I think you go caught yourself out there, especially as you could not show examples of inflammatory comments or factual innacuracies. But congrats for actually doing something and trying to open a dialogue.
What the LCC is campaigning for is not in itself inflammatory, they are entitled to their opinion after all. What is in question is whether or not this opinion is based on fact or prejudice. From what is known so far it would appear that the LCC opinion is in error with regards to the facts and working on prejudice; although we'll have to wait for the end of the trial to find out.
If cyclists are in fear of bikers being in bus lanes (and that is quite possible) then the LCC is duty bound to educate their members and allay those fears, the fact that the LCC are not doing this would appear to be remiss. This presumes that bikers in bus lanes reduces the overall cyclist accident rate, of course. If we increase the overall accident rate, then the proposal should be loooked at again. All based on the *facts*.
Perhaps there is more the the motorcycling community code do to ally cyclists fears? I am sure that have as many preconceived ideas about us as we have of them.
Mike does come a bit of a cropper with regards to VED IMHO. It may not be hypothected, this is true, but he then goes on admit that VED does pay for roads as it forms part of the total government tax revenue. My personal concern with cyclists is not VED, but insurance. Are they insured?
He further admits that it is a minority of bikers that are making cyclists lives a misery. What can we as a group do about that minority then? They're pissing in our pot and making our lives difficult, never mind the grief they are casuing the cyclists. And for what it is worth, it's a minority of cyclists who are dicks as well (and before people reply "Oh not it's not" do think for a minute - the dicks stand out, these are the ones you remember; same as how the general public form their perception of bikers).