I am convinced that no-one read the original post properly. Nowhere did I mention prison sentences.

Also in response to be taking additional care while driving, my first sentence makes it clear that I was boing given a lift home, but I admit I failed to mention that I was sitting on the back seat in case anyone is assuming it is a dual control vehicle. Also now that I have free use of public transport in London and next year free bus travel across the UK, I have no interest in incurring the expense of owning a motor vehicle.

The driver was not drunk, she drank a glass of apple juice and a cup of black coffee.

The poor wages of delivery cyclists is irrelevant, "I am not paid enough to obey the law" would not be a defense in court.

Those who read my comments in other posts would know that cyclists riding on pavements with no due care to the safety of pedestrians is a bug bear on mine and will always be until the cycling community gets its act together.

When I posted this, I was still shaken by the near miss and the dangerous behaviour of three cyclists; seeing two more jump the next set of red lights was the camel breaker fortunately we were well behind them so it didn't directly affect us- it was not a case of the lights had just changed, they were red well before the cyclist got to them,and the car I was in hadn't just started turning, but was well into the manoeuvre.

When I was at junior school, those who had a bike did cycling proficiency, though I didn't start cycling until I was 16 and missed out on that, I was pretty well versed with the highway code already, and I continued with the same bike for more than 20 years until one of the pedals fell off!

Anyway, bad cycling is a plague where I live and is now seems to be the norm, thus my subject was a deliberate 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' as where the extreme alternatives offered is cyclists want to have everything their own way. Just to address the balance I did suggest other Reductio Ad Absurdum alternatives.

I do take offence to the straw man argument of this being compared with right wing extremist narrative. The message is about johnson-style exceptionalism. "I have a bike, so I will do what I want, and s***w the rest of you." Wanting cyclist to adopt societal norms and show consideration to others can not possibly be compared with anti-Islamist rhetoric.

So to end on a philosophical note, is the Social Contract such that if we wish to live in a society where cycling is encouraged or tolerated then non-cyclists have a duty to accept the risks of bad and inconsiderate cycling and personally take responsibility for accommodating their behaviours?

Also readers may want to reflect that is events had panned out differently -if the car was two foot further forward - and ended up in a tragedy, and it had been one of their own families ending up in a morgue, would they have the same tolerance of the standards of cycling?