Originally Posted by
John Forester
Some groups of American cyclists have operated much closer to those rules than have the typical American cyclists. Those groups who operated more closely to the rules of the road have a much lower collision rate than the typical American bicycle riding population.
The traffic portion of the Effective Cycling Program trains cyclists in the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is reasonable to conclude that cyclists so trained will acquire the lower collision rate associated with rules of the road cycling.
What "groups"? Who sez that any specific population of cyclists/groups operates closer to those rules than any other group of American cyclists? Who did the measuring? With what criteria? Who measured this mysterious law abiding population's safety record vice the safety record of any other population of cyclists?
Short answer to the above: Nobody, only Mr. Forester and his trick bag of assumptions, bogus extrapolations, and WAGs.
What does any of Mr. Forester's "explanations" have to do with any evidence that implementation (whether by coercion of a licensing program or voluntarily) of an Effective/Vehicular Cycling Education Program would produce more law abiding OR safer cyclists?
Short answer: A promoter's wishful thinking and an assumption that whatever he claims to be "reasonable" IS reasonable.