Should Cyclists Pack Guns?

"Bill" wrote in message
et...
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill wrote:

wrote:
Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we
were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop
sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not
have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he
forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort.

He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him
there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if
his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have
written a letter to the school board.

Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do
not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and
it's possible to take advantage of that.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank,
You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus drivers
around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the kiddies they tend
to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I have had many close
calls with school buses in neighborhood street conditions. They make
illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in front of me and they expect me
to damn well get out of their way. Again, professional drivers, but with

'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank
Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test
only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to'
lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same
dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them
bull**** job.

Maybe the truckers, some of whom are even illegal Mexicans, but not for
the school bus drivers who have to have a chauffeurs' license.

Oh really? Remember the illegal alien that was driving for Global Limo?
During Hurricane Rita, a nursing home contracted with the limo company to
haul residents to safety out of Houston. The bus had all kinds of
problems, particularly the last problem where it burst into flames and
killed 24 passengers. When the illegal alien driving the bus discovered it
was on fire, he stopped, and quickly abandoned the bus and never looked back
as other motorists stopped and risked their lives in trying to saved those
inside.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...a/3367696.html

The illegal alien is still at large (the Bush Administration wanted the
illegal alien to stay in this country as a "material witness") and believed
to be working for yet another bus company.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?nam...=print&sid=826

So being an illegal alien gives you special rights to kill and maim without
consequence.


The truckers are plain dumb.
The bus drivers are arrogant.
Small difference but don't get your bike (or small car) in their way.
Bill Baka



some very bad manners.
Bill Baka

"Bill H." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 19, 9:03 am, wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954

Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental
rights...

Just not civil liberties.

Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding
fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we?

Before tearing down a fence that has been up for a long time, doesn't it
make sense to figure out why it was put up in the first place?

Voting used to be a serious thoughtful process, now look at it. We don't
have a presidential election, we have a presidential sweepstakes. We are
supposed to vote for someone so that they can be honored with being the
"first woman president" or the "first black president" rather than based on
anything more substantial. We forget that when election time comes around
we are voting for who has control of the guns. Who has control to take your
earnings, to dictate the terms of your existence, and decide which friend
will get which benefit.

Warren G Harding, while republican senator of Ohio, made it a top priority
for women's suffrage. As a reward for his effort, the female vote was
largely responsible for him being elected to be the U.S. 29th president.
History shows that his administration was the most corrupt of all previous
administrations, particularly the Teapot Dome scandal where the naval oil
reserves where secretly leased to Sec. of the Interior. Decades later the
female vote put the utterly corrupt Clinton administration, where they were
so corrupt no one noticed the Bakerfield naval oil reserves gifted to the
sitting vice president's company Occidental Petroleum. (and the Left
ignores Al Gore's corruption and oil dealings but hammers relentlessly
Cheney who has divested of all shares in any petroleum stocks)

So the female vote hasn't been stellar in regards to the integrity of the
country. In fact, since then, the right to vote has been so deconstructed
and corrupted that the illegals and the dead who vote multiple times each
election make the one-man-one-vote legend an utter joke. We have over half
the vote coming from folks who get their news and wisdom from The View and
Oprah. Voters don't think about their choices, the FEEL their choices. "Oh
look, that candidate is such a good looking guy. I'm going to vote for
him." If it wasn't true, then why are we reading of $400 haircuts? Is it
to impress Bubba? Or is it likely that a $400 haircut may be the difference
in a candidate getting a vote or not getting a vote.

I'm all for a return to the white male Christian property owners being the
only ones with the voting franchise! Maybe then a bald guy who has
something on the ball might actually have a chance.

[Disclosu I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ]

"Reuben Hick" wrote in message
t...

"Bill H." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 19, 9:03 am, wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954

Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental
rights...

Just not civil liberties.

Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding
fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we?

Before tearing down a fence that has been up for a long time, doesn't it
make sense to figure out why it was put up in the first place?

Voting used to be a serious thoughtful process, now look at it. We don't
have a presidential election, we have a presidential sweepstakes. We are
supposed to vote for someone so that they can be honored with being the
"first woman president" or the "first black president" rather than based
on anything more substantial. We forget that when election time comes
around we are voting for who has control of the guns. Who has control to
take your earnings, to dictate the terms of your existence, and decide
which friend will get which benefit.

Warren G Harding, while republican senator of Ohio, made it a top priority
for women's suffrage. As a reward for his effort, the female vote was
largely responsible for him being elected to be the U.S. 29th president.
History shows that his administration was the most corrupt of all previous
administrations, particularly the Teapot Dome scandal where the naval oil
reserves where secretly leased to Sec. of the Interior. Decades later the
female vote put the utterly corrupt Clinton administration, where they
were so corrupt no one noticed the Bakerfield naval oil reserves gifted to
the sitting vice president's company Occidental Petroleum. (and the Left
ignores Al Gore's corruption and oil dealings but hammers relentlessly
Cheney who has divested of all shares in any petroleum stocks)

So the female vote hasn't been stellar in regards to the integrity of the
country. In fact, since then, the right to vote has been so deconstructed
and corrupted that the illegals and the dead who vote multiple times each
election make the one-man-one-vote legend an utter joke. We have over
half the vote coming from folks who get their news and wisdom from The
View and Oprah. Voters don't think about their choices, the FEEL their
choices. "Oh look, that candidate is such a good looking guy. I'm going
to vote for him." If it wasn't true, then why are we reading of $400
haircuts? Is it to impress Bubba? Or is it likely that a $400 haircut
may be the difference in a candidate getting a vote or not getting a vote.

