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

[Eugenio Mastrov]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:58:34 +0000, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
wrote:

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

Nor will be mine, I'm afraid...

-----------

Dear Sirs,

while I understand -or hope- that the moronic tones of Mr. Whitworth's article ("Save us from the
cycle menace", 18/02/2004) are little more than a provocation, I would like to point out that an
authoritative paper like the Times could do much better than publish the opinionated drivel of a self-
admitted idiot motoraholic - one who can't even see whether he's driving on the correct lane or
parking in the right spot.

Apart from his very personal opinion that, since he dislikes cycling, whoever uses a cycle must have
some kind of mental problem, he simply brings anecdotal evidence of the "fact" that cyclists are
dangerous to pedestrians. Any cyclist could bring far more detailed evidence of how dangerous
motorists are - and could someone ask him how many pedestrians have been killed or injured in London
by cyclists, and how many by motorists?

Since you're at it, you could ask him for another article on the benefits of passive smoking, and
perhaps one on the undeniable scientific basis of astrology. I'm sure he knows someone whose
personal astrologist always gets it right.

Eugenio Mastroviti

P.S. One can't help but wonder, if this person strayed "unwittingly" into a well-visible bus lane,
can we really be sure he won't stray (unwittingly, of course) into a family of 5, or something
like that? I mean, Mr. Whitworth, if you live anywere near Finchley, please let me know what
model of car you "drive" - and I use the term in the loosest possible way.

-------------

Eugenio
--
Q: How many right-to-lifers does it take to change a light bulb?
R: Two. One to screw it in and one to say that light started when the screwing began.

 

[Mseries]

Thomas wrote:
>>>> Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot. The Times are idiots
>>>> for publishing this ****.
>>>
>>> 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.

Maybe so but he suggests fines for wearers of lycra in built up areas, fashion cameras will not be
able to distinguish those abusing the roads as well as the apparel regulations.

> Heh, but what about those who drive BMWs?

Don't get me started about drivers of German cars.

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

Leave those folk in London, I experienced four years in the Capital, cycled through the West End
nearly everyday (not wearing lyrca in the week I might add) and I know now where I prefer to be.

martin

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

 

[Succorso]

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

Ah the Times.... bless 'em, home of the Middle Aged Heart Attack.

 

[Ianmel]

'There is not time here to examine why the raving cyclist feels the need to dress up in Lycra body suits and silly glasses in order to commute to the office. Let him or her pedal off to a shrink where he can explore the reasons for his perversion at his own leisure and expense.'

I'll examine it for you then Damien. Maybe this cyclist is doing what millions of car drivers should do. Cycle to work. Maybe he feels that there is enough pollution and noise in our cities caused by car drivers. Whats wrong with wearing sunglasses? Don't you ever feel the need to wear them when the sun is low down. Anyway, you seem to have enough time to watch him from your car, no doubt you are stuck in a traffic jam. Or, could you be jealous that he can get to work quicker than you. Could this be the reason you 'strayed' into a bus lane. Were you trying to catch him up?

 

[David Hansen]

On 20 Feb 2004 00:59:46 -0800 someone who may be [email protected]
(David Off) wrote this:-

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

Which produces the following:

>Your browser is currently not set up to accept cookies. To register with Times Online you will have
>to enable cookies on your browser.

I don't think this has anything to do with cycling, but perhaps it is some sort of energy bar from
North America.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

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.
>>
>>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.
>

Not in my experience. Dark clothes/hooded tops and double boingers are a different matter.

 

[Pk]

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

As a pedestrian in London, the article & especially:

"As a pedestrian I have never been hit by a car. But in recent weeks I have escaped a collision with
numerous demented cyclists only because of my own evasive action"

strikes many a chord. Ref my post here last week about a tw*t outside my daughter's school who
almost hit me and recent posts about stealth cyclists and idiot youffs forcing an emergency stop.

I'm happy that the article does not apply to me as a cyclist in London as I cycle on the road, not
on the pavement, not the wrong way down one way streets and I do obey traffic lights and other rules
of the road.

Clearly the author does not understand the need for breathable, stretchy clothing or eye protection
but that error does not detract from the many sound points made in the article. The gist of which
may be summed up as:

<<The idiots who cycle illegally and without respect for pedestrians and other road users give all
cyclists a bad name>>

pk

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

PK wrote:
> <<The idiots who cycle illegally and without respect for pedestrians and other road users give all
> cyclists a bad name>>
>
> pk
>

or

The idiots who use the road illegally and without respect for pedestrians and other road users give
all road users a bad name

Does'nt work really. Best to isolate single groups. I blame illegal immigrants.

 

[Graham]

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

His wind up seems to have worked a treat does'nt it ?

Graham

 

[W K]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> As a pedestrian in London
...

> I'm happy that the article does not apply to me as a cyclist in London
...
> <<The idiots who cycle illegally and without respect for pedestrians and other road users give all
> cyclists a bad name>>

You miss out another key point. IN LONDON.

Its far less of an issue everywhere else. But what do you expect from jounalists.

 

[Tony W]

"Robert Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> 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.

