I'm officially a crank! LOL!!

downfader

Got another letter published, this one was in a foul mood though:
http://m6live.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/d ... d_driving/



And I've uploaded a new video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJDZlySs0l0

Is it wrong to admit you quite like being a crank?

AndyManc

D/F , can you put some nice music on your vids .... , that sound is doing my speakers ( and ears ) in :roll:

downfader

I'm hoping to do some "educational" vids this weekend so will be putting some music in there... though I havent written any yet. :oops:

Live 6 needs to be fired up, havent written any music in yonks.

karl j

Hi, considering you were in a foul mood the letter is (possibly moderated into) something quite restrained and reasonable. But what's the relevance of the term 'crank' ?

downfader

karl j wrote:

Hi, considering you were in a foul mood the letter is (possibly moderated into) something quite restrained and reasonable. But what's the relevance of the term 'crank' ?

The only bit of the letter they changed was my bit about it going on youtube at the end. It was a "PS" though come to think of it.

Its what my brother calls me. I've had about 3 letters in the local paper published about cycling and pedestian issues, and I got a couple of emails saying that my letters to the Mirror and Sun had been published... not sure of content though as I dont know which day and its not on their websites.

chuckcork

Is being a crank better than being a martyr (to your cycling I mean)

dondare

I've written a lot of letters to thelondopaper (a give-away rag from the Murdoch stable) recently because they've been running a series of anti-cycling articles and printing anti-cyclist letters. None of mine got printed until I decided to change tack and send a spoof letter containing a number of blindingly obvious fallacies, the idea being that if they printed it then they'd look really stupid.
They printed it.
Letter of the Day.
Here it is:

"Dear Sir

The London Paper informs us that in spite of the fact that there are 77,000 fewer cars in London than before the C Charge was introduced the roads are just as clogged. The reason for this is obvious, ever since this additional tax on motoring was brought in, the number of cyclists has been burgeoning so that now there is hardly any room for cars. It makes my blood boil to think that the scheme, which was supposed to give us clearer streets is being abused in this way by arrogant cyclists who are able to use the roads for free to the detriment of those of us who are helping to reduce congestion by paying the charge. If scheme is to work as it was originally intended then these selfish cyclists should be forced to pay the congestion charge too and bicycles should be banned from all the roads within the charging zone.

Timothy Daniels."

Littigator

dondare wrote:

I've written a lot of letters to thelondopaper (a give-away rag from the Murdoch stable) recently because they've been running a series of anti-cycling articles and printing anti-cyclist letters. None of mine got printed until I decided to change tack and send a spoof letter containing a number of blindingly obvious fallacies, the idea being that if they printed it then they'd look really stupid.
They printed it.
Letter of the Day.
Here it is:

"Dear Sir

The London Paper informs us that in spite of the fact that there are 77,000 fewer cars in London than before the C Charge was introduced the roads are just as clogged. The reason for this is obvious, ever since this additional tax on motoring was brought in, the number of cyclists has been burgeoning so that now there is hardly any room for cars. It makes my blood boil to think that the scheme, which was supposed to give us clearer streets is being abused in this way by arrogant cyclists who are able to use the roads for free to the detriment of those of us who are helping to reduce congestion by paying the charge. If scheme is to work as it was originally intended then these selfish cyclists should be forced to pay the congestion charge too and bicycles should be banned from all the roads within the charging zone.

Timothy Daniels."

That is hilarious indeed, but a crying shame that thelondonpaper has such an anticyclist stance. Mind you it is a Murdoch (w****r cough) publication.

lost_in_thought

dondare wrote:

Letter of the Day.
Here it is:

"Dear Sir

The London Paper informs us that in spite of the fact that there are 77,000 fewer cars in London than before the C Charge was introduced the roads are just as clogged. The reason for this is obvious, ever since this additional tax on motoring was brought in, the number of cyclists has been burgeoning so that now there is hardly any room for cars. It makes my blood boil to think that the scheme, which was supposed to give us clearer streets is being abused in this way by arrogant cyclists who are able to use the roads for free to the detriment of those of us who are helping to reduce congestion by paying the charge. If scheme is to work as it was originally intended then these selfish cyclists should be forced to pay the congestion charge too and bicycles should be banned from all the roads within the charging zone.

