Iconic Irish TV programme the Late Late Show has been slammed by cycling campaigners following an anti-cycling rant during Saturday evening’s transmission.
One guest on this week’s programme, an institution on TV in the Republic of Ireland since it was first broadcast by RTE in 1962, likened cyclists to “farm animals.”
Another compared cyclists to “trash.”
Dublin Cycling Campaign has now lodged an official complaint to regulators over comments of guests Maura Derrane and James Kavanagh in the segment, and against the show’s host, Ryan Tubidry.
Derrane, who also works at RTE, had said: “I like cycling, but one thing that really bothers me is three or four cyclists abreast … on a country road where there’s no need.
“Because I mean, are you in competition with a car? You’re never going to be faster, and it’s almost to piss people off that they do it. I know that.”
In their complaint, Dublin Cycling Campaign said the comments made in the show were in contravention of Principle 5 of the Code of Programme Standards of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which says “programme material shall not stigmatise, support or condone discrimination or incite hatred against persons or groups in society.”
They added: “We also expect the Late Late Show to broadcast a public apology on its next show and counter the misinformation that it broadcast, specifically about the issue of cycling two abreast which is perfectly legal behaviour on Irish roads.”
119 thoughts on “Campaigners slam iconic Irish TV show after anti-cycling rant”
“… programme material shall
“… programme material shall not stigmatise, support or condone discrimination or incite hatred against persons or groups in society.”
… straight from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Valbrona wrote:
Yeah. Fucking liberty eh? Fancy stopping people from broadcasting hate. Freedom of speech and all that
In related news, you’re a bit of a cunt
Valbrona wrote:
no, this is straight from the DPRK:
“Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Kim Jong Il were geniuses of ideology and theory, masters of the leadership art, ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commanders, great revolutionaries and statesmen, and great men.”
I expect they were stable geniuses too.
“The social system of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a people-centred system under which the working people are the masters of everything and everything in society serves them. The State shall defend the interests of the workers, peasants, soldiers, working intellectuals and all other working people who have been freed from exploitation and oppression and become the masters of the State and society, and respect and protect human rights.”
“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is underpinned by the politico-ideological unity of all the people based on the worker-peasant alliance led by the working class. The State shall revolutionize all the members of society, and assimilate them to the working class by intensifying the ideological revolution, and shall turn the whole of society into a collective, united in a comradely way.”
This, on the other hand, is straight from the society that our ancestors built, and which most of us would like to uphold. I’ve linked to the simplified version for you. Articles 7, 13, 24 and 28-30 seem to fit the bill here.
http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/verve/_resources/FQ2_Simplified_Version_Dec.pdf
Valbrona wrote:
I look forward to Isis getting their fair proportion of time on the beeb…
Well, you aren’t allowed to
Well, you aren’t allowed to hate people because of their skin colour or because they are female or because of their sexual orientation or religion, so what’s left? Cyclists.
I’m sure the imminent government inquiry will address the issue of hate speech against cyclists, which I suspect is rather more prevalent in the UK than Eire, even if it’s pretty bad there. And I’m sure the inquiry will be calling for hate speech against cyclists to be made a crime.
When you’re a right wing bigot, deprived of your natural prey, you move up the food chain to the next victim group. I wonder what DM readers would make of a coloured, muslim, lesbian woman cyclist?
Going off on a bit of a
Going off on a bit of a tangent, I passed a group ride yesterday that were riding three abreast. They were heading in the opposite direction to me (I was in a car) and because they were taking up so much of the width of their carriageway it resulted in technically a close pass on my behalf (though there was nowhere I could have gone).
Is it usual for club rides to force close passes like this?
ClubSmed wrote:
Depends how disciplined the group is. I’d say a slow to intermediate level group ride with new members might sometimes end up doing this. In fairness to them at least in this case it’s the vulnerable road user making the choice rather than the car.
I think three abreast is technically legal on the road but it’s not advised. In our club rides (LBRCC) we generally tell people off pretty rapidly for riding three abreast. Given that we sometimes get complaints for being four abreast when it’s actually two abreast but not everyone is directly behind the rider in front, three abreast isn’t worth it. Less room to manouvre should anything happen too.
What gets me is when drivers beep at us for being two abreast, completely ignoring the fact that in a group of say twelve or fourteen riders, two abreast is much faster to overtake.
“You’re never going to be
“You’re never going to be faster (than a car)”
Huh, well that just shows how much cycling she has done in a town or city!
The sick thing is the
The sick thing is the discrimination against people on bikes and the ever spreading hate speech that’s being allowed in the media IS costing lives and is hurting people. The concern for and adressing discrimination for other aspects like race, religion, disability, sex is great, however in the UK the actual harm both physical and mental particularly the former is very much greater for people on bikes and yet is ignored and even encouraged.
Which other ‘out group’ gets targetted in the same fashion as people who rides bikes, no-one.
It’s sickening, then you have someone who supposedly identifies as one of your group chatting shit, do you know what Valbrona, you’re worse than some of the scum on the roads, at least we know they are going to behave like a cunt to your face, you’re worse, a backstabbing two faced cunt who does it on the sly. Congrats on achieving the order of the cunt, you deserve it!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
The Dictatorship of the Liberal.
Both of my grandfathers fought in a war so people could say and believe what they wanted.
Really, with attitudes like yours you should join Police Special Branch.
