I received this e-mail this morning.. Dear Cyclist Lets for a moment take the emotion out of the infamous Deon Maas article in Beeld and see what he has to say. I've applied some critical analysis to the article in attempt to distill the essential message. Dont get your spokes in a knot untill right at the end. 1) In Germany he had a positive cycling experience, mostly because cycling paths were provided and he felt safe. 2) In South Africa, some people have to use bicycles and he has sympathy for them. These people are pupils, the poor and professors on campus trying to impress young girls. 3) South African cyclists other than the group above are militant and they insist on taking over portions of the road. 4) These cyclists can be recognised by their ugly clothing and shaved legs. 5) These people perform hysterically each time one of their kind are hurt or subjected to some sort of injustice. 6) They sometimes take the law into own hands, damage cars, assault motorists and act as if they're on steroids. 7) He drives a car. 8) A car is bigger and stronger than a bike. 9) You on your bike will come of second-best when he is attacked. 10)He has a problem with two or three cyclists riding abreast on narrow roads. 11)If he has to choose between colliding (in an accident-avoidance situation) with an overloaded bakkie or a cyclists, he'll choose the latter. 12)Cyclists in SA are a pest and a plague. 13)Cycling is a Sunday sport for people who have a 4 x 4 mentality of invincibility. 14)He asks whether cyclists are naturally arrogant, whether their money makes them arrogant or, whether their sore arses make them grumpy. 15)He claims there are only two types of cyclists - those with prostate problems and those with latent prostate problems. 16)He thinks we pay too much for our bikes and we should also get engines for that price. 17)Cyclists are almost as mad as Comrades runners. 18)Cars and planes are faster than runners and cyclists. 19)He launched a new organisation - SUF (translated as Organisation for the Extermination of Cyclists). 20)He thinks there are many latent members ready to join. 21)Points will be awarded for killing various cyclists. 22)Older victims score better than younger ones 23)Black victims score higher than whites because they are rare. 24) Expensive bikes score more 25)Playing this game will make our roads safe again. Here's an analysis of each point. 1) Pure observation without emotion 2) Tongue-in-cheek statement to legitimise his critique of us by saying not everyone is of the type of cyclists he is about to criticise. If you're poor, at school or a frustrated academic, your riding a bike is a necessity and he empathyses. 3) A sweeping statement based no doubt on recent incidents where cyclists have attacked motorists. Statements like these cannot stand on their own in the press or any essay for that matter. They only work directly after a serious incident or a spate of lesser incidents. In this case, it was triggered by an incident in Bedfordview where a group of cyclists assaulted an old man. Although that particular incident's report in Beeld was particularly one-sided in favour of the motorist, it nevertheless pulled the right strings and galvanised motorists about groups of cyclists. Although it is mischievous of a columnist to do what he has done in this point, it is not unheard of and considered legitimate journalism. He has after all, legitimised his statement with the disclaimer that some cyclists are OK. It is a vexatious statement but reasonable people will recognise it for what it is and it is therefore tolerable. 4) The group above can be recognised by their smooth legs and ugly clothes. Again, a pure observation with a twist of mischief - ugly clothes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and he seems to think that his Gucci spectacle frames are prettier than Oakley Lifejackets. A tease, nothing to get your spokes in a knot about. 5) An observation based on cyclists' reaction in the press to injury of their ilk. The use of "hysteric" is emotive language and purposely used to vex cyclists a bit. 6) A pure observation preceded by "Sometimes", which if course legitimises the sentence perfectly. These incidents do happen and have happened recently. 7) Fact.Although, the statement is made in a way that suggests that cyclists aren't also motorists. It is reinforced later on in the article when he talks about paying license fees, with the assumption that cyclists don't pay to be on the road, which they do, since they're also motorists. It is a common mistake with motorists and he perpetuates that misconception. In the greater message of the article, it is simply a tease. 8) Fact 9) Fact and warning. 10) Personal viewpoint, supported by the law. Many cyclists regularly do this and it is clearly an issue on the roads. 11)Tongue-in-cheek statement. One doesn't make those choices in an accident, choices are purely made on a self-preservation basis and not on an instantaneous debate on morality, rights and wrongs and the deserved and not-deserveds. 12) Personal opinion. He is entitled to such an opinion. Look inward, replace the word "cyclist" with "taxi" and ask yourself whether you have ever expressed that opinion. In South Africa we may freely express our opinions without fear of retribution...with the exception of some very touchy issues such as religion, race, sex, rugby and Gautrain. 13) Opinion and observation. Not all cyclists drive 4x4s. However, he knows that too and he uses 4x4 as an analogy for wealth. To a large extent cycling is a sport of the (relative) wealthy. His comment on an invincible attitude is a personal opinion again clearly tainted by his encounter of cyclists who act invincibly by riding two or three abreast. 14) A tongue in cheek observation on the mentality of a cyclist. Not to be taken seriously and clearly not designed to add any substance to the argument. 15) A tongue-in-cheek observation that misses the point of third category of cyclists: those with ovaries. Meant to be funny and vexatious. 