http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Janet Street-Porter on cycle paths, pedestrians and roads en Tue, 19 May 2026 06:42:25 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219584 Wed, 11 May 2016 16:40:23 +0000 Min 219584@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>She seems to be aiming for the Desperately Seeking Publicity At Any Cost Party.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219539 Wed, 11 May 2016 12:39:50 +0000 acsimpson 219539@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>She definitely seems to be aiming for the professional troll role:<br /> <a href="http://www.trollologist.com/2014/02/professional-troll/">http://www.trollologist.com/2014/02/professional-troll/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219527 Wed, 11 May 2016 11:19:14 +0000 crowriver 219527@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"maybe more Blairite"</p> <p>So, not a great distance to travel to the reactionary right then. Certainly on transport she sounds like a Tory or 'kipper. </p> <p>The only time she started talking any sense at all was when they discussed facilities for pedestrians: even then she banged on about pavement cycling! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219525 Wed, 11 May 2016 10:57:19 +0000 Rob 219525@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Bizarre. Just one nonsense cliche after another. Seems a lot like she didn't think she'd convince anyone with her real objections so just spouted some which might.</p> <p>Does she really think young, elderly or disabled people don't benefit from increased mobility options? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219392 Tue, 10 May 2016 11:54:01 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 219392@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Janet Street-Porter is a poltroon and a know-nothing, and always has been, but it's a conflation too far to call her "reactionary right". Has always been a Labour supporter, maybe more Blairite than Corbynista but there you go.</p> <p>"Hey, Janet, the 1980s called, it wants its jokes back."</p> <p>Leave the 80s alone. I'm pretty sure Normski's still there &amp; he's happy now that it's JSP-less :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219383 Tue, 10 May 2016 10:50:21 +0000 crowriver 219383@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Which means Gilligan - who actually has something to say - spends his time having to deal with her nonsense, rather than sharing his insights."</p> <p>Unfortunately that's how the reactionary right set the agenda. See Donald Trump for the most glaring example at the moment.</p> <p>What is galling is how the media fall over themselves to promote this dim witted stuff. "Car crash telly" seems apt. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219381 Tue, 10 May 2016 10:35:10 +0000 KenM 219381@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@gibbo I saw here on HIGNFY too, she was toe-cringingly awful. I actually felt sorry for her.</p> <p>And my opinion of her views about cycling is much the same. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219378 Tue, 10 May 2016 10:08:12 +0000 gibbo 219378@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"Gilligan has actually *worked* in cycling. Why are his expert views presented as equal to those of random ignorant blowhards like Janet Street-Porter and Jacob Rees-Mogg?"</em></p> <p>For "balance". The BBC loves to be "balanced".</p> <p>Of course, there is no balance. One one side you have a genuine expert who has, as a job, tried to figure out how to create workable cycling infrastructure.</p> <p>On the other side, you have people who have never given any serious thought to the subject.</p> <p>And what you end up with is someone like Street-Porter asking the sorts of questions that, if she'd spent 5 minutes on Google, she'd know the answers to.</p> <p>Which means Gilligan - who actually has something to say - spends his time having to deal with her nonsense, rather than sharing his insights.</p> <p>Lowbrow TV. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219377 Tue, 10 May 2016 10:04:17 +0000 gibbo 219377@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's just sad. One reply by Gilligan and she looked like a clown.</p> <p>And not for the first time. I saw her on HIGNFY and her contribution was a couple of lame jokes about sausages looking like penises.</p> <p>(Including an incredibly tasteless one about Prince.) </p> <p>Hey, Janet, the 1980s called, it wants its jokes back. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219369 Tue, 10 May 2016 09:34:47 +0000 Calum 219369@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Gilligan has actually *worked* in cycling. Why are his expert views presented as equal to those of random ignorant blowhards like Janet Street-Porter and Jacob Rees-Mogg? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219359 Tue, 10 May 2016 07:03:44 +0000 Stickman 219359@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Brandolini's Law. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219358 Tue, 10 May 2016 00:50:40 +0000 crowriver 219358@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"You can't reason with simple unbending blind opposition. We've all met people with beliefs like this - people who just know they are right, no matter what evidence is in front of them."</p> <p>You mean like PG and the Roseburn traders?</p> <p>"and if there are enough people who can be recruited..."</p> <p>Well you know, stuff like petitions... </p> <p>:-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219355 Tue, 10 May 2016 00:10:03 +0000 rbrtwtmn 219355@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So maybe we're now into a new phase of opposition to changes in London - moving past reason into something we might think of as simple blind opposition... </p> <p>Oddly this might be a more dangerous time. You can reason with mistaken ideas, misconceptions, or ill thought out views. You can't reason with simple unbending blind opposition. We've all met people with beliefs like this - people who just know they are right, no matter what evidence is in front of them.</p> <p>No matter how ridiculous these arguments seem to us they'll have some traction with some particular segments of the general public too - and if there are enough people who can be recruited... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219312 Mon, 09 May 2016 18:50:21 +0000 gembo 219312@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>She has history of being anti-cycling. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219304 Mon, 09 May 2016 17:08:45 +0000 Stickman 219304@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Someone's pointed out that her "pedestrians aren't thought of" rant was filmed on the new pavement in Parliament Square that was built as a result of the CSH. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219303 Mon, 09 May 2016 17:03:24 +0000 chdot 219303@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>With response from Andrew Gilligan </p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03tm40m" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03tm40m</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219292 Mon, 09 May 2016 16:27:56 +0000 neddie 219292@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Roads are for cars" and "Think of the poor pedestrians/elderly/disabled" about sums it up.</p> <p>What a load of codswallop. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16365#post-219285 Mon, 09 May 2016 15:41:55 +0000 crowriver 219285@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Speaking of ill-informed, reactionary backlash to cycling, here's the original loudmouth:</p> <p>Janet Street-Porter on cycle paths, pedestrians and roads</p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36247516" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36247516</a> </p>