Speaking of ill-informed, reactionary backlash to cycling, here's the original loudmouth:
Janet Street-Porter on cycle paths, pedestrians and roads
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Janet Street-Porter on cycle paths, pedestrians and roads
(18 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"Roads are for cars" and "Think of the poor pedestrians/elderly/disabled" about sums it up.
What a load of codswallop.
Posted 9 years ago # -
With response from Andrew Gilligan
Posted 9 years ago # -
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.
Posted 9 years ago # -
She has history of being anti-cycling.
Posted 9 years ago # -
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...
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.
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...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"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."
You mean like PG and the Roseburn traders?
"and if there are enough people who can be recruited..."
Well you know, stuff like petitions...
:-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Brandolini's Law.
Posted 9 years ago # -
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?
Posted 9 years ago # -
That's just sad. One reply by Gilligan and she looked like a clown.
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.
(Including an incredibly tasteless one about Prince.)
Hey, Janet, the 1980s called, it wants its jokes back.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"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?"
For "balance". The BBC loves to be "balanced".
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.
On the other side, you have people who have never given any serious thought to the subject.
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.
Which means Gilligan - who actually has something to say - spends his time having to deal with her nonsense, rather than sharing his insights.
Lowbrow TV.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@gibbo I saw here on HIGNFY too, she was toe-cringingly awful. I actually felt sorry for her.
And my opinion of her views about cycling is much the same.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Which means Gilligan - who actually has something to say - spends his time having to deal with her nonsense, rather than sharing his insights."
Unfortunately that's how the reactionary right set the agenda. See Donald Trump for the most glaring example at the moment.
What is galling is how the media fall over themselves to promote this dim witted stuff. "Car crash telly" seems apt.
Posted 9 years ago # -
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.
"Hey, Janet, the 1980s called, it wants its jokes back."
Leave the 80s alone. I'm pretty sure Normski's still there & he's happy now that it's JSP-less :)
Posted 9 years ago # -
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.
Does she really think young, elderly or disabled people don't benefit from increased mobility options?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"maybe more Blairite"
So, not a great distance to travel to the reactionary right then. Certainly on transport she sounds like a Tory or 'kipper.
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!
Posted 9 years ago # -
She definitely seems to be aiming for the professional troll role:
http://www.trollologist.com/2014/02/professional-troll/Posted 9 years ago # -
She seems to be aiming for the Desperately Seeking Publicity At Any Cost Party..
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
