Barbara Ellen in the Observer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.../barbara-ellen

I've seen some utter ****e talked about cycling in my time, but rarely
anything as puerile as this.

Whilst I agree that Cameron can be accused of being an eco-poser, I
don't see his bike being stolen as anything to smirk about. You
complain about posers in lycra, and then try to rip the **** of
whatever bike Cameron had and his ordinary clothing.

Cycling itself is not "really rather dangerous". It enriches lives by
making people healthier, reducing pollution, and making streets safer
places for everyone. It also saves money, which people may wish to
consider in these financially-strapped times. The more people cycle,
the safer it gets for everyone.

Some of your acquaintances may be body-fascists, but that says more
about you and your choice of friends than about the majority of people
who prefer to take a bicycle rather than clog up the roads by driving
a car to the newsagent or wherever and parking it on the pavement.

Do you actually get paid for this crap? Perhaps you were intending it
to be amusing in some way? Unbelievable, either way.


It's hard to know where to begin with the complete garbage the silly
woman wrote (obviously an attempt to be so controversial, real Glenda
Slagg material) on cycling, but here are a few points:

1. He [doesnt wear] the right gear … ludicrously tight Lycra. Ah, the
traditional cliché about lycra without which no knocking piece on
cycling is complete. Take a look around you, Barbara: most people on
bicycles wear ordinary clothes, the silly cliché about lycra.

2. His bike … resembles something Laura Ingalls Wilder would have
ridden to the store in The Little House on the Prairie. The picture
accompanying her piece shows an eminently sensible city bike, with
luggage rack, mudguards, a bell. Its not a racer like the one her
partner presumably has because, er, Camerons a commuter, not a racer.

3. Camerons physique is not that of a full-on cyclist … at peak
fitness. So? See 2 above.

4. Cycling is really rather dangerous – only last week, there was
reported an 11% increase in cycling deaths. Wrong: this increase was
calculated by cherry-picking the data between 2004 and 2007; based on
2003 data, the increase was 6%. And other research shows that a 91%
increase in cycle use on London's main roads between 2001 and 2008 was
accompanied by a 33% reduction in cyclist casualties over roughly the
same period.

5. Everybody else is realising what a preening, self-righteous bunch
of
narcissists [cyclists] are. Prejudiced nonsense, unworthy of a serious
newspaper.

For an altogether more intelligent assessment of the numbers of
cyclists killed, don't bother with silly Ellen but go to (in The
Guardian rather than its pathetic sister paper, The Observer):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...ad-deaths-rise
and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...may/08/cycling

On May 10, 7:08*pm, spindrift wrote:

5. Everybody else is realising what a preening, self-righteous bunch
of
narcissists [cyclists] are. Prejudiced nonsense, unworthy of a serious
newspaper.

People only hate cyclists because car-haters like you keep speaking
for them and giving them a bad reputation.

Motorist-hating ******.

On May 10, 7:41*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On May 10, 7:08*pm, spindrift wrote:



5. Everybody else is realising what a preening, self-righteous bunch
of
narcissists [cyclists] are. Prejudiced nonsense, unworthy of a serious
newspaper.

People only hate cyclists because car-haters like you keep speaking
for them and giving them a bad reputation.

Motorist-hating ******.

And David Mitchell on speed cameras:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...mentpo sted=1

'According to police statistics in only 5% of serious accidents is
excessive speed a factor.'

'Only 7% of deaths caused by vehicles are due to speeding [Govts. own
figures]'

That's the trouble with speedophiles, they lie to try to disguise the
lethal effects of their homicidal acti-social behaviour:

In Great Britain, data collected about road traffic accidents in 1999
to 2002 examined the factors involved in each accident. Excessive
speed was the most common contributory factor in fatal accidents,
playing a part in 28% of all fatal accidents examined in the trial.

- From section "Analyses of contributory factor data" in Road
Casualties Great Britain: 2003 Annual Report.

More recently:

28 Sep 2006 ... "Speed or going too fast for conditions were a
contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents."

And please remember, there doesn't have to be a death for speeding to
be aggressive, selfish behaviour, speeding is inconsiderate, illegal
(and yes, it IS criminal offence) threatening and serves as a
discouragement to pensioners or children trying to cross the road.

Speeding fines are a stupidity tax paid by those too stupid/arrogant
to think the law should apply to them.

The lies above about the lethal effects of speed are typical of the
anti-camera brigade . Most of the lies originate in the forum pages of
the 'safespeeding' lobby group, where people compare traffic wardens
to nazis, fantasise about killing cyclists and propogate the myths
about speeding being safe that we've seen the more gullible
contributors repeat here.


One crucial point is that you can't only determine the adverse affects
of speeding by looking at road death numbers. Road deaths are only a
small part of the story - pedestrians, and children in particular,are
less likely to die on the roads in the first place because they've
already been driven off them by speeding motorists. Irresponsible
drivers are the biggest single impediment to pedestrians freedom of
movement, and the main contributor to creating a generation of battery-
reared children.

Arguing solely over the number of deaths is like accepting the
presence of violent criminals on the streets in a situation where the
crime figures have fallen as a result of nobody law-abiding daring to
go out at night.

