It's been a bit of a subtheme of the board in the past week or so, from the 'other side of the windscreen' and 'riders cause...' threads as well as other places. I'm a bit of a n00b, so it may well be an on-going theme here as well, but I thought I'd raise the question. Let me come at it from an angle. I'm a teacher, and in fact now I teach teachers. The majority of teachers are committed, excellent and professional. A small minority are slack, lazy, abusive and shouldn't be in the profession. But the union's job is to protect teachers, and the result is that it is sometimes seen to be protecting these bad teachers, and resisting the moves that would get rid of them. That seems to be against the interests of the majority of teachers, whose reputations are being damaged... I imagine it's the same for most/all unions. So what do we do with dangerous, irresponsible riders? I've seen examples of both "throw the book at 'em" and defending responses here. I think that particularly because riders sometimes feel under siege already from the broader society the automatic response is to defend fellow riders. But in cases like the ones that got me thinking about this issue, I think that's unhelpful. I think there's a further distinction to be made - between really bad, dangerous, stupid and irresponsible riders versus those who are exhuberant and might stretch the law a bit but do it in a careful, responsible and (as far as possible) safe way. In other words, I don't think we can say "throw the book at 'em" for any little infraction of the law: sometimes the law is crazy and even unsafe, and there's also the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" problem. But things like overtaking over double lines on a crest or blind corner are in a completely different category. My own take on the issue is that riders need to very vocally condemn and dissociate themselves from that kind of behaviour... Whaddaya reckon?