Where I live, in Northumberland in North East England, the powers that be have, in the last year, to build a new cycle route from the town towards the nearby Metro station, with £815,000 of funding from the Transforming Cities Fund, £500,000 from Transport North East, and a mere £50,000 contribution from the county council. The logic was that “Infrastructure is one of the barriers to residents using more active means of travel” and that connecting the town to the local public transport infrastructure would encourage more of the short journeys that are currently overwhelmingly undertaken by cars (figures for Scotland suggest the median car journey distance is just 4km.)
In the usual bureaucratic jumble that is the UK, it isn’t a particularly joined up project. The cycle path doesn’t actually go to the Metro station, but only to the “city limits”, thanks to the invisible borders drawn across the country that define where the money can be spent and action taken. The local environment, complete with what is essentially the main road to Jedburgh, Scotland, also means that the path had to take a serpentine route that will force people to cross said international road to use it, before being dumped back onto the road at the “city boundary.” Still, it’s a start – it could have perhaps been better thought out, but it’s an improvement, and as we know, marginal gain is better than none at all.
Of course, this is Britain though, where the prevailing attitude is “it’s alright for some” and where anything that doesn’t directly benefit you, and you alone, must be wrong, and the fault of some group you want very much to hate. The local newsletter received various letters complaining about the cost (apparently not realising that at least ~99% of the funding – which in total is £1.3m – was not from the council), as well as those reminiscing that they had once rode a horse down the bridleway half a century ago and that knowing this was now tarmacked rather than dirt ruined their memories (I am not being flippant), before we got to the real problem – cyclists.
Enter Steve. I did contemplate preserving Steve’s anonymity, mainly to spare his blushes, but then Steve is a prolific commenter and letter writer who seems to actively revel in his status as resident controversialist, so who am I to deny him. Steve had prior with people cycling, having made his feelings clear when someone on a bike was killed in a collision with a tractor during the first lockdown.
As many callous individuals, without knowing any of the circumstances, posted comments such as “Cyclists should pay road tax and have to stick to the high way code this is an awful tragedy” and “So sad but the roads are getting to dangerous for amount of cycles and cars they aren’t build [sic] for both safely”, one commentator posted the following, noting that whilst they didn’t know the circumstances, it was a good opportunity to remind people of their responsibilities:
“This is a tragic story and I’m really sad to hear it as cycled along that road many times. Thoughts with the victim’s family at this time. While we don’t know the circumstances of this event, I’d hope that such events, as tragic as they are, are a reminder to all motorists that cyclists are as much a part of the carriageway as they are. If you come across one, slow down, be patient, give distance and only overtake, at a safe distance away, when you’re absolutely certain it is safe to do so. Most vehicles do do this but I did encounter a few today, in the Ponteland area, who view cyclists as a major inconvenience, notably beeping their horn and overtaking at pace while allowing little room between themselves and the cyclist. I’m not saying that was the case here but the above basic protocols are surely even more important if you’re driving a farm vehicle/tractor etc. Please be considerate – it could save a life. RIP and sincerest condolences to the victim’s family”
A fairly sensible, balanced, and considered point, you’d think. Steve, however, thought otherwise. He responded:
“And equally motorists ask cyclists to respect them by riding in single file, the number of packs of cyclists on the roads blocking traffic is what leads to motorist frustration and patience failures. Thoughts go to the victim’s family.”
Ah yes, the classic “get in single file and out of my way” followed by victim blaming: if you don’t do as I want, it’s your fault I get frustrated and lose patience, which in the context of someone having been killed is somewhat threatening. Steve seemed unaware of the highway code, which clearly states:
“Rule 154 – “When meeting groups of cyclists riding two abreast, they may choose to move to single file if they deem it safer to do so. They are under no compulsion to do so and it can be safer and easier for you to overtake a compact group, when conditions allow, rather than a longer line of cycles.”
Indeed, it has been widely and repeatedly disseminated that the following logic applies when overtaking people cycling/horses and the like:
- You should, as per Highway Code rule 163, leave as much room as if you were overaking a car.
- This means you should leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.
