2 October 2013

Science on why cyclist haters are basically nazis

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65
bicycles

With all the dicussion of cyclists in Canberra it’s worth noting the ABC’s Catalyst program from last week which assigned the mindless rage of flabbies in death boxes (aka cars) on “out-group homogeneity bias”, something the Nazis were rather keen on (just to get Godwin out of the way).

Anyway Nazis may think they’re cool in their Hugo Boss suits hooning around in their tanks.

But it didn’t end well for them did it?

[Photo by News Oresund CC BY 2.0]

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Aeek said :

farnarkler said :

Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example.

Its a prime a example of a path that doesn’t connect to the road where a cyclist may wish to switch.
For a cyclist heading west on Barton Highway, who exits to go to Kalleen, the path connects but its going in the WRONG direction!

Maybe you should petition the ACT guvmint to put out tenders to bring a Final Solution to this issue?

In fact…..

I herewith commission you to carry out all preparations with regard to a total solution of the Cyclist question in those territories of Canberra which are under Vehicular influence, I furthermore charge you to submit to me as soon as possible a draft showing the measures already taken for the execution of the intended Final Solution of the Cyclist question.

farnarkler said :

Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example.

Its a prime a example of a path that doesn’t connect to the road where a cyclist may wish to switch.
For a cyclist heading west on Barton Highway, who exits to go to Kalleen, the path connects but its going in the WRONG direction!

farnarkler said :

I’d like to know why the lycra clad insist on riding on the road when there is a perfectly good bike path no more than 5 metres from the road. Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example. F*ckwits cycling on the road when a very nice bike path is only metres away.

I’d like to know why some f*ckwit car drivers can’t tolerate bicycles on the road. Their presence on the road doesn’t take much time out of a car drivers day (and may even save time if those cyclists would otherwise be in cars). Or is it just that your driving skills are so crap that you can’t share the road with dissimilar vehicles?

farnarkler said :

I’d like to know why the lycra clad insist on riding on the road when there is a perfectly good bike path no more than 5 metres from the road. Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example. F*ckwits cycling on the road when a very nice bike path is only metres away.

Because it’s been stated over and over and

farnarkler said :

I’d like to know why the lycra clad insist on riding on the road when there is a perfectly good bike path no more than 5 metres from the road. Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example. F*ckwits cycling on the road when a very nice bike path is only metres away.

Calling them fckwits while expressing ignorance as to why they do it doesn’t reflect well on you.

The reasons have been repeated a number of times on this site but I’ll repeat them again for you:

1 – Right of way. Cyclists must give way at every single road if on a cycle path. This is not the case when riding on a trunk road.
2 – Directness. Paths may run parallel to a road for a while, but might then diverge. The cyclist might also be planning to turn a right further along. Also relates partly to #1. As a driver you don’t take the slower route through a suburb if you have a more direct trunk road, and you’re not exerting yourself. So don’t expect all cyclists to do something you’re not even prepared to do while sitting down.
3 – They’re legally allowed to.
4 – Quality. Some paths suffer significant degradation or present an unsuitable and uncomfortable riding surface for some bikes such as road bicycles running 110+ psi 700 tyres.

I try to use cycle paths whenever it’s practical because under-trained and inattentive people are allowed to operate heavy vehicles in public spaces and kill and maim a lot of other people each year.
Personally I think your focus is misdirected.

Jono said :

milkman said :

Perhaps you could read my response again.

My problem is when I go to turn a corner on a green light, with no pedestrains about, only to have a cyclist using the footpath veer quickly onto the road to ‘use’ the green pedestrain light.

I’d previously posted that I was also unimpressed as to how some cyclists would ride quickly along a bike path then shoot out across the road without giving way (e.g. on Condamine St), or even ride quickly out onto a pedestrian crossing (e.g. corner Barry Drv and McCaughey St). It’s dangerous and it’s inevitably the car driver to has to slam on the brakes so the cyclist (who disobeyed the law) doesn’t get hit.

The original scenario was absolutely clear – .. “If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop”..

But OK, since you’re responding to a completely different scenario, in what circumstances, can a cyclist be riding across a marked foot crossing, facing a green pedestrian walk signal, cause a car (apparently also facing a green signal) to slam on the brakes?

