Advocacy & Safety - Bike to the right

All too many bicycle advocacy groups are mere extensions of other left wing movements. What we need are some right wing advocacy groups. We should be serious about such right wing issues as crime victims rights, property rights and the freedom to use our bikes where we can, including in various parks and reserves. We need to advocate a cyclist's right to keep and bear arms. There are more than a few posts talking about cyclists being attacked, or victims of road rage. It would be great legally to have the means to deend ourselves, as well as a meaningful right of self defense. Last, we need to view our rights as rights, not as an excuse to curtail motorists' rights.

If cyclists' advocacy is limited to the left, then when the left loses, there is no voice for cyclists.

How about not affiliating cycling to any particular side of the political spectrum? Why do you wish to alienate half the majority of the voting population?

Originally posted by FOG
All too many bicycle advocacy groups are mere extensions of other left wing movements.

This is because many people who claim to be "cycling advocates" aren't really cycling advocates at all - and hence we get stupid ideas like "let's ban bikes from this road or that road for their own safety" or "let's build separate paths that go nowhere".


Originally posted by FOG
What we need are some right wing advocacy groups. We should be serious about such right wing issues as crime victims rights, property rights and the freedom to use our bikes where we can, including in various parks and reserves.

An old chestnut, but one not answered for a while, so here goes. As far as I'm concerned, a separate decision on access for bikes should be made on a park by park basis. There are some areas around here (Nerang State Forest) that should remain open to bicycles, but there are others (Springbrook National Park walking tracks) that should not. It's not about being left or right wing at all, it's about simply having some consideration for the effects and space required for various forms of recreation.


Originally posted by FOG

We need to advocate a cyclist's right to keep and bear arms. There are more than a few posts talking about cyclists being attacked, or victims of road rage. It would be great legally to have the means to deend ourselves, as well as a meaningful right of self defense.

And how far do you realistically expect to get by pointing a gun at a motorist? A bullet cannot physically stop a car, and I know for a fact that many of the drivers around here would simply run you over in a second if you pointed a gun at them. If anything, it would make road rage against cyclists worse than it is now.


Originally posted by FOG

Last, we need to view our rights as rights, not as an excuse to curtail motorists' rights.

It's funny, but most of the posts I see about "banning cars" on this forum seem to come from people who are talking about how society as we know it would disappear if that happened (as if that would be a bad thing) and how terrible it would be. It's not, and never has been, about curtailing motorist's rights.

I honestly don't see how expecting motorists to follow the same laws as everyone else in society is either a left-wing view or an attack on anybody's freedom or rights. I agree with Khuon, let's forget about trying to align ourselves with either side of the political divide. Let's make up our own minds on individual issues.

Hey, FOG - if you don't like it here you are free to leave and go start your own "right-wing" forum. Still a free country the last I checked.

And how far do you realistically expect to get by pointing a gun at a motorist? A bullet cannot physically stop a car, and I know for a fact that many of the drivers around here would simply run you over in a second if you pointed a gun at them. If anything, it would make road rage against cyclists worse than it is now.

Chris

I don't think that FOG is saying that the right to carry a gun protects you from accidents with autos but from attacks by thugs or rabid animals. And experience here does not show increased road rage when folks are armed in fact there appears to be less. Read the book "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. OK its a dull staticits book but it examines the data and presents a conclusion.

Joe

Originally posted by khuon
How about not affiliating cycling to any particular side of the political spectrum? Why do you wish to alienate half the majority of the voting population?

Exactly my point- hitching cycling's advocacy wagon to the green party and friends' horse makes lots of folks think long and hard before supporting reasonable pro-biking projects and efforts. Current advocacy has alienated the majority of the voting population. I would like to see cycling advocates do something to BROADEN the base, not keeep it narrow.

.
I honestly don't see how expecting motorists to follow the same laws as everyone else in society is either a left-wing view or an attack on anybody's freedom or rights. I agree with Khuon, let's forget about trying to align ourselves with either side of the political divide. Let's make up our own minds on individual issues.

I am saying exactly that-enforcement of current laws is a good thing. I also think that the current laws are adequate to protect cyclists, but are not enforced or adhered to

Oh, goody-another.........