Valbrona wrote:
No they didn’t.
Do you think they thought the problem with Hitler was all the millions of Jews and Poles that he was personally murdering with his own hands?
Or do you think they maybe had a better grasp of when beliefs and speech go a bit wrong and become incitement to hatred than you do?
Valbrona wrote:
Having served in her majesty’s forces and was about when the IRA where blowing up young kids at army bases and shooting them at point blank range on train platforms plus having a few mates killed in Iraq I think I’m justified in telling you to go fuck yourself cunt.
free speech right but what i’ve said doesn’t push an agenda against a group that actually causes both physicla and mental harm every single day.
Your type wouldn’t last 5 minutes sonny!
Valbrona wrote:
I don’t really think you understand free speech. Free speech is the right to be able to say what you like without persecution. It is not the right to be able to express your idiotic and dangerous opinions on a national broadcaster. Nor is it the right to be able to say what you like without consequences.
Who cares what a couple of no
Who cares what a couple of no marks say on a chat show anyway
errbud wrote:
Only that it indicates the views of quite a few people in society, and encourages those people.
The continued repetition of lies and propaganda about cycling does have an effect, and the drip drip of hate speech does affect people. I strongly suspect, but can’t prove obviously, that the overwhelming publicity about the Alliston case had a considerable effect on public views, and I wish someone had done a pre- and post- opinion survey. I’m sure it would have shown a significant change in public perceptions.
The fact that so many media have adopted the attitude that cyclists can do no right and it is perfectly fine to denigrate an entire group because of their mode of transport must affect the people who view it, especially when there is so little positive coverage to balance it.
We ignore this blatant bias at our peril, literally.
errbud wrote:
Unfortunately said chat show is persistently the most watched TV show in Ireland, and as such is highly influential here. As others have commented, if replacing “cyclist” by “black/women/gay/any other broad categorisation” turns the piece into something objectionable, the media (in whatever form) must be pulled up as there will always be some moron(s) out there who take it as gospel.
In the same vein, we’ve had to contend with 10+ years of increasingly unhinged ranting about cyclists on his drivetime radio show from this knob (https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/george-hook-fascist-salute-606738) with mostly “Ah, sure that’s George” responses. However when he made (completely out of order) comments about a rape case, he was turfed out faster that you could park a Landcruiser in a bike lane
Who cares what a couple of no
.
I’m sorry I’m not buying that
I’m sorry I’m not buying that people are going to start changing their behaviour on the road because of some played out hacky material Clarkson was doing 15 years ago. Road users are going to be an arsehole on the road or they’re going to be courteous either way I don’t think that is going to sway them. People comparing it to racism is ludicrous. Lets all jump on the offended bus and head for the victim Olympics.
errbud wrote:
The problem is that the media carrying on like this makes those arseholes think that their behaviour is acceptable.
brooksby wrote:
The problem is that the media carrying on like this makes those arseholes think that their behaviour is acceptable.— errbud
You’ve only got to look across the pond to the USA to see the effect of Trump making racist behaviour acceptable to prove the point.
burtthebike wrote:
That started under President Obama. BLM was born under his administration, his administration funded it, helped organize it. That led to rioting, looting, arson, and assaults on both police and innocent bystanders.
Things have been comparatively quiet with President Trump in charge. The race-baiting has gone from being a task of the federal government and is now the lowly domain of the ratings-starved media.
President Obama set the country back decades or more. It was shameful. And a lot of those supposed hate crimes the news runs with? Eventually it turns out that the “victim” was actually the perpetrator. And that’s not unique to the US.
velo-nh wrote:
See, this is what happens when you let noddies repeat lies. That is the essence of advertising and propaganda: repeat something again and again until the weak-minded untermensch have their “reality” constructed for them.
This is exactly why Ryan Tubridy needs to be told to wind his floppy, attention-seeking neck in.
In addition the NAZIs, in addition to their other crimes tried to force cyclists off the roads into bike lanes for the convenience of motorists: http://pdeleuw.de/fahrrad/fdf/fdf-218.html
“In the Nazi era, the Radwegebau was integrated into the government and party propaganda as an important condition for the promotion of road transport. The National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK) and the German Automobile Club (DDAC) support the Radwegebau.
In the “Reichs-Straßen-Verkehrs-Ordnung” (RStVO) introduced on 1.10.1934, cyclists, riders and pedestrians are considerably restricted the right to use the road: “If a road is designated for individual types of traffic (footpath, bicycle lane, bridleway) this traffic is restricted to the part of the road assigned to it. “
The cycle use obligation became the central disciplining tool for cyclists, although in the thirties they still had a clear majority over the drivers with a ratio of 20: 3. The intensive propaganda of the bicycle use obligation from 1934 suggests that the cyclists were not satisfied with the now established narrow bike paths with cheap, easily destructible surfaces and instead preferred to use the roadway. While the motorways of the Reich were celebrated as the “streets of Adolf Hitler,” cycle paths were called the “little man’s streets.””Show [to the upcoming 1936 Olympics] to the astonished foreigner a new proof of an emerging Germany, in which the driver not only on the highways, but on all roads by the cyclist free, safe track.”
The show has been useless ever since Gaybo left it anyway.
