Re: While were at it....
"As for your evening standard link, this competely unbiased press stunt by the London Taxi Drivers Association doesn't support your point. You're attempting to equate the majority of rush hour cyclists in a particular location going through red lights with reckless endangerment:"
Except this is a particularly dangerous set of lights where any sane and reasonable person would be more careful. If 53% of cyclists are happily charging through red lights on a particularly dangerous junction, how many are doing so at junctions where it is less dangerous? And rush hour means heavy traffic which means it is even more dangerous. Are you suggesting that in rush hour it is somehow more acceptable to be going through red lights?
There is an unedited 2 hour video to go with the article, so explain to me on what basis is the evidence biased and non-representative?
Just because you don't like what the evidence is showing doesn't make it erroneous.
Equal accountability for all road users is the only way to solve the problem, and currently we do not have that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
