I have a problem with selfish cyclists, and with those who lazily insist there isn’t a problem. The remainder (and there are plenty) I have no issue with at all, and I am bored, bored, bored with having that point misrepresented again and again by people who don’t read what I write.

For the millionth time, I rode all over London for twenty-odd years (on a Gillott, if you’re interested), and I know perfectly well what I’m talking about. I am sick of seeing grown men, in particular, on the pavement, behaving like spoilt children. I don’t see anything wrong with saying so, and I don’t see anything wrong with saying that cyclists should be licensed. A lot of other pedestrians would agree on both points. Neither view is irrational.

I have no concerns about cars at all, as they are on the road and I am on the pavement. Hence unless I am very stupid or unlucky they are no problem to me. Even cars that jump red lights are annoying, not dangerous, since one waits for them to pass. Cyclists who jump red lights are apt to do it after the cars have stopped and one is no longer checking the flow of traffic.

In your previous post you referred to the incident that Michael raised, which was on the pavement, and you said that pedestrians had right of way. Then you went on to talk about shared pavements. In other words, pedestrians have right of way on ordinary pavements. No we don’t. We have the whole thing. If you meant to refer to shared pavements, then that’s fine, but that meaning was hardly clear.

I haven’t posted on this for a long time, and it was not me that restarted the thread. But any criticism of any cyclists seems to be too much for some.