Originally posted by ParamountScapin
Hey, FOG - if you don't like it here you are free to leave and go start your own "right-wing" forum. Still a free country the last I checked.

As far as I read it, FOG was merely expressing an opinion on the sort of issues that many cycling advocacy groups concentrate on, and suggesting a few others that they perhaps ignore. I don't recall any criticism of this as a "left-wing" forum or anything else. I don't think it's appropriate to start asking people to "go and start you own right-wing forum" on that basis.

Originally posted by FOG
Exactly my point- hitching cycling's advocacy wagon to the green party and friends' horse makes lots of folks think long and hard before supporting reasonable pro-biking projects and efforts. Current advocacy has alienated the majority of the voting population. I would like to see cycling advocates do something to BROADEN the base, not keeep it narrow.

That may be true. However I also tend to think that many motorists/motoring groups are a little paranoid about bicycles. If you see their behaviour in traffic you'll see that many of them regard being held up by a bicycle for three seconds as much worse than being stuck in car traffic for three hours. The truth is that a lot of the "hitching to the green party" and so on is just stereotyping that other people attach to cyclists. I don't know of any other activity or concept in the history of mankind that attracts the sort of stereotyping/scaremongering that cycling does.

Originally posted by Chris L
I don't know of any other activity or concept in the history of mankind that attracts the sort of stereotyping/scaremongering that cycling does.

I am a member of Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association and the National Rifle Association. I am a pilot and a now and again target shooter. I can assure you that the public fears light airplanes crashing into nuclear plants without any knowledge of the mass of the aircraft or the quntities of fuel carried, and the lack of knowledge and gross misconceptions about shooting are incredible.

I am also a motorcyclist. Drivers seem to find lots of excuses to ignore my rights when I am on the sort of noisy bike. Stereotypes abound there.

I am not a sunbather, or whatever title nudists are using, but I have met some, and they appear to be subject to some powerful stereotyping.

I bet there are a million activites which are stereotyped by those who don't participate in them or understand them.

The issue is whether we can gain a large constituency by appealing to groups not favored by the type of cyclist who is involved in critical mass type events.

As an example, can we appeal to pilots by emphasizing bicycle access to general aviation airports. Can we win friends in the NRA by advocating that bicyclists have the same right to carry cased unloaded rifles and pistols that automobile occupants have. Can we also emphasize the utility of off-road bicycles for hunting. bicyclists may be a large group, but think of the potential allies we have out there whom our erstwhile allies have alienated.

p.s. I'd certainly like to contemplate outreach to nudists but that might belong in a different kind of forum.

Originally posted by FOG

As an example, can we appeal to pilots by emphasizing bicycle access to general aviation airports.

I find that's already the case. Remember that bicycles and airplanes share a very long running relationship and common heritage. Aside from the fact that the earliest pioneers of aviation were cyclists and bicycle mechanics (Wright brothers, Glenn Curtis...) you can also see a great influence from the aerospace industry trickle back into cycling. Just think about the materials from which modern bikes are made. On a more social level, bicycles have been a staple of early airfields for ages. Remember all those old WW2 pictures of the green bicycles the field personnel would use? Folding bicycles make excellent transportable transportation for pilots of light aircraft. I've seen more and more of them advertised in pilot magazines. The same can be said for bikes and boats/sailing.



Originally posted by FOG
Can we win friends in the NRA by advocating that bicyclists have the same right to carry cased unloaded rifles and pistols that automobile occupants have. Can we also emphasize the utility of off-road bicycles for hunting. bicyclists may be a large group, but think of the potential allies we have out there whom our erstwhile allies have alienated.

Well... bikes and guns have already had their links. I mean, there's a whole sport based around riding around a course and shooting at targets (bikathlon).

I think I understand where you're coming from now. Your original post made it seem like you wanted cyclists to swing towards the opposite end of the political spectrum than where they seem to be perceived by the general public. You're instead saying you want to broaden the image by encompassing the entire spectrum. I personally would advocate making politcal part affiliation a non-issue.

