Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
Interesting that, with little more than a blank sheet to go, you automatically assume a cyclist-hating mad motorist.
You made a worse assumption. You seem to have automatically assumed I was describing a cycle hater (whoever the offender is).
The irony !
Whoever it is definitely mad - unless you disagree?
I gave my reasoning as to why the person is likely to be a motorist (as opposed to a mindless thug), with a clear indication it was all based on an assumption. Now I could of course be utterly wrong in that it was a non-motorist who took issue with the road closure (or the cyclists), but I don't see why that would be, do you?
His being a cyclist hater is my assumption rather than an inflection of your comments.
Given that in country areas, the vast majority of people are motorists by necessity, I'd say it's a fairly safe assumption that the "offender" is indeed a motorist. What interests me is the connection you've made between someone doing bad things to cyclists and out of all the conjecture we could arrive at about the guilty party, who is is, what he does, how he thinks and why, you specifically chose "motorist".
It's just something that intrigues me about the current trend of pitting road users against each other and the popular demonisation of certain parties and subsequent counter-demonisation, rather than working out a cohesive road-sharing plan, and the psychology that results in, both in his actions and your comments, rather than an attempt to have a pop at you BTW. I made the same assumptions myself.