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!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
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.
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!
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!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Michael Hann hates cyclists.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-24-2002-28858.asp
Here's how Michael Hann frames his hatred of cyclists:
1) Cyclists are threatening the endangered Ohlone tiger beetle in Santa Cruz County. The beetle is "startlingly" rare. Seriously, Michael? In the 21st century, you're actually startled by the diminishing numbers of a given species? I can just imagine that someone told you how many are alive today and you were all like "Waugh! That startles me! Don't creep up on me like that!" Michael, you know that industrialization has been jeopardizing many, many species of various animals and plants for decades or even centuries, right? Well, anyway, the polar bears, while trying to balance on the tiny icebergs that climate change continues to shrink, applaud your derision of the world's most efficient mode of transport. Mike, come on. If you're looking to blame something for threatening endangered species, I'm just not convinced that cycling is more of a culprit than, say, deforestation, desertification, climate change, overfishing, overhunting, or water pollution. I'm gonna have to side with David Suzuki and, um, all other environmental scientists on this one, Mike. It's nothing personal. Other than your being a moron.
2) Cyclists deny doing anything wrong. ("Naturally, they all deny their guilt. All regular bike riders condemn 'kamikaze cyclists' who 'give the rest of us a bad name'. In fact, finding a cyclist who admits to wilfully ignoring the rules of the road is as difficult as finding a white South African who will admit to having supported apartheid. 'No mate, not me. Never do a thing like that. Terrible.' ") To Mike, this is a clear indicator that all cyclists are bad people. I'm sure Mike would go much easier on cyclists if he aimed his wild generalizations at a bewildered commuter cyclist on her way to work in the morning and she replied "Um, sure, yeah, that's me... heh heh [awkward cough] Yep, I love crushing startlingly rare bugs under my monstrously huge tires as I spew noxious gases into the air. The only thing I love more than that is, um... violating right-of-way laws and riding recklessly through groups of pure, unsinning pedestrians. [looks around in a panic] Just don't hurt me, please sir. Can I go now?"
Yes, the only that thing incriminates someone more than confessing to an accusation is denying it. Good call, Mike. What was really enjoyable was Mike's comparison of cyclists to racists. Indeed, if you pedal your way to and from class every day, you may as well just be up front about it and buy a tandem bike so your non-white slave can drive you home to your plantation while you recline and sip mint juleps on the back seat of your luxury animal-endangering killing machine.
Another great thing about Mike's rant is how he oscillates between admitting that it's the disrespectful behaviour of some cyclists that upsets him and tarring all cyclists with the sins of a few individuals who have one behaviour in common:
"[T]hese trails are hugely popular with local cyclists. Mountain bikers are now believed to be the single greatest threat to the survival of this species as they squish and squash their way through the beetle population."
" 'If this beetle is only found in five places, maybe it's no longer viable as a species. If the beetle's going to survive, it's going to have to change its habits,' one irate cyclist told a local paper.
"Many of us are sick to the back teeth of the sickos on cycles who turn any walk though a city into a navigational nightmare."
"What hazards do we face? Cyclists who decide a one-way system is too much hassle for them, and take to the pavement instead. Cyclists who decide the traffic light system is for guidance only - red means go, unless there is a clear and present danger to the cyclist's safety; amber just means go - regardless of whether pedestrians are crossing the road. Cyclists who appear to believe zebra crossings are only designed to compel cars to stop. Cyclists who decide No Cycling signs on park paths don't apply to them."
Mike, buddy, you realize that you dedicate a lot of words to pointing out that not all cyclists are problematic, right? Ok, cool. Just wanted to be sure.
Finally, Mike steps off the deep end with this doozie: "the point is I should be free to let my two-year-old daughter walk on pedestrian paths without worrying that she might be hit by a bike rider." You honestly believe that? Just like how I should be free to let my cat prowl around near the freeway without worrying about it being run over? You know that pretty much 99.9% of humans accept that parents are responsible for protecting their children, right? "Honey, you're two years old now, and mature enough now for you to take care of yourself outside of our yard. Now you can go walk yourself to the park alone while I sit at home and surf dating sites looking for someone to replace mommy and offer you actual parenting."
You're a gem, Mike. Thanks for the laughs.
