Letter: Cyclist critic needs to 'chill out'

QUOTE:
IN RESPONSE to the letter from Name and Address Supplied (It is noted that they do not have the courage to publish their name and address) I would like to make some points and corrections to their letter.

Name and Address Supplied noted that every day of the week motorists are confronted by cyclists. I would like to know what is inferred by confrontation.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:08:37 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
IN RESPONSE to the letter from Name and Address Supplied (It is noted
that they do not have the courage to publish their name and address)
I would like to make some points and corrections to their letter.

Name and Address Supplied noted that every day of the week motorists
are confronted by cyclists. I would like to know what is inferred by
confrontation.

I have yet to hear of a motorist being killed or even badly injured as
a result of confrontation with a cyclist. If he is referring to
overtaking, as a motorist myself I have never encountered any great
difficulty in displaying a little patience and passing at least one
metre wide of the cyclist.


Name and Address Supplied needs to chill out! Name and Address
Supplied also says that the motorist is paying for the cyclists' place
on the highway. I would like to remind him or her that I along with
many other cyclists also own a car. This means that when cyclists are
on the road he or she will have more room to confront them safe in the
knowledge that they may actually be making a fair contribution to the
chancellor.

Name and Address Supplied mentions Road Fund Tax. There is no such
form of taxation. I think they may be referring to Vehicle Taxation.
Vehicle tax is mainly assessed on the exhaust emissions. If Name and
Address Supplied does not like paying this form of tax perhaps they
could purchase an electric car or even a bicycle!

The most glaring error in my view in their letter is the apparent
ignorance as to why the government and local authorities are providing
more facilities for safe cycling. Many cyclists are nervous of
confrontation with motorists like Name and Address Supplied. This is
why in these so worrying times more people are being encouraged to
cycle in order that it keeps people off public transport allowing
those on the buses and trains to self distance more easily.

I hope Name and Address Supplied will reflect on their comments and
perhaps show a little more patience towards those who may be trying to
do the right thing.


Kevin Hunter

Netherton Road

Weymouth

(((APPLAUSE)))

https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18...-critic-needs-
chill-out/


I do hope Cheerful, Nugent and Ponder, not to mention newbie Pamela have
taken this to heart.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 10/06/2020 22:10, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
IN RESPONSE to the letter from Name and Address Supplied (It is noted
that they do not have the courage to publish their name and address)
I would like to make some points and corrections to their letter.

Name and Address Supplied noted that every day of the week motorists
are confronted by cyclists. I would like to know what is inferred by
confrontation.

I have yet to hear of a motorist being killed or even badly injured as
a result of confrontation with a cyclist. If he is referring to
overtaking, as a motorist myself I have never encountered any great
difficulty in displaying a little patience and passing at least one
metre wide of the cyclist.

Name and Address Supplied needs to chill out! Name and Address
Supplied also says that the motorist is paying for the cyclists' place
on the highway. I would like to remind him or her that I along with
many other cyclists also own a car. This means that when cyclists are
on the road he or she will have more room to confront them safe in the
knowledge that they may actually be making a fair contribution to the
chancellor.

That last sentence is gibberish.

Name and Address Supplied mentions Road Fund Tax. There is no such
form of taxation. I think they may be referring to Vehicle Taxation.
Vehicle tax is mainly assessed on the exhaust emissions. If Name and
Address Supplied does not like paying this form of tax perhaps they
could purchase an electric car or even a bicycle!

The old ones are best, eh?

The most glaring error in my view in their letter is the apparent
ignorance as to why the government and local authorities are providing
more facilities for safe cycling. Many cyclists are nervous of
confrontation with motorists like Name and Address Supplied. This is
why in these so worrying times more people are being encouraged to
cycle in order that it keeps people off public transport allowing
those on the buses and trains to self distance more easily.

I agree that PT needs to be less crowded (ie, less patronised) in
current circumstances. The obvious way to achieve that is to encourage
car use. Car / van travel is the safest mode when it comes to
coronavirus since it puts the occupant(s) in a completely separate
atmosphere from other travellers, especially pedestrians.

I hope Name and Address Supplied will reflect on their comments and
perhaps show a little more patience towards those who may be trying to
do the right thing.

Supporting the restriction of other peoples' right to travel is never
The Right Thing. It is astounding that any sane person could think it is.

Kevin Hunter
Netherton Road
Weymouth

(((APPLAUSE)))

https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18...-critic-needs-
chill-out/


I do hope Cheerful, Nugent and Ponder, not to mention newbie Pamela have
taken this to heart.

It's just the same old tosh that other posters have been peddling here
for years.

Road Tax hasn't disappeared. It hasn't been abolished. The official name
change(s) matters/matter not a bit. The tax still has to be paid and
still has the same effect - permitting the relevant vehicle to be used
on the roads; that is, it's a road tax.

Argue against those facts rather then drooling on about name changes, eh?

And if the writer has never heard of this or that cyclist causing an
accident in which a vehicle occupant has been killed, so what? Cyclists
still cause accidents and still kill and injure pedestrians. It is as a
*pedestrian* that I am critical of illegal cycling along the *foot* way.

As a driver, were I anything like cynical enough (I certainly am not), I
could sort of welcome it. But I don't, and neither should I. And neither
should you.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 10:10:56 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:08:37 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
IN RESPONSE to the letter from Name and Address Supplied (It is noted
that they do not have the courage to publish their name and address)
I would like to make some points and corrections to their letter.

Name and Address Supplied noted that every day of the week motorists
are confronted by cyclists. I would like to know what is inferred by
confrontation.

I have yet to hear of a motorist being killed or even badly injured as
a result of confrontation with a cyclist. If he is referring to
overtaking, as a motorist myself I have never encountered any great
difficulty in displaying a little patience and passing at least one
metre wide of the cyclist.


Name and Address Supplied needs to chill out! Name and Address
Supplied also says that the motorist is paying for the cyclists' place
on the highway. I would like to remind him or her that I along with
many other cyclists also own a car. This means that when cyclists are
on the road he or she will have more room to confront them safe in the
knowledge that they may actually be making a fair contribution to the
chancellor.

Name and Address Supplied mentions Road Fund Tax. There is no such
form of taxation. I think they may be referring to Vehicle Taxation.
Vehicle tax is mainly assessed on the exhaust emissions. If Name and
Address Supplied does not like paying this form of tax perhaps they
could purchase an electric car or even a bicycle!

The most glaring error in my view in their letter is the apparent
ignorance as to why the government and local authorities are providing
more facilities for safe cycling. Many cyclists are nervous of
confrontation with motorists like Name and Address Supplied. This is
why in these so worrying times more people are being encouraged to
cycle in order that it keeps people off public transport allowing
those on the buses and trains to self distance more easily.

I hope Name and Address Supplied will reflect on their comments and
perhaps show a little more patience towards those who may be trying to
do the right thing.


Kevin Hunter

Netherton Road

Weymouth

(((APPLAUSE)))

https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18...-critic-needs-
chill-out/


I do hope Cheerful, Nugent and Ponder, not to mention newbie Pamela have
taken this to heart.

One of the comments adds to the VED debate thus:

Fodder777 10th June 5:15 am
"If Name and Address Supplied does not like paying this form of tax perhaps they could purchase an electric car or even a bicycle!" would you like to add a 40+year old motor vehicle to that list Kevin that probably needs an additive in the fuel as it probably runs on unleaded.