- Leaving 1.5 metres means your car will be overlapping into the opposite lane anyway.
- Thus, you should overtake in the opposite lane as you would when overtaking a car anyway.
- It’s therefore irrelevant how many people are cycling in the lane, as you should be overtaking when safe to do so in the opposing lane regardless, just as you would for any other vehicle.
Someone pointed out that maybe Steve should absorb some of this information:
“suggest you read the highway code”
…but Steve wasn’t having that. At first, he made this comment:
“typical cyclist, suggest you get some common sense”
But then perhaps twigging that calling someone a “typical cyclist” rather betrayed his preconceived feelings on the matter, that he had an inherent dislike of “cyclists”, he amended it to the following:
“suggest you get some common sense, there’s no point in having “but he was right” in your obituary”
It would appear Steve was suggesting we in fact should not follow the Highway Code (stated objective: to promote road safety) because it would apparently make us less safe and, er, dead. Whilst Steve didn’t explicate what “common sense” was in this context, bar the insinuation that reading and following the highway code was not common sense, from his earlier comments, it appeared clear he just wanted “packs of cyclists” to get out of his way, presumably so he could get to the next traffic light half a second faster.
Still, telling people they should ignore road safety rules and get out of your way in response to hearing someone has died – very compassionate, and in no way the sign of a narcissist.
So, back to the cycle path. Steve wrote a letter in expressing discontent at the disruption, because of course no development has ever caused disruption before, before getting on to his other reasons:
Please justify the spend, disruption and impact of bridleway revamp
It’s great to see the huge development which has caused untold disruption at Rotary Way is only just beginning. Hurrah I hear you all cheer. Apparently a second phase is planned to link up to Callerton, presumably to give the badgers and foxes a decent walkway. I’m sure brains considerably better than mine can justify the enormous spend, disruption and environmental impact, and it would be lovely to hear from them.
I’d urge them to take a look at the state of the local roads, the potholes, blocked drains and overgrown footpaths and then explain why they feel the need to pander to the odd cyclist (who pay no road tax) at the expense of actual road users.
I look forward to hearing from the powers that be, and the backlash from the lycra warriors.
Yes, that old classic, “road tax.” Weirdly, when the Highway Code was updated in 2022 and the Daily Mail screamed that bedlam would now ensue as their hated cyclists would now “have right of way” (read: priority, as there’s no right of way in the Highway Code) and were now encourage to “ride down the middle of the road” (quite obviously the lane to anyone who could read), Steve had been involved in an online conversation where it was pointed out to many people that “road tax” did not exist. It seems he’d either forgotten, or it just didn’t chime with the opinion he wanted to hold, so he ignored it this time around.
He had laid out an eyebrow raising tale however:
“my one concern is cyclists provoking drivers in order to report them via their camera footage. A friend of mine had this recently, he was reported, had no idea for what, asked for the photos and even after seeing them couldn’t see what was wrong. The police upheld it and he decided to take the fine and the awareness course rather than the expense and messing around of court. He said at least half the people on the course were in a similar situation. The police intimated that the reporter was a “regular contributor”. As you say common sense isn’t that common!”
Uh huh, we’re all just riding around trying to get people to kill us for kicks. It’s also somewhat unbelievable that the “friend” in this scenario has no idea what he was reported for and seemingly wasn’t even told when following up with the police, which is, er, exactly how policing works in this country – they don’t tell you what you’ve done wrong, they uphold it anyway, and they do this on a mass basis. Equally weird is the suggestion that cyclists are apparently going around “provoking” drivers, yet in his story, there is no such provocation: his ”friend” was seemingly oblivious to even being reported. Surely they would have remembered the “provocation” and this would be a key part of the tale?
A cynic would suggest this “friend” is made up to try and push some idea of rogue cyclists, apparently in league with the police, riding around randomly reporting innocent drivers for offences the police don’t even explain to try and try and justify the writers seemingly deep rooted hatred of people cycling.
I did try and offer some explanation as to the reality of the process of submitting video evidence, having done it myself, given it is built to prevent the very “provocation” that Steve insists is going on:
“when submitting video footage, you must submit two minutes either side of the incident specifically to preclude this sort of thing – if for some reason you wanted to provoke someone in a two ton car to be angry at you cycling, you’d then have to edit that out, which would void the submission.”
Steve wasn’t massively impressed:
“my friend is obviously lying then!”
Yes, Steve, your “friend” is lying.
Being foolish, I thought I’d write back to Steve to correct his assertion that “cyclist[s]…pay no road tax at the expense of actual road users.” After all, he had very maturely said he “[Looked] forward to hearing from the powers that be, and the backlash from the lycra warriors.” I wrote the following, although the title was chosen by the editor:
So where would you like cyclists to ride?
It is bizarre to read Steve Eglon’s complaint about the bridlepath being redeveloped for ‘the odd cyclist’ when it would appear he doesn’t think they should be on the road either – apparently because they don’t pay a tax that was abolished in 1937. He should really seek a rebate if he thinks he’s been paying “road tax” since then.
Perhaps he means Vehicle Excise Duty, which is charged on the carbon dioxide emissions of engines. Bicycles obviously don’t produce any, so are exempt – just as electric vehicles are not charged. Presumably he’s equally angry about disabled drivers and the police, who are also exempt from the charge, and so must not be, by his estimation, ‘actual road users’. Roads are funded from general taxation, i.e. by all road users.
It is a shame in this day and age that people like Mr Eglon continue to try to justify their dislike for people just getting around on a different mode of transport than him with this false notion, as well as the lazy lycra warriors’ stereotyping.
When this was published, another correspondent had also replied to Steve, and had essentially pointed out that Steve’s might want to think about why the roads were in the “state” he said, what was actually the major contributor to traffic, and where true “environmental impact” might lie:
Any improvements to walking and cycling routes should be welcomed
I am astounded, even in these times of fake news, that some are unable to marshal a few simple facts into a coherent opinion. I’m referring to Steve Eglon’s letter ‘Please justify the spend, disruption and impact of bridleway revamp’- December issue – lamenting ‘the need to pander to the odd cyclist’ for the Rotary Way bridleway improvements.
It is not pedal cycles that cause potholes, that damage pavements, grass verges and kerbs.
It is not pedal cycles that pollute the air and affect children’s respiratory systems.
It is not pedal cycles that kill and seriously injure thousands of pedestrians and animals, and damage street furniture and other vehicles.
It is not pedal cycles that create long traffic queues on Ponteland’s roads. I agree it seems an inordinate amount of money for the current works and with some consultation better use may have been made of it – e.g. widening and improving the Ponteland to Darras bridleway creating a less muddy, safer walking, pram pushing and cycling route (especially for students attending the new schools). Nevertheless, any improvements to encourage walking and cycling should be welcomed for residents, visitors and the planet.
A perfectly reasonable riposte, you would think, pointing out that the majority of Steve’s complaints about the cycle path were actually caused at a much more severe level by cars (by inference). They even note that they’re not particularly pleased with how the installation of the cycle path has gone (spoiler alert: nobody is), but as a response to a letter titled “Please justify the spend, disruption and impact of bridleway revamp”, it offers a sensible answer: it’s justified because we need to encourage walking and cycling, and doing so should reduce the number of vehicles that cause all the problems on the roads to start with.
Steve and his ego were inflamed by this however. Many commentators on the ever toxic online community groups had noted dryly that he was “never wrong”, and perhaps he felt he had a reputation to uphold. After all, this was not one, but two people who had found fault with the Word of Steve. That could not stand. So Steve went to his keyboard, and decided to put together a logical, reasoned rebuttal to the points that had been made.
Right?!
I’ve got nothing against cyclists – just the £1.3m being spent on them
Oh dear, my previous letter appears to have agitated the two-wheeled warriors. Unfortunately, they appear to misread my letter and instantly revert to the defensive “poor persecuted cyclist” nonsense. Let’s try and explain things nice and simply for them.
