Help me write a reply to a newspaper

Local free newspaper delivered today contains this gem of wisdom from one of the columnists (in a longer rant which has nothing to do with cycling or transport actually):

"Traffic hold-ups cost money. Oh and if a cyclist fails to use his designated painted highway and insists on using the road then fine him for dangerous riding".

Help me to write a concise reply that's likely to get published in next week's letters page please? I find the most impact is normally from a sharp witty reply but can't think of anything....
 
same guy later in column quotes 'in 1710 we spent £2 million on defence, in 1815 it was £73 million and in 2010 £43 BILLION'.

Smells to me like he's ignored (aside from the obvious that wars are now more expensive) general inflation.

*sigh*
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Dangerous to who? Is he talking about cyclepaths, I take it? Perhaps its more dangerous to pedestrians for them to lose their pavements to us, LOL! Not sure I'd like to ride at 20-25mph on a cyclepath, I'd be a cyclopath. :laugh:
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
ferret fur said:
How about

'Dear so-and so

You are an ignorant knob'

Ticks all the boxes
Or..
Dear Fat Whiney Driver Bloke who moans like girl. Man the **** up and deal with it, traffic doesnt move because of cars and car abuse. Ask yourself why you're allowing yourself to share your roadspace with some plonker who is only driving half a mile uphill (perhaps his asthmatic wheezing under the actual effort of climing scares him to bejesus).

Oh dear, the whole world is against drivers. Woe betide the poor motorist in his 60 grand Lexus, all that power and going nowhere fast. :laugh:
 

dondare

Über Member
Location
London
Not very concise but:
"Traffic hold-ups are caused by too many cars on the road. Everyone who drives is part of this problem and the more drivers there are the worse the problem is. Everyone who cycles instead of driving is part of the solution because every bike means one less car contributing to he jam.
Many cars driven on busy streets are then parked on busy streets so they take up road space all day, not just while they are in use. Wide roads become narrow roads because of parked cars, another problem to which bikes are the solution.
Designated painted highways are intended reduce traffic congestion by encouraging motorists to switch to bikes. The people who aren't using them but should be are not cyclists on the road but motorists in cars on the road. If motorists want to see them used then they should buy a bike and use them and this will usually result in a speedier journey for them and everyone else as well.
Also, you are a complete knob.
Now say something about "Road Tax" and I'll really show you up."
 

Ashaman42

Über Member
Well I'd at the very least point out that statistically cycle lanes are more dangerous than the roads themselves....assuming that I'm not making it up, sure I read it somewhere.
 
I am concerned that ..... is so totally unaware of the Department for Transport guielines for cyclists.

These clearly state that for many cyclists the safest and appropriate place is the road.

Surely we should be fining such motorists for using the road ignorant of the regulations and correct use?
 
Dear Sir. I would like to object to the article regarding cyclists and the non use of cyclepaths in the column written by (insert name of columnist and title of column) in (date of issue). This has in my view been written without any research at all into the subject matter and is just the opinion of the author. There is no law that requires a cyclist to ride on a cyclepath and in some situations the road may be a safer place to ride.
How about that for a start.
 

shrew

New Member
Location
St Neots , Cambs
dondare said:
Not very concise but:
"Traffic hold-ups are caused by too many cars on the road. Everyone who drives is part of this problem and the more drivers there are the worse the problem is. Everyone who cycles instead of driving is part of the solution because every bike means one less car contributing to he jam.
Many cars driven on busy streets are then parked on busy streets so they take up road space all day, not just while they are in use. Wide roads become narrow roads because of parked cars, another problem to which bikes are the solution.
Designated painted highways are intended reduce traffic congestion by encouraging motorists to switch to bikes. The people who aren't using them but should be are not cyclists on the road but motorists in cars on the road. If motorists want to see them used then they should buy a bike and use them and this will usually result in a speedier journey for them and everyone else as well.
Also, you are a complete knob.
Now say something about "Road Tax" and I'll really show you up."
+1
 

Norm

Guest
dondare said:
"Traffic hold-ups are caused by too many cars on the road. Everyone who drives is part of this problem and the more drivers there are the worse the problem is. Everyone who cycles instead of driving is part of the solution because every bike means one less car contributing to he jam.
Many cars driven on busy streets are then parked on busy streets so they take up road space all day, not just while they are in use. Wide roads become narrow roads because of parked cars, another problem to which bikes are the solution.
-1

Whilst I agree with that under certain circumstances, that response is very town / city centric, IMO. For instance, the good weather has added 5 minutes each way to the wife's morning run because there are now 10 cyclists who need care and consideration to pass, whereas the NSL roads used had plenty of spare capacity to take them in their cars.

SavageHoutkop said:
"Traffic hold-ups cost money. Oh and if a cyclist fails to use his designated painted highway and insists on using the road then fine him for dangerous riding".
"Coronary arrests cost money. If a lazy, car-driving, selfish dicksplash (amend as appropriate :laugh:) fails to use the medical evidence and insists on using a car, then fine him for wilful negligence."
 
Norm said:
Whilst I agree with that under certain circumstances, that response is very town / city centric, IMO.
True, but given the area that the newspaper serves, it's the correct view to discuss. This is the same area that has a cycle path on most of my way to work, which is completely bloomin' unusable as it's not a reserved lane but a dashed line on the left hand side of the road; where everyone is parked! :laugh:

Hm, maybe I can incorporate that into my reply....
 

jonesy

Legendary Member
SavageHoutkop said:
True, but given the area that the newspaper serves, it's the correct view to discuss. This is the same area that has a cycle path on most of my way to work, which is completely bloomin' unusable as it's not a reserved lane but a dashed line on the left hand side of the road; where everyone is parked! :laugh:

Hm, maybe I can incorporate that into my reply....
Yes, unfortunately it has to be spelled out to a lot of people that the reason cyclists often chose not to use a cycle facility is because of a problem with the cycle facility, not the cyclist...
 
Top Bottom