I think SCblack and frensham have missed the sentiment of this thread to be honest. We all break laws, no doubt there, however I think what people are jumping up and down about is how that action affects the way cyclists are viewed in the general community.
As cyclists we can all see how you could "skip through" a red reasonably safely. The average citizen doesn't see it that way. My own father thinks we're all idiots and thinks we shouldn't be on the road! The actions of a few have a big effect on the whole and that is what shits me. Do I care if you run a red a no ones sees it? Nope. Do I care if you get killed running a red? Not really. Do I care that it makes news and gives inflammatory idiots like Alan Jones more reason to run their hate campaign - absolutely!
We're fighting an increasingly tough battle to provide safer cycling options for us. How can we demand increased safety measures from our governments, when at the same time taxpayers see cyclists running reds, riding without helmets and deliberately putting themselves at risks? The logical conclusion would be that we don't care about our own safety, so why should they.
So, the real issue (as your father might see it) is that the average citizen labels all cyclists based on what they see a very small minority do? Are we living in the 21st century yet? Surely we have gotten past the one bad apple syndrome? I would love to see the research qualifying that the average citizen sees all cyclists as idiots that should not be on the road - can you supply me with the reference?
You can't, on the one hand say, "we're all human and break the law occasionally" and then state that ALL cyclists have to obey the law at all times because the average person is watching and might form the wrong impression.
We demand increased safety measures from our governments because we have a legal right to be on the road not because we need their (or motorists) respect! It is our right to have safe roads, as it is for all road users - we don't have to earn it. All income earners (cyclists, pedestrians, motorists) pay for the roads and infrastructure - do we remove pedestrian crossings because a small minority choose to cross the road 100 metres further up? Do we remove 'Don't Walk' signs because pedestrians will walk anyway?
When the road rules and the infrastructure are more balanced and take into account ALL road users we might just see more cyclists on the road. However, we will always see the minority that choose to 'break' the law - we're only human after all.