My letter wasn’t suggesting that cyclists should be flogged in public, it was suggesting that the massive spend on a white elephant project could be better used to enhance existing cycle ways (which I like to call roads). For £1.3m I’m sure the road surfaces could be made much less dangerous for all road users whether they be cars or bikes. I didn’t express any opinion on cyclists, so to be chastised for doing so is lycra persecution complex! The title of the letter was a bit of a clue ‘Please justify the spend, disruption and impact of the bridleway revamp’ – not a word about pedal pushers.
To pick out a couple of points from the angry lycrists.
Mr Hamilton states: “It is not pedal cycles that create long traffic queues on Ponteland’s roads.” I assume he missed an ‘always’ from that sentence because the number of times I’ve been stuck behind a gaggle of cyclists herding up a road and completely filling the lane is considerable. We are asked to give them 1.5m clearance, which I always try and do, but where are we supposed to drive – in a hedge?Mr Crisp quite rightly corrects my ignorance on road tax for which I humbly apologise and will flog myself suitably later. My point was that the money going to pay for the road repairs comes from all of our pockets and should be sufficient to keep the roads usable by all road users, which includes cyclists.
He says that I try to justify my dislike for people getting around on a different mode of transport, which is utter nonsense. Cycling is a great hobby for those who like it, it’s just that some of them are a little touchy and read things that aren’t written proving that the ‘lycra warrior’ tag is not a lazy stereotype – they are alive and replying to letters in Pont News!
Oh. Maybe not.
It’s hard really to know where to begin with this. It’s so full of contradiction and logical fallacies, you have to assume he just bashed it out in a pique of anger rather than taking any time to think that people could actually still read his original letter. You’d also think that writing a letter knowing that people could read the original, and claiming most of it meant something else entirely might appear a bit deranged and desperate. Anyway, let’s try and work our way through.
“Oh dear, my previous letter appears to have agitated the two-wheeled warriors.”
Immediately insulting your reader by name calling is an interesting approach, and not one known for helping convince anyone to see your point of view, but presumably Steve knows what he’s doing, and doing so doesn’t make him appear agitated at all, oh no.
“Unfortunately, they appear to misread my letter and instantly revert to the defensive “poor persecuted cyclist” nonsense.”
Oh no! We misread his letter? Well, I’m sure he won’t contradict himself at all when he explains how we did that.
“Let’s try and explain things nice and simply for them.”
Patronising people is famously a great way to get people on your side by showing that you think you’re above them whilst highlighting your own arrogance, so Steve must be very confident in the no doubt reasoned points he is about to make.
“My letter wasn’t suggesting that cyclists should be flogged in public…”
Weird, because nobody suggested it was. This then, is a classic straw man argument, where Steve claims to be refuting an argument that wasn’t under discussion, as though it is an argument against the one that is. It’s a bit like they tell you before exams: answer the question in front of you, not the one you want to answer.
“…it was suggesting that the massive spend on a white elephant project could be better used to enhance existing cycle ways (which I like to call roads).”
Really? Roads are cycle ways now? That’s odd because re-reading (or should that be misreading?) his original letter he wanted the “powers that be” to “explain why they feel the need to pander to the odd cyclist (who pay no road tax) at the expense of actual road users.” So cyclists were not “actual road users” because they “pay no road tax”, but now roads are “existing cycle ways.” Eh? Are cyclists road users or not? Make your mind up Steve!
“For £1.3m I’m sure the road surfaces could be made much less dangerous for all road users whether they be cars or bikes.”
Again, people cycling were not “actual road users”, and now they are. Remember, apparently I had “misread” his original letter – but unless my eyes deceive me, it would appear that he is berating us for, er, reading exactly what he wrote, and insisting, without explanation or apology, that he meant something completely different. A classic retcon – changing the continuity of something retrospectively.
The money he cites is also mostly coming from the Transforming Cities Fund, which aims to deliver “sustainable transport infrastructure” – not repair potholes or clean drains.
“I didn’t express any opinion on cyclists, so to be chastised for doing so is lycra persecution complex!”
An opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. For example, “the odd cyclist (who pay no road tax)” – a view, not based on fact or knowledge. And yes, Steve has lyrca living rent free in his head. He’s somewhat obsessed with it (each to their own, Steve), and is apparently unaware that people can pop to the shops/work/wherever in whatever they’re wearing.
