Neil Mitchell at it again

"cfsmtb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Did anyone here read Neil Mitchells column in yesterdays
Herald Sun? (Page 19, Tuesday 11th May)

The article starts off as a criticism of the transport
policies of Peter Bachelor, but swiftly declines into yet
another of his rants against cyclists, I'll quote the
first and last paragraphs,

"It isn't too difficult to get a taxi licence these days,
so here's an idea for our bicycle obsessed Minister for
Transport: try some real life experience, and drive a cab
for a month"

"Cars are heavily taxed and ridiculously expensive to run.
They are also secure, convient, and here to stay. Let the
lentil-eaters put off their berets over their helmets and
ride to work at the book shop. But, please, govern for the
rest as well"

Apart from the arguments presented in his column big
enough to drive a B-double through, the rest of the
article is a badly researched, childish Strawman argument.

A couple of contridictions, 3AW and the Herald Sun
sponsor/support the Bike Paths Guide, the Herald Sun Tour
and Bicycle Victoria events.

Ahh, but that's the strategy: he says this and it looks like
his comments are independant of the commercial aspects of
the station!

Personally, people like Neil Mitchell and Derryn Hinch
("Hinche"? "Hunch"? "Hynche"?) bug me as all they really do
is express their own opinion without any form of genuine
disagreement. "If I don't like what you say, I'll just
disconnect you" type of thing.

--
Alan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge
[email hidden]

I flicked thru this at work and ended up tearing it out and its sitting on my desk now....

I debated typing back a reply to the Hun (and his listed personal email at 3AW) but realised him for what he is. A shock-jock!

Besides he looks like he could use the side-effects of getting on a bike himself. He was the same [censored] who harumphed when I suggested on radio that we dont really need to manufacture cars/vehicles that can travel fater than the speed limit
"How am I going to passs that truck on the highway" was his response.
"You mean the truck travelling ON the speed limit?" i responded
He quickly changed the subject

Best to ignore him even tho sadly, badly informed ignorant gits like him have far too big an audience as it is...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by flyingdutch
Best to ignore him even tho sadly, badly informed ignorant gits like him have far too big an audience as it is...

Nah, I like having free speech as long as there's a Right Of Reply.

These pompous twits really believe they're above it all, hence Alan Jones talking s**t after he quaffed a couple of chardies....and John Laws waiting until a convenient time arose to repeat it all.

Anyway, a old saying, todays headlines wraps tomorrows fish n' chips.

cfsmtb said:

Did anyone here read Neil Mitchells column in yesterdays
Herald Sun? (Page 19, Tuesday 11th May)

The article starts off as a criticism of the transport
policies of Peter Bachelor, but swiftly declines into yet
another of his rants against cyclists, I'll quote the
first and last paragraphs,

"It isn't too difficult to get a taxi licence these days,
so here's an idea for our bicycle obsessed Minister for
Transport: try some real life experience, and drive a cab
for a month"

"Cars are heavily taxed and ridiculously expensive to run.
They are also secure, convient, and here to stay. Let the
lentil-eaters put off their berets over their helmets and
ride to work at the book shop. But, please, govern for the
rest as well"

Apart from the arguments presented in his column big
enough to drive a B-double through, the rest of the
article is a badly researched, childish Strawman argument.

A couple of contridictions, 3AW and the Herald Sun
sponsor/support the Bike Paths Guide, the Herald Sun Tour
and Bicycle Victoria events.

I cannot understand the "logic" behind criticising the
policies of a state Transport Minister, and potentially
promoting aggression towards cyclists?

Discuss.

--

Mitchell is just a professional stirrer. The problem is that
brainless fools who cannot generate an original thought of
their own listen to him and some even act out his fantasies,
to the detriment and danger of the rest of the community.

Recently he ran a rant session on bike paths and should
cyclists pay registration to fund them. The whole argument
was founded on a misconception because there are no bike
paths, they are all shared paths, so by his own argument,
pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders etc should all pay
registration too.

I'm sorry I don't have a solution to dealing with he and his
kind, but I wonder when someone will successfully hold one
of them culpable for an act that they have incited.

Alan.

I was a bit upset reading his article as well. Somehow he doesn't seem to realise that for every cyclist or person taking public transport he sees that is one less car in his way. You can have the best road network imaginable, but at the end of the day its only going to get you to next bottleneck quicker.

