Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

Astonishing. The point of this story is not cycling on pavements but skewed and tendencious journalism, if this disgrace of a BBC report deserves to be called that. That this whole thread has been about cycling on the pavement and not the way that a committee's discussions have been misrepresented is saddening.
The BBC chose to go with the headline "Target pavement cyclists, say MPs". Target is the key word; it implies 'crackdown' and all that bullshit, it implies that there is a major problem. Later the report happens to mention "During the committee's hearings two MPs raised concerns about "anti-social behaviour" of some cyclists". Two MPs. Just two. And what they have to say is purely anecdotal or spiteful. So the concerns of just two MPs, one of whom has well known previous for his prejudice, are taken as the lead to the story.
"The committee urges the government to "devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws". This is half way in to the report: education, training and publicity, *not *fines, prison, the birch. The headline could have been MPs say improve training for cyclists. Not such an emotive statement though. Why did the BBC choose to slant it's report in this way? Why did it not take this "The committee's report was a response to a wide ranging NAO report on road safety published in May which suggested Britain was still behind other countries in tackling road safety for child pedestrians. It said pedestrians and cyclists were particularly vulnerable - largely because they had little physical protection from crashes." as the focus of it's report? Headline: Britain does less to protect child pedestrians than other countries. You would think from the headline that the committee was only discussing cycling; they were not, they were discussing road safety in general.
Why was the headline not derived from this:
Richard Devereux, the top civil servant at the Department for Transport, pointed out that, according to the Highway Code, it was illegal to cycle on pavements. But he said it was wrong to assume that all cyclists were dangerous.
"There are, without doubt, some elements of the cycling community who are in that position and there are equally, I imagine, rather more people who are far more dangerous drivers as well," he said.
Headline: Top civil servant says car drivers are more dangerous than cyclists. Not exactly what he said but no more risible than the angle the BBC went for.
Brilliant thread this; a shameful piece of reporting leads us not to questioning the BBC or complaining about it's reporting but to calling each other cunts or being defensive about our own behaviour.