Ush wrote:
American here, not a spectator across the pond. If you assault a cop or try to take their firearm then you’re going to have a bad day. Incidents like that were twisted by the media and the administration leading to riots and chaos ultimately leading to more deaths, including assassinations of cops. Liberals have taken “repeat the lie” to heart with things like “hands up, don’t shoot” that was a total fabrication of the media. You can call names all you want, but the we’re not having it anymore. That’s why we elected Trump. That’s also why, under his administration, we haven’t had much of that BS going on.
velo-nh wrote:
I have literally no idea what any of that means. Britain and the USA: two nations divided by a common language. I suppose it is asking a bit much expecting a Trump supporter to be clear, concise and unambiguous.
burtthebike wrote:
Neither does he. You are trying to have an dialogue with a what is in essence a monkey.
velo-nh wrote:
On the other hand, you’ve had a whole lot of other BS going on. Most of it seems to have been produced by your own commander in chief or his immediate friends and relations…
brooksby wrote:
Are you saying that the fat bastard’s doctor lied about his health so as not to be fired? That’s a terrible slander on the racist commander in chief and his hard of thinking supporters.
don simon wrote:
Crap!
don simon wrote:
I do like the idea that they lied about his *height*: allegedly he’s now an inch taller than before he was president, which gives him a BMI as merely overweight instead of obese (even if you assumed that they reported his weight correctly) 🙂
brooksby wrote:
If by BS you mean how many times Trump has lied to the US people during his term I would beg to differ
(Source: https://nyti.ms/2jWqBz1)
American here, not a spectator across the pond. If you assault a cop or try to take their firearm then you’re going to have a bad day. Incidents like that were twisted by the media and the administration leading to riots and chaos ultimately leading to more deaths, including assassinations of cops. Liberals have taken “repeat the lie” to heart with things like “hands up, don’t shoot” that was a total fabrication of the media. You can call names all you want, but the we’re not having it anymore. That’s why we elected Trump. That’s also why, under his administration, we haven’t had much of that BS going on.
[/quote]
2,868,691 more US citizens voted for Clinton over Trump. That’s called a fact.
Dropped wrote:
I know laws are a difficult thing for liberals to understand, but we don’t elect our leader based on total number of votes. If we did, the votes of those in most states would be completely irrelevant because California would have such a disproportionate number of votes based on its population density. Since the founders wanted to ensure that all states matter, we have the electoral system. Our country is quite vast, try to remember that.
As for the rest of you, wow.. name calling. You guys like to imply that you’re somehow more intelligent but that’s the best you can come up with? No wonder Europe is in the shape it is. Our economy is doing great since Trump took over. How’s Brexit going?
velo-nh wrote:
Uh-oh, someone thinks Fox News is real.
velo-nh wrote:
Your country has just embarrassed itself, electing a toddler with an obvious personality disorder. Someone who makes me almost proud of our right-wingers in comparison – at least they can string a few intelligible sentences together and go five minutes without needing to demand praise from everyone around them in order to stave off psychic collapse.
But then, your’s is a country where sheep donate money to buy their mega-rich pastor a private jet. Trump is just another prosperity gospel preacher, taking the suckers for a ride.
And your electoral system makes as much sense as your bizarre attempt at reasoning (no, the votes of people in most states would not be ‘completely irrelevant’ they would count as much as anyone else’s votes).
Your economy is coasting on the recovery that occured under the previous incumbent. Nothing much has changed, and it’s only a matter of time before it throws another fit.
velo-nh wrote:
Gosh, you’re right: us poor European countries should all go out and elect a crypto fascist (edit: and racist – I forgot to say, racist!) billionaire property developer who can put their own family members in positions of authority and change laws to their own advantage… What could possibly go wrong.
velo-nh wrote:
The sad thing is you actually beleive that is true!
Just like people watching the programme that also spouted BS/hatred regarding people on bikes will also go on to commit crimes against us, Trump supporters believe all his BS and then minority groups are attacked. The increases came pretty much straight after the elections, surpressed news or is that fake news telling you everything is okay.
Sorry but you’re utterly deluded.
velo-nh wrote:
One of the things that makes me sad is not just this sort of revisionist nonsense, we’ve always had it to some degree, but also that it seems to be much more widespread and delivered with increasing certainty… SAD! *
* To quote Winston Churchill.
velo-nh wrote:
Oh, Mr Bannon, hi there! I thought that you’d been not giving evidence to congress yesterday – I didn’t realise that you read road.cc!!
errbud wrote:
You might not buy it, but it is proven by history over the past several thousand years. Demonise a group to distract from your own problems, attack them at every turn, get the media to continually run articles, and very soon public opinion shifts massively, and attacking that outgroup is seen as acceptable.
errbud wrote:
You’ve obviously never had anyone directly quote Clarkson to you after nearly running you off the road, as I have. The attitudes shown in the media affect people’s actions, and put others at risk.
I dont think a couple of sad
I dont think a couple of sad unfunny twats on a couch is going to have us heading for the gulags.
errbud wrote:
It might not, but when you get enough of this nonsense on TV and in the likes of the Daily Maily, the government will start taking note and introduce restrictions on cycling. Look at the annoucements about reviews of cycling laws after one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. Look at the laws regarding helmets and bells etc that have been introduced in Australia.