Here's how Michael Hann frames his hatred of cyclists:
1) Cyclists are threatening the endangered Ohlone tiger beetle in Santa Cruz County. The beetle is "startlingly" rare. Seriously, Michael? In the 21st century, you're actually startled by the diminishing numbers of a given species? I can just imagine that someone told you how many are alive today and you were all like "Waugh! That startles me! Don't creep up on me like that!" Michael, you know that industrialization has been jeopardizing many, many species of various animals and plants for decades or even centuries, right? Well, anyway, the polar bears, while trying to balance on the tiny icebergs that climate change continues to shrink, applaud your derision of the world's most efficient mode of transport. Mike, come on. If you're looking to blame something for threatening endangered species, I'm just not convinced that cycling is more of a culprit than, say, deforestation, desertification, climate change, overfishing, overhunting, or water pollution. I'm gonna have to side with David Suzuki and, um, all other environmental scientists on this one, Mike. It's nothing personal. Other than your being a moron.
2) Cyclists deny doing anything wrong. ("Naturally, they all deny their guilt. All regular bike riders condemn 'kamikaze cyclists' who 'give the rest of us a bad name'. In fact, finding a cyclist who admits to wilfully ignoring the rules of the road is as difficult as finding a white South African who will admit to having supported apartheid. 'No mate, not me. Never do a thing like that. Terrible.' ") To Mike, this is a clear indicator that all cyclists are bad people. I'm sure Mike would go much easier on cyclists if he aimed his wild generalizations at a bewildered commuter cyclist on her way to work in the morning and she replied "Um, sure, yeah, that's me... heh heh [awkward cough] Yep, I love crushing startlingly rare bugs under my monstrously huge tires as I spew noxious gases into the air. The only thing I love more than that is, um... violating right-of-way laws and riding recklessly through groups of pure, unsinning pedestrians. [looks around in a panic] Just don't hurt me, please sir. Can I go now?"
Yes, the only that thing incriminates someone more than confessing to an accusation is denying it. Good call, Mike. What was really enjoyable was Mike's comparison of cyclists to racists. Indeed, if you pedal your way to and from class every day, you may as well just be up front about it and buy a tandem bike so your non-white slave can drive you home to your plantation while you recline and sip mint juleps on the back seat of your luxury animal-endangering killing machine.
Another great thing about Mike's rant is how he oscillates between admitting that it's the disrespectful behaviour of some cyclists that upsets him and tarring all cyclists with the sins of a few individuals who have one behaviour in common:
"[T]hese trails are hugely popular with local cyclists. Mountain bikers are now believed to be the single greatest threat to the survival of this species as they squish and squash their way through the beetle population."
" 'If this beetle is only found in five places, maybe it's no longer viable as a species. If the beetle's going to survive, it's going to have to change its habits,' one irate cyclist told a local paper.
"Many of us are sick to the back teeth of the sickos on cycles who turn any walk though a city into a navigational nightmare."
"What hazards do we face? Cyclists who decide a one-way system is too much hassle for them, and take to the pavement instead. Cyclists who decide the traffic light system is for guidance only - red means go, unless there is a clear and present danger to the cyclist's safety; amber just means go - regardless of whether pedestrians are crossing the road. Cyclists who appear to believe zebra crossings are only designed to compel cars to stop. Cyclists who decide No Cycling signs on park paths don't apply to them."
Mike, buddy, you realize that you dedicate a lot of words to pointing out that not all cyclists are problematic, right? Ok, cool. Just wanted to be sure.
Finally, Mike steps off the deep end with this doozie: "the point is I should be free to let my two-year-old daughter walk on pedestrian paths without worrying that she might be hit by a bike rider." You honestly believe that? Just like how I should be free to let my cat prowl around near the freeway without worrying about it being run over? You know that pretty much 99.9% of humans accept that parents are responsible for protecting their children, right? "Honey, you're two years old now, and mature enough now for you to take care of yourself outside of our yard. Now you can go walk yourself to the park alone while I sit at home and surf dating sites looking for someone to replace mommy and offer you actual parenting."
You're a gem, Mike. Thanks for the laughs.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Webmasta hates cyclists.
"Webmasta" says: http://www.dolemite.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4-I-hate-cyclists.html
"I see you every day, riding around in your gay little uniforms with sponsorships all over them. Wise up jackass! You sit in a cubicle all day and wipe boogers in the carpet. No one is sponsoring you while you ride around my fucking neighborhood."
