Well just like other numerous alleged road safety charities like: BRAKE, PACTS, 20's Plenty, Sustrans etc. We can easily identify their true aims simply by asking if they see roads, like rail, as essential infrastructure or places where people can be allowed to unnecessarily place themselves in danger.
We define road cycling here. See the definition & fatal results of road cycling here
How can any group that is genuinely interested in road safety, support such a contradiction in terms? Well surely only if they are really anti driver ideologists who are very happy for infrastructure to be impeded, slowed and hampered by unnecessary human hazards.
And then, having promoted all this, demand that drivers are always liable and expect them to serve long terms of imprisonment when it goes wrong. What else is that but anti driver?
Any genuine road safety charity will start by asking 'Who must society have on our roads?'
The answer is obvious. We only need walkers and drivers. That is an undeniable fact. Anyone who denies that isn't really interested in road safety at all and is also primarily anti driver.
@Driver_Hatred Read https://t.co/J7mvkvRBNQ we have a balanced policy on how cyclists & vehicles mix— RoSPA Road Safety (@roadsafety) July 15, 2016