Originally Posted by John Forester
But you have not made any point, not presented any argument, demonstrating that knowledge of how a process, in this case a traffic movement, is supposed to occur is irrelevant to detecting errors that might lead to a dangerous situation. I maintain that this knowledge is exceedingly helpful; you deny that this is so, without presenting any reasons for so believing.



Hagen has been unable to present the argument with which to support his thoughts. His words "or not only" (which I reviewed in context) don't describe his argument, but he still believes that he has presented an appropriate argument. Therefore, Hagen, I make an attempt to present the argument that I deduce, maybe inaccurately, you think that you presented.

The argument goes like this. Vehicular cycling is taught by teaching the rules of the road. Therefore, a cyclist taught by this method cannot detect a dangerous traffic error until he sees that a formal rule of the road has been broken. Is that it, Hagen?

Well, it is inaccurate from first to last. I never teach the rules of the road; I teach how to obey the rules of the road, which is an entirely different subject, including how others obey them. Once the student cyclist develops a useful feel for how traffic operates and what that operation looks like, then he has the skill to quickly detect deviations from that method and take precautionary action, which may run from mere alertness to see if something worse is developing, to making a violent movement away from the danger.