Cycling UK demands Sunday Times retracts and apologises for Rod Liddle column praising transport secretary for dooring a cyclist

I agree about 'retarded'.

The trouble is that that word seems to be in the transition phase between neutral descriptive term and term of abuse. Words like 'idiot' and 'moron' made that transition so long ago that I don't think they are a problem. But 'retarded' was a clinical term within my lifetime, so I still wince every time I hear it used in this way.

But to be fair to the previous poster, there is a problem in how to express strongly enough the contempt one has for morally-defective people like Liddel (I'd forgotten he was also a domestic abuser). Almost every term that comes to mind has similar problems to 'retarded' ('cunt' gets some of its force from misogyny)

He's just one of those people who has developed the habit of being _deliberately_ stupid, because he has discovered that it benefits him not to think. As you say, for him its a choice. It's a moral failing not a disability of any kind. As long as he goes on being rewarded for it he'll go on doing it.

There are loads of such people and some of them make a very nice living by pandering to the rest of the tribe.

A couple of points:

The swearing = lack of intellect when addressing issues within an argument. Bullshit. Chaucer swore and that's on the curriculum (well, I hope it still is). D H Lawrence? Admittedly it's all about context, but a simple 'wanker' can be most powerful and appropriate. 

The 'undertaking'. It's a problem, perhaps with less confident cyclists, but sometimes it's unavoidable. I could be wrong, but the section of road in question soon becomes a cycle lane on the left, so it was the logical place to pass (slowly - which I think he was).

As you were.

WolfieSmith wrote:

Liddle's an alcoholic. A wino version for Peter Hitchens. I pity him.

Bad comparison! Peter Hitchens is pro-cycling and pretty much the opposite of a petrol-head. Him and Liddle are, in different ways, examples of how attitudes about transport don't align nicely with left/right politics.

Don't know if he's an 'alcoholic', but Liddle has form for racism, and I don't recalll Hitchens doing that.

WolfieSmith wrote:

I know all the trolls are going to come down from the mountains bitching and raging when I say this.. but if undertaking kerbside was banned dooring and turning left under a lorry deaths would happen less often.  

Pre-emptively calling anyone who might disagree with you a troll, sounds to me like trolling!

The way I see it, if kerbside undertaking were banned (in the absence of any other changes), it would be yet another chance to be fined, and yet another case of sending the message that if you cycle it will be your fault if you die. Yet another way to make getting about by bike more inconvenient and stressful.

And of course while the cops are enforcing that rule, and legislatures spending time putting it on the books, they will be spending even less time doing anything about bad driving.

All of which will lead to even fewer people deciding to cycle. Driving would go up, and pollution and obesity related deaths with it. While it may avert some dooring incidents and side-swipes (by no means all) I suspect the net effect would be an increase in mobidity.

Also I don't get how you have avoided _ever_ filtering on the left. Given that one will often find oneself starting off on the left, with no means of getting through the stationary traffic to pass on the right.

I think it also requires a certain amount of confidence to always pass on the right, not least because you might get stuck over there if the traffic starts moving before you are past. Hence, again, putting emphasis on insisting one has to be skilled enough to always move to the right to pass, will just put off new cyclists.

In that respect perhaps your long experience actually counts _against_ you, in grasping the issue? The main thing is making it appealing for inexperienced and non-skilled people to cycle, not winnowing down the number prepared to face it even more.

In fact, perhaps the views of experienced cyclists are likely to be of little value in general? (OK, this bit is trolling).

WolfieSmith wrote:

Those that kill by reckless and dangerous driving should be banned from driving for life - no exceptions

You would have to be able to get juries to convict first. Which doesn't happen very often.

And lifetime bans make sense morally, but only if they are enforced, and I don't see much evidence that the existing bans are enforced very well at all.

WolfieSmith wrote:

That the UK to adopt the European law of the driver of larger vehicle being guilty until proven otherwise.

That's civil law, not criminal law. Presumed liability has a certain justice in itself but there's absolutely no evidence that it makes much difference to driver behaviour.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, what a lot of fuss over nothing.  When I started cycling, some sixty years ago, we were obviously made of different stuff and could give as good as we got from our many critics.  We certainly didn't take refuge in being offended, whatever that means.

I love Rod Liddle's column, it's one of the best in the paper, but you need to bear in mind the advice that was also recently given about Donald Trump.  "Take him seriously, but don't take him literally."

The trouble with Rod Liddle is that early in his career people stoked his inflated ego by saying he had some of the style and wit of Peter Cook. But that was just a superficial resemblance, and nowadays he is little more than Paul Nuttall in a fright wig.

Quote:

Cycling UK demands Sunday Times retracts and apologises for Rod Liddle

Shouldn't that just be the end of the sentence?  Someone needs to apologise for (the very existence of) Rod Liddle 

Rod Liddle. Very apt name that - given he's the Lidl version of Clarkson

http://is-a-cunt.com/2016/06/rod-liddle/

If he does door anyone we now have evidence it was a deliberate and willful attack on another individual given he has obvious intent to hurt someone. 