An intersection where this happens would be nice.

There are several intersections in the city, such as on Constitution Ave and Allara St, which is where I’ve had it happen to me. Pedestrian presses the button to get a green walk signal, changes their mind, lights are green for both motorist (travelling straight ahead) and pedestrian (walking same direction). Normal scenario any vehicle turning left gives way to pedestrian traffic. Go to turn left, no pedestrians, cyclist cycling along Allara St footpath swings out across pedestrian area.

Then it’s either brakes on hard or squashed cyclist.

Look, I believe cyclists have as much right to use the road as cars do, but some of them need to be a lot more careful and follow the road rules properly.

milkman said :

Perhaps you could read my response again.

My problem is when I go to turn a corner on a green light, with no pedestrains about, only to have a cyclist using the footpath veer quickly onto the road to ‘use’ the green pedestrain light.

I’d previously posted that I was also unimpressed as to how some cyclists would ride quickly along a bike path then shoot out across the road without giving way (e.g. on Condamine St), or even ride quickly out onto a pedestrian crossing (e.g. corner Barry Drv and McCaughey St). It’s dangerous and it’s inevitably the car driver to has to slam on the brakes so the cyclist (who disobeyed the law) doesn’t get hit.

The original scenario was absolutely clear – .. “If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop”..

But OK, since you’re responding to a completely different scenario, in what circumstances, can a cyclist be riding across a marked foot crossing, facing a green pedestrian walk signal, cause a car (apparently also facing a green signal) to slam on the brakes? An intersection where this happens would be nice.

I’d like to know why the lycra clad insist on riding on the road when there is a perfectly good bike path no more than 5 metres from the road. Ellenborough St in North Lyneham and Kaleen is a prime example. F*ckwits cycling on the road when a very nice bike path is only metres away.

Jono said :

milkman said :

Jono said :

milkman said :

Jono said :

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

The question that was asked was about cyclists riding across a “signalised” crossing when the pedestrian signal is green, and the vehicle lights are red. If you’re having to slam on the brakes in those circumstances, then do us all a favour and stop driving your car.

You mean like when I slow down to take a corner with a green traffic light, and there’s no pedestrians so you start to turn, and then a cyclist shoots out from the footpath at 25km/h onto the pedstrian area?

Maybe you are the one who needs to hand in whatever passes for a license in your very little world.

I’m sorry that’s it’s so confusing for you. When it was said that the “vehicle lights are red”, it means that, well, the vehicle lights are red. I’m not sure how to simplify it further for you. The scenario was absolutely clear, and if you have to slam on the brakes when a cyclist appears and you’re facing a red light, then the problem is entirely with you.

The question wasn’t about cyclists on pedestrian crossings, it was about cyclists riding across “signalised” lights when the pedestrians had a green walk signal.

Perhaps you could read my response again.

My problem is when I go to turn a corner on a green light, with no pedestrains about, only to have a cyclist using the footpath veer quickly onto the road to ‘use’ the green pedestrain light.

I’d previously posted that I was also unimpressed as to how some cyclists would ride quickly along a bike path then shoot out across the road without giving way (e.g. on Condamine St), or even ride quickly out onto a pedestrian crossing (e.g. corner Barry Drv and McCaughey St). It’s dangerous and it’s inevitably the car driver to has to slam on the brakes so the cyclist (who disobeyed the law) doesn’t get hit.

milkman said :

Jono said :

milkman said :

Jono said :

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

The question that was asked was about cyclists riding across a “signalised” crossing when the pedestrian signal is green, and the vehicle lights are red. If you’re having to slam on the brakes in those circumstances, then do us all a favour and stop driving your car.

You mean like when I slow down to take a corner with a green traffic light, and there’s no pedestrians so you start to turn, and then a cyclist shoots out from the footpath at 25km/h onto the pedstrian area?

Maybe you are the one who needs to hand in whatever passes for a license in your very little world.

I’m sorry that’s it’s so confusing for you. When it was said that the “vehicle lights are red”, it means that, well, the vehicle lights are red. I’m not sure how to simplify it further for you. The scenario was absolutely clear, and if you have to slam on the brakes when a cyclist appears and you’re facing a red light, then the problem is entirely with you.

