Bad cycling annoys me as well, partly because it is bad, and dangerous, and sometimes scary. And yes, because it gives us all a bad name. But it’s infuriating to think that way. Making comparisons with minorities/women who have to be twice as good to succeed is bleh for urban cyclists who are mostly from a socially privileged group. But using that comparison, the driver is seen as the norm, the judge. Drivers do get angry with other drivers texting, passing too close, tail gating, not indicating and otherwise driving badly and dangerously. However they never think “this reflects on my class/group” because they don’t think of themselves as a class/group except when their privileges are threatened. Then they get as furious as a grandee in the early twentieth century having his income tax increased and death duties on his stately homes. That’s when they suddenly become the hard-pressed motorist, unreasonably discriminated against. It’s the squeal of the unthinkingly privileged.
As often said, no other transport group is required to behave itself before money is spent on infrastructure from them. Air fuel duty is not increased because of drunken idiots on aeroplanes and public transport isn’t cut with the idea of this being one in the eye for loutish behaviour on buses.
Cyclists have miniscule amounts spent on their provision. The poor are not treated with respect. If cyclists were universally well behaved they would get no more money spent on them. They would then be the grateful pauper, who still gets more kicks than ha’pence. If they had good, well-designed infrastructure, and their place in the hierarchy of urban travellers, i.e. below pedestrians but above cars, they would get more respect.
@crowriver – AD did write an article a short while ago about how his preferred method of transport is cycling.