I read the article alright, and while I don't disagree in principle I do feel then author has over-egged the pudding in much the same manner as the Coventry Chipwrapper, but in a different direction. This gives the whole thing continued oxygen when otherwise few cared to begin with, and it had already been long forgotten.
It is the classic way that it is reported as a cycling issue when to is far from the case. The assumption is that as they are on bicycles there is some sort of responsibility on the part of other cyclists for their behaviour