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.
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.