Of course most motorists are not like Ms Way. Most have at least one or two brain cells in their heads. But it cannot be denied that there is a rancid minority who really have it in for the two-wheeled brigade.
You can tell by the arguments that they use that logic is not really the issue here. The brute fact is that motor vehicles kill several thousand people a year in Britain (better than it was, and better than almost anywhere else, but imagine the hoo-ha if this happened on the railways).
Most of these dead people were pedestrians or cyclists. Many of them were children. Cyclists, on the other hand, kill, on average, one or two people a year. Even factoring the difference in numbers, the car is at least a hundred times deadlier than the bike, whichever way you look at it.
So what are the arguments that the cycle-haters use? There's the 'road tax' claim, as made by this particular imbecile. Sigh. There is no such thing as 'road tax' and has not been for decades. There is something called 'vehicle excise duty' which operates on a sliding scale and is (supposed to) relate to a vehicle's efficiency. This is not a hypothecated tax, it just goes into the general pot. Roads are paid for out of general taxation, taxes which are as likely to be paid by cyclists as anyone else.
Very often someone wheels out the 'lycra lout' tag. As well as being a tired old cliche this, I think, reveals something else about cycle-haters. 'Lycra' is associated with physical activity. I have been cycling (mostly wearing ordinary clothes) in London since the mid 1980s and I have noticed that there is a strong positive correlation between the likelihood that an alteraction with a motor car will result in strong language, and the size of the waistline of the driver. People who are too fat to get on a bike simply hate the sight of someone whizzing past their expensive vehicle, a car which is probably capable of 150mph, as they are stuck in endless traffic.