And in case you're wondering, I too am a pilot, and a cyclist and a shooter. However, I consider myself neither a conservative nor a liberal... neither republican nor democrat... because I think those types of labels only serve to constrict one's perception of the world as well as constrict other people's perception of oneself. I don't think it's possible to simply apply a pH-like measurement to the way one views the world. People are more complicated than that.


Originally posted by FOG
p.s. I'd certainly like to contemplate outreach to nudists but that might belong in a different kind of forum.

You're really tempting someone (possibly me) to repost that picture of the almost-nude cyclist aren't you? :D

Originally posted by FOG
The issue is whether we can gain a large constituency by appealing to groups not favored by the type of cyclist who is involved in critical mass type events.

I bet there are a million activites which are stereotyped by those who don't participate in them or understand them.


I'm having fun now.

:beer:

Originally posted by FOG
As an example, can we appeal to pilots by emphasizing bicycle access to general aviation airports. Can we win friends in the NRA by advocating that bicyclists have the same right to carry cased unloaded rifles and pistols that automobile occupants have. Can we also emphasize the utility of off-road bicycles for hunting. bicyclists may be a large group, but think of the potential allies we have out there whom our erstwhile allies have alienated.

True. However, one might also ask whether there's really any value in alienating our current allies in the hope that we "might" find a few others. The fact is that there is a lot of anti cyclist bigotry out there, and there are simply some people who are never going to support us.

Hey, look who it is ...

Chris

Don't you think we could attrack more folks without alienating our current supporters? I think as long as it's low key and not insulting to one group it could be done.

Joe

There is no need to add new political agendas to attract people of similar views. This is a cycling website, meant to attact cyclists and people who want to learn about cycling.

There is a Political Discussions forum here which allows members to vent their political views freely, which helps to reduce the incidences of threads being destroyed by off-topic political rants.

Since Advocacy sometimes involves political discussion, this thread has appeared in the Advocacy and Safety forum. But I personally think that's stretching the definition quite a bit, given the original post, "Bike to the Right."

It may be out of courtesy to a new member that this thread has not already been moved to Political Discussions.

Originally posted by FOG
All too many bicycle advocacy groups are mere extensions of other left wing movements. What we need are some right wing advocacy groups. We should be serious about such right wing issues as crime victims rights, property rights...

...We need to advocate a cyclist's right to keep and bear arms.
Again, this is clearly stretching the definition of "cycling advocacy."

All too many bicycle advocacy groups are mere extensions of other left wing movements. What we need are some right wing advocacy groups. We should be serious about such right wing issues as crime victims rights, property rights and the freedom to use our bikes where we can, including in various parks and reserves. We need to advocate a cyclist's right to keep and bear arms. There are more than a few posts talking about cyclists being attacked, or victims of road rage. It would be great legally to have the means to deend ourselves, as well as a meaningful right of self defense. Last, we need to view our rights as rights, not as an excuse to curtail motorists' rights.

Well, FOG, let me take a few minutes to actually respond to a few of your issues:


We should be serious about such right wing issues as crime victims rights, property rights........

Who says we don't??? What a pile of rubbish!


.....the freedom to use our bikes where we can, including in various parks and reserves....

Are you referring to environmentally sensitive nature preserves?? What on earth would make you think that anything more than a small fringe group of sociopathic idiots would advocate such irresponsibility? I mean, really-there are some places where bikes just don't belong. Or are you of the opinion that "nobody is gonna tell me what to do!!"??


We need to advocate a cyclist's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm sorry, but I've already made my views on this subject quite clear. There is never a good reason for carrying a gun while riding a bike. If a can of cap-spray isn't strong enough protection for you, maybe you should try riding someplace safer.


we need to view our rights as rights, not as an excuse to curtail motorists' rights

Well, at least you said something that makes sense.

Bike to the right, or bike to the left?

I see as many reasons to associate pro-bike movements with left-wing politics as I see to associate them with right-wing politics.

For instance, "Fog", you talk of the right to use bikes anywhere (or almost anywhere) as a right-wing idea, I could say that's also a very left-wing idea, maybe even a socialist or a communist idea. For instance, preventing cyclists to use a bridge because it's designated as "freeway" could mean that they have to buy more stuff, a car, and consume more (petrol), when the alternative would be much simpler and much more cost-effective.

