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

David Off wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...005150,00.html

Responses at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...007366,00.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

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**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

"David Off" wrote in message
m...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...005150,00.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".

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.

Indeed a name is a name and nothing else, but perhaps my wee rant may (if read
by Whitworth) may allow him to reflect on unreasonable rantings generally - and
specifically his own *gross rantings*. One can but hope ;-)

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**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

Thomas wrote:
"David Off" wrote in message
m...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...005150,00.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

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**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

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.

Yup, his ****wittitude is enormous, and yes, it's irritating that drivers
complain about things that are their own fault, but we're a nation of
whiners anyway. Let him bleat.

Tom.

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 ****e
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.

dwb wrote:

Don't be so narrow minded.

What's narrow-minded about obejcting to a piece of yellow journalism written
by a ****wit?

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/
================================================== =========

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
****e 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