Timothy Daniels."

Haha! That is truly amazing. I love that there are people out there who actually think like that. You couldn't make it up.

Parkey

lost_in_thought wrote:

Haha! That is truly amazing. I love that there are people out there who actually think like that. You couldn't make it up.

There's a fella who keeps writing in to the Nottingham Evening Post who goes one step further. He insists that road congestion is artificially created by the introduction of "artificially low speed limits", bus lanes, cycle lanes, built out bus stops, etc, all so that the council can justify spending on public transport. He claims that without bicycles, buses and trams holding up the traffic (by "traffic" I think he means cars) it would flow completely freely.

I assume he must wear a tinfoil hat.

lost_in_thought

Chapeau?

Parkey

lost_in_thought wrote:

Chapeau?

:shock:

That's... just... wrong...

patchy

Parkey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Haha! That is truly amazing. I love that there are people out there who actually think like that. You couldn't make it up.

There's a fella who keeps writing in to the Nottingham Evening Post who goes one step further. He insists that road congestion is artificially created by the introduction of "artificially low speed limits", bus lanes, cycle lanes, built out bus stops, etc, all so that the council can justify spending on public transport. He claims that without bicycles, buses and trams holding up the traffic (by "traffic" I think he means cars) it would flow completely freely.

I assume he must wear a tinfoil hat.

The next logical step in that argument is to get rid of those pesky buildings and forests and tarmac the lot.

patchy

Parkey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Haha! That is truly amazing. I love that there are people out there who actually think like that. You couldn't make it up.

There's a fella who keeps writing in to the Nottingham Evening Post who goes one step further. He insists that road congestion is artificially created by the introduction of "artificially low speed limits", bus lanes, cycle lanes, built out bus stops, etc, all so that the council can justify spending on public transport. He claims that without bicycles, buses and trams holding up the traffic (by "traffic" I think he means cars) it would flow completely freely.

I assume he must wear a tinfoil hat.

The next logical step in that argument is to get rid of those pesky buildings and forests and tarmac the lot.

Parkey

patchy wrote:

The next logical step in that argument is to get rid of those pesky buildings and forests and tarmac the lot.

Nope, just ban bikes from the roads, only have public transport "where it's appropriate", slash fuel duty and everything will be right with the world. "It's just common sense!"

That fella's actually a gift to anybody who wants to make the argument for any form of transport other than cars because once he goes off on one everybody else on the pro-car side of the argument goes very quiet.

downfader

Don, you are a genius! 8) I thinkwe should make a nice little game of this - we could all write the most contrived rubbish and try and get it in print in a "respected" paper

il_principe

Do provincial rags actually have editorial staff though? Some glaring typos in that letter! :shock:

downfader

jashburnham wrote:

Do provincial rags actually have editorial staff though? Some glaring typos in that letter! :shock:

Kind of, they call it a spellchecker

prj45

Parkey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Chapeau?

:shock:

That's... just... wrong...

Doubly, I want to do that to my cat now but it hates tinfoil with a passion (knocked the cat flap out once trying to get away from me pulling the foil out of the box to make some chips).

Perhaps I'll do it with playdoh.

prj45

downfader wrote:

Don, you are a genius! 8) I thinkwe should make a nice little game of this - we could all write the most contrived rubbish and try and get it in print in a "respected" paper

Unless somebody is doing this already... ... .... .....

il_principe

Best point ever!

prj45

jashburnham wrote:

Best point ever!

It would be quite funny if the only people writing such contrived anti-cyclist rubbish to newspapers are sarcastic cyclists.

We are the harbingers of our own doom!

downfader

prj45 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

Best point ever!

It would be quite funny if the only people writing such contrived anti-cyclist rubbish to newspapers are sarcastic cyclists.

We are the harbingers of our own doom!

Oh but the sweet irony in revealing to these anti-rags that the series of letters they've printed have been a joke on them and their biased readership.

I heard a good phrase the other day: The Platonic Ideal 8) Applies well here I think.