Likewise, the vehicular cyclist proponents à la John Forrester could equally be viewed as left-wing (let's share the road and everything else) or right-wing (I have the freedom to be anywhere I want).

That's just an example, but all the points presented in your post and in many of the followups show that a real pro-cycling agenda (as opposed to an anti-car agenda) is neither right-wing or left-wing. It also means that there are people who are pro-bike and who also have political views, and that's fine.

Regards,

Originally posted by D*Alex
There is never a good reason for carrying a gun while riding a bike. If a can of cap-spray isn't strong enough protection for you, maybe you should try riding someplace safer.

There are three good reasons to carry a gun while biking-

1- to defend myself- I cannot ride somewhere safer in terms of crime, because I live where I live. (However, I don't ride armed because I believe in following laws restricting activities which are mala prohibita when there are substantial adverse consequences). Further a gun may provide deense against hostile animals, wild or domestic. If I move to a state which allows more carrying privileges i may carry one for self defense while biking.

2- to transport a gun from one legal place of possession to another. Why should I have to use my car to go to the shooting range when I could bike there.

3- to engage in firearms related activities on a bike, such as hunting. Note that I would suggest that anyone combining these two activities develop a good plan for remaining safe, which would at a minimum include avoiding accidental discharge of the gun and avoiding being mistaken for a game animal if transporting one.

Originally posted by joeprim
Don't you think we could attrack more folks without alienating our current supporters? I think as long as it's low key and not insulting to one group it could be done.

It's already being done that way (read the post from D*Alex for more clarification). However, because of the non-polluting nature of bikes and the perception of us as a "poor relation" in terms of transport, we're always going to be stereotyped as "tree huggers" unless we actually attack the other group. Of course, this stereotype is probably what attracts the support of the other group in the first place, but so what?

It seems to me that there are only two possibilities for getting the support from those we don't have:

1. Attack those who do support us directly (not something I'd recommend, given that we aren't necessarily guaranteed to gain any new support this way)

2. Try to promote ourselves better. This is something I believe cycling advocates generally do very poorly. For example, forget about campaigning for separate, inadequate impractical facilities the way many advocates do. Learn to say "no" to inappropriate facilities in the planning stage instead of the current stance of "we'd better use it, otherwise they won't build any more". And for God's sake, ditch this circus called "critical mass".

In short, let's stop trying to promote the risks and "dangers" of cycling and start promoting the benefits. Then we just might get more wide-ranging support.

Originally posted by FOG
3- to engage in firearms related activities on a bike, such as hunting.

As far as I know, there's no law preventing you from doing this now, apart from the general fire-arm laws governing your part of the world which don't specifically relate to bicycles.

Many people enjoy cycling from all walks of life & many religions (for many of us cycling is a religion:D :( :D ) we are intitled to our own belief,s & pet theories ect but the trick is to keep an open mind & evaluate inpartualy what is being said , be preparied to change your points of veiw, I know I have been known to change my perception of thing with the right information (reluctantly albeit ;) )

Personally I think Fog is stereo typing the advocacy movement himself a lot of the things he mentioned' like the right for cyclists to bear arms is already there and victims rights and all that is a whole 'nother issue. And by the way the advocacy group i belong to has a former governor, County administrator and a couple of legislative types that come from the right this is not a left or right issue nor is it really an environmental issue the issue is to give us all the privileges along with the responsibilities that we are entitled to under the law. What it sounds like is another disgrunteld politic that is not happy because we do not chose to embrace their agenda that goes for the right and the green!

Fog why don't you check out this site (http://www.nra.org) i will bet they would be willing to help you in your quest to own a gun and ride a bike.

