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.