Nice! And I see *you* in your straight little jeans-and-tucked-in-Tshirt-and-baseball-cap uniform. Yay uniforms! Wait, you see me riding around your neighbourhood AND at my job leaning over to rub my boogers in the carpet? You're following me around! You have a crush on me! [blush]. But nobody is sponsoring you while you drive your truck around your neighbourhood, so I'm not terribly impressed. Sorry. Also, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone who stalks a person who rubs boogers in carpets. That's some lame stalking.
"The next asshole that runs a stop sign while I'm in the crosswalk is going to get a broom handle in the spokes."
So, YOU'RE the person who's been following me around! I totally thought I was seeing the crazy person with the broom an awful lot around my workplace lately.
"Take the asshole that wanted to see how tightly he could hug a turn at full speed."
I WILL take him! He sounds scrumptious. You haven't hurt him with your broom yet though, have you? Will you be jealous if I take him?
"I can thank the great and mighty George Hincapie (apparent heir to the Lance Armstrong legacy) who lives in the area. Fuck him and fuck his no riding ass in the Tour de France."
I'm glad you can thank him. Thanking is fun, hey? And you want me to violate him during the Tour de France while he's not riding? I assume you want to watch, too, you naughty voyeur.
"None of you can rebut a single word I've said because you know I'm 100% right."
Well, yeah, you're right. I can't rebut you. I can't even but you. You're just too, I dunno, out there. Too kinky for me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the boogers, the broom, the voyeurism... it's all too much for me.
"Don't you have some ointment to put on your chaffed thighs or something?"
Ok, see, I appreciate your interest. I don't judge you for having desires that are, well, racier than mine. But wait! Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! I can rebut you now! Obviously my thighs aren't chapped, because, as you have pointed out, I wear my "gay little uniform" to prevent chapping. I know, I know, now you want my gorgeous booger-rubbing, non-chafed self even more. Sorry! But nice ruse, you trickster.
"While your response is heartfelt and I can really feel your pain, you still did not address the fundamental issue. Why do cyclists refuse to obey simple road rules?"
Well, back before I knew how much of a kinky bad boy you really are, I thought you were just a regular-type bad boy, and I kinda wanted to impress you, so I was all law-breaky when I saw the broom-person. ... Oh, wait, you mean why do cyclists other than me break the law? Well, have you ever ridden a bike? It's actually physically impossible to obey the law when you're on a bike. It's kind of like lifting yourself up by the collar. Just against the laws of physics. I think maybe bikes are magic. Or cursed. Well, lots of people think that magic IS a curse. But I don't. I like magic. Hence my cycling.
"You failed the first rule my father taught me when I used to cycle with him: DON'T RIDE ON BUSY ROADS."
Damn, that's the first time I've failed a rule. I have no excuse, but I'll tell you the reasons I failed your father's rule. First, I didn't know your father. He sounds like a wild, zany guy, though. Second, I didn't see the rule at first because I generally don't see text that's typed in all-caps. I think it might be the magic from my cursed bike lingering on me when I get off my bike and cruise the net looking for sexy crazy broom-people. It's caused me a lot of grief over the years. Apparently I've missed a lot of important messages about making my manhood bigger, receiving millions of money from people in various African nations, staying happy with the help of angels, and hump day.
Well, Webmasta, it's been fun, but I think I covered everything I need to cover here. I invite my readers, though, to check out all the lovely bike-hating comments and bike-hater-hating counter-comments on your blog.
Good luck in your search, Webmasta, and thanks for the laughs!
"I see you every day, riding around in your gay little uniforms with sponsorships all over them. Wise up jackass! You sit in a cubicle all day and wipe boogers in the carpet. No one is sponsoring you while you ride around my fucking neighborhood."
Nice! And I see *you* in your straight little jeans-and-tucked-in-Tshirt-and-baseball-cap uniform. Yay uniforms! Wait, you see me riding around your neighbourhood AND at my job leaning over to rub my boogers in the carpet? You're following me around! You have a crush on me! [blush]. But nobody is sponsoring you while you drive your truck around your neighbourhood, so I'm not terribly impressed. Sorry. Also, I'm not terribly impressed by anyone who stalks a person who rubs boogers in carpets. That's some lame stalking.
