employed Sports Minister. Here's a few quotes for you;
"The real menance on Britain's roads are selfish, aggressive, law-breaking and infuriatingly smug
Lyrca Louts"
"Lycra louts don't just break the law; they often do so in an aggressive and threatening manner. How
many times have you seen a cyclist deliberately riding in the middle of the road, preventing any car
passing and then screaming abuse at the poor driver who dares to try? Another trick of theirs is to
slip through on the inside just as you try turning left, or flying by so near that they knock
against the wing mirror."
Okay, if i'm on a bike and you're in a car, i can't see how any behaviour i do will be threatening.
You are after all in a metal box and i'm not.
Not cycling smack against the kerb is probably safer as it makes car drivers think about how to
overtake rather than just roaring past without brain switching into gear.
And the slipping by whilst you're turning left Kate? hmm, i've never ever seen a motorist do that!
Most unheard of.
She goes on... "Yet time after time I am stuck behind someone ignoring the cycle lane and holding up
the traffic in the road."
Excuse me, but we're part of the traffic - it's like saying 'damn, all these cars in front of me are
holding up the traffic." stupid statement.
"Too often the cyclist acts if he owns the road when in fact he has paid nothing to be there. They
do not need a licence and they pay no road tax. There should be room for everyone on our roads. But
I think it is time that those who cycle have to face up to their responsibilities and pay something
for it's upkeep like the rest of us. Maybe then the Lycra Louts (actual capitals here!!) who tarnish
the image of all cyclists would gain some respect for the law."
Well, it's just so logically isn't it. It's because car drivers all pay road tax that there is no
bad car drivers is there. Dumb dumb dumb.
Anyway, if you feel obliged here's Kate's email, you can tell her what you think:
hoeyk@parliament.uk
Regards, Andy B
>"Too often the cyclist acts if he owns the road when in fact he has paid nothing to be there. They
>do not need a licence and they pay no road tax. There should be room for everyone on our roads. But
>I think it is time that those who cycle have to face up to their responsibilities and pay something
>for it's upkeep like the rest of us. Maybe then the Lycra Louts (actual capitals here!!) who
>tarnish the image of all cyclists would gain some respect for the law."
>
>Well, it's just so logically isn't it. It's because car drivers all pay road tax that there is no
>bad car drivers is there. Dumb dumb dumb.
>
>Anyway, if you feel obliged here's Kate's email, you can tell her what you think:
>hoeyk@parliament.uk
>
She even gets that wrong - there is no "road tax" which pays for the roads. As a member of the
government (albeit currently a back-bencher) she should at least get her facts checked. No, wait a
minute - this is the government that doesn't let soemthing like the facts get in the way.
Cheers, helen s
This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove the dependency on
fame & fortune from h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd
Andy B tried to scribble ...
> The Mail has once again
You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?
--
Digweed '79 Beamish RL 250, '85 Swift Corvette, '95 Dyna-Tech CroMo Comp, '97 Landrover Discovery
300 Tdi, '03 Associated RC10 B4 .... ;)
She makes *some* good points about dangerous cylists.
She loses it when she says we've no right to use the road coz we haven't paid for the privilege.
I'd have thought someone choosing an efficient zero emission method of transport is something to
be praised.
Perhaps we should charge pedestrians for using the road while crossing it, maybe lollipop men could
collect it?
--
------- o ----- <#\, --- ()/() Belfast Biker "When Religion And Politics Ride In The Same
Cart.....The Whirlwind Follows"
> She makes *some* good points about dangerous cylists.
But sadly associates the behaviour of of the lycra clad cycling vigilantes with the majority group
of law abiding cyclists.
Vernon a road rage free zone in Leeds
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:25:36 +0100, belfast biker <a@a.com> wrote:
>She loses it when she says we've no right to use the road coz we haven't paid for the privilege.
>I'd have thought someone choosing an efficient zero emission method of transport is something to
>be praised.
The idea of entitlement by right of purchase is very dear to the Mail's heart.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
<notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andy B tried to scribble ...
>
>> The Mail has once again
>
>You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?
I did ead the article, so ...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image8.gif 1.16 MB
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image9.gif 138 KB
James
--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
James Hodson tried to scribble ...
> <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy B tried to scribble ...
>>
>>> The Mail has once again
>>
>> You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?
>
> I did ead the article, so ...
As have I, among many others who have already been discussing it's content on this newsgroup for
quite a while .. My point was why start a new thread on something that's already being discussed in
depth and detail ?
--
Digweed '79 Beamish RL 250, '85 Swift Corvette, '95 Dyna-Tech CroMo Comp, '97 Landrover Discovery
300 Tdi, '03 Associated RC10 B4 .... ;)
<notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote:
>James Hodson tried to scribble ...
>
>As have I, among many others who have already been discussing it's content on this newsgroup for
>quite a while .. My point was why start a new thread on something that's already being discussed in
>depth and detail ?
Hi Paul
I got the idea that some were posting without having read Kate Hoey's article. Obviously I'm wrong.
Somehow I doubt you and others have been scribbling on this sublect "for quite a while". After all,
the paper was released only today.
BTW, your comment "James Hodson tried to scribble ..." does annoy me a tad. Due to my rather nasty
head injury, I can only write as well as I'm able. I gather that my level of writing is not up the
the standard you'd expect. So be it.
My regards James
--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:02:58 +0100, James Hodson wrote:
>
> BTW, your comment "James Hodson tried to scribble ..." does annoy me a
James, this is a random response generated by Paul's news/mail reading programme. I can't name the
program which does it off the top of my head, but many people have this - its meant to be humorous.
It replaces the standard "name@hostname wrote:" with a randomly chosen phrase. In your case it has
cuased offence, which is unfortunate.