“them”/”them cyclists”, “you
“them”/”them cyclists”, “you cyclists”, replace ‘cyclist’ with nigger, paki, jew, ‘gay’ ‘spaz/spastic’ or even simply a whole sex of a race? Then throw in calling them “animals” and “trash” and other derogatory/hate filled comments and you have ostracisation, building of hate and physical and verbal attacks that are seen as normal and acceptable because ‘popular’ types are doing it/thinking that way so it all ok. And when the police/justice system/government do fuck all to stop that even more justifcation that it’s fine and/or that you’ll simply get away with it.
In fact how many asians, how many people with non white skin colour or who identified as preferring the opposite sex were attacked in broad daylight tens of thousands of times a day as a group with virtual impunity. How many were actually killed or injured by ordinary people on the street stone cold sober, how many were verbally abused, had a killing weapon aimed at them every single day and the police ignore it, every single time. That the police might even blame you for bringing it upon yourself for the attack because you didn’t have the right clothing on, can you imagine that?
‘you gays deserve it, you’re all animals and trash, if you weren’t out on the street taking space up on the pavement in your silly gay outfit and not wearing a stab vest then you deserve all you got’
Would that be in any way shape or form be acceptable, replace gay with cyclist, stab vest with helmet/hi-vis, pavement with road and you have pretty much what many people think if not say out loud.
In fact it’s so bad that the police apply different sets of standards of behaviour and interpret the law differently, even judges and jurors, just like it was for people of non white skin colour BITD particularly the US (& probably still today to an extent). Do we not think that that was abhorrent and disgusting?
It’s not just the snide remarks behind your back or in your face it’s the deliberate killing and maiming, it’s deliberate because people had a choice to do x or y, too often it’s y which ends in harm, it’s the deliberate intention to cause fear with a deadly weapon tens of thousands of times every single fucking day. It gets to the point that for some they can’t deal with it any more and simply pack cycling in.
What is identified on this chat show is there ALL the time, you only have to see the bile and hate projected toward people riding bikes and how shit like this drives a wedge ever deeper and gives permission for people to behave the same and much worse.
People who don’t see the big deal have no sodding idea whatsoever the damage this does and the indirect harm that comes from it. Inciting hatred against an outgroup, they should be fucking arrested never mind made to apologise!!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
If you were on tv and suggested that all BMW drivers (although probably Audi now) drove like arseholes, and deserved every time their car was keyed, or any abuse they had shouting at them you’d very quickly end up in trouble, yet somehow cycling seems to be an acceptable target. There’s no significant difference between the two, both have chosen their vehicle, there are a minority (possibly less of a minority in the case of the BMW driver) who break the law and act like an idiot, yet if someone spoke in the way they do about cyclists and suggested anything that happened to them was their own fault there’d be an outcry.
Hating cyclists is acceptable
Hating cyclists is acceptable because it is a choice you have made, in the face of the easy alternative, the car. You have already essentially chosen to annoy people, in their minds.
People hate you because you’re fitter than than them, not fat like them, actually doing something fairly green which goes beyond making sure you recycle your cardboard, etc. It’s basically as simple as it’s not something I do, so therefore I probably don’t like it. I still like playing video games, some people at work say they hate them….even though they don’t actually play them to know they hate them. Maybe they’d also like cycling if they could just get on one.
Free speech is dead.
Free speech is dead.
This is dictatorship in disguise.
Democracy is a fraud.
Enjoy your servitude.
Valbrona wrote:
It’s strange as it looks like you’re a native english speaker and yet you don’t seem to understand any of the words that you’re using.
Someone complaining about a national broadcast is actually the opposite of a dictatorship, but I suppose it goes against your right-wing racist agenda.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Your thinking is back-to-front.
In this scenario, the national broadcaster is actually acting as the standardbearer of free speech because they have given air time to people who hate. In a free society people should be allowed to hate who they want.
The people complaining about the programme are the ones who want to deny others their freedom. They are complaining on the following grounds: “… programme material shall not stigmatise, support or condone discrimination or incite hatred against persons or groups in society.”
A society where people cannot hate is not a free one.
Valbrona wrote:
And RTE is a free-for-all, with no selection, and gives airtime to haters of all kinds? Really? Seems to me they engage in selection and control who gets access to the airwaves. Tedious unoriginal, and dully-expressed anti-cyclsit ranting gets on, but I don’t see any Islamists preaching hate of Christians, for example.
So clearly thsi isn’t a free society, by your logic.
They made a selection – people disagree with that selection. Get over it. Stop tetlling people what they can and cannot say.
Valbrona wrote:
If that hate results in more vulnerable road users dying because of the ‘rights’ of morons, that seems a shit society to me.
You might be happy with that balance in favour of what you perceive to be free speech. You might deserve to live in such a society. I’d rather not.
Valbrona wrote:
Forum trolls used to work harder in the olden days. Another sign of a snowflake generation…
JessieRae wrote:
I was with you until you used the trolls favourite insult!
alansmurphy wrote:
“the olden days”?
Its almost like because it’s
Its almost like because it’s not seen as acceptable to be rasict or homophobic(signs like no blacks, no irish, no dogs come to mind.)any more that people have decided that Cyclists are the next minority group where is still acceptable to abuse and berate. Sad times.