The question wasn’t about cyclists on pedestrian crossings, it was about cyclists riding across “signalised” lights when the pedestrians had a green walk signal.

Jono said :

milkman said :

Jono said :

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

The question that was asked was about cyclists riding across a “signalised” crossing when the pedestrian signal is green, and the vehicle lights are red. If you’re having to slam on the brakes in those circumstances, then do us all a favour and stop driving your car.

You mean like when I slow down to take a corner with a green traffic light, and there’s no pedestrians so you start to turn, and then a cyclist shoots out from the footpath at 25km/h onto the pedstrian area?

Maybe you are the one who needs to hand in whatever passes for a license in your very little world.

milkman said :

Jono said :

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

Equally a problem with runners intent on their PB, or rollerbladers, etc. The problem is anyone who enters too fast.

milkman said :

Jono said :

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

The question that was asked was about cyclists riding across a “signalised” crossing when the pedestrian signal is green, and the vehicle lights are red. If you’re having to slam on the brakes in those circumstances, then do us all a favour and stop driving your car.

Jono said :

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

And this makes sense, especially in the context of how some cyclists shoot from bike paths onto crossings at certain locations and any car has to slam on the brakes.

Blen_Carmichael11:43 am 07 Oct 13

There are certain arseholes – both metaphorically and literally – on a driver’s seat and on a bike saddle. Perhaps more of us should avoid this temptation to side with one group, and instead recognise that each could do far more to accommodate the other. Unfortunately, that quixotic wish is right up there with Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along?” comment.

Masquara said :

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

Unfortunately not. The road rules require cyclists to dismount when crossing at any marked foot crossing, except where there are bicycle crossing lights.

Felix the Cat said :

Masquara said :

They certainly don’t deserve to be roadkill, though, even if they are contributing to their misfortune by cycling across **pedestrian** crossings.

Allowed to do this in Qld.

“Cyclists are now allowed to ride across a signalised pedestrian crossing. Vehicles must give way to cyclists and pedestrians at these crossings. “

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-road-rules/Changes-to-road-rules.aspx

I think cyclists are allowed to cycle across signalised crossings in Canberra too aren’t they? If there’s a red light and the motorist has been required to stop, it’s safe for a cyclist to pedal across.

I really don’t understand the bicycle hate in Canberra. We have one of the most comprehensive bike lane networks in the country, the amount of inconvenience you get from bike riders is pretty minimal compared to other cities.

Hell I have to say even the good old “I ride my pushy on the line between the bike lane and car lane so I get less punctures” douchebags seem to of got the hint and started riding in the bike lane, barely see any of them anymore.

Masquara said :

If lycra didn’t look so ridiculous, no-one would be taking the mickey out of cyclists. Cyclists who wear normal clothes and affect leg-shaving for city commutes deserve to be laughed at. They certainly don’t deserve to be roadkill, though, even if they are contributing to their misfortune by cycling across **pedestrian** crossings.

There is only one demographic with any legitimate claim on wearing lycra: hot women.

Felix the Cat5:36 pm 06 Oct 13

Masquara said :

They certainly don’t deserve to be roadkill, though, even if they are contributing to their misfortune by cycling across **pedestrian** crossings.

Allowed to do this in Qld.

“Cyclists are now allowed to ride across a signalised pedestrian crossing. Vehicles must give way to cyclists and pedestrians at these crossings. “

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-road-rules/Changes-to-road-rules.aspx

Masquara said :

If lycra didn’t look so ridiculous, no-one would be taking the mickey out of cyclists. Cyclists who wear normal clothes and affect leg-shaving for city commutes deserve to be laughed at. They certainly don’t deserve to be roadkill, though, even if they are contributing to their misfortune by cycling across **pedestrian** crossings.

“don’t” between “who” and “wear” in the above …

If lycra didn’t look so ridiculous, no-one would be taking the mickey out of cyclists. Cyclists who wear normal clothes and affect leg-shaving for city commutes deserve to be laughed at. They certainly don’t deserve to be roadkill, though, even if they are contributing to their misfortune by cycling across **pedestrian** crossings.

miz said :

and the fact that they are looking for cars, not bikes.

and you don’t see this as the driver’s fault? Sometimes, when driving, I am stunned by how I saw a unlit cyclist in the shadows. I’m not superhuman, seeing bikes is a matter of choice.

