In this case, I agree. The judge made reference to reforming/reviewing laws regarding the behavior of the cyclists, but nothing about improving conditions under which cyclist exist on the road, or reforming/reviewing the way cars operate in respect to cyclists.
(I don't see how the cops statement is suggesting/threatening/condoning road rage though. He's only acknowledging it's existence as a danger. Or maybe I'm missing his tone?) Either way, I don't agree with his action in citing the riders, and I'm glad for them that they were not forced to pay. Maybe this goes to show that CM is not necessarily the best thing in all cities for advocating cyclinst rights. I'm not sure it's doing any good where I live, but maybe it is in other places.
Actually, that's one of the more balanced articles on CM that I have seen lately, and the judge actually upheld the cyclists' rights. Wahoo! The police officer as quoted doesn't really seem to have a very good grasp of the traffic code as it applies to bicyclists, and, as is all too typical for a motorized patrol officer, identifies with other motorists and not with cyclists. By his statement, he is placing speed over safety (and I thought cops were supposed to be *public safety* officers).