Kate Hoey's Mail on Sunday Lycra Lout Article

The Mail has once again churned out a sweeping anti-cycling article -
written this time by Kate Hoey, yes, once employed Sports Minister.
Here's a few quotes for you;

"The real menance on Britain's roads are selfish, aggressive,
law-breaking and infuriatingly smug Lyrca Louts"

"Lycra louts don't just break the law; they often do so in an
aggressive and threatening manner. How many times have you seen a
cyclist deliberately riding in the middle of the road, preventing any
car passing and then screaming abuse at the poor driver who dares to
try? Another trick of theirs is to slip through on the inside just as
you try turning left, or flying by so near that they knock against the
wing mirror."

Okay, if i'm on a bike and you're in a car, i can't see how any
behaviour i do will be threatening. You are after all in a metal box
and i'm not.

Not cycling smack against the kerb is probably safer as it makes car
drivers think about how to overtake rather than just roaring past
without brain switching into gear.

And the slipping by whilst you're turning left Kate? hmm, i've never
ever seen a motorist do that! Most unheard of.

She goes on...
"Yet time after time I am stuck behind someone ignoring the cycle lane
and holding up the traffic in the road."

Excuse me, but we're part of the traffic - it's like saying 'damn, all
these cars in front of me are holding up the traffic." stupid
statement.

"Too often the cyclist acts if he owns the road when in fact he has
paid nothing to be there. They do not need a licence and they pay no
road tax. There should be room for everyone on our roads. But I think
it is time that those who cycle have to face up to their
responsibilities and pay something for it's upkeep like the rest of
us. Maybe then the Lycra Louts (actual capitals here!!) who tarnish
the image of all cyclists would gain some respect for the law."

Well, it's just so logically isn't it. It's because car drivers all
pay road tax that there is no bad car drivers is there. Dumb dumb
dumb.

Anyway, if you feel obliged here's Kate's email, you can tell her what
you think:

Regards,
Andy B

"Too often the cyclist acts if he owns the road when in fact he has
paid nothing to be there. They do not need a licence and they pay no
road tax. There should be room for everyone on our roads. But I think
it is time that those who cycle have to face up to their
responsibilities and pay something for it's upkeep like the rest of
us. Maybe then the Lycra Louts (actual capitals here!!) who tarnish
the image of all cyclists would gain some respect for the law."

Well, it's just so logically isn't it. It's because car drivers all
pay road tax that there is no bad car drivers is there. Dumb dumb
dumb.

Anyway, if you feel obliged here's Kate's email, you can tell her what
you think:


She even gets that wrong - there is no "road tax" which pays for the roads. As
a member of the government (albeit currently a back-bencher) she should at
least get her facts checked. No, wait a minute - this is the government that
doesn't let soemthing like the facts get in the way.

Cheers, helen s

This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers
To get my correct email remove the dependency on fame & fortune from
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd

Andy B tried to scribble ...

The Mail has once again

You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?


--
Digweed
'79 Beamish RL 250, '85 Swift Corvette,
'95 Dyna-Tech CroMo Comp, '97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi,
'03 Associated RC10 B4 ....

She makes *some* good points about dangerous cylists.

She loses it when she says we've no right to use the road coz we
haven't paid for the privilege. I'd have thought someone choosing an
efficient zero emission method of transport is something to be
praised.

Perhaps we should charge pedestrians for using the road while crossing
it, maybe lollipop men could collect it?

--
------- o
----- #\,
--- ()/()
Belfast Biker
"When Religion And Politics Ride In The Same Cart.....The Whirlwind Follows"

She makes *some* good points about dangerous cylists.

But sadly associates the behaviour of of the lycra clad cycling vigilantes
with the majority group of law abiding cyclists.

Vernon
a road rage free zone in Leeds

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:25:36 +0100, belfast biker wrote:

She loses it when she says we've no right to use the road coz we
haven't paid for the privilege. I'd have thought someone choosing an
efficient zero emission method of transport is something to be
praised.

The idea of entitlement by right of purchase is very dear to the
Mail's heart.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:50:24 +0100, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Andy B tried to scribble ...

The Mail has once again

You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?

I did ead the article, so ...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image8.gif 1.16 MB
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Image9.gif 138 KB

James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

James Hodson tried to scribble ...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:50:24 +0100, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

Andy B tried to scribble ...

The Mail has once again

You didn't bother to read the newsgroup before posting to it then ?

I did ead the article, so ...

As have I, among many others who have already been discussing it's content
on this newsgroup for quite a while .. My point was why start a new thread
on something that's already being discussed in depth and detail ?

--
Digweed
'79 Beamish RL 250, '85 Swift Corvette,
'95 Dyna-Tech CroMo Comp, '97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi,
'03 Associated RC10 B4 ....

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:34:37 +0100, "Paul - xxx"
wrote:

James Hodson tried to scribble ...

As have I, among many others who have already been discussing it's content
on this newsgroup for quite a while .. My point was why start a new thread
on something that's already being discussed in depth and detail ?

Hi Paul

I got the idea that some were posting without having read Kate Hoey's
article. Obviously I'm wrong.

Somehow I doubt you and others have been scribbling on this sublect
"for quite a while". After all, the paper was released only today.

BTW, your comment "James Hodson tried to scribble ..." does annoy me a
tad. Due to my rather nasty head injury, I can only write as well as
I'm able. I gather that my level of writing is not up the the standard
you'd expect. So be it.

My regards
James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

Paul - xxx wrote:
My point was why start
a new thread on something that's already being discussed in depth and
detail ?

That seems like a strange point to be made by someone who, Google
suggests, is not new to usenet.

Paul, what makes you think that any of the other thread had reached Andy
B's news server at the time he started this thread?

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine