The clamour against cyclists this autumn is getting louder. I feel sorry for people who don’t cycle. Walking’s so slow, buses are too expensive, and to drive a car these days – never mind a driver’s licence – drivers need a diploma in controlled deep breathing and a degree in yogic relaxation techniques.

What is it that compels other drivers (or cyclists) to veer in front of you like that without warning or apology, causing you to brake, swerve and burst a hernia? Yes, I can quite understand the need to vent one’s ire at carefree cyclists. But is it fair?

The three commonest condemnations are: cyclists jump red lights, cyclists ride on the pavement and cyclists don’t use lights at night.

First of all: yes, it’s true. Some cyclists sometimes do these things.

Now, let’s put it into perspective: most drivers don’t drink and drive. Why? Because they stand a high chance of getting arrested, with hefty consequences – not to mention the likelihood of killing and maiming themselves and others.

Drivers rarely jump red lights as it could be dangerous and they’d be likely to get arrested. A lot of motorists still use their mobile while driving, but police clampdowns and public awareness is changing this, as with drink driving a generation ago.

My gripe with this clamour against cyclists is the lack of enforcement. Cyclists don’t get the same assistance from the police that motorists do. Some cyclists don’t stop at all red lights, some do ride on the pavement and some are unlit at night – yet the police appear unwilling to tackle it.

In the 1950s or 1960s, officers would rush to apprehend a pavement cyclist and an on-the-spot fine would be issued. These days, cyclists know that they can cycle around with virtual impunity.

There are exceptions, of course: the annual blitz against unlit cyclists at the time when the clocks go back (next week) is welcome, as are campaigns against pavement cycling.

This isn’t a dig at the police: Her Majesty’s finest have a lot of serious crimes to deal with, on squeezed budgets and with limited officer numbers.

In terms of the seriousness of crimes of the road, it is a completely rational decision to take motor vehicle infractions much more seriously than cyclists’.

The consequences of motorists drink driving or speeding are much more deleterious than cyclists riding on pavements or not using lights at night.

In fact, if you think about it, most cyclists’ infractions are little more than plain annoying. They aggravate the hell out of me, out of you maybe, definitely out of dyspeptic pedestrians and drivers who need someone to have a pop at. It’s annoying, but rarely dangerous.

All the same, I for one would welcome a situation in which cyclists knew they were as likely to get stopped for breaking the rules as motorists.

We need cyclists to know they’ll get nicked every single time a police officer sees them without lights at night, cycling on the pavement, and jumping a red light – maybe chased by an officer on a bike. And when they are stopped, give ’em a carrot option alongside the stick – such as a reduced fine if they attend a rigorous cycling awareness training session, equivalent to motorists being sent on a speed awareness programme.