We aren’t going by anecdotes. We are going by what’s most reasonable to assume.
Reasonable to assume a cyclist that aren’t required to hold a license to be out on the road won’t obey road rules.
That’s not reasonable to assume. Let me prove it?
Are you Food Safety Certified from a credited organization? No?
Then obviously your cooking must be poisonous.
I however am food safety certified. I cannot cook at all. Suck at cooking. I do know proper temps, and how to store food. I still cannot cook.
Having a license only PROVES you know the rules. Having one doesn’t mean your GOOD at thing or even that you will FOLLOW the rules. It just proves you KNOW the rules.
Likewise not having a license doesn’t mean you DONT know the rules or WONT follow the rules. It only means you haven’t proven to a licensing body that you do.
I don’t have a medical license, but I know you shouldn’t take opioids every day of your life or you’ll get addicted to them. Clearly many doctors did not know that or did not care.
Edit: hell one more fun one.
When I was in school we had a state issued standardized test called the TAAS test. I got a perfect score every single year. Got every single question in the entire test, every category, correct. 100 percent.
However I was failing most of my classes. Did I know the material or did I not? One certificate said I exceptional and perfect, the other certificate says I was far below my peers.
Which one was right?