As for “persecution complex”, Steve is expressing hostility towards a group because they “don’t pay road tax” – which, er, is the definition of persecution, but pointing out that road tax doesn’t exist is or answering his question is hardly “a complex.” But presumably suggesting other people are irrational makes you feel better if you’ve just confused yourself over whether people cycling are or are not road users.
“The title of the letter was a bit of a clue ‘Please justify the spend, disruption and impact of the bridleway revamp’ – not a word about pedal pushers.”
Bemusingly, Steve argues that because the title of his letter (which is chosen by the editor, not himself) didn’t mention people cycling, it is somehow unfair to pick him up, say, on his misinformation that people cycling don’t pay a non-existent tax. By his own logic, he should only have replied with comments on “where would you like cyclists to ride”, although as we’ve seen, that would probably be confusing as he can’t seem to determine what he thinks, or on “any improvements to walking and cycling routes should be welcomed.”
So Steve complains that people are doing the very thing he himself is doing, when the thing is vacuous in its logic in the first place. In essence, he’d rather just say people can’t dare respond to him than have to actually refute what they said. Let us also remember that he himself invited “hearing from the powers that be, and the backlash from the lycra warriors” – but now when he gets it, he whines that he didn’t really want it.
“To pick out a couple of points from the angry lycrists.”
You’ll note Steve is keen to emulate Donald Trump in his desire to belittle and degrade anyone who dares question his view, rather than actually making any sort of counter argument. Where Trump has “Crooked Joe” et all, Steve has “lycra warriors”, “two-wheeled warriors”, “a gaggle”, “pedal pushers”, and “lycrists” – all of which would probably elicit some serious cringe from lower school children for their unoriginality, but clearly Steve is very proud of them.
It doesn’t really deflect attention from the fact that he doesn’t actually have a counterargument, but I guess othering and denigrating people rather than acknowledging them as people helps inflate his sense of self. Although he says he picking out points – so what are they?
“Mr Hamilton states: “It is not pedal cycles that create long traffic queues on Ponteland’s roads.” I assume he missed an ‘always’ from that sentence because the number of times I’ve been stuck behind a gaggle of cyclists herding up a road and completely filling the lane is considerable.”
Steve’s point is some “whataboutery” about cyclists rather than addressing the point made, namely that it’s not people cycling creating long traffic queues, which he decided to mainly ignore. Instead, he wants to focus on “gaggles of cyclists herding up a road” which he is “stuck behind” a considerable amount of time. Presumably he is barely ever “stuck behind” any vehicles “completely filling a lane.”
But hang on. In his first letter, Steve was upset that so much money was being spent on “the odd cyclist”, yet now he claims there are “considerable” times he’s stuck behind a “herd” [sic]. Are there too many or too few? Schrodinger’s Cyclists perhaps – not enough to justify having money spent on them, but so many they regularly cause traffic.
You may be yelling “Well there’s a simple solution staring you in the face there”, which is true. If you think there’s too many cyclists and that they’re regularly “stuck behind” them, you would surely be delighted at a piece of infrastructure being built that takes them off the road and puts them on a cycle path, allowing them to progress more safely and you to sit happily behind vehicles “completely filling a lane” rather than a bike?
Steve can’t possible be so dumb to not have thought this simple logical deduction through, so he must have considered it and decided, instead, to follow his dogma of disliking cyclists rather than accept a thoroughly sensible and beneficial conclusion. After all, if he truly wasn’t bothered by them, why is he trying to prevent them using any infrastructure at all (depending on whether he’s in a “not actual road users” or “roads are cycle ways” sort of mood)?
Of course, we have to take Steve’s complaints about the “considerable” number of times he’s apparently “stuck behind” people cycling with a pinch of salt as well, and not just because he is himself unsure if there’s too many or too few. Cycling UK’ statistics show that just 15% of the population, 8.5million, are reported as cycling more than once a week, with between 5-7% using a bicycle as a “means of transport.” (A good illustration of why more active travel could be encouraged, especially coupled with the fact that the median journey distance is just 4km.) A minority then, and a significant minority, but hardly the “considerable herds” Steve seems to come across so often. Maybe he’s just really unlucky.