The message I got from the Catalyst program was that it’s not motorists’ fault – cyclists are higher and have a wide-panning vision of the surrounding street, whereas drivers’s vision is limited because of the lower height of cars and the fact that they are looking for cars, not bikes. This means that to cars, cyclists really do appear to have ‘come from nowhere’. Cyclists should be aware of this.

When did Catalyst become BTN?

Wait… did someone seriously just compare normal people (aka those who drive) to The Nazi Party?

Anyone else remember when TRA was full of informative local news, instead of ‘weirdos’ trying to force their obscure beliefs on others?

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. Been the same weirdo here for a long time.

I should note I’m not comparing normal drivers with nazis.

I’m comparing the drivers who hate cyclists because they’re on bicycles with nazis. And presenting research to back that statement.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:46 pm 03 Oct 13

Masquara said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Car drivers just hate the fact that cycling is quicker than driving some times… From London Circuit to Yowani takes as long on a bike at peak hour as car. And drivers HATE that!

But that’s only because your cyclists are having to head for Gungahlin – so they elicit sympathy for their misfortune rather than jealousy.

What the? I never said this!!!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Car drivers just hate the fact that cycling is quicker than driving some times… From London Circuit to Yowani takes as long on a bike at peak hour as car. And drivers HATE that!

But that’s only because your cyclists are having to head for Gungahlin – so they elicit sympathy for their misfortune rather than jealousy.

How come the Lycra Nazis don’t ride the Kings highway on long weekends….
Go on, I dare you

I just want to boast that we found an immaculate Hugo Boss jacket in an op shop for $5 today. And I’m a cyclist. Inexplicable.

tim_c said :

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

And other motorists don’t? In my morning commute, whether by bicycle or car, I spend a lot more time waiting for car drivers than bike riders. Every time you see me riding my bike to/from work, it’s one less car on the road.

This.

If it’s not about hate / lack of empathy for others, why aren’t there countless threads on other folk going about their business causing inconvenience such as those slow old people who just *have* to cross at pedestrian crossings, or those damn backhoe drivers who just *have* to drive on MY road!!

Throughout the week I alternate between being a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist, and motorcyclist. I don’t feel any hate, nor feel inconvenienced at all by any group in particular, ever. If you aren’t in this frame of mind, ask yourself why.

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

And other motorists don’t? In my morning commute, whether by bicycle or car, I spend a lot more time waiting for car drivers than bike riders. Every time you see me riding my bike to/from work, it’s one less car on the road.

I reckon that if cyclists were registered, they’d be treated just as badly and just as hated or even if not more hated. The haters might just have to concede that we’d all have the right to be on the road and that alone could make them more annoyed.

I mean it’s not like drivers having registration stops a number of them from committing traffic offenses and breaking road rules now is it…

Again, car’s v cyclist.
I understand that this is a massive issue and there are so many frustrations with it. Believe me, I’m frustrated with cyclists too.

Lets get some prospective here– motorist are frustrated because bikes are not stable transport on busy roads, don’t pay rego etc. Cyclists just want a fair go, but appear to want to have their cake and eat it too.

But seriously, Nazi’s…. come on!

Trolling your own site again I see….

Holden Caulfield said :

PBO said :

Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s.

At least we know you’re not a grammar Nazi.

Mein Gott, you are absolutely right! I did nazi that when I geschrieben hat es heute nachmittag auf der computer. Good thing that jew noticed as well, I would hate to be a Grammar Nazi. 🙂

HiddenDragon10:32 pm 02 Oct 13

This is getting confusing – only 40% of enlightened, sophisticated and highly educated Canberrans preferred lycra-clad cyclist (and therefore on the side of the Angels) Tony over never-seen-on-a-pushbike – so far as I can recall – (and therefore a Nazi) Kevin:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByState-17496.htm

That said, the fact that Julia would be even more implausible on a pushbike than Kevin, probably explains why the unpleasantness of 26 June 2013 was historically inevitable (so take that, Anne Summers).

