Saturday's front page reported on the hit and run involving the cyclist Stephen Roberts and what appears to have been a deliberate collision that knocked him off his bike and left him with a broken collarbone.

This story was also published online and, not surprisingly, has a large number of comments against it. I'm not going to make any comment on the story itself but I do feel the need to write about some of the comments.

A one line synopsis of the article is that following a "frustrated ‘V’ gesture" at a car that Stephen felt failed to give way to him; the driver of this car turned around and deliberately knocked Stephen off his bike.

As of writing there are over 80 comments against this article and by the third comment we have the usual anti-cycling remarks.

You would only get this sort of venom directed at cyclists, did Stephen Roberts deserve to be deliberately knocked of his bike as some of the comments suggest? Of course not, nobody deserves to be assaulted, especially when it seems to have been a deliberate attempt to injure or even kill.

The only comments we should really be seeing in a civilised society are ones of sympathy and hoping that the driver is found or comes forward, but this is about cycling so it seems that we are allowed to say whatever we want!

On a lighter and, I think, more interesting topic than contributing to the "cyclists vs. the world" debate is something I read last week in a report published by Lancaster University which looked at cycling and walking and society's attitude to these modes of transport.

As part of the report they carried out a survey, asking people various transport related questions. The results showed that people can be categorised into a number of different groups:

Cycling sanctifiers – This group show a strong moral pro cycling stance. Cycling is regarded as providing ultimate freedom and more convenient access in the urban environment. People who subscribe to this discourse are confident cycling in traffic and are reluctant to see the implementation of segregated cycle infrastructure if this leads to the erosion of cyclists’ right to use the road.

Pedestrian prioritizers - This group reflects the very positive and normal image of walking as a means of travel to get from place to place and because of the desire to see more priority given to people moving on foot in cities. People who subscribe to this are not car averse, they own and drive cars themselves, but wish to see more restrictions placed on the use of cars in urban areas. There is also the desire for segregated cycle paths which are perceived to benefit people travelling on foot and cyclists.

Automobile adherents - This group are most satisfied with the present car system and believe that people have a choice of how to travel around and it is up to them to exercise it. Walking is regarded as a leisure activity and cycling practiced by enthusiasts or by committed environmentalist. People who subscribe to this discourse are against any measures that infringe their liberty to drive such as traffic calming even if this could improve conditions for walking and cycling. Indeed, this discourse suggests that walkers and cyclists should take more responsibility for their own safety when moving around the city.

So which one are you, or are you something else?

Based on information supplied by David Brown.