Cyclists are a Perverted Pestulance [Times Article 18/02]

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by David Off, Feb 20, 2004.



  1. Robert Bruce

    Robert Bruce Guest

    mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html

    Yawn. Nothing new here, though I did like

    "A couple of weeks ago I received in the post a photograph of my car and a £60 fine, because I had
    strayed unwittingly into a bus lane at 7pm. That was nothing to the £320 I accrued in fines after
    mistakenly parking just outside the residents' parking bay in my own street, then going on holiday
    for a week."

    To me this translates as "I drive without due care and attention and park like a f**kwit." which is
    quite an admission for such an otherwise indignant piece.

    In other news: "the country's first dog camera has been installed at a cost of £10,000 in a street
    blighted by crap." It's just a revenue raising exercise, of course, to screw money out of otherwise
    law-abiding dog owners.

    --
    Rob
     
  2. >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html
    >

    The author's name is Damien. How apt. He is the Spawn of Satan and a dickhead. The way said author
    rants, you'd think it was cyclists responsible for the death of 3500 people on our raods each year
    and tens of thousands more injured annually. But no, this would be motorists doing this. But, what
    the heck, never let the truth get in the way of journalistic drivel.

    Cheers, helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
    fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  3. >Yawn. Nothing new here, though I did like
    >
    >"A couple of weeks ago I received in the post a photograph of my car and a £60 fine, because I had
    >strayed unwittingly into a bus lane at 7pm. That was nothing to the £320 I accrued in fines after
    >mistakenly parking just outside the residents' parking bay in my own street, then going on holiday
    >for a week."
    >
    >To me this translates as "I drive without due care and attention and park like a f**kwit." which is
    >quite an admission for such an otherwise indignant piece.
    >

    Indeed. In my letter to the Times in response (which I doubt will be published)...

    "Sirs

    Re: "Save us from the cycle of menace" Times 18:02:2004

    The way Damian (name related to the devil - how apt) Whitworth rants about cyclists, you'd think
    that it was cyclists responsible for the 3500 people killed annually on UK roads and also for the
    tens of thousands more who are injured each year, as stated in official figures. I do not condone
    the breaking of the law by any road user, but I have news for Whitworth; it's not the cyclists doing
    all the killing and injuring, it's the motorists. Whitworth moans because he received a fine for not
    being alert enough whilst in control of a significant mass of motorised metal on our roads. He
    strayed into a bus lane. Wake up Whitworth; you were at fault, so stop blaming others for your own
    lack of concentration. Be a man and accept your fine instead of moaning like a toddler having a
    temper tantrum. The Times is so openly anti-cyclist these days, articles that appear are more suited
    to the kind that appear in the tabloids rather than the kind of balanced reporting that should be
    expected of the broadsheets. But what the heck, never let the facts or the truth get in the way of a
    good old journalistic rant producing drivel. Perhaps you should be moving Whitworth over to the Sun
    newspaper as his talents seem to lie more in that direction, rather than on the Times.

    Yours faithfully"

    Cheers, helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
    fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  4. On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:34:44 -0000, Robert Bruce wrote:

    > mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
    >
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html
    >
    > Yawn. Nothing new here, though I did like
    >
    > "A couple of weeks ago I received in the post a photograph of my car and a £60 fine, because I had
    > strayed unwittingly into a bus lane at 7pm. That was nothing to the £320 I accrued in fines after
    > mistakenly parking just outside the residents' parking bay in my own street, then going on holiday
    > for a week."
    >
    > To me this translates as "I drive without due care and attention and park like a f**kwit." which
    > is quite an admission for such an otherwise indignant piece.

    My sentiment exactly although I couldn't find the words to express it.

    --
    Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
    -Oscar Wilde www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk
     
  5. Mine Response:

    How does one stray "unwittingly" into a bus lane? They are clearly marked with big blue signs, and
    big white lines and big capital letters, saying "BUS LANE". Anyone "witless" enough not to be able
    to spot these should not only not be driving a car, but should not be out without a labrador and a
    white stick.
    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Guest

  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    David Off wrote:
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html

    Responses at

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1007366,00.html

    This is a good one:

    "VERY well said. As a motorist, I am also irritated by cyclists who insist on riding on the road,
    presumably to travel faster while at the same time creating a hazard and slowing my journey, when
    there is a perfectly good cycle path they could use, and which has been funded at huge cost. There
    should also be an obligation for cyclists to carry third-party insurance. It was I who had to pay my
    car's repair costs after damage caused by a careless cyclist.

    Terry Holloway, Cambridge "

    That wouldn't be Terry Holloway, Head of Marshalls, the owners of virtually all the car dealerships
    in Cambridge by any chance?

