This is what is so confounding. Someone (Forester in this case) writes something that seems totally clear to me, and then someone else replies to it in a manner that indicates they interpreted it completely differently. One sentence producing practically diametrically opposed interpretations. Now fill a book with 600 pages of sentences like that, and it's no wonder some people get a completely different idea of what Forester is saying than what he's actually saying.

Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists not signal their intentions. Why would you or anyone else even think that?

Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?

But haven't you ever seen adult cyclists, much less kids, signal (without looking) and go? They seem to think that just signaling gives them the right of way to go. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the only logical conclusion based on their behavior. Also, as you know, and as Robert Hurst notes in his book as well (in a chapter entitled Looking Back), the practice of looking back is not as simple as it sounds. That's why that all needs to be addressed in the instruction. Just telling kids to signal, and nothing else, is not nearly enough if your goal is cyclist safety (but it is if your goal is motorist convenience). That's what Forester means, of course. No reasonably experienced cyclist could have possibly meant anything else with those words, and I find it astounding that someone with the experience that you obviously have could interpret it any other way.

I don't mean to harp on this, but I feel this type of miscommunication lies at the heart of much of the disagreement here. Like Robert's insistence that Forester's depiction of vehicular excludes defensive practices entirely. How anyone could read anything Forester has written and conclude that I find to be totally baffling.