A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 28th 20, 10:50 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,504
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 10:57 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,504
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 11:56 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 11:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,547
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 12:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 12:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 01:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kelly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 01:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kelly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default 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  
Old May 28th 20, 02:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:58 PM
That's my smug moment for the year. wafflycat UK 22 March 19th 07 01:01 PM
Smug archierob UK 4 September 13th 05 01:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.