Wow some people are just
Wow some people are just desperate to be a victim
errbud wrote:
WOW, some people are ignorant, desperate to out themselves as ignorant at that, congrats!
errbud wrote:
No, we’re desperate not to be a victim, so when cycling/cyclists are being demonized in the media we react, because every little bit of negative representation makes it easier for some people to have an excuse to behave badly towards us on the road because, you know, cyclists.
errbud wrote:
Are you? Have you tried hiring one of those nice ladies who advertise in phone boxes, I’m sure they’d be able to accommodate you.
Going off on a bit of a
Going off on a bit of a tangent, I passed a group ride yesterday that were riding three abreast. They were heading in the opposite direction to me (I was in a car) and because they were taking up so much of the width of their carriageway it resulted in technically a close pass on my behalf (though there was nowhere I could have gone).
It shows how strong the ‘those people are in my space’ instinct is when driving. Maybe just let it go.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
They were not “in my space”, they were in the other carriageway going in the opposite direction!
My point was that the cyclists I encountered on Sunday were riding in such a formation as to force those heading in the opposite direction to pass with less than 1.5 metre gap. So as they were creating a scenario (that they were in complete control of) showing that they were happy with a <1.5m pass then that is reinforcing in the minds of drivers that cyclists do not need 1.5m gap when being passed by cars.
Haha ignorant? I don’t throw
Haha ignorant? I don’t throw a hissy fit because someone made a shitty comment on a shitty chat show? People equating it to racism??? wtf! relax and get a grip. Find an actual outrage to be outraged about
Some people on the road are
Some people on the road are going to act like an arsehole regardless. Motorist v motorist aggression is at an all time high which is strange as they’re both ‘team motorist’ right? I’ve had abuse on my bike and whilst driving my car big deal.
errbud wrote:
Motorists abusing cyclists does have an impact on less confident cyclists and can often persuade them to not cycle anymore. I appreciate that you’re so strong and hardy and magnificent that you just laugh in the face of danger, but maybe you should be using some of that strength to protect more vulnerable people? After all, it can be a big deal to some people and even when it’s not a big deal, it’s still bullying behaviour from the motorists and should not be put up with.
Stand up to bullies – don’t make excuses for them.
Errbud, well done on dropping
Errbud, well done on dropping in that you have a bike, some would question you as a cyclist if you think things are ok on the roads because clearly they are not.
BTBS made a brilliant point about the victim blaming element and changing terminology from cyclist to homosexual; you seem to ignore it.
There are all kinds of subtle messaging in the media you are faced with every day, Mo eats Quorn thus if Joe Average does he’ll be an athlete… Think ofprogrammes like ‘Benefits Street’ where they show out of work people not looking as disabled as they claim, not seemingly actively seeking work, smoking drinking etc. Then when you walk past the job centre the next day, see if it annoys you when you see them. Or receive a phone call about an elderly relative in ill health as thei op has been cancelled yet a benefits receiving alcoholic gets a new liver, annoyed yet? Painiting the worst of a group as the norm is ridiculously dangerous.
Can you be sure that not one of the motorists that watched this programme behaved slightly differently on the roads the next day asm they’d been informed about these ‘bloody cyclists’ being a menace?
I ride a bike it doesn’t
I ride a bike it doesn’t define who I am. I don’t box myself or anyone else. I don’t like what they said but it doesn’t bother me I don’t feel less safe because of it in fact i’d be disappointed if they apologised for it. Or maybe the solution is to publicly shame them and make sure they lose their livelihood that seems the way forward
errbud wrote:
It doesn’t matter whether riding a bike defines who you are, to you.
To some but not all motorists, if they see you riding a bike then you are A Cyclist. They are not to know that the rest of the week you drive a car and are therefore ‘one of them’ – at that moment, when they see you riding a bike, you have become a member of an out group and some but not all motorists see that as reason enough to punish you.
(I suppose you could buy a tabard with “My other bike is an Audi” on the back or something to avoid that happening…
)
It may not define who you are
It may not define who you are but it can define the way others see you and treat you, when this group is portrayed in a certain light then you can be perceived as different and/or a menace, less value to society, less important etc.
We are all potentially guilty of it, I don’t have many friends who are church-goers but if one was to come on a bike ride with us I may feel they were less tolerant of swearing, may not party hard down the pub etc. Not necessarily true, but my ignorance will have been established by external influences over a long period of time…
There have been some good campaigns about seeing a cyclist as a mother, sister, daughter etc. rather than an ‘inconvenience’…
We’re now talking about
We’re now talking about cognitive bias and that’s a huge rabbit hole I’m not going down. I’m not offended by what the morons on that show said nor do I feel threatened by it is all I’m saying
errbud wrote:
But peddling bias against a group of individuals is not supposed to be the role of mainstream stations or media. You not feeling threatened is ok, but you don’t represent everybody and also if behaviours are changing to make enforcement more difficult, punishment more lenient and acceptance of cyclists as an out group acceptable then I’m afraid you are becoming more threatened.
alansmurphy wrote:
But peddling bias against a group of individuals is not supposed to be the role of mainstream stations or media. You not feeling threatened is ok, but you don’t represent everybody and also if behaviours are changing to make enforcement more difficult, punishment more lenient and acceptance of cyclists as an out group acceptable then I’m afraid you are becoming more threatened.— errbud
I disagree there is always going to be contempt on the road and there has been for some time this is not a new phenomena. In fact I’d say there is more out there now encouraging more respect for cyclists than before. You’re right I don’t represent others nor do I want to. I just don’t see the big deal here sorry for going against the tide on this one
errbud wrote:
And yet the amount of car use continues to increase, while other modes remain stagnant. Seems like this ‘more out there now encouraging more respect’ doesn’t seem to be as significant as you think.