"The next asshole that runs a stop sign while I'm in the crosswalk is going to get a broom handle in the spokes."
So, YOU'RE the person who's been following me around! I totally thought I was seeing the crazy person with the broom an awful lot around my workplace lately.
"Take the asshole that wanted to see how tightly he could hug a turn at full speed."
I WILL take him! He sounds scrumptious. You haven't hurt him with your broom yet though, have you? Will you be jealous if I take him?
"I can thank the great and mighty George Hincapie (apparent heir to the Lance Armstrong legacy) who lives in the area. Fuck him and fuck his no riding ass in the Tour de France."
I'm glad you can thank him. Thanking is fun, hey? And you want me to violate him during the Tour de France while he's not riding? I assume you want to watch, too, you naughty voyeur.
"None of you can rebut a single word I've said because you know I'm 100% right."
Well, yeah, you're right. I can't rebut you. I can't even but you. You're just too, I dunno, out there. Too kinky for me. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the boogers, the broom, the voyeurism... it's all too much for me.
"Don't you have some ointment to put on your chaffed thighs or something?"
Ok, see, I appreciate your interest. I don't judge you for having desires that are, well, racier than mine. But wait! Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! I can rebut you now! Obviously my thighs aren't chapped, because, as you have pointed out, I wear my "gay little uniform" to prevent chapping. I know, I know, now you want my gorgeous booger-rubbing, non-chafed self even more. Sorry! But nice ruse, you trickster.
"While your response is heartfelt and I can really feel your pain, you still did not address the fundamental issue. Why do cyclists refuse to obey simple road rules?"
Well, back before I knew how much of a kinky bad boy you really are, I thought you were just a regular-type bad boy, and I kinda wanted to impress you, so I was all law-breaky when I saw the broom-person. ... Oh, wait, you mean why do cyclists other than me break the law? Well, have you ever ridden a bike? It's actually physically impossible to obey the law when you're on a bike. It's kind of like lifting yourself up by the collar. Just against the laws of physics. I think maybe bikes are magic. Or cursed. Well, lots of people think that magic IS a curse. But I don't. I like magic. Hence my cycling.
"You failed the first rule my father taught me when I used to cycle with him: DON'T RIDE ON BUSY ROADS."
Damn, that's the first time I've failed a rule. I have no excuse, but I'll tell you the reasons I failed your father's rule. First, I didn't know your father. He sounds like a wild, zany guy, though. Second, I didn't see the rule at first because I generally don't see text that's typed in all-caps. I think it might be the magic from my cursed bike lingering on me when I get off my bike and cruise the net looking for sexy crazy broom-people. It's caused me a lot of grief over the years. Apparently I've missed a lot of important messages about making my manhood bigger, receiving millions of money from people in various African nations, staying happy with the help of angels, and hump day.
Well, Webmasta, it's been fun, but I think I covered everything I need to cover here. I invite my readers, though, to check out all the lovely bike-hating comments and bike-hater-hating counter-comments on your blog.
Good luck in your search, Webmasta, and thanks for the laughs!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
James Martin hates cyclists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1211917/JAMES-MARTIN-The-Tesla-Roadster-electric-supercar-thats-fast-Ferrari.html#ixzz0R5re16Nz
It's so sad these days that people born with the unfortunate intolerance gene and people raised by parents who have that same gene just can't get away with much bigotry these days. Obama's in the Whitehouse, and his main competitors were Clinton and Palin--two women! What's a bigot to do? Well, ask James Martin. This BBC personality recently wrote the following in his review of a high-end car:
"[W]henever I drive to London, dutifully paying my £8 for the privilege (on top of my road tax, petrol tax, parking and all the other rip-offs), without fail a cyclist will rap on my window and make some holier-than-thou comment, before zooming off through a red light where he knows I can't get him.
God, I hate those cyclists. Every last herbal tea-drinking, Harriet Harman-voting one of them. That's one of the reasons I live in the countryside, where birds tweet, horses roam, pigs grunt and Lycra-clad buttocks are miles away. But recently, there's been a disturbing development.
Each Saturday, a big black truck appears at the bottom of my road, with bikes stuck to the roof and rear. Out of it step a bunch of City-boy ponces in fluorescent Spider-Man outfits, shades, bum bags and stupid cleated shoes, who then pedal around our narrow lanes four abreast with their private parts alarmingly apparent. Do they enjoy it? They never smile. I'm sure they just come here to wind me up.