OK, I'll jump in the middle. FOG I think is correct, just stated badly for this forum. How many posts have I seen on the evils of the SUV, which really is a left wing idea, and has nothing to do with advocating bicycling. Key words ADVOCATING BICYCLES, 1> ADVOCATE one who pleads anothers cause, 2> BICYCLE light 2 wheeled vehicule with steering handle, saddle and pedals by which it is powered. I do not see SUV's, cars or trucks mentioned in those definitions anywhere. So since FOG is being jumped on to not be political, yet SUV haters are not for the most part, one would only assume, this is a predominate left wing based forum. If that is true, than it is a polical forum, and that being said, only the left wingers would disagree......
:D - :D - :D

Originally posted by fofa
OK, I'll jump in the middle. FOG I think is correct, just stated badly for this forum. How many posts have I seen on the evils of the SUV, which really is a left wing idea, and has nothing to do with advocating bicycling. Key words ADVOCATING BICYCLES, 1> ADVOCATE one who pleads anothers cause, 2> BICYCLE light 2 wheeled vehicule with steering handle, saddle and pedals by which it is powered. I do not see SUV's, cars or trucks mentioned in those definitions anywhere. So since FOG is being jumped on to not be political, yet SUV haters are not for the most part, one would only assume, this is a predominate left wing based forum. If that is true, than it is a polical forum, and that being said, only the left wingers would disagree......
:D - :D - :D

Good try your logic is flawed though SUV bashing is definitely not a left wing agenda if you take a look at all those hollywood liberal types they all drive SUV's leave it to the right wing to turn everything into a political debate we do have a political forum on this site just for all of that why don't we use this forum for what is meant for BICYCLE ADVOCACY! so if you want to discuss bike laws or trails or action involving that go ahead but if you want to discuss gun control go to the political forum or www.nra.org they will be happy to help you all

Originally posted by fofa
...since FOG is being jumped on to not be political, yet SUV haters are not for the most part, one would only assume, this is a predominate left wing based forum.
Any attempt to divide cyclists into "left wing" and "right wing" is purely political and has absolutely nothing to do with cycling.

If several political forces unite under one cause, it is called front.

Bicycle front. Or maybe - cycling front.

Who knows. Things do change. There is no state left in Europe, which existed in 14 th century. The only exception is Malta.

Perhaps we will see the appearance of new political parties, which deal with most acute current problems, like ecological collapse, climate worsening, etc.

I have never viewed bicycling advocacy as a liberal cause. Public roads are necessarily a socialized utility, as are water mains, sewage systems, and electricity grids. Every citizen has a fundamental right to mobility, which includes reasonably safe, convenient accommodation on our road system, most of which is financed out of general tax revenues. (Gasoline tax revenues maintain the interstate highway system.) Roads are for people, not just for people in cars.

For the record, within the U.S. political spectrum, I am a slightly libertarian-leaning centrist, as are many of my "baby boomer" contemporaries.

Originally posted by John E
Roads are for people, not just for people in cars.


Well, i think that is not quite correct. We place all kinds of restrictions to lane access based upon speed (passing lanes), or vehicle size (no-truck lanes). Laws generally require the 'people' you prattle about to either cross the street in designated areas (crosswalks/intersections) or walk on the sidewalk. Just because a road receives public funding at one point does not mean it has unrestricted access. Are railroads for people, not just for people in trains? Are runways for people, not just for people in planes?

Such restrictions are not part some neo-republican fascist oil-magnate conspiracy to get us to drive cars and trucks. Such vehicles are afforded the privilege to drive on the highways at speed because, among other things, the safety and signaling features which they possess. bicycles do not Futhermore, as the slowest vehicle on the road in most (not all) cases I can understand being confined to the right lane and/or shoulder.

In fact as I always claim on this board...we don't need bike paths, bike lanes, or any other such fancy things. The roads need a consistent shoulder. Would save many lives of cyclists and drivers.

roughstuff

Where I came from, bikes were always viewed in a utilitarian. practical manner....it was used to get from point A to B. (I'm from the Far East, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan etc.) It is sad that bicycling is not considered a normal part of everyday existance in this country and the spectra of "advocacy' has to be raised. I live in a city considered the 2nd worst city in the country to bike. Not so much because of the lack of good bicycling shoulders, but just a general ignorance by the public about the rights of bicyclists and lack of general acceptance of bicyclists on the road.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roughstuff
[B] Are railroads for people, not just for people in trains? Are runways for people, not just for people in planes?