Nobody’s going to gulags, but there might be a small increase in aggression from motorists and hence injuries among cyclists, and more importantly, such attitudes, if unchallenged are hardly going to help in reducing car-dependency and all the adverse health concequences that stem from it.
Excessive car-dependency is a serious health problem, so those who further it are doing harm. Whether you personally feel ‘threatened’ by these comments is irrelevant
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
And your point is…?— errbud
? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go at cyclists
What’s your point here?
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— errbud
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— errbud
Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— errbud
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— errbud
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— errbud Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— FluffyKittenofTindalos
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.— errbud
Really? What about rants about Sunday drivers or white van drivers
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— errbud
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— errbud
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Really? What about rants about Sunday drivers or white van drivers— errbud
What about them? Are those groups vulnerable to aggression on the roads or are they safely inside metal boxes? Is there a need to get more people to take up Sunday driving or becoming white van drivers, so we don’t want to dissaude people from doing that?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— errbud Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— FluffyKittenofTindalos
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.
— errbud Really? What about rants about Sunday drivers or white van drivers— FluffyKittenofTindalos
What about them? Are those groups vulnerable to aggression on the roads or are they safely inside metal boxes? Is there a need to get more people to take up Sunday driving or becoming white van drivers, so we don’t want to dissaude people from doing that?— errbud
I don’t think every criticism of cyclists is pro car anti environment driven sometimes people get pissed off because the see you as an inconvenience or because they are just a shitty person
errbud wrote:
[quote=errbud]We’re now talking about cognitive bias and that’s a huge rabbit hole I’m not going down. I’m not offended by what the morons on that show said nor do I feel threatened by it is all I’m saying— errbud
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— errbud
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— errbud
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Really? What about rants about Sunday drivers or white van drivers— errbud
What about them? Are those groups vulnerable to aggression on the roads or are they safely inside metal boxes? Is there a need to get more people to take up Sunday driving or becoming white van drivers, so we don’t want to dissaude people from doing that?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I don’t think every criticism of cyclists is pro car anti environment driven sometimes people get pissed off because the see you as an inconvenience or because they are just a shitty person[/quote]
It wasn’t a criticism, it was an unsubstantiated bias rant, that’s the point. To take it back to other points you seemed not to like (i.e. comparing it to racism) if the 2 panellists had said “sharing an office space with black people is not appropriate as they’re all criminals”; would that be ok?
alansmurphy wrote:
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— errbud I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I suspect your only point is that you are someone who dare never admit they might be vulnerable to the actions of others when on the road…But I fail to see what that has to do with the need to get more people out of cars for the good of public health and the environment…carry on emphasising your toughness if it makes you happy, it’s just entirely irrelevant to the topic.
— errbud Nope. The article is about an anti cyclist rant on a TV show. It had nothing to do with public health or the environment or does that have to be shoehorned in to everything— FluffyKittenofTindalos
An anti-cyclist rant is defacto a pro-driving rant. That has everything to do with public health and the environment.
— errbud Really? What about rants about Sunday drivers or white van drivers— FluffyKittenofTindalos
What about them? Are those groups vulnerable to aggression on the roads or are they safely inside metal boxes? Is there a need to get more people to take up Sunday driving or becoming white van drivers, so we don’t want to dissaude people from doing that?
— errbud I don’t think every criticism of cyclists is pro car anti environment driven sometimes people get pissed off because the see you as an inconvenience or because they are just a shitty person[/quote]
It wasn’t a criticism, it was an unsubstantiated bias rant, that’s the point. To take it back to other points you seemed not to like (i.e. comparing it to racism) if the 2 panellists had said “sharing an office space with black people is not appropriate as they’re all criminals”; would that be ok?
[/quote]
The reason I don’t like that comparison is because in my opinion it’s utterly ridiculous. Some things can’t be compared it’s not like for like
errbud wrote:
And your point is…?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ? It’s quite clear what my point is I don’t see the big deal about two twats on a couch having a go a cyclists What’s your point here?— errbud
Nope you don’t appear to have a point.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I do people are over reacting. Don’t try and resort to pedantics— errbud
How are people over-reacting? There was a national talk show that was used to spout a hateful agenda without any attempt at impartiality or balance and people are calling them out for it. That sounds like exactly the right reaction to me – if they’d responded with violence, then that would be over-reacting.
I’ve had plenty of incidents
I’ve had plenty of incidents I can assure you. I’m pretty sure the person that ran you off the road picked up the line from Clarkson but not the behaviour
??? What on earth are you
??? What on earth are you talking about
errbud wrote:
Perhaps if you’d learn to use the quote facility, we’d have the faintest idea what on earth you are talking about.
burtthebike wrote:
Perhaps if you’d learn to use the quote facility, we’d have the faintest idea what on earth you are talking about.— errbud
Ohh get you, you’re a sassy one. This ok for you? sorry for breaking any forum etiquette.
So you disagree with me and feel the need to pathetically suggest I need to visit a prostitute??? I repeat what on earth are you going on about?
errbud wrote:
Perhaps if you’d learn to use the quote facility, we’d have the faintest idea what on earth you are talking about.
