Great article from Monbiot on the speed yobs...

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by [email protected].uk, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. Great article from Monbiot in today's Guardian:

    They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards

    The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the Australians,
    into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act

    George Monbiot

    Tuesday December 20, 2005

    Guardian

    ' The road-rage lobby couldn't have been more wrong. Organisations such
    as the Association of British Drivers or Safe Speed - the boy racers'
    club masquerading as a road-safety campaign - have spent years claiming
    that speeding doesn't cause accidents. Safe Speed, with the help of
    some of the most convoluted arguments I've ever read, even seeks to
    prove that speed cameras "make our roads more dangerous".'

    '...But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who
    believe they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they
    want, regardless of the consequences. I believe that while there are
    many reasons for the growth of individualism in the UK, the extreme
    libertarianism now beginning to take hold here begins on the road. When
    you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians, bicycles, traffic
    calming, speed limits, the law: all become a nuisance to be wished
    away. The more you drive, the more bloody-minded and individualistic
    you become. The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the
    Australians, into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act, and
    not the freedom from the consequences of other people's actions. We
    drive on the left in Britain, but we are being driven to the right.'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5359694-103390,00.html
     
    Tags:


  2. Never Mind

    Never Mind Guest

    On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:27:17 -0800, ukr wrote:

    > '...But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    > or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who
    > believe they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want,
    > regardless of the consequences. I believe that while there are many
    > reasons for the growth of individualism in the UK, the extreme
    > libertarianism now beginning to take hold here begins on the road.


    This applies equally to cyclists, who often invoke the self-rightous "I'm
    more enviromentally-friendly than you" justification to occupy road space.
     
  3. > This applies equally to cyclists, who often invoke the self-rightous
    > "I'm more enviromentally-friendly than you" justification to occupy
    > road space.


    Eh? I'd have thought the 'lycra lout' would be the obvious stereotype,
    rather than the "one less car" types. Or was this just a lame troll?
     
  4. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> This applies equally to cyclists, who often invoke the self-rightous
    >> "I'm more enviromentally-friendly than you" justification to occupy
    >> road space.

    >
    > Eh? I'd have thought the 'lycra lout' would be the obvious stereotype,
    > rather than the "one less car" types. Or was this just a lame troll?


    Exceedingly lame. Kill-files are your friend :)

    Cheers, helen s
     
  5. On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:11:20 +0000 (UTC), "Never Mind"
    <[email protected]> said in
    <[email protected]>:

    >This applies equally to cyclists, who often invoke the self-rightous "I'm
    >more enviromentally-friendly than you" justification to occupy road space.


    Quite. The real justification is, of course, that (unlike motorists)
    we use the road by right.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  6. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >
    > The real justification is, of course, that (unlike motorists)
    > we use the road by right.


    Balderdash. If vehicular rights have been established on a public
    highway then motor vehicle users have the right to use that highway.
    Equally, the right to use any highway by any particular class of user
    (pedestrian, cycle, motor vehicle, horse) can be cancelled.

    --
    Matt B
     
  7. Matt B wrote:

    >
    > Balderdash. If vehicular rights have been established on a public
    > highway then motor vehicle users have the right to use that highway.


    But only under licence ...
     
  8. Never Mind wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:27:17 -0800, ukr wrote:
    >
    > > '...But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    > > or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who
    > > believe they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want,
    > > regardless of the consequences. I believe that while there are many
    > > reasons for the growth of individualism in the UK, the extreme
    > > libertarianism now beginning to take hold here begins on the road.

    >
    > This applies equally to cyclists, who often invoke the self-rightous "I'm
    > more enviromentally-friendly than you" justification to occupy road space.


    Doesn't apply equally, as we antisocial cycling bastards take up
    minimum road-space, unlike antisocial motorists who need to travel in
    large tinny life-support systems with all the aesthetic appeal of
    garden-sheds.
     
  9. [email protected] wrote:
    | ..., unlike antisocial motorists who need to travel in
    | large tinny life-support systems with all the aesthetic appeal of
    | garden-sheds.

    Nay, nay, speak not so ill of the garden shed laddy, lightly confusing its
    murky delights with the sinister foulness of the mobile death greenhouse!
     
  10. On 21 Dec 2005 12:12:52 -0800, [email protected] said in
    <[email protected]>:

    >> Balderdash. If vehicular rights have been established on a public
    >> highway then motor vehicle users have the right to use that highway.


