Originally Posted by
Script
Evidently there are at least two of us who don't know how to interpret what we read as I came to the same conclusion as buzzman.
I'm not surprised, and, again, I honestly think this kind of misunderstanding is at the root of much of the debate here.
Originally Posted by
Script
Must not be smart enough? Okay.
I obviously don't know what it is, though I suspect it has to do with learning to understand meaning when written a certain way. There are writers with styles that I have trouble following. But at least I know when I don't understand someone, that there is no point in criticizing what I don't understand.
Anyway, now that you've read my explanation, does it make sense to you? When you go back and read the entire original post in context, does my interpretation make sense? Does yours still make sense? Here's what Forester originally wrote:
Originally Posted by
John Forester
Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. Stop at stop signs. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine when to start again. Signal your turns. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine if the way is clear, or from what point to start your turn. We have been all through these discussions time after time with people who received these instructions and then proceeded to act without judgement as to when and how. These instructions were written on the assumption that cyclists are unable to exercise traffic judgement and should stay out of traffic as much as possible, and, when it was necessary to "enter" traffic, as for a left turn, to do so without using the judgement that is necessary.
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
One of the objectives of my instructional program for child cyclists was to demonstrate that children have the visual and mental abilities necessary to exercise traffic judgement, in contrast to the societal judgement that cyclists, especially child cyclists, do not have those abilities. As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.
Maybe my familiarity with what else he has written makes it easier for me to understand what he means here?
Having said that, I still find it baffling that Buzz, you or anyone else with even a modicum of exposure to Forester could think for a microsecond that he might seriously suggest that cyclists not signal their intentions. I mean, isn't it obvious that he is criticizing the way instructions have been given out in the past?
Out of all that, Buzz pulled out the statement in bold: " Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them." Is it really not clear that he is talking from the POV of the providers of the "instructions of the time" that he is obviously criticizing?
Do you ever find yourself thinking, "that makes no sense, he must mean something else"? Does that trigger you to reread and try to understand what else he might mean?
I'm trying to understand how you or anyone else could read that and end up interpreting it the way that you did. What is it about the way that he wrote that cause you to interpret it that way?