— burtthebike Ohh get you, you’re a sassy one. This ok for you? sorry for breaking any forum etiquette. So you disagree with me and feel the need to pathetically suggest I need to visit a prostitute??? I repeat what on earth are you going on about?— errbud
Whoosh. Whoosh, whoosh, whoosh.
But hate speech is free
But hate speech is free speech.
Do away with all forms of hate speech and we really are under a capitalist/communist dictatorship.
Valbrona wrote:
I’m actually a big fan of free speech and lack of censorship (for adults), but the crucial point is questioning the “authority” that is censoring/banning free expression.
However, typical “hate speech” is used to divide people against each other and is actually a tool of oppression and a hallmark of a dictatorship. Every dictator that I can think of, rode to power by picking on an out-group (e.g. Hitler and Jews, Trump and Muslims, Thatcher and Miners) except maybe for Mussolini – he rode to power on the general breakdown of society.
So, your call for more hate speech is actually playing right into the hands of those who would have power over us. Real “free speech” is the freedom to criticise those in power, not merely to spread lies and fear about people who are a little bit different.
Valbrona wrote:
The only people I hear demanding their rights for free speech in the modern day are those with a hateful, bigoted, racist agenda. You are aware that free speech doesn’t mean you have to be a massive c
Valbrona wrote:
I’m all for free speech too, it makes it easier to spot ’em.
In your opinion… Like in
In your opinion… Like in your opinion you are not threatened…
It’s fine that you have an opinion but it isn’t worth any more than someone elses. You must recognise though, as a cyclist, that people talking about you in a particular way may have an influence on how people see you. These people are not able to talk about all groups in that way, which is right, so why cyclists, why you?
alansmurphy wrote:
I agree with that 100% opinions are just that.
I don’t think we are going to agree on it being a danger to me or not. But that’s all good
errbud wrote:
In your opinion… Like in your opinion you are not threatened…
It’s fine that you have an opinion but it isn’t worth any more than someone elses. You must recognise though, as a cyclist, that people talking about you in a particular way may have an influence on how people see you. These people are not able to talk about all groups in that way, which is right, so why cyclists, why you?
— errbud I agree with that 100% opinions are just that. I don’t think we are going to agree on it being a danger to me or not. But that’s all good— alansmurphy
I think you’re missing the point. Anti-cyclist opinions may only have a slight effect against current cyclists, but they have a much greater effect on potential cyclists. This is worrying as we (society) needs more cyclists to reduce the amount of air pollution and also raise the general fitness/health of people which impacts less on the NHS.
You don’t see any direct impact to yourself, but some of us have a wider view of things.
errbud wrote:
In your opinion… Like in your opinion you are not threatened…
It’s fine that you have an opinion but it isn’t worth any more than someone elses. You must recognise though, as a cyclist, that people talking about you in a particular way may have an influence on how people see you. These people are not able to talk about all groups in that way, which is right, so why cyclists, why you?
— errbud I agree with that 100% opinions are just that. I don’t think we are going to agree on it being a danger to me or not. But that’s all good— alansmurphy
I was run into this evening by a silver haired older lady on her way to the theatre. When I got to speak with her after she had driven off. Not only did she deny hitting me, but went on to accuse me of hitting her car, that she felt threatened, that she had more of a right to be on the road than me, that the police wouldn’t do anything, that people like me…..,
I wonder where she got these ideas from.
don simon wrote:
I don’t think she got that idea from Clarkson. When two cars have a bump very often the party at blame will deny liability and blame the other driver that’s nothing to do with being a cyclist just someone trying to pass the blame on.
errbud wrote:
In your opinion… Like in your opinion you are not threatened…
It’s fine that you have an opinion but it isn’t worth any more than someone elses. You must recognise though, as a cyclist, that people talking about you in a particular way may have an influence on how people see you. These people are not able to talk about all groups in that way, which is right, so why cyclists, why you?
— errbud I agree with that 100% opinions are just that. I don’t think we are going to agree on it being a danger to me or not. But that’s all good— don simon
I was run into this evening by a silver haired older lady on her way to the theatre. When I got to speak with her after she had driven off. Not only did she deny hitting me, but went on to accuse me of hitting her car, that she felt threatened, that she had more of a right to be on the road than me, that the police wouldn’t do anything, that people like me…..,
I wonder where she got these ideas from.
— errbud I don’t think she got that idea from Clarkson. When two cars have a bump very often the party at blame will deny liability and blame the other driver that’s nothing to do with being a cyclist just someone trying to pass the blame on.— alansmurphy
No, Clarkson is responsible for the muppet who replied to a post with the “work harder and buy a car comment” in a recent newspaper thread of a cyclist being hit though.
I am accustomed to the denial of responsibility, the victim blaming is a new phenomena, which even you have been sucked in by. How has this been perpetuated? And when did this become normal? Now that the droiver that hit me knows that she can get away with it, what will be her next infraction?
don simon wrote:
I don’t think she got that idea from Clarkson. When two cars have a bump very often the party at blame will deny liability and blame the other driver that’s nothing to do with being a cyclist just someone trying to pass the blame on.— errbud
No, Clarkson is responsible for the muppet who replied to a post with the “work harder and buy a car comment” in a recent newspaper thread of a cyclist being hit though.
