Drivers "scared" by so many cyclists on a Sunday

On 20/10/2015 08:40, Alycidon wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 08:28:48 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

Especially as cyclists are supposed to be such an "insignificant"
minority. How can that tally with these vast hordes of people
bringing a whole county to a standstill every Sunday? Why is this
cataclysmic event never on the news or travel reports?

You can be an insignificant minority and a total tosser at the same time.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:

"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling "overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the roads are so packed with people on bikes."

http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull


And another quote from the same article:

"But because they don't have legal accountability, they don't have to pass a
proficiency test, they don't have to have an MOT test for their bikes, they
don't have to have license plates so if they jump a red light it's not easy to
catch them...they weave and duck in front of traffic. There's no recourse to
law for cyclists."

Thanks for drawing our attention to it.

"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those
of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride within
50
miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.

They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the over
3000
people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition
"Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was raised by Ian Huggins
from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

Equally, he could be one of the type that posts here.

He surely must have some connection with the area in question, though,
even if it's just an acquaintance (or family relationship) with someone
who is affected.

OK, he has a clay pidgeon shooting business in the area (and one of his
complaints is noise. Hmm.) If there are really so many cyclists, it's
possible he could be in the wrong business.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But
don't
hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html
"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

Quite so.

The more so since you will not be able to find any reference to
"imprisoned in their own homes".

A claim of being prevented from leaving the house seems good enough to me.

On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those
of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride within
50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the over
3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition
"Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was raised by Ian Huggins
from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

Equally, he could be one of the type that posts here.

No. He seems to be a bit more pro-active.

He surely must have some connection with the area in question, though,
even if it's just an acquaintance (or family relationship) with someone
who is affected.

OK, he has a clay pidgeon shooting business in the area (and one of his
complaints is noise. Hmm.) If there are really so many cyclists, it's
possible he could be in the wrong business.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But
don't hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html
"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

Quite so.
The more so since you will not be able to find any reference to
"imprisoned in their own homes".

A claim of being prevented from leaving the house seems good enough to me.

Does it?

"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those
of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of the
word "over".

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over the
value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one, this
person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the
over
3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition
"Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was raised by Ian Huggins
from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

Equally, he could be one of the type that posts here.

No. He seems to be a bit more pro-active.

He surely must have some connection with the area in question, though,
even if it's just an acquaintance (or family relationship) with someone
who is affected.

OK, he has a clay pidgeon shooting business in the area (and one of his
complaints is noise. Hmm.) If there are really so many cyclists, it's
possible he could be in the wrong business.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But
don't hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html
"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

Quite so.
The more so since you will not be able to find any reference to
"imprisoned in their own homes".

A claim of being prevented from leaving the house seems good enough to
me.

Does it?

Yes.

On 21/10/2015 17:59, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those
of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of the
word "over".

That does not address my questioning of your faulty premise.

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over the
value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one, this
person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Neither does that.

It is a red herring.

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Even if 100% of them were Surrey residents, they are still causing
nuisance to the residents of this area, something they were not
previously in the habit of doing.

Causing people unwarranted problems does not become acceptable simply
because the offender lives in the same county as the victims.

Does it?

[Surely even you aren't going to answer that in the affirmative?]

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the
over 3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition "Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was
raised by Ian Huggins from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

....and the fact that he might have a London address does not mean that
he doesn't have a Surrey address.

AAMOF, knowing (as we do) that many cyclists are very flaky people with
no sense of the rights of other members of society, it could be a very
good idea to use an "accommodation address" (a workplace, perhaps) for
operating a petition such as this.

I'd recommend it. Wouldn't you?

Equally, he could be one of the type that posts here.

No. He seems to be a bit more pro-active.

He surely must have some connection with the area in question, though,
even if it's just an acquaintance (or family relationship) with someone
who is affected.

OK, he has a clay pidgeon shooting business in the area (and one of his
complaints is noise. Hmm.) If there are really so many cyclists, it's
possible he could be in the wrong business.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But
don't hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html
"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

Quite so.
The more so since you will not be able to find any reference to
"imprisoned in their own homes".

A claim of being prevented from leaving the house seems good enough to
me.

Does it?

Yes.

Fair enough.

As long as you recognise that you simply made up the "imprisoned" claim.

And you did.

"JNugent" wrote
On 21/10/2015 17:59, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of
the word "over".

That does not address my questioning of your faulty premise.

Nit picking over a word is just a standard method of yours that never moves
anything forward.

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over the
value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one, this
person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Neither does that.

It is a red herring.

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Even if 100% of them were Surrey residents, they are still causing
nuisance to the residents of this area, something they were not previously
in the habit of doing.

Causing people unwarranted problems does not become acceptable simply
because the offender lives in the same county as the victims.

