Meanwhile back at the Torygraph, cyclists are pompous enough...

[GrumpyGregry]

Where the Daily Heilers go once they've learned to read long sentences, we find this splendid fellow...

Brendan O'Neill.

His tag line says he is the editor of spiked, an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms.


Writing this piece entitled "Cyclists are pompous enough as it is – a Cycling Covenant would make them unbearable" which contains no misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism WHATSOEVER.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I usually read bits of Spiked! but that is Brendan o'Grovelling - quite the worst bit of straw man arguing that I've ever seen from him. I don't know whether to unsubscribe from Spiked! or just sneer back whenever they send one of their regular begging letters.

 

[slowmotion]

It's the usual "Daisy Waugh bollocks" that most papers spew out on a slack day.

 

[yello]

Thanks for posting a taster of the article - saves me reading the whole thing!

There is pomposity in all walks of life, it's not something that cyclists in particular have. So, I guess, in that respect he is right - there are pompous cyclists. As there are pompous journalists.

As I've said numerous times before, it's opinion piece stuff. A rant designed to generate response rather than be accurate. There is no place for objectivity. An excuse to be rude and maybe offensive because it's supposedly 'tongue in cheek'. If you don't find it amusing then you apparently have no sense of humour and need to get a life.

You know, the sort of stuff Jeremy Clarkson et al does/did on Top Gear week in, week out to adoring fans.

 

[ohnovino]

... a moral elevation of people who aren’t even doing anything special, just getting from A to B in a rather old-fashioned way, is likely only to intensify clashes on the road; treating one type of road-user as a superhero and all the rest as uncaring idiots will generate more morally loaded conflicts between cyclists (Good) and motorists (Bad) ...

Can't see a lot wrong with that.

It looks like he's started with a valid point (proclaiming that cyclists are "better" than everyone else won't improve safety but will increase antagonism with other road users) and then he's dressed it up in the usual rabble-rousing language.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It is a reaction to The Times campaign and in an influential paper. If we just shrug he wins.