I'm all for a return to the white male Christian property owners being the
only ones with the voting franchise! Maybe then a bald guy who has
something on the ball might actually have a chance.

[Disclosu I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ]

Oh God, here we go! (my last post on the subject, honestly)

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
forgot who I snipped;).
The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing
someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars
and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't
have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in
good physical shape one-on-one.
I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways
of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them.
It seems a bit crude to me.

Crude people sometimes require crude responses.

It's at this point where I would encourage riders to take at least a
basic self defense or Karate class in case a bully gets out and doesn't
back down.

The problem is that you have to get _really good_ at unarmed self
defense in order to be able to beat someone who is well out of your
weight class and attacking you. Even assuming he is unarmed.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

DI wrote:
"Reuben Hick" wrote in message
[Disclosu I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ]

Oh God, here we go! (my last post on the subject, honestly)


I'm outta here too.
Bill Baka

nash wrote:
Yet your wrong way riding, which is actually far more dangerous, keeps you
alive... bull****.


I do not think Bill would do anything intentionally to kill himself so
why the bluster.

True.

When I was a kid the road had no sidewalks and was not well repaired but
pedestrians knew enough to face traffic.


My sister taught me that way back in 1952 while walking on a country
road. There were times when we would have to step off into the bushes
for safety. 55 years later both she and I are still practicing
'survival' tactics and there are still plenty of drivers I want nothing
to do with, especially behind me.

That is all he is doing.
I'll bet if a pedestrian was crazy enough to go there he would do the
same thing, right?

I have walked on that road and if I right way walk I can hear something
coming, stop, look, and if need be, step off the road. It is a bit more
difficult to do that on a bike, hence the wrong way ride on the wrong
planned road.

It is all relative anyway.


I'm relatively alive, and some self righteous "Take the lane" types
might not be if they try to take the lane from a convoy of semis.
That's all.
Bill Baka

Reuben Hick wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
et...
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill wrote:

wrote:
Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we
were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop
sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not
have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he
forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort.

He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him
there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if
his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have
written a letter to the school board.

Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do
not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and
it's possible to take advantage of that.

- Frank Krygowski


Frank,
You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus
drivers around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the
kiddies they tend to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I
have had many close calls with school buses in neighborhood street
conditions. They make illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in
front of me and they expect me to damn well get out of their way.
Again, professional drivers, but with

'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank
Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test
only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to'
lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same
dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them

bull**** job.

Maybe the truckers, some of whom are even illegal Mexicans, but not
for the school bus drivers who have to have a chauffeurs' license.

Oh really? Remember the illegal alien that was driving for Global
Limo? During Hurricane Rita, a nursing home contracted with the limo
company to haul residents to safety out of Houston. The bus had all
kinds of problems, particularly the last problem where it burst into
flames and killed 24 passengers. When the illegal alien driving the
bus discovered it was on fire, he stopped, and quickly abandoned the bus
and never looked back as other motorists stopped and risked their lives
in trying to saved those inside.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...a/3367696.html

That is just so blatantly illegal on so many counts I can't say which is
the worst. Letting so many illegals stay here and not be rounded up.
Global Limo (which should be out of business with it's management in
jail). Maybe the state for not enforcing the 'Chauffeurs' requirement.
At the very least in this case, an all points alert should have been put
out to apprehend this mass murderer and give him a nice warm,
electrified chair.

The illegal alien is still at large (the Bush Administration wanted the
illegal alien to stay in this country as a "material witness") and
believed to be working for yet another bus company.

That just proves how completely dimwitted Bush is. Witness?
Against himself?

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?nam...=print&sid=826

So being an illegal alien gives you special rights to kill and maim
without consequence.

They are getting way too much special treatment. How about issuing the
hunters "Mexican" tags?

There was a lot wrong with this country in 2000. Since baby Bush there
is a lot MORE wrong.
Sigh.
Bill Baka


The truckers are plain dumb.
The bus drivers are arrogant.
Small difference but don't get your bike (or small car) in their way.
Bill Baka



some very bad manners.
Bill Baka

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
forgot who I snipped;).
The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing
someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars
and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't
have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in
good physical shape one-on-one.
I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways
of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them.
It seems a bit crude to me.
Crude people sometimes require crude responses.
It's at this point where I would encourage riders to take at least a
basic self defense or Karate class in case a bully gets out and doesn't
back down.

