First of all, it's called a paragraph. Learn how to write one.
As for the matter at hand, you're saying the cyclist is the victim. I disagree. Why? He jumped a light. He violated the ROW of others. The consequences of his illegal action should fall on him. It's not like she shot him, or stabbed him, which obviously would be a vicious overeaction. He didn't even fall down; he was able to keep going as though nothing had happened. If the elderly Baroness had been hit, as I've repeated many times, she probably would have died from her injuries. I know this, as I remember how frail my grandmother was. She could still walk, but if she had been hit by a bicycle, it would've almost certainly killed her. We were worried she would fall somewhere, and be killed by that.
There is a monumental difference between 23 and 83. If the Baroness were 23 years old, I'd say it wasn't justified. The injuries would be less significant, and more of an annoyance to a 23 year old had she been struck. Seriously, I can't believe you or anyone else is moaning about "the poor cyclist" when the elderly pedestrian is the one who would've been killed. Just as motorists have an obligation to yeild to cyclists, cyclists have an obligation to stop at lights, and yeild to pedestrians.
If you ever wonder why people don't take cyclists with your attitude seriously, it's because they don't like double standards. Respect is earned, Bicure. If you run reds, cut off and nearly hit pedestrians, and then blame them for your poor cycling practices, don't expect them to be nice to you. And in this case, I sympathize with one of the most vulnerable road users out there - an elderly pedestrian, not a dangerous rider.