Most of the public funding that goes to the railroads are for Amtrak and the tracks are paid for and maintained by the railroads. And lets be a little realistic here runways and roads, hmm apple and oranges. Bike trials are a plus to the community like parks but should not be considered in the mix for commuters they are only good for that if you live on one of them and it happens to go where you are. As a officially recognized vehicle in every sate of the union then why am I not allowed to ride in the road. And a tax payer to boot. Again I ask the question why has this forum turned into a right/left thing there are many many commuters ouy there that are Conservative as I said before one of the leading voices in thew bicycle community here in the 70's and 80's was Tim Hill who rode his bike to work where he was the King county Administrators, Republican. Again for those of you the at want to discuss left/right issues there is a political forum on this site. I really have not seen much right bashing in this forum it is for advocacy. And as far as bike lanes they have evolved out of safety issues most cars do not think we belong on the road but paint a white line down the road and but a pic of a bike and they will give us that space without complaining it is a psychological thing. I otherwise do agree with you we shouldn't need it.

Originally posted by JohnE
Roads are for people, not just for people in cars.


Originally posted by Roughstuff
Laws generally require the 'people' you prattle about to either cross the street in designated areas (crosswalks/intersections) or walk on the sidewalk.
The law provides pedestrians with specific rights. As for motorists, their use of the roads is legally termed a "privilege," not a right, which can be revoked. I've never heard of a pedestrian's right to walk being suspended, or a pedestrian or cyclist being required to get a license.

Often, it is the lawless and dangerous behavior of motorists that threaten the safety of non-drivers. Therefore, motorists are the ones that should be regulated more severely, not cyclists and pedestrians.

Originally posted by cbhungry
, but just a general ignorance by the public about the rights of bicyclists and lack of general acceptance of bicyclists on the road.

I think that ignorance is the biggest problem we face as cyclist. Most states do not take bikes into consideration when teaching drivers ed. And then there is the other side of the coin, the cyclists who seem not to be aware of their responsibilities. And don't dare mention licensing to them (which every other vehicle in the road is required) unless you are flame proof. I agree with Pete (Though Washingtons law uses the term "Rights and Responsibilities) that it should be privligages the "Rights" word is used way to much in our society these days.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
As for motorists, their use of the roads is legally termed a "privilege," not a right, which can be revoked. I've never heard of a pedestrian's right to walk being suspended, or a pedestrian or cyclist being required to get a license.

Often, it is the lawless and dangerous behavior of motorists that threaten the safety of non-drivers. Therefore, motorists are the ones that should be regulated more severely, not cyclists and pedestrians.

Correct. Lets not argue over things which we agree on. I also referred to the 'privilege' of driving a car.

I think motorists are already regulated more severely than bikes are. They have requirements for inspection, pollution controls, registration, excise taxes, and insurance, etc. Cyclists do not.

Never heard of jaywalking? Thats when your right to cross is suspended and/or regulated.

My only point is that the road is a heavily regulated public space.

roughstuff

This is all good food for thought, it does seem like people who consider themselves "conservative" more often than not think the only fit transportation for a US adult is the one that burns fuel purchased from folks who have demonstrated themselves to be our enemies--if the Saudis truly oppose terrorism then Cannondale opposes aluminum bicycles! The cycling and alt trans communities should be advertising with themes that use the reddest necked, heaviest-handed patriotic appeals--compare car-only travelers to Jane Fonda making nice to the North Vietnamese, for instance. Sort of a Bill Maher-ish approach; "When you drive alone you drive with Bin Laden." It takes either no brain or no shame to put the stars and stripes on a car!

Originally posted by Roughstuff
I think motorists are already regulated more severely than bikes are. They have requirements for inspection, pollution controls, registration, excise taxes, and insurance, etc. Cyclists do not.
Cylclists do not need pollution controls. Neither do they need the other mandatory controls you mention.


Never heard of jaywalking? Thats when your right to cross is suspended and/or regulated.
A pedestrian has certain rights. I never said one of them was the right to jaywalk. And yet, if you do jaywalk, you can't have your "right to walk" revoked, like drivers can have their license revoked.


