Originally Posted by atbman

Let me see, the lady (age 83) was on a signal controlled crossing with the green light in her favour. Numpty cyclist ignores his red light and sails straight across in front of her. He assaulted her, actually, since his behaviour caused her fear for her own safety, which is, in the UK at least, the definition of assault.

Unless, of course, you consider lawbreaking by cyclists to be acceptable, simply by reason of being on a bike.

He was an idiot and a selfish one at that.

Yesterday, I was interviewed on the same local radio programme as Lady Sharples and was forced to defend cyclists from the kinds of ignoramuses who commented on the Daily Mail story,including someone from the Association of British Drivers, a group who are incensed by speed cameras and believe that drivers are unfairly targeted by the law.

Since cyclists who ignore red lights and ride on the pavement (sidewalk to you) are far more visible than the idiot drivers who routinely ignore the speed limit and amber gamble, we suffer disproportionately from public disapproval. Even when I quoted the 530 pedestrians killed on crossing 1998-2005 thro' collisions with motor vehicles, as against the 3 killed in collisions with cyclists, I was fighting against the general run of phone calls and texts.

No matter how unfair this weight of criticism against us is, we need to break this too frequent habit of ignoring the law (when it suits us) or we lose the political battle. Public perception is all when you are campaigning for better treatment of riders and every pillock who does what this rider did makes it difficult for campaigners to win their case, no matter how justified it is.

I hope that you will maintain the same irate views against a lady in her position if your grandmother's safety is threatened by similar lawbreaking arrogance