Monday, August 2, 2010

Surprise, surprise, the self-named "Cranky Old Bastard" hates cyclists

Someone who signs their writing "Cranky Old Bastard" writes...

"How many time have we all seen some cocksucking moron on a bike run a red light or blast through a stop sign, usually right in front of us so we have to slam on the brakes and run the risk of being rear-ended."

Seriously? "How many time"? Really? And does this person think that adding "cocksucking moron" makes the argument more persuasive? Being a gay-bashing bigot does not make a person seem more perceptive than the average internet blogger.

Also, COB, we in coherent-thought-land end our questions with question marks.

Thanks for the laugh. I'm so glad that people like you are leading the anti-cyclist charge.

Also, it's ironic that "cranky" is a much-used nickname in cycling, because the "crank" is an important part of a bicycle. And it's ironic that this person has poor web design skills, so that the title of the web page is "Cranky Old Bastard Cyclists Suck". Hee hee! That's gold!

(Sadly, the original post is no longer online. Another surprise. Not. It used to be here.)

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Tallulahlula hates cyclists

This week we have a particularly vitriolic example of the kind of person who uses flagrant over-generalization as an excuse to be full of rage.

On a discussion forum at http://www.kudocities.com/cities/london/conversations/cyclists-why-do-you-hate-other-cyclists?page=3, McDirts wrote "Cyclists, why do you hate other cyclists?"

Tallulahlula replied:

"I’m not a cyclist but I fucking hate cyclists anyway.
 
Pious, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, self-obsessed, dangerous, thoughtless, stupid, ignorant ARSEHOLES. Learn the Highway Code – certainly do your Cycling Proficiency Test – and stop causing so many accidents.

And I really really REALLY don’t give a fuck how ‘environmentally considerate’ you are; do what you effing well like, I just don’t want to hear about it, see you or have to dodge out of the way of you whilst you’re flouting the rules of the road at my peril.

I had a very bad weekend, incidentally."

Now, I'm not particularly prone to breaking the law as I ride my bicycle. I do tend to choose the safer of the road or the sidewalk, and I do sometimes ride from the road onto the sidewalk or vice versa, in the middle or my trip. And I may even do this to take a shortcut. But I don't do it in violation of any traveller's right of way, and I always do it safely.

But this person sure makes me want to take up law breaking! Does this person really have proof that a cyclist he or she sees breaking the law is "sanctimonious"? And how does breaking the law make someone pious?

Thanks for the laughs, Tallulahlula.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Todd Grooms hates cyclists

http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/12/04/Driver_who_targeted_cyclists_gets_probationary_sentence/

A man in Durango, Colorado was arrested "on suspicion of using his white Dodge pickup to run cyclists off the road".

According to this new article, "Grooms apparently became upset that cyclists were taking up too much of the road, so he yelled at them, drove within 6 inches of them and gunned his truck toward them.


"In one instance, Grooms stopped his truck in the middle of the road, exited his vehicle and confronted a group of cyclists. He had a sidearm holstered to his waist.

"Grooms eventually drove away, but he passed the cyclists a second time and made an obscene gesture.
No one was injured during any of the incidents, but several cyclists feared for their safety and were forced off the road along a 10-mile stretch of roadway"

It's worth noting that "Grooms suffers from a mental condition that requires medication, but he was not on the medication at the time of the incident." Why is that worth nothing? Because most other cyclist-haters make no such claim, and yet still act like this man, who has a mental disorder and hasn't taken his medication.

Monday, January 25, 2010

David Thomas hates skinny legs


Here's a summary of what David Thomas disapproves of: eating brown rice, wearing tight clothing, wearing loose clothing, helmets, beards, thin legs, white legs, hairy legs, correct hyphenation, ale, folk songs, and sandals, gender equality, and cyclists.

Needless to say, his writing isn't terribly rational, and thus its hard to take seriously his animosity toward users of the world's most efficient transportation. He's really just one of the legions of writers who insult cyclists by generalizing about them.

But he doesn't stop there. Generalizing is one matter: most anti-cyclist writers claim that every human who has ever and will ever ride a bicycle has broken or will break the law in doing so. Indeed, many writers seem to insinuate that cycling within the law is innately impossible, that the very act of cycling is to break the law, and thus cycling should be totally illegal.

But Mr. Thomas goes farther than that. He seems to want to convince you about cyclists' badness by telling you about totally irrelevant qualities of all cyclists. In the country, apparently, all cyclists "sport beards, baggy shorts and thin, white, hairy legs". They also all wear sandals. Of course, ironically, he also believe that all cyclists wear "lurid Lycra body-sausages". This, Mr. Thomas, is why you feel I should disapprove of cyclists? They way they look?

The best Mr. Thomas can do now is to claim that he was just describing the people he's attacking. The attack was just about their behavior, not their appearance. But then why mention their looks at all? Mr. Thomas, your writing exposes you as a bigot. I suppose that there are laws against publishing attacks against women, gays, and Muslims, so you can't attack them. But bearded cyclists are not protected by anti-hate laws, so you've found a way to let your hatred shine.

Mr. Thomas also claims that European bureaucrats believe that "the only acceptable form of private transport is the nonpolluting, eco-friendly, man - sorry! - person-powered bicycle." Really, Mr. Thomas? You even have to work a sexist dig into your text? Do you believe that that will help your cause?

Mr. Thomas, if you disapprove of slow, wobbling, verbally abusive, or unsafe cyclists, then write about that. Your decision to include irrelevant details has discredited you and your words.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Amanda hates cyclists

 http://www.topix.com/forum/source/farmington-daily-times/TRR2VSKNHI2F5S0N6

Amanda says "I personally think if you cant pedal the speed limit, you have no business being on the road. Stick to roads with bike lanes, otherwise speed up, or move over. Riding on the line drives me nuts. I refuse to move. I won't move over or change lanes. You want to ride on the road on a bike, your willing to risk your life like that, i'm not gonna stress it either then."

