cellery

I never disputed that a significant portion of cyclists run reds or stops. Of course we all see people doing it. My point was that there is a double standard where cyclists who make up a significantly lower modal-share are more thoroughly scrutinized by non-cyclists for running reds than are drivers who run reds. They see a few doing it, and project that image onto all cyclists. I don't see Suzuki saying "I saw a a couple cars run red lights last week - therefore most drivers are scofflaws that need to follow the law better". But he should if he wants to be taken seriously by an advocacy movement - you have to address all relevant stakeholders without singling out one group for such an argument to be effective. He could have made the same argument about contraflow joggers that cross on reds and it would have been equally irrelevant; I see that all the time too yet no one is calling on joggers to wait for the signal. What it boils down to is that we have to share the road - and that means drivers will single out a few cyclists for doing the same thing that cars do in far greater numbers at far greater risk to other people, because they are two disparate groups sharing the same territory. So I don't see Suzuki's argument as particularly relevant. The two groups are not equal. This is not an argument for giving scofflaw cyclists a pass. It is simply the recognition that a group is singled out for being a minority when the same standards are not being applied to the majority - something I believe would be a more effective argument. Again, I said I am for self policing - as any advocacy group should necessarily keep its own house clean. But this article seemed very one-sided against cyclists and that is where I take issue. I do agree with your last statement.