I think that the OP seems to have been misunderstood, with a few reading their preconceptions rather than what was written.
So... Here's the hypothesis: Being an experienced driver improves my cycling.
I daren't say it makes me a good cyclist, just a less bad one. How do people feel about this notion?
The suggestion is that people who drive cars are better cyclists than they would be if they didn't drive cars.
It is not that person A is a better cyclist than person B who doesn't drive. It is that person A is a better cyclist than person A would be if they didn't drive.
I agree with this, I think that getting experience on other vehicle types (I have spent a lot of time on motorbikes and agricultural machinery and I have some experience on rigids and artics) gives a perspective that you wouldn't otherwise have. None of it makes me a better cyclist (or driver or biker) than anyone else, just a better cyclist (or driver or biker) than I would be if I didn't have that experience.
As a non-driver, I would say this is bollocks.
I have a brain and I know how I am supposed to behave and I try not to hold anyone up or inconvenience other road users where possible, but I am also assertive (without being aggressive).
Sorry, Miss TF but I think that you have misunderstood the hypothesis. As a non-driver, you don't know what you would be like as a cyclist if you were a driver. It doesn't mean that you aren't an excellent cyclist.
In the gentlest possible way .... bollox. A 30,000 mile-a-year pillock in a grey BMW is a danger - to him/herself, and everybody else in his/her way. Sorry!
I think you've also misread the OP, unless you think that someone who drivers 30,000 miles a year would not bring any of that experience to cycling - if nothing else, they might understand the innate wariness that many cyclists seem to have of people who drive grey BMWs.
Before you fight someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. If they still want to fight after that, you are a mile away and you have their shoes