He does his best to ostracize cyclists (and vegetarians). I no longer have the article but remember him refering to helmets as 'silly hats' and even the article title summed up his purpose.

For some reason he was even arguing that the cost of imported cars was too high. Wtf does that have to do with improving the city's transport? Besides shouldn't he be supporting Australian jobs/the working class he thinks he is representative of? Maybe he needs another BMW or something.

"Alan Hutchison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Mitchell is just a professional stirrer.

True.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Recently he ran a rant session on bike paths and should
cyclists pay registration to fund them. The whole argument
was founded on a misconception because there are no bike
paths, they are all shared paths,

Not true. Some paths are shared, some are not. You see this
all along the foreshore, sometimes there's one shared path
and sometimes there's two paths, one for pedestriand and one
for cyclists/rollerbladers.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Alan Hutchison

Mitchell is just a professional stirrer. The problem is that
brainless fools who cannot generate an original thought of
their own listen to him and some even act out his fantasies,
to the detriment and danger of the rest of the community.

Recently he ran a rant session on bike paths and should
cyclists pay registration to fund them. The whole argument
was founded on a misconception because there are no bike
paths, they are all shared paths, so by his own argument,
pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders etc should all pay
registration too.

I'm sorry I don't have a solution to dealing with he and his
kind, but I wonder when someone will successfully hold one
of them culpable for an act that they have incited.

Alan.

It is the 'Hun' after all. It aint shakespeare and it sure-as-[censored] aint aimed at people with anything resembling intelligence
Almost spat out my weeties the other morning when i heard Mitchell was being muted as the next Editor-in-chief of 'The Age'!!!

As for solving/dealing with NM, how does one apply for a Bus licence???

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by cfsmtb
Did anyone here read Neil Mitchells column in yesterdays Herald Sun? (Page 19, Tuesday 11th May)

The article starts off as a criticism of the transport policies of Peter Bachelor, but swiftly declines into yet another of his rants against cyclists, I'll quote the first and last paragraphs,

"It isn't too difficult to get a taxi licence these days, so here's an idea for our bicycle obsessed Minister for Transport: try some real life experience, and drive a cab for a month"

"Cars are heavily taxed and ridiculously expensive to run. They are also secure, convient, and here to stay. Let the lentil-eaters put off their berets over their helmets and ride to work at the book shop. But, please, govern for the rest as well"

Apart from the arguments presented in his column big enough to drive a B-double through, the rest of the article is a badly researched, childish Strawman argument.

A couple of contridictions, 3AW and the Herald Sun sponsor/support the Bike Paths Guide, the Herald Sun Tour and Bicycle Victoria events.

I cannot understand the "logic" behind criticising the policies of a state Transport Minister, and potentially promoting aggression towards cyclists?

Discuss.

I certainly did read it and also contemplated writing to the Hun. But i am well aware that the lentil/latte reference is only there to incite folk to respond to the egotistical twit. I am sure that the more responses he gets means he can justify whatever exorbitant fee he charges to put pen to paper.

Even better is todays response in the Hun from someone in surrey hills saying that cycle commuting isnt feasable for them and that they drive as they find purchasing a ticket too hard.

Give me a break. Zone one daily or 2 hour mate.. Hello.!!! Its not rocket science.

It frightens me that people like that are behind the wheel when people like me are trying to ride to work safely.

I wonder if he was the ignorant jerk who abused me on st kilda rd this morning, revving his engine, flipping the bird and swearing at me to get over to the other side of the f'ing road.

I would gladly, but the two lanes to my immediate left were turning lanes at the arts centre and his ute was sitting over the designated waiting bike box, where cyclists are supposed to be wait safely when heading straight.

Honestly, it makes me wonder why i bother sometimes. Being a female i must admit that i do find it daunting to challenge men like this as i am always worried that they may take it to another level and hit me.
I am not having a go at men here either. Its just another added worry that we women cyclists face sometimes.

Lets see who else decides to join the Hun debate in tomorrow's paper..

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by coowoowoo

Being a female i must admit that i do find it daunting to challenge men like this as i am always worried that they may take it to another level and hit me.
I am not having a go at men here either. Its just another added worry that we women cyclists face sometimes.

