We should take the cyclists out and shoot them

I presume we can start with this cyclist

NiallBoo wrote: »

Kind of funny that someone who runs a public transport company is calling public transport faddy and unsustainable.

This is disappointing, he's too smart not to realise the Mercedes-sized holes in his argument.

not only that but when viewed in the context of history the automobile and airplane are of course more faddy than bikes and tram's, the latter two of which are both are around a bit longer than the former transport options he has preference for.

It's just Michael O'Leary doing what he does best - attracting attention to him and his airline with silly statements - shooting cyclists, single pilot, standing room on aircraft, paying for the jacks, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

While I admire how successful he has been with Ryanair, sometimes when he opens his beak I just :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and ignore him.

jjpep wrote: »

Theres something a bit nasty about clever people saying stupid things to get a reaction from people.

Or maybe he's just not actually thought it through.

There's lots nasty about that man, cheap and nasty.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I presume we can start with this cyclist

Well he wasn't going to let the "bike-to-work" scheme go unexploited, now was he?

He'll take any write-off he can get.

TonyStark wrote: »

Add your reply here.
Forgot his shorts again.... Ewww.

Please somebody shoot me, I can't unsee that

Vincenzo Nibbly wrote: »

I'm no lawyer but the first section of the Act - Interpretation - seems to define it as:

"hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation;"

...so it would seem limited to those groups alone.

When I'm on my bike, I'm travelling, so I guess as cyclists we're members of the travelling community?

IngazZagni wrote: »

We get a lot of rain in our great little Country.

We have a bizarre preoccupation with the rain. I'm not sure why. It's rarely as bad as we like to make out (I commute daily by bicycle and I could count on one hand the number of times I've felt the need to don full rain gear over the last few months), and even if it were a monsoon we wouldn't exactly dissolve. And it's worse when you are in a car in the wet anyway, the already congested and slow moving traffic somehow manages to be much worse, if such a thing were possible.

IngazZagni wrote:

Cycling infrastructure should of course be invested in and encouraged but not at the hinderence of affecting other transport options because of the reasons I pointed out earlier.

I'm not a great fan of cycling infrastructure quite often, but I can see the appeal of it in some cases. What the likes of O'Leary choose to wilfully ignore and not engage with is that cycling is a perfectly reasonable mode of commuting for many, and the more that adopt cycling the less the pressure on the roads generally.

There are indeed many people that have to rely on a car to commute (though O'Leary isn't one of them, it's not like he couldn't afford to live closer to his workplace, it's a choice in his case so he should address his whinging to himself), the roads are more than capable of accommodating those people *and* more cyclists. The two are not mutually exclusive despite what some of the vocal critics would like people to think. Instead of shouting down those in favour of cycling such people should engage with them and discuss options, I can't see any other route to a broadly acceptable solution.

In the meantime dicks like O'Leary will just stoke the fires of all the existing irrational arguments in yet another despicable act of mindless self-promotion at the expense of people he clearly cares nothing about. I guess he has made a successful career of stomping on the rights others, why would he develop a conscience about anything now.