[...]
Twenty minutes into my test drive I pulled round a leafy bend, enjoying the birdsong - and spotted those damned Spider-Man cyclists. Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming, I stepped on the gas, waited until the split second before I overtook them, then gave them an almighty blast on the horn at the exact same time I passed them at speed.
The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror. I think this could be the car for me."
This is a popular sentiment anywhere one looks. Anti-cycling hatred abounds (hence this blog). And so, of course, our lovely bigot had found his outlet. But then public outrage ensued. It looks good, hard-working, decent, self-centred, solipsistic folk just can't find any freedom of hatred this days!
So, in response to the public outrage, he wrote this:
"It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists who share our roads across the country. What was intended to be a humorous piece was clearly misjudged. Further more I do not condone any form of reckless driving.
Once again, I am sincerely sorry for any upset caused in relation to this article."
Of course that was humour! Duh! "Clearly" it was everyone else's fault that you were deliberately and dangerously cruel. It's our fault for misjudging your angelic humour. Phrases like "all the other rip-offs", "holier-than-thou", "God, I hate those [insert people here]", "city-boy ponces", "tree-huggers", and "bleeding-heart" are clearly light-hearted fun aimed at building community through mirth and joy. Ah, the healing power of laughter. Thanks, Jimmie.
But Jim, it's so embarrassingly obvious that the people who pay you forced you to write your apology. I mean, it's mostly passive voice: "was intended", "was clearly misjudged", "upset caused". Nice try pal. Intended by who? By you. Misjudged by who? By the people you hurt. Caused by who? By you, guy. You, the person who wrote nasty, hurtful things. You, who are so flagrantly self-obsessed as to actually write "I'm sure they just come here to wind me up." Yes, athletes drive out to the countryside because you're such a rich-and-famous megastar and they just have to irritate you. Their lives revolve around you, as does everything else in the universe. Call Copernicus; we found the true centre of the universe! No, I see through your passive voice sentence structure there, guy.
I also see through your use of a noun instead of an active voice verb: "It was never my intention to offend..." No, you mean "I never intended..." Take credit for your hatred, dear fellow!
And when this guy does get around to an active-voice apology ("I am sincerely sorry"), he uses the dismissive "any" ("...for any upset..."). This "any" means "you know, if there really *was* any upset, which I doubt". Dear readers, don't say "any" when you apologize. It's just a bad strategy.
Then he ends with "...caused in relation to this article." Dude, the upset was not caused *in relation* to the article. It was caused BY the article. And not "by *this* article"; rather, "by YOUR article". Your underhanded, sneaky, slimy, scuzzy follow-up made you look just as bad as your hateful car review made you look.
When James Martin complains about something, that something is a "rip-off". But when a cyclist complains, the cyclist is being "holier-than-though". When someone who cares about clean air and water complains, that person is a "bleeding heart". Nice try. Cute little insults can't mask your hypocrisy, pal.
James Martin just deosn't seem like a very good guy. Sure he recycles and composts. Then he gets unabashed glee from literally terrorizing innocent people.
Really, the BBC ought to just let him go.
Of course, now the web version of the car review he wrote no longer includes his anecdote about terrorizing cyclists. That's been deleted by brilliant editors who thought the terrorizing and hatred were fine to print originally. Search "James martin cyclists" in Google. You'll find the original text.
Most of the comments on the online text of the car review disparage Martin for his hatred. But one sure didn't! Ms. Julie Barnes of Sydney, Australia (if that's your real name), please take a bow:
"James, I could not agree more with you on the subject of these arrogant cyclists. Here in Sydney we have many, many cycle lanes to accommodate these 'car' haters, yet so many of them refuse to use them, instead risking their own lives by driving on the road. They simply have no right to be on the road, end of story!!! Car drivers pay for it, unlike the cyclists. I have myself been faced with cyclists clogging the roads (mainly around our Olympic site). One morning no less than 4 riders abreast across the road. I had no choice but to use my horn to get them out of the way. For what it's worth James I read your column on the net every week with much anticipation and you never fail to make my day and make me laugh. Keep up the good work. Oh by they way I also loooooove your cooking shows."
