Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
At least your program makes sense and is not wrapped up in mumbo jumbo "safety comparisons" of mystery vehicular cyclists.
Your definition of "vehicular cyclists" is as good as anybody else's. Nobody who discuses vehicular cyclists' safety record has ever defined what makes any population of cyclists be considered a population of vehicular cyclists.
The bottom line is that some promoters/schemers claim that cyclists should be encouraged or compelled (through licensing schemes) to take formal cyclist education courses without a shred of evidence that they produce results. When various individuals call for implementation of formal cyclist education programs, they seldom state what the programs should teach and for what reason. Proponents for vehicular cyclist education programs are probably the most notorious for making bogus claims about the risk reduction power of their education program.
The degree to which a population of cyclists can be considered vehicular is quite easy to measure by observing their behavior and rating it against the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I use the data that come from such observations.
I have always been very clear about the traffic-cycling goal of the Effective Cycling Program (there are other interesting parts as well). The traffic-cycling goal is to teach the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and then demonstrating through testing that these skills have been learned.
I have never suggested that government should either train cyclists or license cyclists, for the very simple reason that government has a perverted view of how cyclists should operate.