Right here on HN. In any of the dozens of pro-bicycle articles which appear every month.

For example, discussing almost hitting a bicyclist on a 70mph road at night with the cyclist wearing dark colors with no reflectors or tail light:

>This is absolutely your fault. You're driving too fast for the conditions. You're the one who can't see what's ahead; you're the one who has to drive slower.

And

> It is not their responsibility to ensure you drive at a pace such that you can stop before striking an obstacle that was hard to see. Should we require pedestrians using the road (like the one without shoulders) to dress in bright colors as well?

And from some other threads:

> >Her not wearing a helment not only derailed her life, but it caused major problems in the lives of everyone around her.

> Blame the victim? How about the driver, was it not his/her fault rather than your sisters?

Here's from someone else:

> While momentum argument is real, my personal philosophy as a daily commuting biker in France is "I'm the more exposed to risk and the more hated road user, so don't get in the way of cars and don't ever dare touch pedestrians"

> That being said, yes I do pass red light when I have good clearance and I don't "emergency brake by courtesy" for pedestrians that are not already engaged in crosswalks or clearly far from my course.

> Theses two paragraphs are perfectly compatible IMHO. It's just that in order to play with the rules you must know and accept them and be aware that you are doing something borderline. And by borderline I mean something specifically NOT dangerous to others and yourself. If it's dangerous it's just plain dumb and irresponsible.

And a justification for breaking the law:

> I was once hit by a taxi while stopped at a light. He he did a right hook turn straight into me. This is why I don't stop at lights if I don't have to, and why I always get towadd the middle lane when I'm biking past a potential right turn zone.

Yeah. A collection of personal anecdotes from an internet forum aren't data supporting your hypothesis for all kinds of reasons. Just off the bat, there is some bias in people who visit HN and choose to comment on threads; secondly, there is some bias in the comments you notice and remember.

Extrapolating from anecdotes to sweeping generalizations isn't intellectually sound.

Not the OP, but I’m pretty sure they are basing it on the same observations I have. The vast majority of motorcyclists I encounter are riding defensively, while the majority of cyclists I see in city traffic are aggressive and ignore most traffic laws.

This is likely selection bias though. The cyclists that you notice the most are bad actors. You don't notice good acting cyclists as often because they don't inconvenience you. This is basically the classic example of selection bias.