Dont think youre special, coowoo!
We male cyclists get abused too ya know
Altho admittedly I'll be more ready for argy-bargy
A well phrased comment inevitably gets a better result tho

Summat like... "Compensating for something, perhaps?"
(much better coming from a woman no doubt too)

"coowoowoo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

I wonder if he was the ignorant jerk who abused me on st
kilda rd this morning, revving his engine, flipping the
bird and swearing at me to get over to the other side of
the f'ing road.

I would gladly, but the two lanes to my immediate left
were turning lanes at the arts centre and his ute was
sitting over the designated waiting bike box, where
cyclists are supposed to be wait safely when heading
straight.

Heh. I've been there, done that many a time at that
particular intersection. Whenever a car parks itself in the
bicycle zone at intersectons like that I make a point of
stopping in front of them so they must wait for me to take
off when the lights change - and no amount of honking will
get me to move any faster.

Quoted message said:

Honestly, it makes me wonder why i bother sometimes. Being
a female i must admit that i do find it daunting to
challenge men like this as i am always worried that they
may take it to another level and hit me. I am not having a
go at men here either. Its just another added worry that
we women cyclists face sometimes.

You have to stand up for yourself. If you don't then who
will?

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

cfsmtb said:

Did anyone here read Neil Mitchells column in yesterdays
Herald Sun? (Page 19, Tuesday 11th May)

I looked online to find the article but couldn't. If anyone
has found it online, has a transcript or could scan it
that'd be great. I'd be happy to put it on my site under a
link "wankiest misinformation about bicycles ever".

Tamyka

--

______________________________________

Tamyka Bell, PhD Student School of Human Movement Studies
The University Of Queensland
w: +61-7-33656105
x: +61-4-00782972
y: [email hidden]
______________________________________

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Tamyka Bell

Bcfsmtb said:

Did anyone here read Neil Mitchells column in yesterdays
Herald Sun? (Page 19, Tuesday 11th May)

I looked online to find the article but couldn't. If anyone
has found it online, has a transcript or could scan it
that'd be great. I'd be happy to put it on my site under a
link "wankiest misinformation about bicycles ever".

Tamyka

--

______________________________________

Tamyka Bell, PhD Student School of Human Movement Studies
The University Of Queensland
w: +61-7-33656105
x: +61-4-00782972
y: [email hidden]
______________________________________ [/B]

check your email 😉

DRS said:

"Alan Hutchison" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Recently he ran a rant session on bike paths and should
cyclists pay registration to fund them. The whole argument
was founded on a misconception because there are no bike
paths, they are all shared paths,

Not true. Some paths are shared, some are not. You see
this all along the foreshore, sometimes there's one shared
path and sometimes there's two paths, one for pedestriand
and one for cyclists/rollerbladers.

Oops, I stand corrected. I haven't ridden on those paths.
Where I usually ride, on the Yarra, Diamond Valley, Rail
Trails etc. they are all shared. It only slightly blunts the
point of my argument though.

Alan.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Drs
"coowoowoo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

I wonder if he was the ignorant jerk who abused me on st
kilda rd this morning, revving his engine, flipping the
bird and swearing at me to get over to the other side of
the f'ing road.

I would gladly, but the two lanes to my immediate left
were turning lanes at the arts centre and his ute was
sitting over the designated waiting bike box, where
cyclists are supposed to be wait safely when heading
straight.

Heh. I've been there, done that many a time at that
particular intersection. Whenever a car parks itself in the
bicycle zone at intersectons like that I make a point of
stopping in front of them so they must wait for me to take
off when the lights change - and no amount of honking will
get me to move any faster.

I normally do have something to say back to the drivers but it depends on the look on their face. Some people just have "dont go there" written all over them. Pedestrians on the other hand are a different issue altogether. I have no qualms in yelling at those hapless wits that walk out in front of me.

Quoted message said:

Honestly, it makes me wonder why i bother sometimes. Being
a female i must admit that i do find it daunting to
challenge men like this as i am always worried that they
may take it to another level and hit me. I am not having a
go at men here either. Its just another added worry that
we women cyclists face sometimes.

You have to stand up for yourself. If you don't then who
will?

I do, but only at certain times. At the end of the day, its not worth the aggression long term. It is a hard enough battle just being a cyclist on the road. The last thing i want to endorse is being labeled as one of those "aggressive" cyclists that motorists like to whine about.


--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?