“We are asked to give them 1.5m clearance, which I always try and do, but where are we supposed to drive in a hedge?”
Having started by boldly insulting his audience, Steve here continues to be bold by outing himself as unable to understand simple instructions. Again, here are those simple instructions:
- give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:
- leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
- pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
- allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
- take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night
- you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.
Not exactly difficult, are they? Although as we saw earlier, Steve thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to “lose patience” and exhibit “frustration” with people cycling if they follow the highway code, and wants them out of his way. Somehow, he thinks the above might mean he has to drive into a hedge (perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s employing a reducto ad absurdum), rather than the simple “[do] not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.”
“Mr Crisp quite rightly corrects my ignorance on road tax for which I humbly apologise and will flog myself suitably later.”
Er, okay Steve. Great to see you apologising in such a mature manner that doesn’t all come across as facetious. Steve continues his apparent infatuation with flogging, having used it for his straw man earlier.
“My point was that the money going to pay for the road repairs comes from all of our pockets and should be sufficient to keep the roads usable by all road users, which includes cyclists.”
Ah, we must be back at how we “misread” what he wrote. To remind ourselves, he wrote that “I’d urge them to take a look at the state of the local roads, the potholes, blocked drains and overgrown footpaths and then explain why they feel the need to pander to the odd cyclist (who pay no road tax) at the expense of actual road users.”
Colour me confused, but “[cyclists] (who don’t pay road tax) at the expense of actual road users” is a bit tricky to reconcile with “all road users, which includes cyclists.” Claiming his point was that “money…for road repairs comes from all out pockets” is also difficult to extract when he literally claimed that cyclists “pay no road tax.” It seems Steve just hoped to rewrite reality and hope everyone was incapable of looking at his original letter, and perhaps his ego told him that nobody would possibly bother to do so. You have to be a special sort of narcissist to hope that people don’t see through this though. Whatever his reasoning, it didn’t work.
“He says that I try to justify my dislike for people getting around on a different mode of transport, which is utter nonsense.”
If only he wasn’t digging a deeper hole with all his othering language, or hadn’t been seen showing his disdain for people cycling in his earlier postings (“typical cyclist”) or indeed suggesting it was their fault if someone lost their patience and killed them…didn’t help suggesting people shouldn’t be allowed to use public roads because they don’t pay an imaginary tax either.
“Cycling is a great hobby for those who like it”
It makes sense that Steve has to claim cycling is a mere “hobby”, rather than a genuine method of transportation, as this would give more ammunition to his clear desire to get “hobbyists” off the roads and out of his very important way. The inference of “those who like it” is also clearly that he doesn’t – he can’t even keep his dislike from seeping into comments about how he supposedly doesn’t.
“…it’s just that some of them are a little touchy and read things that aren’t written proving that the ‘lycra warrior’ tag is not a lazy stereotype – they are alive and replying to letters in Pont News!”
Again, note Steve has no argument other than to use an ad hominem – he just attacks people, not their points. Here, he decides to say that doing what he asked, i.e. replying to him, and correcting his misinformation, was “touchy”, as if this would somehow negate what was written, and repeats his already discredited desperate attempt to claim that we “read things that aren’t written.”
Quite why he’s so obsessed with lycra is beyond me – perhaps, in the same way that many homophobic people turn out to be repressing their true sexuality and lash out to try and feel better about themselves, he just really loves it. As for his idea of what “lycra warrior” actually is, it feels more that it’s simply anyone who puts up facts that disprove the reality the Great Steve wants to believe in.
If Steve had just written some counterfactuals and had some basic manners, I could have left him to it, but because he came across as an egomaniacal prick apparently wallowing in his own self-entitlement, I thought it was worth a reply. I did send in a rather long winded response similar to the above, but obviously, that was a bit long to print, so I had to cut it down to 400 words:
Teaching road manners cheaper than a £1.3m cycle path
Steve Eglon’s patronising response to having his misinformation corrected (I’ve got nothing against cyclists – just the £1.3m being spent on them – February letters) was disappointing for the fallacies and contradictions it contained.