    >But only under licence ...


    TrollB is nothing if not predictable - and predictably wrong :)

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  11. Smithy

    Smithy Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Great article from Monbiot in today's Guardian:
    >
    > They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards
    >
    > The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the Australians,
    > into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act
    >



    Quote: "But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who believe
    they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want, regardless
    of the consequences."

    Gosh Mr Monbiot, do you mean like those antisocial bastards the
    environmental activists who take "direct action" such as trashing a farmer's
    fields when they don't get their own way by peaceful debate?
     
  12. On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:16:36 GMT, "Smithy"
    <[email protected]> said in
    <[email protected]>:

    >Quote: "But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    >or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who believe
    >they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want, regardless
    >of the consequences."
    >Gosh Mr Monbiot, do you mean like those antisocial bastards the
    >environmental activists who take "direct action" such as trashing a farmer's
    >fields when they don't get their own way by peaceful debate?


    Probably not, on the grounds that they tend not to kill people.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  13. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:16:36 GMT, "Smithy"
    > <[email protected]> said in
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >Quote: "But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras,
    > >or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who believe
    > >they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want, regardless
    > >of the consequences."
    > >Gosh Mr Monbiot, do you mean like those antisocial bastards the
    > >environmental activists who take "direct action" such as trashing a farmer's
    > >fields when they don't get their own way by peaceful debate?

    >
    > Probably not, on the grounds that they tend not to kill people.


    Not directly. However, if one follows the 'we are running out of food
    and GM will save us' line then those who put emotion over science could
    lead to starvation and death in the future. Of course it won't be us
    that suffers..

    ...d
     
  14. > The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the
    > Australians, into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act, and
    > not the freedom from the consequences of other people's actions. We
    > drive on the left in Britain, but we are being driven to the right.'
    >


    He seems to be right to include Australia here. This is from today's
    cyclingnews.com site:

    Cyclists in South Australia

    We have yet another report of cyclists being attacked by drivers
    (Adelaide Advertiser 22/12/05). On Wednesday evening last week a
    colleague was also attacked while cycling home alone on Prospect Road.
    A car full of laughing hoons pulled alongside and hurled a lump of wood
    at him. He was knocked down, hit a parked car and suffered head trauma
    and shoulder fractures amongst other injuries. He could easily have
    been killed! He is left with weeks off work and months away from his
    bike.

    Earlier this year when rock-throwers nearly killed car driver Damian de
    Wit and others on the Southern Expressway, the perpetrators were
    pursued to the full force of the law with loud expressions of anger
    from our Premier and Government. Will we see the same level of response
    in defence of community cycling? Throwing objects at cyclists (or any
    road users) is illegal under the Summary Offences Act yet anecdotal
    evidence suggests that it has become a common occurrence.

    A recent and blatant 'anti-cycling' letter also declared 'We're bigger
    than you, so get out of our way'. I appeal to everyone to recognise
    that people riding their bikes should not be 'targets' for either
    objects or motor vehicles! Over 70% of Adelaide's households own a
    bicycle and a similar percentage of adult cyclists are also car
    drivers. Cyclists are the same as you or I - they simply choose to
    travel by 'human power', something that many more of us may soon have
    to consider! Why should this choice involve risk of injury or death at
    the hand of others?

    I challenge our Premier and Politicians to stand up and be counted in
    support of South Australia's right to safe cycling. BISA wants to see
    South Australia's 'hoon' legislation (with its provision for
    confiscation of vehicles) covering such assaults and drivers made far
    more responsible for their duty of care towards vulnerable road users!
    All cyclists - local commuters as well as visiting professionals - must
    be assured they can ride in safety.

    Sam Powrie,

    Chair, Bicycle Institute of South Australia
    Thursday, December 22, 2005
     
  15. On 23 Dec 2005 02:13:24 -0800, "David Martin"
    <[email protected]> said in
    <[email protected]>:

    >> >Gosh Mr Monbiot, do you mean like those antisocial bastards the
    >> >environmental activists who take "direct action" such as trashing a farmer's
    >> >fields when they don't get their own way by peaceful debate?


    >> Probably not, on the grounds that they tend not to kill people.


    >Not directly. However, if one follows the 'we are running out of food
    >and GM will save us' line then those who put emotion over science could
    >lead to starvation and death in the future. Of course it won't be us
    >that suffers..


    Or indeed the agrochemical companies.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
Loading...
Loading...