Regardless of how badly Amanda's writing degenerates towards the end of her confusing little diatribe, one remains confused by this paragraph. She says that she refuses to move over for cyclists who are going slower than the posted speed limit. So what does she do when she approaches motorists who drive slower than the speed limit? Just rear end them as if she can neatly tuck them under her tires like she can a cyclist? Or scrape along the offending vehicle's side, ruining the paint on her own vehicle in the process?

Fortunately, the law is not on Amanda's side.

Thanks for the laugh, though, Amanda!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Wendy Hargreaves knows what middle-aged male cyclists who wear lycra think, and she mocks them.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/lycra-clad-lads-blow-a-tyre/story-e6frfifo-1225769843152

Wendy Hargreaves, an Australian columnist, made fun of middle-aged men who wear skin-tight lycra. Then many people wrote to her insulting her viciously. She defended herself in a retort column by saying that her mockery of a certain group of people "was a light-hearted jab".

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, is there? Light-hearted is always nice, and we really shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. It's bad for one's heart.

However, the number of words one can write in the style of a "light-hearted jab" at lycra-garbed cyclists is limited to pretty much "They look awfully silly." Once one writes more than that, one has taken unfortunate leave of light-hearted country.

And that's exactly what Hargreaves did. Her "light-hearted jab" included mocking "blokes spending big bucks on garish Italian cycling kits to solve their mid-life crises" and "griping" about "the out-of-shape show-offs who think they look like Lance Armstrong with sponsorship artwork all over their copious bods."

That just doesn't seem light-hearted. Really, she was trying to be jocular and show camaraderie when she called these people "out-of-shape"? I doubt it. And I'm curious about what specific behaviour she thought constituted "showing off". Do these cyclists perform stunts? Cycle dangerously? It's actually pretty hard to show off on a bike, especially when you're going fast on a road that you share with cars. In such a situation, a cyclist pretty much has to focus on staying upright, on course, and out of harm's way. So, seriously, were these cyclists really showing off? Or is that just Hargreaves' interpretation of wearing bright clothes and riding nice bikes? I guess one might interpret those two acts as inherently showing off. But then one must conversely state that people who wear muted colours or ride cheap bikes are so shy and self-effacing as to be socially crippled.

Also, people who aren't passionate about cycling often say that anyone who wears cycling gear and who rides a nice bike thinks that he or she is Lance Armstrong. But seriously, that's just exposing your own ignorance about cycling. Cycling is more than one celebrity athlete. So I suppose anyone who wears a soccer jersey and buys a nice soccer ball thinks he or she is Beckham? Anyone who wears a hockey jersey and buys nice skates thinks he or she is Gretzky? No, of course not. That was just cheap and easy rhetoric on Hargreaves' part. Nothing to be terribly proud of having written, that's for sure.

Hargreaves says that people buy Italian cyclist kits "to solve their mid-life crises". That's just mean. Not light-hearted. And, naturally, it's a gross assumption. Can someone not want to get into shape by using the world's most efficient (and arguably most pleasant) form of transport? If one has the money, why not buy a nicer bike? It's pleasant to ride nice bikes. As for the garish clothing, well, plenty of people have taste in clothing that mystifies me. I don't accuse them of having a mid-life crisis. If someone is playing very loud music in their car, maybe they're insecure or obnoxious. Or maybe they just really, really, really like the muisc they're playing and like it loud. I just don't see it as light-hearted to start branding people with derisive assumptions.

I don't care how expensive one's bike is. I don't buy nice bikes because I can't afford them, because I have other priorities, and because I find them inconvenient (one can't safely lock and leave an expensive bike in public for more than a minute or so). But I'm not clear about why riding an expensive bike deserves a "jab", light-hearted or Hargreavesian. I agree that garishly coloured clothing is hard on the eyes, but hey, if people will give someone free functional clothing that has corporate logos on it, why should that someone not wear it? I don't presume to know what someone thinks and feels and desires just because I see what they wear and ride.

Light-hearted jabs are great. But Hargreaves misrepresents herself when she calls her article "light-hearted".

Not really a lot of laughs there, Wendy.

jloverby hates her husband

http://caloriecount.about.com/spring-summer-hate-cyclists-thread-ft141047

In a discussion about cyclists, jloverby writes, "It is maddening.   There are like massive groups of them everywhere.  I was just talking to my husband about it and he is a cyclist and he agrees that many (in this area) are inconsiderate and act like they are entitled to do anything they want regardless of what the rules are supposed to be.  I understand that everyone has a right to the road and all that but the cyclists need to follow the rules and be considerate as do motorists and pedestrians."

Ok, wait, let me get this straight. "Cyclists" are "maddening" and "need to follow the rules and be considerate as do motorists and pedestrians." And this woman's husband is a cyclist? So, she's saying that her cyclist husband is inconsiderate? This is interesting because her husband, who is a cyclist, says that *many* cyclists *in the area* are inconsiderate. Then she says *cyclists* need to be considerate.

jloverby, I'm confused. Of course cyclists need to follow the rules. So do motorists and pedestrians. So do football players and accountants. This really doesn't seem to be worth stating. Unless you're pointing out specifically that cyclists need to follow the rules just to make the point that cyclists don't. Which would be a lie.

As your husband said, jloverby, many cyclists in your area are inconsiderate. Not "cyclists" in general. From now on, let your husband do your writing for you. He's like smarter than you and all that.

But thanks for the laughs!