After thousands of years its still true, to hold ground, yours or theirs, takes pedestrians.

Flabbies in cages = Nazis

Douchy lycras on cycles = Nazis

Therefore:

Flabbies in cages = douchy lycras on cycles.

Was your mind blown? You know that reasoning is flawless.

johnboy said :

Verdun notwithstanding.

Exactly.

People like to make fun of the French military record, but that’s usually only because they haven’t read any history.

Over the last thousand years or so, the French have been the most militarily successful of all modern nations, and as a result the language of warfare is French. If you don’t know what I mean, then you’re never covered yourself in camouflage and gone on a reconnaissance patrol under the command of a lieutenant.

Yeah, they’ve had a run of bad luck recently, but if you want an examples of French gallantry in action that is right up there with Long Tan and perhaps beyond, then have a look at The Battle of Camerone.

If you’ve ever soldiered, and you can keep a dry eye while reading the story of that 6 man bayonet charge at the end of the fight against overwhelming odds then you’re a better man than me.

And let’s not forget Verdun.

Napoleon’s crazy idea of running a mass army without supply lines across the Russian landscape was probably the end of them, but as Flashman said, “you don’t want to be on the wrong side Froggy when it’s Marianne’s* breakfast time”

* Their bayonet

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

PBO said :

Hitler gave us…Kraftwerk…

That, in and of itself, should count as crime against humanity.

We’ll just have to disagree on that.

My musical tastes centre around 50’s Chicago Blues from guys like Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Robert Nighthawk, Howlin’ Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson…

But, inexplicably, I have quite a soft spot for Kraftwerk. They were an amazingly innovative band at the time, and their music still bears listening to 30 or more years later (well, I think so) unlike a lot of the other dross around at the time. For example, is there anybody out there singing the praises of KC and the Sunshine Band’s “Shake Your Booty” in 2013?

Nope? Didn’t think so.

I had to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md6fZ04CqvA

A classic…

IP

Pork Hunt said :

PantsMan said :

Hitler’s 1936 remilitarisation of the Rhineland was conducted using bicycles and the French’s tendency to surrender. So who’s the Nazi now!?!

On a slightly related note:

Q: How many men does it take to defend Paris?

A: Not known, never been tried…

Even the Germans didn’t.

IP

johnboy said :

Verdun notwithstanding.

The First Battle of the Marne is possibly a better example.

Deref said :

PBO said :

Hitler gave us…Kraftwerk…

That, in and of itself, should count as crime against humanity.

We’ll just have to disagree on that.

My musical tastes centre around 50’s Chicago Blues from guys like Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Robert Nighthawk, Howlin’ Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson…

But, inexplicably, I have quite a soft spot for Kraftwerk. They were an amazingly innovative band at the time, and their music still bears listening to 30 or more years later (well, I think so) unlike a lot of the other dross around at the time. For example, is there anybody out there singing the praises of KC and the Sunshine Band’s “Shake Your Booty” in 2013?

Nope? Didn’t think so.

Deref said :

PBO said :

Hitler gave us…Kraftwerk…

That, in and of itself, should count as crime against humanity.

“Fun, fun, fun on the autobahn…”

“Trans-Europe Express…”

You know you can’t get those songs out of your head. That should have your brain imploding nicely by now!

PantsMan said :

Hitler’s 1936 remilitarisation of the Rhineland was conducted using bicycles and the French’s tendency to surrender. So who’s the Nazi now!?!

On a slightly related note:

Q: How many men does it take to defend Paris?

A: Not known, never been tried…

PBO said :

Hitler gave us…Kraftwerk…

That, in and of itself, should count as crime against humanity.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:02 pm 02 Oct 13

thumper109 said :

Growling Ferret said :

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

Since joining the throng of lycra wearers to put $20 in my pocket through savings in petrol and parking every day, I have noticed 90% of cyclists do the right thing.

However, hipster helmetless tossers like the orange hatted clown who flew across the Moore St pedestrian crossing at lunch today, then abused the car who didn’t see him come from the blind spot do nobody any favours.

Car drivers just hate the fact that cycling is quicker than driving some times… From London Circuit to Yowani takes as long on a bike at peak hour as car. And drivers HATE that!