> My point was why start a new thread on something that's already being discussed in depth and
> detail ?
That seems like a strange point to be made by someone who, Google suggests, is not new to usenet.
Paul, what makes you think that any of the other thread had reached Andy B's news server at the time
he started this thread?
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:45:31 +0100, John Hearns wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:02:58 +0100, James Hodson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> BTW, your comment "James Hodson tried to scribble ..." does annoy me a
> James, this is a random response generated by Paul's news/mail reading programme.
I correct myself. Paul isn't using a random setting, but I think he's just set the attribution in
his newsreader to "tried to scribbe:" Either way, no offence is meant I'm sure.
> Andy B tried to scribble ...
>
> > The Mail has once again
>
> You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?
Yes. Sorry about that. I use google for newsgroups and it's pretty slow when it comes to
displaying the latest posts. When i posted i could only see 7 posts for the 19th - none of which
were about whoey.
If anyone can volunteer other methods where i can use a web-based email i would appreciate knowing
about it. I've got outlook express at home setup with an account that i don't want to use for
newsgroups - for spam reasons.
Being Channel 5 and BBC London's (*) unofficial cycling pundit, it's clear that a lot of motorists
also own bicycles. It just happens that I can overtake the red-light jumpers very quickly. They are
motorists on a cycle, not cyclists.
(*) Had emails read out on both ... ;)
"South Bank of the Thames ... "
It's a National cycle route. It has also been blocked by Blaine and festivals for weeks. Good thing
I wasn't cycling or a pensioner along there tonight.
She's full of it. Lost her marbles, methinks.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chapman@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<nio5pvoo0a880qverej6sc4k4l42malc29@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:25:36 +0100, belfast biker <a@a.com> wrote:
>
> >She loses it when she says we've no right to use the road coz we haven't paid for the privilege.
> >I'd have thought someone choosing an efficient zero emission method of transport is something to
> >be praised.
>
> The idea of entitlement by right of purchase is very dear to the Mail's heart.
That's one succinct thought.
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:46:22 +0000, elyob wrote:
>
> "South Bank of the Thames ... "
>
> It's a National cycle route. It has also been blocked by Blaine and festivals for weeks. Good
> thing I wasn't cycling or a pensioner along there tonight.
Well, its not. don't mean to be rude here. The path along west of Tower Bridge past the new city
Hall and the Belfast is closed to cycling. I thas been explained to me, by Southwark's cycling
officer, that this is private property. I never, ever ride my bike here. And along the South Bank
neat the National Theatre and NFT it does get crowded by walkers - so anyone wanting to ride a
bike fast shouldn't do it along here. Any organised ride I've been on won't go along here for
that reason.
The official Thames cycle route passes through Horsleydown, crosses Tower Bidge Road then goes along
Tooley Street. At the NFT site, anyone wanting to go at a reasonable pace should go along Upper
Ground, IMHO.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:58:37 -0700, Andy B wrote:
> If anyone can volunteer other methods where i can use a web-based email i would appreciate knowing
> about it. I've got outlook express at home setup with an account that i don't want to use for
> newsgroups - for spam reasons.
Can you not set the reply email indivudually for the newsgroup side of things? If not, a quick look
on (say) Tucows should find other Windows newsreaders.
"Andy B" <coastalrocket@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f1523bf.0310190841.265f726f@posting.google.com...
> The Mail has once again churned out a sweeping anti-cycling article - written this time by Kate
> Hoey, yes, once employed Sports Minister. Here's a few quotes for you;
>
> "The real menance on Britain's roads are selfish, aggressive, law-breaking and infuriatingly smug
> Lyrca Louts"
>
> "Lycra louts don't just break the law; they often do so in an aggressive and threatening manner.
> How many times have you seen a cyclist deliberately riding in the middle of the road, preventing
> any car passing and then screaming abuse at the poor driver who dares to try? Another trick of
> theirs is to slip through on the inside just as you try turning left, or flying by so near that
> they knock against the wing mirror."
>
> Okay, if i'm on a bike and you're in a car, i can't see how any behaviour i do will be
> threatening. You are after all in a metal box and i'm not.
>
> Not cycling smack against the kerb is probably safer as it makes car drivers think about how to
> overtake rather than just roaring past without brain switching into gear.
>
> And the slipping by whilst you're turning left Kate? hmm, i've never ever seen a motorist do that!
> Most unheard of.
>
> She goes on... "Yet time after time I am stuck behind someone ignoring the cycle lane and holding
> up the traffic in the road."
>
> Excuse me, but we're part of the traffic - it's like saying 'damn, all these cars in front of me
> are holding up the traffic." stupid statement.
>
> "Too often the cyclist acts if he owns the road when in fact he has paid nothing to be there. They
> do not need a licence and they pay no road tax. There should be room for everyone on our roads.
> But I think it is time that those who cycle have to face up to their responsibilities and pay
> something for it's upkeep like the rest of us. Maybe then the Lycra Louts (actual capitals here!!)
> who tarnish the image of all cyclists would gain some respect for the law."
>
> Well, it's just so logically isn't it. It's because car drivers all pay road tax that there is no
> bad car drivers is there. Dumb dumb dumb.
>
> Anyway, if you feel obliged here's Kate's email, you can tell her what you think:
> hoeyk@parliament.uk
>
> Regards, Andy B
Ignorant *****
"belfast biker" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:ljl5pvkr844lrl23rqkjrhfql88p7a47hj@4ax.com...
> She makes *some* good points about dangerous cylists.
Not many though.
"How many times have you seen a cyclist deliberately riding in the middle of the road, preventing
any car passing and then screaming abuse at the poor driver who dares to try? "
err. thats sensible. Unless of course you think that paying 160 quid a year entitles you to risk
other people's lives for no good reason.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