What a total bell end.

Liddle's an alcoholic. A wino version for Peter Hitchens. I pity him.

I know all the trolls are going to come down from the mountains bitching and raging when I say this.. but if undertaking kerbside was banned dooring and turning left under a lorry deaths would happen less often.  

Yep. I understand the cyclists have the right since Magna Carta of filtering but filtering up the kerbside on a single lane has never been a safe option compared with overtaking where drivers expect to see you and then holding the road.

 I commuted in London for 20 years and I always overtook stationary traffic on the right. If I was turning left further along I would signal left and drop into the gap to turn left.

In return for this loss of the cycling freedom to have  a separate rule to everyone else I would stop all the time wasting arguments about hi vis, road tax, and cycle lanes and consentrate on asking Parliament for the following :

 -Those that kill by reckless and dangerous driving should be banned from driving for life - no  exceptions. Fines are not a deterrent.

That the UK to adopt the European law of the driver of larger vehicle being guilty until proven otherwise. 

 There are some fine people on this forum. There are also some agressive sweary mary just itching for a scrap Before you start misreading or wilfully misunderstanding what I've said, lighting your torches and sharpening your pitchforks I've said my piece so you will be talking to an empty space. I call it the 'forum: fire and forget' method. It saves so much time for all of us.

Sunday Times named Laura Kenny as their Sportswoman of the year!

Perhaps a high profile return of their meaningless accolade from such a figure might help re-align the Editorial teams approach.

Maybe a few tweets to Mrs. Kenny highlighting the paper's views on Cyclists might just do the trick.

OK.  I have succumbed and clicked some of the links in this thread to see some of his articles....not to my taste, and IMHO not very well written:  No intelligent social comment, no original thoughts or opinions, just a load of big words, flowery language trying to put across thuggish / blokeish/ immature macho rubbish....

Perfect for some newspapers - I see he has written for the Sun amongst others, and has been suspended from the Labour party for making horrible comments - bearing in mind some of what the politicians get away with saying that's quite a feat!

With all the other things going on in the UK/ Rest of the world caused by people being intolerant of others' opinions, how can any editor worth their salt allow such a childish piece of drivel to be published anyway?? Is there not enough real news to fill the paper ? Or am I wrong in thinking there are loads of more important things happening in the world we want to know about - not what some immature journo  writing like a thuggish teenager thinks about cyclists?

I would question *the* intelligence of an anonymous Web commenter who lectures anonymous commenters on a Website about swearing. It's asking to be sworn at by commenters who haven't got the common sense to avoid swearing, rightly or wrongly.

You preachy willy.

I'm totally for free speech, and he's entitled to his opinion, and he's entitled to voice it, but It's not even an opinion, it's just a load of "laddish/blokey" crap designed to provoke a reaction and a chuckle from the kind of people who like that sort of thing.  (And even now I'm aware that by venting here we've all pandered to his desire for attention and further coverage / promotion of his writing.)

But then....I'm glad - as an avid but rubbish cyclist - that I don't conform to his idea of a "normal human".  

Who wants to be "normal" when it means you have a horrid narrow mind like someone who would enjoy reading that kind of tripe?

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed ie. The bloke is stupid, can we refrain from the disgusting language on a public forum?  It indicates the inability to express opinions using normal language and doesn't put the writer in a good light.  Swearing immediately alienates many and thus gives fodder to those who would disagree the sentiments felt by those who haven't the common sense avoid swearing.

I would question intelligence of anyone who rides up the left hand side of any vehicle though. It's asking to be doored or hit by unobservant motorists, rightly or wrongly.   

unless some regular and large scale advertisers threaten to withdraw nothing will happen - it's a business with a bottom line - the occasional bit of decent journalism is accidental and incidental

I do look forward to the police view of the following.

"Well you see officer I was just riding along on my bike when this car pulled up alongside. The passenger opened the door, which I hit. As I came around and in a tempoary fit of insanity, I percevied the passenger to be a threat to my life so I grabbed my bike pump and hit the bastard in self defence."

Probably involve flashing blue lights, a riot squad, fire arms team and several ambulances in case a police officer gets upset.

Reported to the IPSO: https://www.ipso.co.uk/make-a-complaint/

If they don't act... Deity of your choice have mercy for this country

When you're up against a deadline and you have no imagination you just churn out any old shit that pampers to your blimpish readership. It's best to ignore such stuff, but not to forget it. Then, if ever you spot him squelching drunkenly along the pavement some day, try to carve your way through the cloud of cigarette smoke and show him some love by gently rubbing your tight, sweaty lycra against his quivering, pallid flesh while smirking self-righteously, and whispering 'Road tax' hoarsely in his ear.

Hang on - so is Liddle *admitting* that he intentionally and purposefully opens car doors in the hope of knocking off a cyclist...? Isn't that like writing a newspaper column where you admit to committing burglary or something? Do the police ever read newspapers, I wonder.

Just read his biog. on Wikepipedia.

What a wanker.
Racist, sexist, homphobic, cheating wife-beater.

A