Letters: Anti-cyclist attitude is loud and clear

SIR – In response to Ian Davis’ letter (A&T 30th September, “Cyclists arrogant and aggressive”).

Firstly, “cyclists” plural, “so many cyclists” and “the majority of cyclists “ is just plain generalising, and blatantly untrue.

The majority of cyclists are just like any section of society, law abiding and respectful, with only a minority who are not. Mr Davis’ opinion seems based on two pieces of hearsay, one being the article last week, 23/09, about the walker who was allegedly attacked. The details were far from clear as to who actually started the altercation. His anti-cyclist attitude came over loud and clear so I reserved judgment.

Why a member of the public feels able to tell a stranger what they should or shouldn’t be doing is beyond me. Far better to contact the police with as much detail as possible.

I’ve been a cyclist for many years , and I do often exercise my right to ride any track in the Forest so long as I’m not causing any damage to wildlife or terrain, and I have never come across any violence or aggression at all. The occasional telling off from an angry walker or warden is all.

Various other people and groups get unjustifiably demonised, with little evidence to support the assumptions and generalising.

Ges Brown,
Bransgore

******

SIR – I am in total agreement with Mr Davis about cyclists not keeping to designated routes (A&T 30th September).

But I am a little confused on how this is going to be policed if, as he states, the existing bylaws are not being policed?

Surely rather than a ban, perhaps better education is needed with not just NFA but campsites, pubs, hotels and accommodation emphasising the need to stick to the routes and why.

Ian Bronsdon
Walkford

******

SIR – Yet more anti-cycling sentiment in this week’s A&T. Mr Davis makes the point “If [cyclists] are approached about cycling in the open Forest… their behaviour becomes aggressive”. The previous week’s headline ‘Cyclist attack on walker’ gives a very one-sided version of events. If I were to ‘approach’ dog walkers on a cycle track and ‘remind’ them of Highway Code Rule 56 (Keep dogs on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders) I’m sure many would respond angrily, and if I blocked their way they may well become aggressive.

Off-road cyclists represent only 5% of visitors to the Forest (FE survey) and have an insignificant effect on Forest flora and fauna, especially compared with other users – and, of course, motor traffic. Other national parks and forests don’t have draconian rules restricting cyclists to a very limited set of tracks which, in the main, don’t connect between centres of habitation. If these were to be sensibly lifted, there would be no need for confrontation.

Whether on gravel tracks or paths, cyclists should be considerate of walkers and horse riders, in the same way that motorists should be considerate of cyclists and horse riders, passing wide and slow.

David Orme,
New Milton