So, friends, watch for James Martin and Julie Barnes. They are in a hurry and don't like having to share the road with anybody who slows them down or disagrees with them.
Thanks, James and Julie, for the laughs!
It's so sad these days that people born with the unfortunate intolerance gene and people raised by parents who have that same gene just can't get away with much bigotry these days. Obama's in the Whitehouse, and his main competitors were Clinton and Palin--two women! What's a bigot to do? Well, ask James Martin. This BBC personality recently wrote the following in his review of a high-end car:
"[W]henever I drive to London, dutifully paying my £8 for the privilege (on top of my road tax, petrol tax, parking and all the other rip-offs), without fail a cyclist will rap on my window and make some holier-than-thou comment, before zooming off through a red light where he knows I can't get him.
God, I hate those cyclists. Every last herbal tea-drinking, Harriet Harman-voting one of them. That's one of the reasons I live in the countryside, where birds tweet, horses roam, pigs grunt and Lycra-clad buttocks are miles away. But recently, there's been a disturbing development.
Each Saturday, a big black truck appears at the bottom of my road, with bikes stuck to the roof and rear. Out of it step a bunch of City-boy ponces in fluorescent Spider-Man outfits, shades, bum bags and stupid cleated shoes, who then pedal around our narrow lanes four abreast with their private parts alarmingly apparent. Do they enjoy it? They never smile. I'm sure they just come here to wind me up.
[...]
Twenty minutes into my test drive I pulled round a leafy bend, enjoying the birdsong - and spotted those damned Spider-Man cyclists. Knowing they wouldn't hear me coming, I stepped on the gas, waited until the split second before I overtook them, then gave them an almighty blast on the horn at the exact same time I passed them at speed.
The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror. I think this could be the car for me."
This is a popular sentiment anywhere one looks. Anti-cycling hatred abounds (hence this blog). And so, of course, our lovely bigot had found his outlet. But then public outrage ensued. It looks good, hard-working, decent, self-centred, solipsistic folk just can't find any freedom of hatred this days!
So, in response to the public outrage, he wrote this:
"It was never my intention to offend the many cyclists who share our roads across the country. What was intended to be a humorous piece was clearly misjudged. Further more I do not condone any form of reckless driving.
Once again, I am sincerely sorry for any upset caused in relation to this article."
Of course that was humour! Duh! "Clearly" it was everyone else's fault that you were deliberately and dangerously cruel. It's our fault for misjudging your angelic humour. Phrases like "all the other rip-offs", "holier-than-thou", "God, I hate those [insert people here]", "city-boy ponces", "tree-huggers", and "bleeding-heart" are clearly light-hearted fun aimed at building community through mirth and joy. Ah, the healing power of laughter. Thanks, Jimmie.
But Jim, it's so embarrassingly obvious that the people who pay you forced you to write your apology. I mean, it's mostly passive voice: "was intended", "was clearly misjudged", "upset caused". Nice try pal. Intended by who? By you. Misjudged by who? By the people you hurt. Caused by who? By you, guy. You, the person who wrote nasty, hurtful things. You, who are so flagrantly self-obsessed as to actually write "I'm sure they just come here to wind me up." Yes, athletes drive out to the countryside because you're such a rich-and-famous megastar and they just have to irritate you. Their lives revolve around you, as does everything else in the universe. Call Copernicus; we found the true centre of the universe! No, I see through your passive voice sentence structure there, guy.
I also see through your use of a noun instead of an active voice verb: "It was never my intention to offend..." No, you mean "I never intended..." Take credit for your hatred, dear fellow!
And when this guy does get around to an active-voice apology ("I am sincerely sorry"), he uses the dismissive "any" ("...for any upset..."). This "any" means "you know, if there really *was* any upset, which I doubt". Dear readers, don't say "any" when you apologize. It's just a bad strategy.
Then he ends with "...caused in relation to this article." Dude, the upset was not caused *in relation* to the article. It was caused BY the article. And not "by *this* article"; rather, "by YOUR article". Your underhanded, sneaky, slimy, scuzzy follow-up made you look just as bad as your hateful car review made you look.
When James Martin complains about something, that something is a "rip-off". But when a cyclist complains, the cyclist is being "holier-than-though". When someone who cares about clean air and water complains, that person is a "bleeding heart". Nice try. Cute little insults can't mask your hypocrisy, pal.
