Dickheads in the Media, part #678

I kinda got a bit irate when hearing a bit of the radio program on Triple-M called the Spoonman on the way home last night. The rest below is what I threw on the Triple-M forum(They call it the 'Message Board').

I find it interesting that, Spoon asked a cyclist to call in to explain why cyclists ride on the road when there is a path beside the highway - presumably to find out some information - only to start using snide comments and attacking the woman who called in and cyclists in general.

Yet, when asked about a woman living in Australia who wears a burqa, she is recognised as having freedom to choose what she does.

So - which is it? A social group is judged entirely on what numbers of them do or are they individuals making decisions for themselves??

I will not deny that there are a LOT of cyclists - *oops*, I mean "bike-riders" out there who are nothing more than "temporary Australians" - idiots let loose in public to do whatever they want before someone in a car turns them into road pizza. I am a cyclist and I consider myself to be in the 5-10% of all "bike-riders" who show courtesy to other road users AND I obey the road rules in full. Being a Commissioner for Declarations, it does not look favourably upon my ability to be an upstanding member of the community to break the law but it seems that Spoonman has decreed that I'm just another bitumen-stain waiting to happen.

One thing about this country is that people are told when they are speaking out of turn about a subject which they know nothing about. I would not presume to tell Spoon who to run a radio broadcast but I would expect him to have some modicum of objectivity (none of it displayed in the segment last night) when discussing a subject that he CLEARLY has no understanding of and knows nothing more about it than the fact that a bicycle has 2 wheels!

He asked the question: "Why ride on the road when there are paths?" and chose to talk down to the woman who was trying to answer the question - not to mention belittle the knowledge that she has, which he does not and obviously thinks that he is smarter without.

Myself, I am a cyclist - I have had a car licence for a long time. I have only owned V8's and I have a classic American Musclecar as well as a hotrod. I also ride motorbikes and drive trucks. Add to that some extensive experience as being a qualified motorsport official on both dragstrips and circuit racing AND having been a racer and driving instructor on several occasions.

I can tell Spoonman quite unequivocally that HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON NOR BERATE CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD WHILE HE KNOWS **JACK** ABOUT WHY THEY DO WHAT THEY DO!!!

Again - a vast majority of those on bikes just shouldn't be there but don't be too smug about this knowledge as, in my experience as a professional driver AND as a cyclist, there is a similar differentiation between "drivers" and "car-operators".

Your typical car-operator comprises about 95% of the motoring population - they are someone who can press pedal-A and shift lever-B and turn round-thing-C to make a motor vehicle move in the desired direction. This DOES NOT make someone a DRIVER! Just like on the news when they say "An 18 year old 'man' was taken into custody for beating, robbing and raping an 83 year old woman." - this creature is a "male" and NOT a "man"!

A "driver" is someone who obeys the road rules; they drive to the conditions; they show courtesy to all other road users; they know what the shiny things on the doors are for; they know what the pretty, flciky lights are for and HOW TO USE THEM; they know how to handle a motor vehicle; they don't drive while under the influence of any legal or non-legal drug EVER; they don't smoke or use a phone EVER while "driving"; and they recognise the fact that they own the car and not the friggin' road and that it must be shared with others (even if they are totally brain dead and all seem to want to be in Toyota Landcruisers that never leave the blocktop!)

I don't give a rat's arse if this is semantics or not - the apathy in this country is becoming so mind-numbingly overwhelming that everyone is becoming a bludger who won't take responsibility for their actions - and a motorist blaming a person on a bike for holding them up (the choice of the rider is that of an INDIVIDUAL and not representative of the group!) is assigning responsibility for poor design of the road system to someone on a bike. How F***ING stupid is that???
What level of responsibility belongs to the person behind the wheel when they choose to sit as a single-occupant in a car, out of some selfish excuse of "right" when it has always been a "privilege", when there are better options available?

So, Mr Spoon... Your treatment of that young lady last night, in asking a question and then turning it into an attack when all she was doing was trying to help you, makes you a MALE and FAR from being a MAN! Be big enough to cease the attacks on cyclists until you get a f***ing idea what the hell you're talking about and you'll be the better MAN for it.

As for you 95% of "car-operators" out there: registration does NOT pay for the roads and the issue of licencing cyclists and registering bicycles is just as big an issue in the cycling world as it is for other road users. Motorists would also do well to remember that a road is a part of the carriageway which runs from property-boundry to property-boundary and that pedestrians have right-of-way over cars at significantly more locations than just on pedestrian crossings.

But then, being a car-operator who presumes to know the law fully - you already knew that....

One final point - why cyclists don't ride on paths at every opportunity. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T! Bicycle paths are made for recreational riders who can't hold a line and the paths meander all over the bloody place! They are useless for getting from Point-A to Point-B and are only constructed to make it appear as though a politician is doing something for the community other than lining their own pockets!

Have you ever been stuck behind a set of Charlies-'Angels' in a shopping centre and couldn't get past? This is what I call anyone from girls to women who walk 3-or-more abreast (often with an arse that can be measured with a lengthwise pick-handle!) and you cannot get around them. Do YOU get irritated at this when you're busy and got sh*t to do? Try doing that on a path and cannot run the risk of riding off onto the side because your wheels can sometimes be caught in a rut and throw you off.

Do you think it would be fair to drive your car in the dirt down the side of the highway because morons are issued licences without being taught or tested fully yet you cannot get around them? Would you willingly use a road if you got a flat tyre every second time you went down that way because someone else thinks that you should? What about horses pulling carts on the road? They hold you up - should they be removed as well? What about trams? They are a far more efficient form of transport than any car and they cause traffic chaos at times that FAR exceeds cyclists - should they be removed?

The simple solution is for people in cars, who DON'T know what the f**k they're talking about, to GROW UP and lay the blame for the problems with the roads at the feet of those responsible for them - not OTHER road users who are doing you a favour by removing yet another car from the traffic jam!

If you fail to understand the point I'm trying to make here, I have a half-housebrick at home that you can use to knock some sense into yourself. Failing that, have a read of a blogpost from a woman in Toronto in Canada - it's worth reading.

Things a non-cyclist might not understand Part I: An open letter to motorists who dislike cyclists.