16) A tongue-in-cheek observation that says cyclists have too much money for their own good. They spend it on inferior products, something that he will never do. 17) A sweeping observation made in jest. People often say this of any athlete, always in jest. Cyclists think runners are mad and vice versa. We don't really think so, but actually admire the other party. In a way the author admits he is a couch-potato and doesn't like physical activity. Should he have used the term madness relative to the dangers cyclists encounter on the road, the statement would have had meaning, but it doesn't. He doesn't go into those dangers. 18) Fact mixed with humour. He willfully ignores the fact that the cyclists he's talking about aren't cycling to get somewhere. Again, it facetiously claims cyclists are stupid because they don't understand speed and convenience or for that matter, the matter of transport. 19) Pure Rabelasian humour designed to raise a laugh. 20) This statement legitimises his viewpoint by claiming that he's not a lone sole in this matter. Many others think like him, he says/hopes and therefore his cause will fall on some sympathetic ears. It is a way for a columnist to legitimise his/her opinion by claiming to be the voice of the masses. No vote was taken on this, so he cannot be proven right or wrong. Proving his case is not the point and it is not necessary to do so or debate it. It is a vexing statement carefully chosen to raise vociferous comment and debate. 21) Joke 22) Joke 23) Joke (good one) 24) Joke 25) Solution to all our problems - a joke. My Comment: Firstly, don't confuse journalist with comment. Deon's article is merely comment and a classic case of focusing on a pressing issue, making some sweeping statements and then offering his (absurd) solution as the end of all our problems. It could well have been: "Wipe out all the taxis and the world will be at peace" or, "Ban gay marriages, make homosexuality illegal and confine moffies to labour camps so we can buy cheap furniture." All these arguments are absurd and purely designed to get us thinking (but not too much), laughing at ourselves and keeping an issue at top of mind. Should we as cyclists now start peppering him and Beeld with articles about how the world hates us but we're actually the good guys who don't pollute, take up parking space, make no noise and use up all the world's most unwanted and ugly Lycra, then we're not better off than the religious zealots who fling insults at each other. In my opinion, many cyclists are pigs on the road, and I include in this statement many of the people in my current and former club. Before you guys moer me, let me share my view of cycling, which is quite unique since I'm always at the back or falling off the bunch. I therefore have a clear view of what the bunch ahead of me does. They do ride many abreast with impunity. It is against the law. Let me say it again: It is against the law. It is also stupid. You only have to ride way behind such a bunch to see what happens when a car approaches. The car approaches too fast, the cyclists start shouting "car" "car" and everyone looks around looking for the car, as if someone has shouted "elephant, elephant." Then they start jockeying for position in a narrower bunch and eventually the car overtakes, hoots and departs amid an exchange of fingers and insults to each others' mother. Approaching a right turn is even worse: Here cyclists act like sheep. Some act like other road users, appropriately change lanes and act like vehicles doing something predictable. Half the bunch will not do that but move over to the extrement right side of the road onto the shoulder of the oncoming lane and make a turn from there. From a motorist's perspective, he's facing a herd of Australian sex toys. The bunch is unpredictable, the motorist is uncomfortable and there is uncertainty as to who the next sheep is that'll jump both lanes and join his fellow sheep on the other side of the road. Just observe this fact and consider the motorist's assessment of the scenario. Some people are culturally and socially thick. Example. Some people will tap their hooter to produce a staccato "toet" in order to warn people that they're there/approaching. Others do the same innocent action differently, they hold the hooter down a bit longer "tooooooot". The former is considered friendly, the latter aggressive. Yet, not everyone knows this. Test it in your friends on day and ask them to comment their perception of the friendly warning. Yet, some cyclists react with aggression to the latter. A malicious "toooooooot" by a speeding motorist timed just as he passes the bunch is of course overtly aggressive and deserves contempt....if the bunch is not at fault in any way. Maas says very little in his article other than some cyclists behave badly. We'll, some ice skaters behave badly as does some neuro surgeons. Attacking him won't help because there is nothing to attack him about. Had he said that cycling on public roads should be declared illegal and he made a rational argument for his point, then it would have been a different matter. He however just teased and pointed out some bad habits. Maas is of course perfectly right about shaved legs and ugly lycra. I think most of your (not mine of course) cycling jerseys are downright offensive with all their adverts for panel beaters, cellphone companies and stupid software that doesn't work properly. Shaved legs just add one more grooming chore to the list and seem to secretly arouse characters like Maas - do away with it. By attacking Maas, we'll be putting cycling on the list of no-go areas such as Judaism vs Islam, Black vs White, SARFU vs White (Jake) and all those other stupid debates. Lets not make cycling in the traffic a no-go debate. I think we have lots of things to improve on - which club that you know of teaches riding skills in traffic or in the peloton for that matter? I also think we as cyclists still have to come to terms about how we should act in a peloton on public roads. The law is clear on that one, we are clear in our minds about what we want, but how are we going to marry the two? Hopefully not by ignoring it and throwing fingers. I'd like to see us draw up a rational argument, get Maas into Lycra and a bike, and show him how it should be done. I hope not too many of you have already written to the editor, the ombudsman, the pope and to Shabir Shaik's defense team. JB Johan Bornman Tel: 082-3086847 Fax: 0866174486 PO Box 31781 Kyalami 1684