    Tony
     
  8. W K

    W K Guest

    "David Off" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html

    I always try not to think "whinging dickheads who've been done for something".

    "Acouple of weeks ago I received in the post a photograph of my car and a £60 fine, because I had
    strayed unwittingly into a bus lane at 7pm. That was nothing to the £320 ...(parking fine) "

    Anyone know what the psychological term for this is. Reminds me a lot of primary school "but miss -
    look what he's doing".
     
  9. Mseries

    Mseries Guest

    "£320 fine for ...... wearing professional cycling gear in a built-up area"

    The writer needs introducing to the PSF, we already have our own self regulating fashion police !

    Articles such as this make me smile.

    --
    The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk
     
  10. Dwb

    Dwb Guest

    "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]...
    > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html
    > >
    >
    > The author's name is Damien. How apt. He is the Spawn of Satan and a
    dickhead.

    You know, I thought your letter was good - other then this drivel - and here you mention it again.

    If I go off and find that your name is related to being vacuous or air-headed, or more positively,
    radiant or lovely or whatever, it doesn't mean you are any of these things.

    If I called myself Jesus, it wouldn't make me the son of a religious deity.

    A name is a name nothing else.
     
  11. Dwb

    Dwb Guest

    "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Mine Response:
    >
    > How does one stray "unwittingly" into a bus lane? They are clearly marked with big blue signs, and
    > big white lines and big capital letters, saying "BUS LANE". Anyone "witless" enough not to be able
    > to spot these should
    not
    > only not be driving a car, but should not be out without a labrador and a white stick.

    Don't be so narrow minded. Have you never had anything unexpected happen whilst you were on the
    road? An errant taxi driver doing a U-Turn, someone running into the road, something falling off the
    back of a lorry? Didn't have to take avoiding action?

    On a bicycle it will cost you nothing. In a car, if you enter a bus lane,and are caught, regardless
    of reason, it will cost you £80 (or whatever the fine currently is).

    In this case perhaps he is in need of a stick - but not every case.
     
  12. Mseries

    Mseries Guest

    Thomas wrote:
    > "David Off" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html
    >
    > Erm... what's the matter here? He clearly states he's only having a go at the cyclists that abuse
    > the roads...
    >
    > Tom.

    He's having ago at what some cyclists wear also, he says "a flat £320 fine for ..... wearing
    professional cycling gear in a built-up area".

    Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot. The Times are idiots for
    publishing this crap.

    --
    The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk
     
  13. >Erm... what's the matter here? He clearly states he's only having a go at the cyclists that abuse
    >the roads...
    >
    >Tom.

    No he's not. He's having a petulent rant becuase he's been fined for bad driving practices and does:

    "This "attitude" should be penalised. Unfortunately, Ken would never introduce a congestion charge
    for cyclists, but a flat £320 fine for jumping the lights, dangerous cycling or wearing professional
    cycling gear in a built-up area might do the trick."

    look like he's *only* going after cyclists who abuse the roads? Since when has it been a crime to
    wear "professional" cycling gear? Granted, the sight of yours truly in Lycra is not a pretty sight,
    but the wearing of "professional" cycling gear certainly *helps* to make cycling any sort of
    distance comfortable. If I ever meet Whitworth, I do hope I happen to be a vision in fluorescent
    yellow at the time. I'd rather enjoy the effect of scarring his retinas ;-)

    It's the usual anti-cyclist rant which appears in the press with growing frequency simply because
    f*ckwit drivers who get caught out breaking the law and refuse to accept responsibility for their
    own inadequacies try to pass the blame on to what they see as a moree fitting target. Simply because
    said f*ckwit motorist feels his genitals have been chopped off by the authorities.

    Cheers, helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
    fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  14. >Anyone know what the psychological term for this is. Reminds me a lot of primary school "but miss -
    >look what he's doing".

    Indeed, a toddler's temper tantrum. Displacement of own guilt on to someone or something else.

    Cheers, helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
    fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Guest

    > >Erm... what's the matter here? He clearly states he's only having a go at the cyclists that abuse
    > >the roads...
    > >
    > >Tom.
    >
    > No he's not. He's having a petulent rant becuase he's been fined for bad driving practices
    > and does:
    >
    > "This "attitude" should be penalised. Unfortunately, Ken would never
    introduce
    > a congestion charge for cyclists, but a flat £320 fine for jumping the
    lights,
    > dangerous cycling or wearing professional cycling gear in a built-up area
    might
    > do the trick."
    >
    > look like he's *only* going after cyclists who abuse the roads? Since when
    has
    > it been a crime to wear "professional" cycling gear? Granted, the sight of yours truly in Lycra is
    > not a pretty sight, but the wearing of
    "professional"
    > cycling gear certainly *helps* to make cycling any sort of distance comfortable. If I ever meet
    > Whitworth, I do hope I happen to be a vision
    in
    > fluorescent yellow at the time. I'd rather enjoy the effect of scarring
    his
    > retinas ;-)

    Yes, he is only going after the cyclists who abuse the road.

