"Surely if we are going to lobby, campaign, and demand as a group, then we should be prepared to take responsibility for our actions, as a group too?"
It's not that simple.
Lobbying/campaigning/demanding as individuals, groups or ad-hoc groupings doesn't depend on a pre-agreed set of rules/bargaining points - 'you do this for us and we'll agree not to do x'. Far less to attempt any sort of 'agreement in advance'.
As CCE shows, there is a broad - but not universal - agreement that 'we' (as individuals) should abide by laws. That's not the same as taking responsibility for those who don't - apologetically or 'agreeing' to try to change their behaviour.
And that's not just because there is no expectation that 'motorists' will try to address the behaviour of fellow 'transgressors'.
One real problem that people on bikes have is that some drivers are unwilling to concede that, in many cases, bike riders are being legal, following the highway code etc. and have the right to do much of what they are doing - cycling on the left of traffic, dodging potholes etc.
If some people choose to ignore any of this, or (in their minds) 'overcompensate' by stopping/starting over the white line etc. that's not my problem.
I'm happy to campaign for things to be 'better' (undefined) so that fewer people feel less 'forced' to do things they may or may not think are 'wrong'.
If people get fined equally (as law breakers, not numerically) for ASL/Z offences I won't complain.
I don't mind if people get fined for riding on pavements where legally, and reasonably, pedestrians have the right to a bit of 'peace'.
I DO mind when people suggest that cyclists all/always cycle on the pavement. I'm NOT even blaming the minority who do for that. There is a strange culture of blaming a minority and ignoring the (often worse) actions of a large number - speeding, motorised mobile using, overtaking and hooking etc.
posts
