this reeks of American-style "those are the rules, and some people made those rules, so people need to follow the rules, because the rules are meant to be followed." reasoning. as far as i can tell, your claim is that you are perfectly justified in running over cyclists committing minor traffic violations, and in fact your list makes your "emotional trauma" equal to or in fact even more important than "death or serious injury for the cyclist", simply "Because the cyclist was in the wrong". nowhere in this comment or even further down the replies do you actually explain why they're wrong, merely more circular logic that they're wrong because they're wrong.