The writer is clearly stupid. Only a stupid person would be paying such a high rate of
Stupidity Tax :~)

T

 

[W K]

"Vincent Wilcox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

In a thread with nameism, "vincent" reminds me of a hammer horror moovie

> Not in my experience. Dark clothes/hooded tops and double boingers are a different matter.

Do they pay attention to the large scythe?

 

[James]

"Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> Who the hell does he think he is ? The fashion police ? He is an idiot. The Times are idiots
> > >> for publishing this ****.
> > >
> > > As I wrote in my reply to Helen, it's a sad truth - the majority of shite cyclists in london
> > > have all the gear.

> > 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.

he starts with a minor side swipe at the CC and KL. He then has a moan about getting fined for
driving in a bus lane and parking illegally. OK straying over the boundary of a parking bay may or
may not always constitute a hazard but it isn't too hard to not do and can you imagine a system of
parking control that was based on variable penalties based on a subjective assessment of the impact
of each violation. He now complains about numerous near misses with cyclists (numerous turning out
to mean three). One suspects from injury stats that his assessment that had he not taken avoiding
action then each of these potential collisions *would* have resulted in permanent total disablement
for both parties could be just a *little* exaggeration. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and
assume that he is being fair when he places the blame for these near misses entirely on the other
parties. I wouldn't try to defend their behaviour but there are a minority of people who behave anti-
socially and some of them are cyclists but it is a bit of a leap to "a common pestilence as so many
people behave so badly so often that nobody bothers to do anything about them. I refer, of course,
to cyclists.". He does now say that this article isn't aimed at cyclists who "behave" but he
continues by calling all London cyclists as "mad" and those who cycle with children as needing to
"be locked up". He goes on to suggest that a majority of cyclists endanger car drivers (!?) and
pedestrians. I think he may have "endanger" confused with "cause annoyance to". There are
undoubtedly cyclists who cause significant annoyance to pedestrians and I am not suggesting this is
anything but deplorable but we have waded through a lot of rubbish already. Next via a couple of
obscure points about the silliness of wearing replica team kits (I agree, but each to their own) and
poor personal hygene (as if this is a uniquely cyclist problem) he condemns cyclists for cycling too
fast. Now even if you assume for a moment that a siginificant proportion of commuting cyclists
routinely travel at >20mph and that motorised traffic never exceeds this I still know which vehicle
I would choose to have collide with me. He finishes up with a rant about cyclists abusing pedestrian
light phases. This behaviour I would say is pretty much inexcusable. About as excusable as a straw
man that says that most cyclists indulge in it and that almost all pedestrians are affected by it
every time they try to cross the road. He finishes up with a waek joke suggesting that "things I do
not like" should be penalised in the same way as he was for a "thing that broke a well understood
and bot hard to comply with law". Ironically when he turns his ire on to dog **** he starts to
realise that cycling might actually be part of the solution to problems of congestion that he
started off by moaning about.

OTOH he might have just written it to wind up his cycling colleagues such as the Times' transport
correspondent.

In other news, 69% of people on the Telegraph motoring site said that cyclists did not drive them
mad (bottom of right sidebar http://tinyurl.com/2uskc)

best wishes james

 

[Eugenio Mastrov]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:37:34 +0000, Vincent Wilcox wrote:

> Does'nt work really. Best to isolate single groups. I blame illegal immigrants.

Why limit yourself to illegal ones?

--
Join the Army, travel the world, meet exotic people and kill them!

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:37:34 +0000, Vincent Wilcox wrote:
>
>
>>Does'nt work really. Best to isolate single groups. I blame illegal immigrants.
>
>
> Why limit yourself to illegal ones?
>

It's all the rage you know.

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

W K wrote:
> "Vincent Wilcox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In a thread with nameism, "vincent" reminds me of a hammer horror moovie
>
>
>>Not in my experience. Dark clothes/hooded tops and double boingers are a different matter.
>
>
> Do they pay attention to the large scythe?

I'm not sure, I only notice them when the moon is full. They are invisible otherwise.

 

[Zog The Undenia]

David Off wrote:

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

I thought it was a rather neat troll.

 

[David Off]

Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:58:34 +0000, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>
>
>>Indeed. In my letter to the Times in response (which I doubt will be published)...
>
>
> Nor will be mine, I'm afraid...

Good response.

These kind of articles may be very amusing for editors to commission... like Kilroy's piece about
Arabs and they all have a grain of truth in them but they don't do anything for good relations
between road users. Instead drivers will think its alright to abuse cyclists even more than they
do already.

 

[W K]

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Off wrote:
>
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-1005150,00.html
>
> I thought it was a rather neat troll.

Perhaps, but its supposed to be a serious newspaper, not a tabloid.

Its also stirring up and legitimising londoner's antipathy to each other.

 

[Pk]

David Off wrote:
>
> These kind of articles may be very amusing for editors to commission... like Kilroy's piece about
> Arabs and they all have a grain of truth in them but they don't do anything for good relations
> between road users. Instead drivers will think its alright to abuse cyclists even more than they
> do already.

the article, in case the red mist that came before your eyes obscured your view of it, was primarily
about the actions of a secetion of the cycling community who DO put PEDESTRIANS at risk by their
unreasonable behaviour.

Vent your spleen by all means, but 'tis best directed at the tw*ts on bikes who I regularly come
across as either pedestrian or cyclist.

pk