I am accustomed to the denial of responsibility, the victim blaming is a new phenomena, which even you have been sucked in by. How has this been perpetuated? And when did this become normal? Now that the droiver that hit me knows that she can get away with it, what will be her next infraction?— alansmurphy
Victim blaming is not anything new.
To counter your experience I was hit by an elderly woman at a roundabout, completely her fault. She was so distraught and guilt ridden I had to calm her down and reassure her I was ok. Just as well she didn’t read the Mail or watch top gear otherwise she’d have told me to f off and drove on
errbud wrote:
She didn’t get the idea of being a shit driver from Clarkson.
But the sense of entitlement and aggression aimed at cyclists for just using the road is widespread. It’s an echo chamber. Talk to people in your workplace or pub and it doesn’t take long to find someone with weird and downright wrong views on cycling and cyclists.
Do you think that media focus on the likes of extremely rare Alliston cases, and rentagobs like this Irish bunch, spreads objectivity or just reinforces the views of already frustrated drivers?
errbud wrote:
Maybe not, but Clarkson and his ilk have created a general milieu where people like that woman think it’s acceptable.
After all, he was Only A Cyclist (TM).
errbud a question.
errbud a question.
How do you interpret the actions against minority groups that has led to them being attacked, ostracised, unlawfully punished/criminalised, have laws applied differently to the rest of society, banned from certain parts of the country/society, victim blamed simply for being who they are or what they are wearing/not wearing? Do you think that the way all the groups I identified was acceptable and how they were and still are attacked to the point of death and serious injury, being abused daily from a mental POV and feeling fear of physical harm every day?
Because you’re basically saying all those groups, all the persons who were killed or injured or felt fear of harm constantly with ‘near misses’, a police baton near the head for instance or having to run away from a gang chasing you in the street simply for being who you are, are making themselves the victims, or making out it was a bigger deal than the reality.
Either you think the attacks on all those groups never happened, don’t think that those attacks, the shit storm created in the media and spread through society never had an effect, none and that every person, every human being in those groups were just making themselves to be victims or it didn’t happen, which is it?
quote=ClubSmed]Going off on a
I hope you slowed down to pass them or do you hold the view that the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many? And of course if you hadn’t insisted on using a vehicle that wide to carry one person there would have been plenty of room
Robert WInston is an
oops wrong thread.
Silly auld hoor has a
Silly auld hoor has a dangerous driving conviction too: https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local-news/63453/TV-star-makes-speedy-donation-.html
16 Mar 2011
RTE television presenter Maura Derrane was prosecuted at Naas Court last week on an allegation of driving too fast.
Ms Derrane with an address at Coadys Quay, The Look Out, Dungarvan, Waterford, was before the court on allegation of speeding on July 6 last.
Sgt. Keevans told the court she was driving a Toyota Prius car at 145kph in a 120kph zone at Osberstown, Naas.
He said the incident took place at 7.15pm when traffic was moderately heavy and weather conditions were dry at the time. He said the defendant apologised. He added she was helpful and cooperative but had forgotten to pay a fixed charge which was issued.
The case was adjourned to Thursday last (March 10) from a previous sitting of the District Court at Naas.
Solicitor Cairbre Finan told Judge Des Zaidan that she drove her car for a living and she also asked him to apologise.
The defendant agreed to make a charitable donation of E700 and asked that this be donated to an animal welfare charity. The money is to be donated to the Kildare Animal Foundation.
I think they are jealous of
I think they are jealous of our success – we are multi Olympic champions, world champions
and grand tour winners.
kingleo wrote:
Those are impressive palmares you have there, King Leo! Not suprised you use the “royal we”
CygnusX1 wrote:
“we” means the cyclists, – all of us as a group. We are supporters of cycle sport and a lot of us have helped financially.
29.9 just seems a bit suspect
29.9 just seems a bit suspect.
The “girther” movement.
This is fun.
This is fun.
“Very Stable Genius”
Hooray! We’ve got the graphs
Hooray! We’ve got the graphs thing happening again.
You know, the saddest thing about Trump supporters is that they think that Trump will help them whereas he’s only making him and his friends/family richer. Trickle-down economics is complete bullshit by the way.
As well as making America’s
As well as making America’s economy great again he has also managed to ensure that there were no passenger jet crashes last year, in the entire world.
And of course there have been
And of course there have been no invasions by space aliens during the whole of the Donald’s presidency. Super good bigly leadership, there
velo-nh wrote:
Correlation, not neccesarily causation. We can probably have a long thread with graphs showing lots of other things besides Trump that correlate closely with the NASDAQ, Dow Jones or whatever other measure of the US economy you may choose.
To quote a former Republican congressman (John LeBoutillier)….
Source: https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-first-year-has-been-a-monumental-flop-11212275
I’m just gonna leave this
I’m just gonna leave this here:
Also, how about this strange
Also, how about this strange correlation between his tweets and the “Fox and Friends” show:
hawkinspeter wrote:
We really need some more research here: what were the leading stories on Fox & Friends (is it me or does that sound like it should be on CBeebies?) during August/September/October 2017??
brooksby wrote:
Yeah, I’m not bothering to do that (Fox News ruins my brain).
Have a couple of links instead:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-align-twitter-attacks-fox-friends-updates-article-1.3733108
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/how-fox-and-friends-rewrites-trumps-reality