My only point is that the road is a heavily regulated public space.
The road is heavily regulated because of the danger motorists and truckers present. Ask any motorist.

Motorized vehicles are the undisputed danger on the roads, killing about 40,000 car users per year in the U.S. alone. If they are regulated, it's because they need it desperately.

Originally posted by Roughstuff
Laws generally require the 'people' you prattle about...

roughstuff
prattle
SYLLABICATION: prat¡Ptle
INTRANSITIVE VERB: To talk or chatter idly or meaninglessly; babble or prate.
TRANSITIVE VERB: To utter or express by chattering foolishly or babbling.
NOUN: 1. Idle or meaningless chatter; babble.
2. A sound suggestive of such chattering; a babbling noise.

I've never considered anything John Eldon said to be, "prattle."

Originally posted by Roughstuff
I think motorists are already regulated more severely than bikes are. They have requirements for inspection, pollution controls, registration, excise taxes, and insurance, etc. Cyclists do not.

Being "regulated" only works effectively if the laws are actually policed. I think one of the points mentioned by FOG at the start of this thread related to law enforcement, and on this one I have to agree with him. I see a lot of cycling groups trying to advocate lower speed limits and whatever else, let's start by actually having the existing ones enforced properly.

Originally posted by FOG
I am saying exactly that-enforcement of current laws is a good thing. I also think that the current laws are adequate to protect cyclists, but are not enforced or adhered to
I agree with FOG that enforcement of current laws is a good thing.

I disagree that the current laws are adequate to protect cyclists, since they are not enforced.

Sure, let's have some right-wing bicyclist advocacy!

I'm quite impressed with the offerings of this company, Eders.Com, "The outdoorsman's only store."

First off, if you figure you'll have time to aim first, and weight high on your bike doesn't bother you, then this little number might be just what you're looking for --

http://www.eders.com/catalog/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=15130&DID=9

It says it's a rifle mount, but I'm sure you could probably get a shotgun in there, too.

For those of you who aren't going to take urban decay sitting down, you can stand up for your own li'l piece of it with this item that'll make you the El Kabong of quick-draw artists:

http://www.eders.com/catalog/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=348&DID=9

Frankly, I'm surprised Lance doesn't have one of those. I thought everybody goes heavy in Texas!

Glad to be of service, &c.

Originally posted by MassBiker
Sure, let's have some right-wing bicyclist advocacy!

I'm quite impressed with the offerings of this company, Eders.Com, "The outdoorsman's only store."

First off, if you figure you'll have time to aim first, and weight high on your bike doesn't bother you, then this little number might be just what you're looking for --

http://www.eders.com/catalog/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=15130&DID=9

It says it's a rifle mount, but I'm sure you could probably get a shotgun in there, too.

For those of you who aren't going to take urban decay sitting down, you can stand up for your own li'l piece of it with this item that'll make you the El Kabong of quick-draw artists:

http://www.eders.com/catalog/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=348&DID=9

Frankly, I'm surprised Lance doesn't have one of those. I thought everybody goes heavy in Texas!

Glad to be of service, &c.

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to rapidfire.

Seriously though, when I lived in reasonable commuting distance, I couldn't commute because the DC neighborhoods I would have ridden through were too dangerous. A friend of mine abandoned a similar commute after being chased with rocks, bottles, and racial epithets. I don't see a huge crime wave in Texas, and I don't think it is because all the bad guys are glued to their TV sets watching Lance win the tour. I think it is because Texas allows concealed carry. On the other hand, the District of Columbia and New York City have some of the toughest gun laws in the US, but seem to have some serious gun crime problems. I don't say that gun carrying ends crime, but it sure doesn't seem to cause any additional.

btw- for weight weeenies there are now titanium handguns.

Riding while trying to shoot would be difficult, at best. I prefer to keep both hands on the handlebars.

One man got sick of rednecks plastering him with bottles and cans, so he took a pistol with him. Next time they approached, he was ready. He pulled out the pistol, and the rednecks plastered him again--this time with bullets.

He survived, but I doubt he'll try that one again.