Mr Eglon claims that because the title of his letter does not mention people cycling, it is somehow unfair to pick him up on the substance of his letter.
He retcons his original letter, claiming “they appear to have misread my letter” and “I didn’t express any opinion on cyclists”. He wrote: “Look at the state of the local roads…then explain why [the council] feel the need to pander to the odd cyclist (who pay no road tax) at the expense of actual road users.”
Apparently, this opinion now means “that the money going to pay for the road repairs comes from all of our pockets and should be sufficient to keep the roads usable by all road users, which includes cyclists” – the exact opposite of his own words.
He presents a straw man argument, claiming “my letter wasn’t suggesting cyclists should be flogged in public” – not a point that was made or inferred by any correspondent.
He engages in ad hominem, being unable to call people cycling “people”, preferring to “other” them as “lycra warriors”, “two-wheeled warriors”, “a gaggle”, “pedal pushers”, and “lycrists”. Similarly, he calls eople “angry”, agitated”, and “touchy” for correcting his misinformation, rather than addressing why what was written was incorrect.
He originally complained that money was being spent on “the odd cyclist”, yet now claims he spends a “considerable” number of occasions “stuck behind a gaggle of cyclists”. How convenient that there are both too few and too many people cycling, depending on which point he wants to try and make.
If he seriously interprets Highway Code Rule 163 as meaning he has to drive into a hedge to leave adequate space passing someone, he should return his licence.Ultimately, we can agree that no one asked for the cycleway. It would be cheaper if everyone was more tolerant, respectful and accommodating of everyone on the roads, rather than spending £1.3m on segregation. Hopefully the letters page can return to factual discussion based on these values, although I won’t be holding my breath.
I was fully expecting Steve to reply in the following issue, perhaps cackling that I was such an idiot I’d misread his letter again, and he’d actually reverted back to what he said the first time, not that it had changed, or some other Trumpian rhetoric. After all, he was known for being a polemicist and always wanting the last word, so I’d probably opened a can of worms.
But publication day arrived and no response from Steve was to be found. I liked to think that perhaps he had seen the error of his hatred fuelled ways and hung his head in shame, albeit with his deflated ego incapable of mustering an apology, but no doubt he’ll be out repeating his tall tales of provocative cyclists and how they don’t pay road tax, and how if they get run over by a tractor it’s all fine because they should just have got out of the way, shouldn’t they?!
Presumably, he’ll be claiming he’s “trolling” or such like, i.e. deliberately being provocative for his own amusement, which is the usual defence of people who can’t defend what they’ve wrote (“Hahaha, you took this seriously!? It was just trolling rofl lmao etc etc”) and want to save face, although claiming he deliberately made himself look stupid by repeatedly contradicting himself and outing his inability to understand how the Highway Code works in a publication disseminated to thousands, all just for kicks, doesn’t really work either.
Indeed, when the inevitable comment about “not seeing any cyclists on the cycleway” came, Steve was eager to chime in with his favourite retort, “Careful, the lycra warriors will be after you” (lycra really is living rent free in his head, isn’t it?!)- clearly his level of discourse has not evolved beyond simply parroting “lYcRa WaRrIoRs” as if it proves a point, nor has he learnt anything. Presumably he decided not to respond to the letter because, by Heavens, why should the Great Steve have to concern himself with facts that don’t suit his opinions?!
In all seriousness though, it is concerning that people like Steve are out there, seemingly keen to extol falsehoods to justify their views even in the face of evidence, and choosing to simply ignore it rather than accept and learn from it. People are for some reason quite happy to denigrate, dehumanise and abuse “cyclists” in a manner that would be frowned upon for any other group – Britain has a long way to go to become a truly accepting place, let alone a good place for cycling.
So roll on the cycle path – I look forward to using it, and to rolling past Steve and his bloated ego, sat in a row of traffic, feeling smug and content that his hated “lycrists” are no longer on his road.
Sicycle 
Leave a comment