James Martin just deosn't seem like a very good guy. Sure he recycles and composts. Then he gets unabashed glee from literally terrorizing innocent people.
Really, the BBC ought to just let him go.
Of course, now the web version of the car review he wrote no longer includes his anecdote about terrorizing cyclists. That's been deleted by brilliant editors who thought the terrorizing and hatred were fine to print originally. Search "James martin cyclists" in Google. You'll find the original text.
Most of the comments on the online text of the car review disparage Martin for his hatred. But one sure didn't! Ms. Julie Barnes of Sydney, Australia (if that's your real name), please take a bow:
"James, I could not agree more with you on the subject of these arrogant cyclists. Here in Sydney we have many, many cycle lanes to accommodate these 'car' haters, yet so many of them refuse to use them, instead risking their own lives by driving on the road. They simply have no right to be on the road, end of story!!! Car drivers pay for it, unlike the cyclists. I have myself been faced with cyclists clogging the roads (mainly around our Olympic site). One morning no less than 4 riders abreast across the road. I had no choice but to use my horn to get them out of the way. For what it's worth James I read your column on the net every week with much anticipation and you never fail to make my day and make me laugh. Keep up the good work. Oh by they way I also loooooove your cooking shows."
So, friends, watch for James Martin and Julie Barnes. They are in a hurry and don't like having to share the road with anybody who slows them down or disagrees with them.
Thanks, James and Julie, for the laughs!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
J Baker hates cyclists
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/mailbag/Reason-drivers-do-not-love.5655289.jp
J Baker feels a lack of love for cyclists because one time a cyclist ran a red light against J Baker's right of way. So, naturally, as J Baker points out, that is why J Baker does not love cyclists. J Baker writes further to explain that no motorists love any cyclists. J Baker thrusts home a brilliantly crafted argument by undeniably bringing up the point that "all" of "us" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements. Finally, J Baker deals a crushing rhetorical blow by showing us a powerful logical link: the fact that "we all" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements proves that all cyclists believe that no traffic laws apply to them. Deft and stunning, J Baker. Deft and stunning.
J Baker has since been seen refusing to love:
- all people in wheelchairs because J Baker saw a person in a wheelchair spit on the ground
- all dogs because J Baker read a news story about a dog hurting a child
- all women because a woman cut in front of J Baker in line at the grocery store
- all people who look Arabic because RCMP arrested a person who looked Arabic
- all men because a male politician once expressed an opinion that was the opposite of J Baker's opinon on the same topic
- all hammers because hammers sometimes hit people on the thumb causing people great pain
- all motorists because motorists sometimes fail to yield appropriate right of way to cyclists and almost or do injure cyclists
Also, J Baker has been heard to say on several occasions "Dang you punks, stay off my lawn!"
Thanks, J, for the laughs!
J Baker feels a lack of love for cyclists because one time a cyclist ran a red light against J Baker's right of way. So, naturally, as J Baker points out, that is why J Baker does not love cyclists. J Baker writes further to explain that no motorists love any cyclists. J Baker thrusts home a brilliantly crafted argument by undeniably bringing up the point that "all" of "us" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements. Finally, J Baker deals a crushing rhetorical blow by showing us a powerful logical link: the fact that "we all" have seen cyclists riding on sidewalks/pavements proves that all cyclists believe that no traffic laws apply to them. Deft and stunning, J Baker. Deft and stunning.
J Baker has since been seen refusing to love:
- all people in wheelchairs because J Baker saw a person in a wheelchair spit on the ground
- all dogs because J Baker read a news story about a dog hurting a child
- all women because a woman cut in front of J Baker in line at the grocery store
- all people who look Arabic because RCMP arrested a person who looked Arabic
- all men because a male politician once expressed an opinion that was the opposite of J Baker's opinon on the same topic
- all hammers because hammers sometimes hit people on the thumb causing people great pain
- all motorists because motorists sometimes fail to yield appropriate right of way to cyclists and almost or do injure cyclists
Also, J Baker has been heard to say on several occasions "Dang you punks, stay off my lawn!"
Thanks, J, for the laughs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
"Oppropbrium". Seriously? It takes courage to use that word in a comma-spliced sentence. Then again, mushyp uses "per se", so really, who am I kidding?
Mushyp, thanks for the laugh.