As a motorist and a cyclist, l would observe in response to John 'address supplied' Walsh's anti-cyclist rant, that, like a very small, but dangerous minority of motorists, he seems to view cyclists as having no right to be on roads, dusting down the old tropes of cyclists not paying road tax etc.

Well, pedestrians and horse riders don't pay road tax either. Why should they, as wear and tear on roads is caused almost entirely by motor vehicles? Worryingly, he uses the term 'vulnerable' in a mocking way and excuses the animosity of motorists as being the cyclists' fault.
'Most cyclists meticulously follow the highway code for the simple reason that they might die if they don't'

Rather, l would say motorists' impatience and road rage towards cyclists stems from the very attitudes that Mr Walsh betrays. He fails to acknowledge that unlawful, angry and selfish driving kills cyclists. He would probably suggest that such fatalities are always the fault of the cyclist.

All too frequently l have motorists putting me in danger by cutting across my right of way, overtaking too closely or pulling out in front of me without looking, all of which breach the Highway Code and put the wind up me, big time.

lf anyone's animosity is justified, it is the cyclist whose safety is jeopardised by bad drivers. Most cyclists meticulously follow the highway code for the simple reason that they might die if they don't. The stakes are not so high for the minority of motorists who routinely break the law and drive unsafely.

l am surprised at the extent of the anti-cycling lobby, given that bikes don't kill people or donkeys, cause no pollution, emit no carbon, take up very little room, make no noise and are a healthy form of transport. Whilst Mr Walsh nobly deigns to allow cyclists to share his roads, l am not so sure l would want him sharing my roads when l cycle. l would fear for my safety with him behind the wheel habouring such hostility and bigotry towards a whole class of vulnerable road users.

l would advise him to get on his bike to broaden his perspective.

Tim Kilsby,
Brockenhurst

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/people/letter-angry-and-selfish-driving-kills-cyclists-9217338/

On 24/09/2021 03:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> As a motorist and a fairy-cyclist, l would observe in response to John 'address supplied' Walsh's anti-fairy-cyclist rant, that, like a very small, but dangerous minority of motorists, he seems to view fairy-cyclists as having no right to be on roads, dusting down the old tropes of fairy-cyclists not paying road tax etc.
>
> Well, pedestrians and horse riders don't pay road tax either. Why should they, as wear and tear on roads is caused almost entirely by motor vehicles? Worryingly, he uses the term 'vulnerable' in a mocking way and excuses the animosity of motorists as being the fairy-cyclists' fault.

> Rather, l would say motorists' impatience and road rage towards fairy-cyclists stems from the very attitudes that Mr Walsh betrays. He fails to acknowledge that unlawful, angry and selfish driving kills fairy-cyclists. He would probably suggest that such fatalities are always the fault of the fairy-cyclist.
>
> All too frequently l have motorists putting me in danger by cutting across my right of way, overtaking too closely or pulling out in front of me without looking, all of which breach the Highway Code and put the wind up me, big time.
>
> lf anyone's animosity is justified, it is the fairy-cyclist whose safety is jeopardised by bad drivers. Most fairy-cyclists meticulously follow the highway code for the simple reason that they might die if they don't. The stakes are not so high for the minority of motorists who routinely break the law and drive unsafely.
>
> l am surprised at the extent of the anti-fairy-cycling lobby, given that fairy-bikes don't kill people or donkeys, cause no pollution, emit no carbon, take up very little room, make no noise and are a healthy form of transport. Whilst Mr Walsh nobly deigns to allow fairy-cyclists to share his roads, l am not so sure l would want him sharing my roads when l fairy-cycle. l would fear for my safety with him behind the wheel habouring [sic] such hostility and bigotry towards a whole class of vulnerable road users.
>
> l would advise him to get on his fairy-bike to broaden his perspective.
>
> Tim Kilsby,
> Brockenhurst
>
> https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/people/letter-angry-and-selfish-driving-kills-cyclists-9217338/

QUOTE:
'Most fairy-cyclists meticulously follow the highway code for the simple
reason that they might die if they don't'
ENDQUOTE

Rubbish on stilts.

Most fairy-cyclists demonstrably do NOT follow the Highway Code.

It might be reasonable if it were therefore re-worded as: "Of those
fairy-cyclists who do follow the highway code, most do so for the simple
reason that they might die if they don't".

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:27:36 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

An excellent follow up comment here:

Inconvenient Truth wrote:
24/09/2021 11:45

Well said. As a driver, 9 times out of 10 the thing stopping me passing a cyclist safely is other cars coming the other way. We need to remember, there is no obligation on a slower vehicle to facilitate my overtaking and I have to wait until it is safe. Same as if I am following a slower driver or caravan etc.

It it also pretty shocking that round here that nobody ever seems to argue against the importance of slowing down not killing livestock but mention treating cyclist with the same respect and people go nuts. Small minded bigotry and entitlement prevails it seems.

((((APPLAUSE))))

>
> https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/people/letter-angry-and-selfish-driving-kills-cyclists-9217338/

On 24/09/2021 05:19 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:27:36 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> An excellent follow up comment here:
>
> Inconvenient Truth wrote:
> 24/09/2021 11:45
>
> Well said. As a driver, 9 times out of 10 the thing stopping me passing a fairy-cyclist safely is other cars coming the other way. We need to remember, there is no obligation on a slower vehicle to facilitate my overtaking and I have to wait until it is safe. Same as if I am following a slower driver or caravan etc.

INCORRECT!

QUOTE:
Rule 168. Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you,
maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the
vehicle pass. *Never* obstruct drivers who wish to pass.
ENDQUOTE

How clear can something be?

Does the word "never" mean the same as "whenever you can..."?

> It it also pretty shocking that round here that nobody ever seems to argue against the importance of slowing down not killing livestock but mention treating fairy-cyclist with the same respect and people go nuts. Small minded bigotry and entitlement prevails it seems.
>
> ((((APPLAUSE))))
>
>>
>> https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/people/letter-angry-and-selfish-driving-kills-cyclists-9217338/

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:19:51 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:27:36 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> An excellent follow up comment here:
>
> Inconvenient Truth wrote:
> 24/09/2021 11:45
>
> Well said. As a driver, 9 times out of 10 the thing stopping me passing a cyclist safely is other cars coming the other way. We need to remember, there is no obligation on a slower vehicle to facilitate my overtaking and I have to wait until it is safe. Same as if I am following a slower driver or caravan etc.

Or indeed a tractor!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAH8RUjUcAICGfo?format=jpg&name=small