"...gives cyclists a bad name"
This sanctimonious, patronising, belittling pish is getting boring.
What is this 'name'? Some sort of collective reputation? Do drivers of motorised have a 'name'?
No, this only appears to apply to people riding bikes. Why is this? Its because people riding bikes on the road are a minority, yet shoulder a disproportionate amount of risk of injury and death while using the road, and are in a physical position that makes it very easy to be bullied and intimidated.
This idea of a collective responsibility or even a collective identity makes it easy to shift a disproportionate amount of blame away from the motorist (who benefits from an overwhelmingly powerful media lobby presence) onto the cyclist.
Many motorists clearly feel persecuted for a number of reasons, and no wonder because its an increasingly miserable and expensive pursuit that bears little resemblance to how it is marketed, and many people feel cheated by this.
Cycling - especially for urban commute journeys - has visible advantages (assuming the cyclist avoids accident or near accident), so those people, thankfully a small albeit vocal minority of the motoring population, who already feel cheated that motoring doesn't quite fit their expectations (on a subconscious level) have their anger stoked by feelings of jealousy as well, hence the bellicose outrage at individual cyclists making any kind of minor Highway Code transgression.
So far, so understandable and I wouldn't condone breaking the law by default.
What I don't get though is this obsequious, sanctimonious acceptance by cyclists of the notion that (all) cyclists have 'a bad name'. Individuals behave differently from one another, we're not all in some umbrella organisation. This notion is being used to lend weight to arguments we all know are unfair, why would any of us want to go along with it?