Don't know where that post is, but it sounds like something I've often said.
You know the kind of claim its in response to; "bloody cyclists, not trained, don't pay road tax, not insured...", and you know most of the responses to at leas the road tax and insurance point. But very often you hear cyclists saying "I agree, we should be trained or at least competent", and when you think about it yes, from our perspective thats great. But it is exactly what those people who complain about cyclists being on the road don't want.
A trained cyclist, someone competent in negotiating traffic, is going to be in the primary position pretty much of the time. Thats right in the middle of the lane in many city streets. They're going to be claiming their road space at junctions, roundabouts, crossings etc. They're going to be right outside of those pesky little cycle lanes, the ones that are too narrow to use (after all, the standard text that many of these cyclists follow tells you to ignore those lanes if you think that they're unsafe or inappropriate).
What all of this means is that if the hoards of gutter crawling, passive cyclists we see on our roads were all 'trained' is that no one in any city or town where there is any reasonable number of cyclists will be able to get anywhere by car. You can guarantee it. Bikes would rule the roost, all traffic in London, Cambridge, Oxford, York, Edinburgh, even central Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow would be going along at slow bike pace; we're not talking about the generous 20mph you get 'trained' cyclists doing now, we're talking about the 14mph that the gutter crawlers occasionally aspire to reaching at best.
The last thing that these moaning minnie motorists want is cyclists being trained to be in the right place on the road, they couldn't cope with it. They're angry enough now, they'd all burst blood vessels if we behaved 'properly' and took 'appropriate road positions'.