Who are these offenders and what have they done? The argument is that some
people don't want others riding bicycles on "their" roads.

Does it?

[Surely even you aren't going to answer that in the affirmative?]

People are always entitled to raise (or complain about) issues that concern
them. Whether anybody listens is a different matter.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the
over 3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition "Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was
raised by Ian Huggins from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

...and the fact that he might have a London address does not mean that he
doesn't have a Surrey address.

AAMOF, knowing (as we do) that many cyclists are very flaky people with no
sense of the rights of other members of society, it could be a very good
idea to use an "accommodation address" (a workplace, perhaps) for
operating a petition such as this.

Since flaky people are distributed throughout society then it follows
that a proportion of bicycle users will be flaky.

But if you can have "many", I can have "lots".

I'd recommend it. Wouldn't you?

I expect than anybody with malice in mind could find him easily enough.

....

On 24/10/2015 11:12, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/10/2015 17:59, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of
the word "over".

That does not address my questioning of your faulty premise.

Nit picking over a word is just a standard method of yours that never moves
anything forward.

The nit-picking is 100% yours. You claimed - totally without foundation
- that "a lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents". That was
never going to pass unchallenged. You have not a single shred of
justification for the claim.

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over the
value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one, this
person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Neither does that.

It is a red herring.

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Even if 100% of them were Surrey residents, they are still causing
nuisance to the residents of this area, something they were not previously
in the habit of doing.
Causing people unwarranted problems does not become acceptable simply
because the offender lives in the same county as the victims.

Who are these offenders and what have they done? The argument is that some
people don't want others riding bicycles on "their" roads.

They certainly don't want their local roads obstructed, constricted and
made less safe.

Should they take a different approach?

Does it?

[Surely even you aren't going to answer that in the affirmative?]

People are always entitled to raise (or complain about) issues that concern
them. Whether anybody listens is a different matter.

Clearly, you don't want to listen to any complaint unless it comes from
a cyclist.

Less-unbalanced people take a more neutral approach and decide
case-by-case. And here, the residents are right and the
in-their-own-heads racing cyclists are totally in the wrong.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of the
over 3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition "Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was
raised by Ian Huggins from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

...and the fact that he might have a London address does not mean that he
doesn't have a Surrey address.
AAMOF, knowing (as we do) that many cyclists are very flaky people with no
sense of the rights of other members of society, it could be a very good
idea to use an "accommodation address" (a workplace, perhaps) for
operating a petition such as this.

Since flaky people are distributed throughout society then it follows
that a proportion of bicycle users will be flaky.

But if you can have "many", I can have "lots".

There is no logical connection there.

Tthat none/some/all of the offending Surrey nuisance cyclists live in
Surrey does not reduce the proportion of flakiness among cyclists.

And nothing justifies obstruction and recklessness even if 100% of the
cyclists were from Surrey.

Got it yet?

I'd recommend it. Wouldn't you?

I expect than anybody with malice in mind could find him easily enough.

....

I would never sign an online petition with my correct name and address.

I really don't see why the government need to publish such detail.

"JNugent" wrote
On 24/10/2015 11:12, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/10/2015 17:59, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of
the word "over".

That does not address my questioning of your faulty premise.

Nit picking over a word is just a standard method of yours that never
moves
anything forward.

The nit-picking is 100% yours. You claimed - totally without foundation -
that "a lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents". That was never
going to pass unchallenged. You have not a single shred of justification
for the claim.

Why, do you have a percentage in mind that needs to be exceeded in order to
qualify as "lots"?

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over
the
value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one, this
person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Neither does that.

It is a red herring.

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Even if 100% of them were Surrey residents, they are still causing
nuisance to the residents of this area, something they were not
previously
in the habit of doing.
Causing people unwarranted problems does not become acceptable simply
because the offender lives in the same county as the victims.

Who are these offenders and what have they done? The argument is that
some
people don't want others riding bicycles on "their" roads.

They certainly don't want their local roads obstructed, constricted and
made less safe.

Ah, so after moving on from "over-use" to "offences", you have made a third
step.

Should they take a different approach?

Does it?

[Surely even you aren't going to answer that in the affirmative?]

People are always entitled to raise (or complain about) issues that
concern
them. Whether anybody listens is a different matter.

Clearly, you don't want to listen to any complaint unless it comes from a
cyclist.

I have listened. My opinion is that the petition signers are whinging.

Less-unbalanced people take a more neutral approach and decide
case-by-case. And here, the residents are right and the in-their-own-heads
racing cyclists are totally in the wrong.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of
the
over 3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition "Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was
raised by Ian Huggins from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

...and the fact that he might have a London address does not mean that
he
doesn't have a Surrey address.
AAMOF, knowing (as we do) that many cyclists are very flaky people with
no
sense of the rights of other members of society, it could be a very good
idea to use an "accommodation address" (a workplace, perhaps) for
operating a petition such as this.

