I don't understand the disctinction you are trying to draw here. The statement itself is both accurate and true? At best the implication might be slightly hyperbolic but definitely not a "cartoonishly evil caricature."
> There's probably some far more innocuous explanation out there, like that the cyclist thought the way was clear (because there were no cars in sight).
Except your explanation is also not innocuous. Not wanting to be behind a bicycle is non an excuse for dangerous passing and especially when you are approaching a red light. The fact that you think this is an acceptable reasoning for that behavior is why you're being called out and downvoted. None of your excuses for how this might cause a light cycle to trigger sooner make this acceptable behavior.