The two things work together, I think. One factor that encourages cyclists to behave irresponsibly is their perception of being poorly served by the traffic system and other road users. If you're not being given enough space by car users and think you 'know' the lights, then there is a temptation to ignore red in order to get thirty seconds of freedom. That's stupid in all sorts of ways, of course, but it's the idea of interaction that is important. Similarly, they won't use bike lanes if they know from experience that they lead them into more dangerous situations/intermingle them with heedless pedestrians/are full of broken glass. A contract might therefore be better than a charter - and one between all those who use the public highway, be they cars/motorcycles/scooters/bikes/pedestrians, and those who construct and administer it. But that might have implications for enforcement. In Australia, as I understand it, any offence you commit on the road - whether in a motor vehicle or not - can earn you points on your licence. For some cyclists, the threat of getting three or more points would limit their behaviour. On the other hand, is this what we want the police to do? The entry costs of cycling can be very low. That's one of its wonders, but it also means that its open to the young and the irresponsible, particularly teenage boys. Quite how you get them to wear helmets/lights/reflective gear/ride on the road I'm not sure.