It’s really the overwhelming and undeserved air of smugness that cyclist put on like a coat, that I hate with a passion.

Why do you care?

Holden Caulfield4:25 pm 02 Oct 13

PBO said :

Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s, Nazi’s.

At least we know you’re not a grammar Nazi.

How_Canberran4:21 pm 02 Oct 13

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

….and it is thier
‘entitlement’ to lycra flaunting road usage that gets me!

How Canberran

Holden Caulfield4:20 pm 02 Oct 13

I thought the police investigation found Godwin’s Law was a forgery.

Growling Ferret said :

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

Since joining the throng of lycra wearers to put $20 in my pocket through savings in petrol and parking every day, I have noticed 90% of cyclists do the right thing.

However, hipster helmetless tossers like the orange hatted clown who flew across the Moore St pedestrian crossing at lunch today, then abused the car who didn’t see him come from the blind spot do nobody any favours.

Car drivers just hate the fact that cycling is quicker than driving some times… From London Circuit to Yowani takes as long on a bike at peak hour as car. And drivers HATE that!

It’s really the overwhelming and undeserved air of smugness that cyclist put on like a coat, that I hate with a passion.

Oh…..the Godwin argument. Here we go again with a super thread in the making.

So I take it that cyclist haters are Nazi’s? Maybe not….

Hitler gave us the Olympic torch relay, the Volkswagon, Kraftwerk (by proxy), Banned vivisection and championed animal rights, was essentially the father of modern rocketry, Unified Germany, provided jobs and opportunities for thousands of people and gave the country hope for a return to glory after the Treaty of Versailles.

Because of him companies like IBM, HUGO BOSS, Bayer, Fanta, Chase Bank and Random House publishing are doing well today.

But you should not compare cyclist haters with Nazi’s, you should compare the cyclists themselves with Nazi’s.

Why do you ask?

Because an average cyclist can finish a race…….

Wow – that was the fastest invocation of Godwin’s Law I think I’ve ever seen!

Growling Ferret3:55 pm 02 Oct 13

thumper109 said :

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

Since joining the throng of lycra wearers to put $20 in my pocket through savings in petrol and parking every day, I have noticed 90% of cyclists do the right thing.

However, hipster helmetless tossers like the orange hatted clown who flew across the Moore St pedestrian crossing at lunch today, then abused the car who didn’t see him come from the blind spot do nobody any favours.

Car drivers just hate the fact that cycling is quicker than driving some times… From London Circuit to Yowani takes as long on a bike at peak hour as car. And drivers HATE that!

What about crazy greenie people who hate cars?

The reason drivers hate cyclists is because they inconvenience them. Simple really, I don’t know why you need the ludicrous hate mongering analysis.

Hitler’s 1936 remilitarisation of the Rhineland was conducted using bicycles and the French’s tendency to surrender. So who’s the Nazi now!?!

The Japanese army used bikes to get through Malaya, so those dastardly bike riders were responsible for the Japanese POW camps, and for the atrocity of the attack on the Singapore hospital.

Of course they had cars too, but many more bikes. Just goes to show the type of behaviour you get when bike riders are the majority.

I bet the North Koreans are also into bikes in a big way.

Bin Laden probably rode a bike as a kid.

I’m sure most serial killers probably rode bikes during their formative years.

🙂

So… Car-hating cyclists are undercover Mossad agents offing Muslims with Pollonium 210?

F*** me. It’s all rather OTT for a mode of transport selection.

I remember in the comedy ABC show ‘John Safran Race Relations’ where they compared a tonne of everyday objects back to Hitler/Nazi movement. Basically you couldn’t last a day without using objects that related back to Nazi Germany – kind of like 6 degrees of separation.

(cue Jessie Pinkman quote)

Ooh, this should be good…

The German Army Jäger (light infantry) battalions each had a bicycle company (Radfahr-Kompanie) at the outbreak of WW2, and additional companies were raised during the war bringing the total to 80 companies, a number of which were formed into eight Radfahr-Bataillonen (bicycle battalions).

So bike riders are partly responsible for the holocaust…

Godwin FTW

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.