Also I don't care much if motorists speed on motorways, its what they
do in urban areas that is the point (what they do on country lanes is
between them and country dwellers to decide).

There you go again with the copied and pasted ****e. It's all been
debunked a huge number of times, yet you keep repeating it anyway,
because of your hidden anti-motorist agenda.

Have you ever participated in CM?

Why have you been banned from Cycle Chat?

On May 10, 8:06*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
There you go again with the copied and pasted ****e. *It's all been
debunked a huge number of times, yet you keep repeating it anyway,
because of your hidden anti-motorist agenda.

Have you ever participated in CM?

Why have you been banned from Cycle Chat?

Yes, had a great time, then pancakes afterwards.

No idea, ask them if you like.

My turn.

Are you on anay medication of any kind?

Can we help at all, are you in some kind of trouble?

You keep claiming that people who don't share your view on speeding
are paedophiles, you claimed I was a terrorist nearly two years ago
and promised I would be arrested soon.

Seriously, I'm worried about you, do they have a counselling service
at your employment?

I can feel another banning coming on...


solomongursky
10 May 09, 8:20pm (1 minute ago)


I get the impression Barbara couldn't think what to write so ate some
alphabet soup and shat this article out. Next week- 'Traffic Wardens,
kill them all LOL!!' and 'What's Wrong With a Bit Of Rain Anyway?'

What some wobble-bottom hack thinks of cyclists doesn't concern me,
I'd like to see an article from her brother though:

'My middle-aged sister stares at my mate's lycra bulge all the while,
can you help?'

spindrift wrote:

And David Mitchell on speed cameras:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...mentpo sted=1

'According to police statistics in only 5% of serious accidents is
excessive speed a factor.'

Yes correct. In RCGB 2005 _and_ 2006, "exceeding speed limit" was
recorded as a factor in 5% of all injury accidents. That is from the
police STATS19 data. In 2007 it was 6%.

'Only 7% of deaths caused by vehicles are due to speeding [Govts. own
figures]'

RCGB 2005 states very specifically: "Exceeding speed limit was
attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while going too
fast for conditions was attributed to 7 per cent. For fatal accidents
these figures are 7 per cent and 10 per cent respectively."

That's the trouble with speedophiles, they lie to try to disguise the
lethal effects of their homicidal acti-social behaviour:

In Great Britain, data collected about road traffic accidents in 1999
to 2002 examined the factors involved in each accident. Excessive
speed was the most common contributory factor in fatal accidents,
playing a part in 28% of all fatal accidents examined in the trial.

Yes that was still the same in 2005. RCGB 2005 states: "Exceeding the
speed limit or going too fast for conditions were reported as a
contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor
became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was
reported as contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and
these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities (793 deaths)."

Note though how they've rolled together "Exceeding the speed limit" and
"going too fast for conditions" - chalk and cheese.

That's possibly the source of your confusion.

--
Matt B

I didn't get the Little House on the Prairie reference by Ellen, so I
idly Googled the cast.

Oh I say, Laura!

http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-pho...uck-vCEDZd.jpg

On May 10, 9:03*pm, Matt B wrote:

Note though how they've rolled together "Exceeding the speed limit" and
"going too fast for conditions" - chalk and cheese.

That's possibly the source of your confusion.

There's no confusion: he knows perfectly well that that's the case.
It's just one of the standard dirty tactics used by those who support
cameras for their own reasons and wish to deceive people into thinking
that they have some kind of safety benefit.

You won't get an adequate reply to your post: Spindrift will merely
slope off and then repeat the same lies another time. If that's not
trolling behaviour then I don't know what is.

On May 10, 8:25*pm, spindrift wrote:
On May 10, 8:06*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:

There you go again with the copied and pasted ****e. *It's all been
debunked a huge number of times, yet you keep repeating it anyway,
because of your hidden anti-motorist agenda.

Have you ever participated in CM?

Why have you been banned from Cycle Chat?

Yes, had a great time, then pancakes afterwards.

Yet another piece of evidence that you hate motorists and go out of
your way to disrupt and irritate them.

No idea, ask them if you like.

I have, and I'll report back here. BTW is that "no idea" in the same
way that Chapman has "no idea" why people hate him so much? In other
words, more like "I know perfectly well but I'd prefer to pretend
otherwise because the truth is embarrassing to me"?

It speaks volumes that even in a forum full of fellow car-haters, with
at least one car-hater as an administrator, you *still* get yourself
banned, and not for the first time by a long chalk. Your style is
unacceptable to everyone remotely sane, whichever "side" they're on.

My turn.

Are you on anay medication of any kind?

No. You? It's been alleged that you're a heavy drug user.

Can we help at all, are you in some kind of trouble?

No.

You keep claiming that people who don't share your view on speeding
are paedophiles,

Only the ****wit Taylor, and he admitted it.

you claimed I was a terrorist nearly two years ago

If you're so innocent, why have you gone to such extreme lengths to
make your identity untraceable from computers that you use? You
*never* answer that question. I wonder why?

and promised I would be arrested soon.

I never promised any such thing. It would be good if it happened
though, and hopefully it will.

Seriously, I'm worried about you, do they have a counselling service
at your employment?

Tee hee. You don't think anyone believes that you have mental
problems? And considering that you don't even have an employer....