The problem is that you have to get _really good_ at unarmed self
defense in order to be able to beat someone who is well out of your
weight class and attacking you. Even assuming he is unarmed.

Correct, but a well placed side kick to the knee causing it to blow out
will stop just about any bully. You just have to not miss.
Considering this, avoidance is indeed the best policy.
Bill Baka

Reuben Hick wrote:
"Brent P" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all
sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist
friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist
needed to have a gun.

I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In
two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the
attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a
direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen
to follow.

Guns are our friends.

I used to carry a nice ultra compact Para-Ordinance .45 which came in
handy when two Plano, TX teenage boys who apparently traded in their
bicycles in for a nifty Ford 150 truck courtesy of mom and dad, decided
that Midway Road was for motor vehicles and decided to scream some
"advice" regarding not riding on the road. My mistake was shouting
back "Have a Nice Day" as they must have interpreted that as fighting
words. So they prompty stopped the truck, jumped out and headed
towards me. Now I am a long time weight lifter along with being a
cyclist, and given the level of traffic this seemed like a particularly
stupid thing to do, yet one brandished stainless steal .45 dramatically
lowered their testosterone levels.

Since then I have found that a Taurus Titanium .45 Long Colt is much
ligher, reliable, resistant to the elements, and makes for a highly
influential presentation.

"Holster" is a simple triangle frame bag. Nose down, grip forward,
leaves no print on the bag. I just need to remember to take it off
when locking the bike outside the gym.

I agree with you that if more cagers held in the back of their mind that
the cyclist they are messing with might be armed, they might just stay
in their cars - then again, they may take pre-emptive action and claim
"I didn't see him, officer".

Personally, avoidance trumps confrontation. When the gun comes out,
plan on shelling out at least $10,000 to avoid a criminal record.
Pulling the trigger, might as well sell the home and your assets to feed
the lawyers. Thus I commute at dark-thirty in the morning. Less
traffic, and strangely enough the people on the roads at that time are
FAR more sympathetic to cyclists.

There is a road in Austin, Spicewood Springs, that is an excellent
cycling road if it was only for cyclists, but it is narrow and filled
with twists and hills making passing difficult. Also, the bicyclists
take up the whole lane which by law they can and are recommended to do -
yet, it is terrible PR for the cycling sport. Too many cyclists go out
of their way to "assert their rights" which then translates into all
drivers thinking that all cyclists are Alpha Hotels, which means that we
are the metaphorical dogs that deserve to get kicked when a cager's day
goes bad.

I can travel Jolleyville Road an hour before sunrise and people will
give me wide berth to pass. An hour before sunset and the majority of
the "drivers" on this very same road are maniacal, blind, and a danger
to all cyclists. The thoughtless clods driving box trucks that think its
some sort of competitive sport to see if they can suck your bike under
their tires will do so regardless if they think all cyclists are armed
like Rambo. The Phalkers who are so engrossed in their coversations
will still perform unannounced and immediate right turns on top of
cyclists even if one has a Barrett 50 BMG strapped over the shoulder.

I guess the benefit of packing heat is that the cyclist can amp up the
resistance to cagers who think their two ton vehicle isn't a deadly
weapon but with their skill they can surgically and harmlessly bump the
wayward cyclist off the road "to teach him a lesson". Now we can knock
those mirrors off the car or use the metal bicycle tool to etch some ad
hoc "pinstriping" and when the owner gets even more ****ed, at least
there won't be any fists thrown.

Personally the ONLY reason I pack heat on a bicycle is that I am a
regular CHL holder that is concerned that some perp or a collection of
drunken idiots will view a stranded cyclist (flat tire, broken chain
etc.) after hours as entertainment. Otherwise fleeing is generally a
better idea from an economic and legal standpoint.


Maybe a rifle holder like the cowboys used. I have 2 .22 rifles that
can't be counted as concealed weapons and would be very obvious to any
dip-**** red necks. Of course, given an extra helping of bad luck they
might have a rifle rack in the cab, so....?
Bill Baka

wrote in
:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein
wrote:

BrianNZ wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:



I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by.

They always have the right of way when over taking.


No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to
control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and
behind.



Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to
your speed to give you a buffer?

Yes. Don't they do that for you? They do that for me, for farm
tractors, for stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc.

Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in
fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes.



Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado
(Here is the link:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_d...ed_statutes.ht
m)

You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow all
the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order is:
1) Pedestrian
2) Bicyclist
3) Motorist

So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and are
required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and waiting, then
you must





Aren't there also rules about impeding
the flow of traffic?

Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people
don't fully understand them.

In the USA, there are not only 'maximum speed limits', but
also MINIMUM speeds that are legally required. Drive BELOW that, you
can be ticketed for creating a hazard.


If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your
cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........

I do.

Try it on some road where traffic is moving at 50 + MPH some
time. You'll find out why cars have BUMPERS.





Wayne



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com