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

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.

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.

David Thomas hates skinny legs

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/dailymail.html

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.