Another reason to licence, MOT and insure cyclists

Fixed. Pedestrians and equestrians are road users too. Your point, idiotically made, is also idiotically formed. It is, despite your foolish contention, right that the greatest amount of regulation is applied to the road users with the greatest capacity to harm innocent bystanders. That's why lorry drivers have tachos and regular medical checks, but car drivers don't.

My sincerest apologies for making the idiotic point that greater safety for all was a good thing. I concede that I forgot to add pedestrians into the road equation. I consider them an infrequent and brief visitor with their own code taught to them by a responsible adult at an early age. Unless you mean when people cycle on the pavement illegally? They should definitely be taught how to avoid an almost silent speeding menace approaching. I neglected horses as, apart from the odd police horse, I haven't come into contact with them on the roads in London. Again, I am sorry.

A cyclist with no knowledge of road rules on a badly assembled and or maintained bike is as real a danger to the innocent bystander as any other form of transport (pedestrians excluded).

I had thought a cycling forum would have been in favour of better safety awareness, training and equipment for all? I now see the flaw in my draconian logic. I bow down to your superior opinion on structuring my thoughts into a coherent sentence and hang my head in shame. I will ask a teacher to check my work before posting next time.