Cycling in town.

David Cameron has encountered criticism for going through a red light on his Bike.

Well, as crimes go, it's got to be the most widely broken of any, and if everyone breaks the law, another example is the 70mph motorway speed limit, then the law is an ass and should be changed. The difference between these two widely flouted laws is the reaction of motorists, who get right on their high horses.

"the law applies to cyclists as well as motorists", they bleat.

They will cite "safety" as the reason for their ire, but cyclists know that the real reason is envy. Sitting in traffic, watching cyclists whiz towards their destination, crossing the red light whose sequence ken has ensured has grossly disproportionate time allowed for pedestrians, meaning the junction is usually empty, with four queues sitting impotently behind red lights, most motorists wish they could do the same. They sit there in their boxes, unable to move, seething in hypocritical indignation as cyclists do what they wish so badly they could do themselves.

The most dangerous point, when cycling in town is when the lights change Cyclists, whos'e start is sometimes unstable, can bring the inexperienced cyclist into the path of vehicles, who are accelerating hard, oblivious to the danger they cause to people they may not have even seen. It is more dangerous to wait therefore for the lights to change than it is to look, and go before the lights change. The two deaths I have seen are inexperienced cyclists being hit by buses or lorries turning left into the path of the cyclist. In both occasions, the cyclist was obeying the law of the road, and would have been hundreds of yards away if they hadn't. In both the occasions I was knocked off, the cause was an aggressive twat in a BMW (it's always a fucking BMW) overtaking me then turning sharply left. Going through red lights had nothing to do with it. In all my years of running red lights, I have neither caused myself or any other road user any danger.

For all the motorists who scream that cyclists don't get prosecuted for flouting the law, neither do the thieves who openly vandalise if they can't steal, and fence what they can, openly on Brick Lane's sunday market. Insurance! What about insurance? Well the penalty for causing an accident on a bike is a broken wrist or worse. And in 2 decades of cycling, I've never accidentally caused damage to a motor vehicle, and the only pedestrian I've hit stepped off the pavement into a cycle lane on the King's road without looking and deserved everything - all 15 stone - of what she got.

What damage can a cyclist do if, being aware of and giving way to those who have right of way, crosses junctions if it is safe to do so? Clearly the responsibility for this judgement should be with the individual cyclist. If he gets it wrong, he'll end up in traction, so no further legal sanction is necessary. The law should reflect this: red lights should be advisory for cyclists. This means they should be able to turn left and cross junctions where safe.

Some of the criticism of cyclists is justified. Cycling on the pavement is unacceptable, but is concentrated in a couple of demographics (If you've lived in London, you know who I mean). If you're a pedestrian, and this behaviour pisses you off, just clothes-line the cunts. For you non-rugby players, a clothes line is an illegal form of straight-arm tackle where, if the ref is looking the other way, you swing your fore-arm into the throat of the oncoming winger (or cyclist). It is very effective. Cycling without lights is asking for trouble. I disagree with Boris about the acceptability of cycling with a mobile strapped to your ear (he's for, I'm against), but then he would think I'm a Lycra road nazi. In any case, we see eye to eye on the issue of cyclist-crushers.

The Law is an ass and needs to reflect the reality of the experience of cycling in London, rather than the chippy vindictiveness of motorists. Yes. Prosecute cyclists for dangerous behaviour, but not for keeping themselves out of harm's way.