    Right, I hate playing devil's advocate, but I have little choice here; Spend a few days cycling in
    London and you'll see that the biggest abusers of the road are those wearing all the lycra gear and
    yet cycle appaulingly. It's a sad fact, I'm afraid.

    > It's the usual anti-cyclist rant which appears in the press with growing frequency simply because
    > f*ckwit drivers who get caught out breaking the
    law
    > and refuse to accept responsibility for their own inadequacies try to pass
    the
    > blame on to what they see as a moree fitting target. Simply because said f*ckwit motorist feels
    > his genitals have been chopped off by the
    authorities.

    complain about things that are their own fault, but we're a nation of whiners anyway. Let him bleat.

    Tom.
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Guest

    > > Erm... what's the matter here? He clearly states he's only having a go at the cyclists that
    > > abuse the roads...
    > >
    > > Tom.
    >
    > He's having ago at what some cyclists wear also, he says "a flat £320 fine for ..... wearing
    > professional cycling gear in a built-up area".
    >
    > Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot.
    The
    > Times are idiots for publishing this crap.

    As I wrote in my reply to Helen, it's a sad truth - the majority of shite cyclists in london have
    all the gear. Thinking about my fall a couple of days ago, I'm not that surprised no-one helped - I
    was fully lycra'd up, and I've certainly seen more than a few equally lycra-sporting louts have
    incidents with pedestrians.

    Tom.
     
  17. dwb wrote:

    > Don't be so narrow minded.

    What's narrow-minded about obejcting to a piece of yellow journalism written

    > Have you never had anything unexpected happen whilst you were on the road? An errant taxi driver
    > doing a U-Turn, someone running into the road, something falling off the back of a lorry? Didn't
    > have to take avoiding action?

    I have brakes, and know to leave enough space to use them.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  18. Mseries

    Mseries Guest

    Thomas wrote:
    >>> Erm... what's the matter here? He clearly states he's only having a go at the cyclists that
    >>> abuse the roads...
    >>>
    >>> Tom.
    >>
    >> He's having ago at what some cyclists wear also, he says "a flat £320 fine for ..... wearing
    >> professional cycling gear in a built-up area".
    >>
    >> Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot. The Times are idiots for
    >> publishing this crap.
    >
    > As I wrote in my reply to Helen, it's a sad truth - the majority of shite cyclists in london have
    > all the gear. Thinking about my fall a couple of days ago, I'm not that surprised no-one helped -
    > I was fully lycra'd up, and I've certainly seen more than a few equally lycra-sporting louts have
    > incidents with pedestrians.
    >
    > Tom.

    But it is still wrong and offensive to label all cyclists who wear pro gear in cities as louts.

    I have seen plently of louts driving Saxos or Corsas around here but I am not labelling all Saxo and
    Corsa drivers as louts.

    Do you think you would have received help had you been wearing civvies ? Don't blame yourself for
    others being too ignorant to help you.

    --
    The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Guest

    > >> Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot. The Times are idiots
    > >> for publishing this crap.
    > >
    > > As I wrote in my reply to Helen, it's a sad truth - the majority of shite cyclists in london
    > > have all the gear. Thinking about my fall a couple of days ago, I'm not that surprised no-one
    > > helped - I was fully lycra'd up, and I've certainly seen more than a few equally lycra-sporting
    > > louts have incidents with pedestrians.
    > >
    > > Tom.
    >
    >
    > But it is still wrong and offensive to label all cyclists who wear pro
    gear
    > in cities as louts.

    But he's not doing that, because he clearly states his article is aimed at just those that abuse
    the roads. With the majority of people abusing the roads wearing lycra, it's a fair assumption to
    make IMHO.

    > I have seen plently of louts driving Saxos or Corsas around here but I am not labelling all Saxo
    > and Corsa drivers as louts.

    Heh, but what about those who drive BMWs?

    > Do you think you would have received help had you been wearing civvies ? Don't blame yourself for
    > others being too ignorant to help you.

    To be honest, I'm not sure - I think it's more a London selective seeing thing, but meh, any
    old excuse.

    Tom.
     
Loading...
Loading...