To my (limited) knowledge, bicyclists have a right to defend themselves within a 3 foot buffer in Wisconsin. Most who choose to exercise this right do so using a bike lock, but as I said, I've heard of people falling off their bikes, risking injury, by doing so. That is the harm I'm trying to reduce.
Cars are inherently violent and appeal to the violent/sexual part of human nature (c.f. the writings of JG Ballard, esp. "Crash"), so it's not inciting someone to violence to suggest more skillful means for defending against existing violence. Note that blackjacks are described in the appended links as *defensive* weapons. It's not at all the same as intentionally dooring a bicyclist because shock jocks joked about it on a corporate PR front radio station. Arguably, using a blackjack on the side of a vehicle coming too close might be the one thing that might discourage that behavior enough to prevent that driver from killing a bicyclist or pedestrian in the future. If it takes repetition, maybe we should all get out there with them. Point taken about teachable moments though. My solution was to move to the east side, where it's safer. The oil economy is about to collapse anyhow if Hubbert's Peak is to be believed, so maybe we should just be patient a little longer and pity the fools who have acclimated themselves to the unsustainable oil culture. How will they even breed, without their SUVs?? Alex T. > > From: Joseph King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/07/24 Thu AM 11:42:25 CDT > To: Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bikies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Bikies] right on red? > > Inciting others to violence are we, Alex? > > I'm sure none of us think so but what if an AAA member took Alex to court > over his implication that we should be striking vehicles? The full context > of his comments are only truly understood if you've been reading bikies for > awhile. While I don't support what was reportedly said on that radio > station, I still have no doubt that determining whether they were comments > that would incite violence or not cannot be determined by a report on the > Internet. > > Personally, I have always found dark humor relating to revenge on motor > vehicles very liberating and I know why this is. The fact is we are under > threat every day. It is almost impossible to ride in and out of Madison > without seeing at least one imprudent act that puts the safety of others in > jeopardy (motorists and cyclists). Mostly these are thoughtless acts that > would require a second coincident lapse for the consequences of the danger > to be realized. The fact is too many motorists are simply impatient with > anything and everything that is in their way. > > More importantly for me, however, is to remember what an authority on > bicycling once told me -- "encounters on the road are not teachable > moments." It took me a while to learn but my rides are much more pleasant > now that I am able to let these discourteous, ignorant, dangerous, or even > hostile acts roll off my back. Although in the later case, I will also > call the police. > > --joe > (Forward posting and proud of it. If you need the context, you know where > it is and if you don't, it's not in the way...) > > At 11:01 AM 7/24/2003 -0500, Alex Turner wrote: > >If motorized vehicles came within the three foot distance, he'd pock them > >down the side. Vehicles making a right turn without looking would be fair > >game for this self-defense option. Perhaps bike-shops could sell the > >devices. Here's one that's commercially available . . . > > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
