Concerning the "No Harm, No Fowl, No Ticket" argument.
I'd like to weigh in on that one. I do agree that attempted murder is the same as murder and should be treated accordingly (in appropriate degrees of course, such as a hot blooded crime of passion vs. a premeditated cold blooded murder). On the other end of the spectrum though, if a driver (of any vehicle) runs a red light at an intersection out in the middle of know-where flat land farm country in broad daylight without another vehicle in sight in any direction for miles in a slow, check, and then roll through" yield sign style it is kind of ridiculous for him to get a $100+ red light camera automatic ticket in his mail a couple days later.
I guess I would put my vote down as that issuing tickets where there was a collision accident caused by the cyclist misbehavior (or any other driver of a vehicle on the road who's choice to violate the rules of the roads results in an accident causing harm to another person or their property) should be the first priority to issue tickets. I know of a few cases locally where cyclists have caused accidents and the cops were called to the scene and the cyclist was still there when they got there and they didn't write a ticket. That's stupid if there is a collision accident caused by a drivers misbehavior and scoff law attitude for the rules of the road and you have to guy dead to rights because your looking right at the accident he caused with witnesses then you write him a ticket !!! To not do so is not doing your job if your a cop on the scene.
After that's first priority is taken care of with those who actually do cause accidents and harm then we can move onto those who's mis-behavior and scoff law attitude could but have not yet caused problems. And when you do move onto them you take the worst offenders first. You fry the fish that jump right into your pan first, then you go try to catch and fry the big fish next, and if you still have time and resources available after that then you start working on the little fish.