Originally Posted by chipcom
The point I was trying to make JJ, is that according the the LAW, there is no difference. Now you and I both know that we DO roll through stops and we feel justified in our own minds doing so....great, I don't think anyone but a Dudley Dooright would have a problem with that.
I'm sorry, but you continue to be extraordinarily obtuse on this issue. When a significant number of folks made fun of your false dichotomy so much in the other thread, you tried to hide behind the "just kidding" excuse, but here you go again espousing it again. So, are you serious, or just kidding?
Your point is that according the the LAW, there is no difference? Do you seriously think anyone here doesn't get that point? Do you seriously believe that anyone here needs you to point this out? I don't believe that you're that stupid, which suggests you aren't being serious. But if you're not being serious, then why are you wasting so much of everyone's time on this, not to mention your own? This is all very baffling.
BUT, now we have this methodology that is used to teach cyclists, including kids, to ride a bicycle, that on the one hand says to obey the rules of the road, but on the other hand justifies and even encourages breaking the law as long as it's safe to do so - even though there is no exception in the law, for stops for instance, that says you don't have to stop if it's safe not to. You don't see the disconnect here?
Once again, you seem to be unable to grasp the real world practical meaning of the word "obey", and, in particular, that it does not mean "obey without exception".
"The methodology" (your term) teaches that you should obey the rules of the road and that you should obey the law.
The methodology does not teach that you should obey the rules of the road
without exception and that you should obey the law
without exception.
Again, I can't believe you seriously can't understand the difference.
On the other hand, I'm baffled as to why you continue making such an a$$ out of yourself on this issue.
To me, the obeying the law is one of those basics, like reading, writing and arithmetic, that need to be learned before moving on to more advanced studies....yet here we are, teaching newbies and kids that it's ok to disobey the law if they feel like it. And we wonder why the roadways, and indeed society have to gotten to the sad state they are in?
Do you seriously not understand that allowing for reasonable exceptions to obeying is not
teaching disobedience? Again, I cannot believe that you cannot understand and appreciate the difference. Yet, I'm unable... wait... I just thought of something that might explain this hangup you're stuck on... Are you retired military by any chance?
So to me it's simple - if vc means riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles and is supposedly a set of 'best practices', teaching vc should include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction, not advocating reasons not to. I mean, do we teach how to cook the books as part of Accounting 101?
Teaching VC does include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction.
I don't know of anyone teaching VC who
advocates reasons not to obey the law.