Originally Posted by
Roody
I didn't represent or misrepresent anything. You proposed mandatory testing and licensure for cyclists. I asked you if you think cyclists want testing and licensure. I asked if you had any evidence that testing and licensure are likely to reduce injuries.
I'm still wondering if you will answer.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Very well I will clearly explain your misrepresentation
Originally Posted by
Roody
How well founded is your own assumption that most cyclists want to take tests and pay license fees?
I have never made any statements that indicate cyclists (or anyone else for that matter) WANT to take tests and pay fees...
Originally Posted by
Roody
What makes you certain that such drastic and expensive measures will lower injury rates?
I have never stated (nor do I believe) that my proposals are CERTAIN to do anything. I think it likely and have already explained why to ILTB in a prior post. Indeed shortly after that you seemed to agree that making sure people understand how the new structures work to be a good idea...