Since flaky people are distributed throughout society then it follows
that a proportion of bicycle users will be flaky.

But if you can have "many", I can have "lots".

There is no logical connection there.

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

Tthat none/some/all of the offending Surrey nuisance cyclists live in
Surrey does not reduce the proportion of flakiness among cyclists.

And there is nothing to establish that flakiness amongst cyclists is any
higher than the general population. Some of the comments in the petition
certainly contain a flaky content.

And nothing justifies obstruction and recklessness even if 100% of the
cyclists were from Surrey.

Got it yet?

The same can be said by cyclists to motorists.

Anyway, you have moved on again. Is the next step to accuse them of being
roaming gangs of child murderers?

....

On 25/10/2015 23:55, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 24/10/2015 11:12, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 21/10/2015 17:59, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride
within 50 miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

Does it require more than one?

Does "a lot" mean more than one?

There are two points here. It seems you had in mind (though you will
undoubtedly deny it), that there is no overlap between the residents of
Surrey and the people that cycle in Surrey. The clue is the presence of
the word "over".

That does not address my questioning of your faulty premise.

Nit picking over a word is just a standard method of yours that never
moves anything forward.

The nit-picking is 100% yours. You claimed - totally without foundation -
that "a lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents". That was never
going to pass unchallenged. You have not a single shred of justification
for the claim.

Why, do you have a percentage in mind that needs to be exceeded in order to
qualify as "lots"?

You cannot even show that one of them is a Surrey resident. You are just
assuming it. Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along
the roads they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain. And
if they were simply using the roads as normal transport routes (rather
than as a racetrack), it is unlikely that there would have been any
complaints. The complaint is not that cyclists are using the roads. The
complaint is that so many cyclists are using certain roads.

First, we know there must be overlap (whatever judgement we make over
the value of "lots"), second, if the overlap happened to be only one,
this person's opinion is enough to make a debate on the "use of lanes".

Neither does that.
It is a red herring.

Is that what you're asking?

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Even if 100% of them were Surrey residents, they are still causing
nuisance to the residents of this area, something they were not
previously in the habit of doing.
Causing people unwarranted problems does not become acceptable simply
because the offender lives in the same county as the victims.

Who are these offenders and what have they done? The argument is that
some people don't want others riding bicycles on "their" roads.

They certainly don't want their local roads obstructed, constricted and
made less safe.

Ah, so after moving on from "over-use" to "offences", you have made a third
step.

"Over-use" stands.

I have not mentioned "offences".

You have imagined that.

Should they take a different approach?

Does it?

[Surely even you aren't going to answer that in the affirmative?]

People are always entitled to raise (or complain about) issues that
concern them. Whether anybody listens is a different matter.

Clearly, you don't want to listen to any complaint unless it comes from a
cyclist.

I have listened. My opinion is that the petition signers are whinging.

That's your opinion. And it is exactly as one could have predicted.

Less-unbalanced people take a more neutral approach and decide
case-by-case. And here, the residents are right and the in-their-own-heads
racing cyclists are totally in the wrong.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.
They say so.

Well, obviously the ones being imprisoned. Or not. And the rest of
the over 3000 people signed up on the petition?

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition "Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was
raised by Ian Huggins from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

...and the fact that he might have a London address does not mean that
he doesn't have a Surrey address.
AAMOF, knowing (as we do) that many cyclists are very flaky people with
no sense of the rights of other members of society, it could be a very
good idea to use an "accommodation address" (a workplace, perhaps) for
operating a petition such as this.

Since flaky people are distributed throughout society then it follows
that a proportion of bicycle users will be flaky.
But if you can have "many", I can have "lots".

There is no logical connection there.

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

I said "There is no logical connection".

Was that too difficult for you to understand?

Tthat none/some/all of the offending Surrey nuisance cyclists live in
Surrey does not reduce the proportion of flakiness among cyclists.

And there is nothing to establish that flakiness amongst cyclists is any
higher than the general population. Some of the comments in the petition
certainly contain a flaky content.

The "racing" cyclists complained of sound as though they contain a high
proportion of "enthusiasts" among their number.

Not exactly everyday guys who just use their bikes to get to work.

And nothing justifies obstruction and recklessness even if 100% of the
cyclists were from Surrey.
Got it yet?

The same can be said by cyclists to motorists.

And?

When drivers start converging on a network of narrow county roads and
trying to race around like F1 drivers (all in their heads, just like
these cyclists), to the unnecessary and unwarranted disadvantage of
local people, you can depend on my objection to it.

Anyway, you have moved on again. Is the next step to accuse them of being
roaming gangs of child murderers?

Eh?

That sounds like a Freudian slip on your part.