|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:45:43 AM UTC+1, colwyn wrote:
On 28/05/2020 10:39, Simon Mason wrote: On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:40:24 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: . And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. Cyclists use reusable bidons and do not throw them away. Look at the vast amount of litter on motorways and you will see the real culprits. Also, look at the current fly tipping epidemic. How can a cyclist carry a toilet or old sofa? https://twitter.com/hackneycyclist/s...671488?lang=en Doesn't look like he's going to dump it though! |
Ads |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:53:18 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
This is clearly the view that 'Pamela' (c'mon Judith 'fess up), Nugent and Pounder espouse. Judith even stood up for the idiots who did this to a young boy. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...-crash-4170066 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets, chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out of their drivers' windows? Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for just about anyone. Quote: ... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts about. Unquote https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:
Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truthwhen expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of the population? If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a gathering place. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 28/05/2020 08:40, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 21:24, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:16:45 AM UTC+1, colwyn wrote: Matthew Parris 2007 also in "The Times" Also Rod Liddle is now at it. https://road.cc/content/news/liddle-...yclists-273749 Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. Anyway, at the time, The Commission replied that the article had not breached its Code of Practice, but it was pleased Mr Parris had apologised for his comments. Then, last Sunday, we get Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle saying he finds it 'tempting' to stretch piano wire across the road to target cyclists. There's no way he could have been unaware of the controversy Matthew Paris caused when he said the same thing. It's just plain and simple copy-cat trolling. Maybe the jurno Rod Liddle should start reading ukrc and learn how proper 'players' set about their game. Then try and see if he can come up with something original for his Sunday Times column. Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truthwhen expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of the population? No, I am only too glad to hear the truth from people - as they see it. But does that mean, for example, that Matthew Parris really wants to see cyclists who litter plastic bottles punished by being decapitated, as he suggested? I don't think so. Nor do I think Rod Liddle would truly consider tying 'piano wire at neck height' to prevent a middle-class city family from cycling along the pavement outside his house. That doesn't stop them, however, from stating the opposite in their paper columns. So what they are printing is not exactly the truth, is it? This just has to be part of a game they are playing. Isn't it the same game being played on ukrc? The same game that has been played for many a year? Each opposing side has players exaggerating their positions usually giving some consideration as to the extent they believe their antagonists are exaggerating their positions? I imagine this is merely individuals levelling out the playing field, in their respective views. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. No one is obliged to take part, it's a free choice, anyone can chose to participate or not. I do not exaggerate the position. There is massive law-breaking by cyclists in the UK, to the disadvantage of others, particularly all of us in our roles as pedestrians, and we all know that to be true. It is possible to say the same thing about drivers, but here's the difference: I and others do not try to excuse or justify that. I flat out condemn it and do not seek to excuse it by pointing out faults in others. IOW, "The big boys did the same thing" isn't an excuse. Cyclist-apologists here have consistently refused to condemn cycling offences. It is difficult, though, impossible more like, to get a dispassionate discussion going because virtually each player is reluctant to lose ground against their adversaries, some of whom they know are going to hang on to the ground they hold come what may. There you go, play the game by all means. If anything it's an enthrallment - a curious, discordant blend of light and heat, as the expression goes. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 28/05/2020 11:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote: Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truth when expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of the population? If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a gathering place. "If"... But it isn't. What's that about "bombing", by the way (assuming you haven't just made it up)? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets, chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out of their drivers' windows? Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for just about anyone. Quote: ... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts about. Unquote https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? Isn't the problem that there are three groups of people involved here, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - with each having different self-interests? There is no way they are all going to see things the same way, and they are going to rely on a degree of goodwill from each other for things to work out optimally. So when a member of one group has bad will towards another group, then the group towards which the bad will is direct will forever have very many of their actions being seen in their worst possible lights by that member. When someone has enough bad will towards you, they can take almost anything you do the wrong way. Thus you have non-cyclist pedestrians and drivers tending to have less goodwill (to actual bad will) directed at cyclists. And you have pedestrians and drivers who also cycle, tending to have more goodwill directed towards cyclists. Unfortunately that still leaves cyclist in the minority with all the bad will that ensues. That's a difficult disadvantage for cyclist to overcome. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 08:40, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 21:24, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:16:45 AM UTC+1, colwyn wrote: Matthew Parris 2007 also in "The Times" Also Rod Liddle is now at it. https://road.cc/content/news/liddle-...yclists-273749 Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. Anyway, at the time, The Commission replied that the article had not breached its Code of Practice, but it was pleased Mr Parris had apologised for his comments. Then, last Sunday, we get Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle saying he finds it 'tempting' to stretch piano wire across the road to target cyclists. There's no way he could have been unaware of the controversy Matthew Paris caused when he said the same thing. It's just plain and simple copy-cat trolling. Maybe the jurno Rod Liddle should start reading ukrc and learn how proper 'players' set about their game. Then try and see if he can come up with something original for his Sunday Times column. Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truthwhen expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of the population? No, I am only too glad to hear the truth from people - as they see it. But does that mean, for example, that Matthew Parris really wants to see cyclists who litter plastic bottles punished by being decapitated, as he suggested? I don't think so. Nor do I think Rod Liddle would truly consider tying 'piano wire at neck height' to prevent a middle-class city family from cycling along the pavement outside his house. That doesn't stop them, however, from stating the opposite in their paper columns. So what they are printing is not exactly the truth, is it? This just has to be part of a game they are playing. Isn't it the same game being played on ukrc? The same game that has been played for many a year? Each opposing side has players exaggerating their positions usually giving some consideration as to the extent they believe their antagonists are exaggerating their positions? I imagine this is merely individuals levelling out the playing field, in their respective views. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. No one is obliged to take part, it's a free choice, anyone can chose to participate or not. I do not exaggerate the position. There is massive law-breaking by cyclists in the UK, to the disadvantage of others, particularly all of us in our roles as pedestrians, and we all know that to be true. It is possible to say the same thing about drivers, but here's the difference: I and others do not try to excuse or justify that. I flat out condemn it and do not seek to excuse it by pointing out faults in others. IOW, "The big boys did the same thing" isn't an excuse. Cyclist-apologists here have consistently refused to condemn cycling offences. Okay, that's an interesting declaration of your position and how you see this issue. The last thing I want to be guilty of is judging someone based on negative stereotyping and misunderstanding. I know that is a grossly unfair thing to do. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 28/05/2020 13:39, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: And this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles. The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets, chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out of their drivers' windows? Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for just about anyone. Quote: ... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts about. Unquote https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? Isn't the problem that there are three groups of people involved here, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - with each having different self-interests? No. I don't expect cyclists to yield their legal rights to me. In the same way, I don't expect them not to concede mine, whether I am walking or driving. There is no way they are all going to see things the same way, and they are going to rely on a degree of goodwill from each other for things to work out optimally. I have been a member of all three of those groups and am still a member of two of them. I see no conflict of interest in expecting all road users to obey the law and (thereby) behave in a predictable and safe manner. Ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian-only rules and one-way working is totally unacceptable, as I am sure you will agree. So when a member of one group has bad will towards another group, then the group towards which the bad will is direct will forever have very many of their actions being seen in their worst possible lights by that member. When someone has enough bad will towards you, they can take almost anything you do the wrong way. Thus you have non-cyclist pedestrians and drivers tending to have less goodwill (to actual bad will) directed at cyclists. And you have pedestrians and drivers who also cycle, tending to have more goodwill directed towards cyclists. Unfortunately that still leaves cyclist in the minority with all the bad will that ensues. That's a difficult disadvantage for cyclist to overcome. It's still something for cyclists as a group (and the forces of law and order, of course) to address. It's no use any cyclist expecting unbounded personal goodwill when the experience of most other road users is that cyclists invariably behave selfishly and badly (with many of them seeming to "think" that they have some sort of right so to behave). I would really like to be able to be more conciliatory on this issue, but proportions really don't play the part they do with other road user groups because it's the majority of cyclists who behave badly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is hi-vis clothing easier to see? What’s so special about the colour? | Max Demian | UK | 37 | September 5th 19 08:43 AM |
Dog walker almost decapitated by lorry that passes inches from herhead | Bod[_5_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 16 10:49 PM |
Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug . | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 32 | December 8th 12 02:58 PM |
That's my smug moment for the year. | wafflycat | UK | 22 | March 19th 07 02:01 PM |
Smug | archierob | UK | 4 | September 13th 05 01:40 PM |