Letter: Angry and selfish driving kills cyclists
SIR – 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.
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.