Violence works?

Aranesp said:

I am currently considering packing a gun, in case a car pulls over and the driver is 7 feet tall. A gun can be used to cause serious damage to the vehicle, as well as protecting yourself.

Just make sure you have a way to protect your bung hole in jail too.

While you need to communicate with people on their level and neanderthal cumwads may not understand anything other than violence, it will always just escalate until the winner is rewarded with prison sentance (unless you are smart waiting for the perfect Machiavellian revenge, and don't get caught 😉 ). Better just to live and let live, turn the other cheek, that kind of stuff.

Today I had some jerk lay on his horn, skim me, then make a fast right turn in front of me into his development. I thought about following him (I have done this but it usually just results in a shouting match), but instead I just gave him a one finger salute and thought later about all the things I could/should have said to him after following him to his house. I think minus the one finger salute, it was probably the right choice since I am not going to change who he is as a person anyway. Someone running you off the road is different, but still, best to get the LP# and let Johnny Law take care of it.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

Both quotes from Einstein.

Violence is bad, period. Stooping to the level of rogue drivers doesn't fix anything. Understanding on the other hand, will change things.

wilmar13 said:

Just make sure you have a way to protect your bung hole in jail too.

While you need to communicate with people on their level and neanderthal cumwads may not understand anything other than violence, it will always just escalate until the winner is rewarded with prison sentance (unless you are smart waiting for the perfect Machiavellian revenge, and don't get caught 😉 ). Better just to live and let live, turn the other cheek, that kind of stuff.

Today I had some jerk lay on his horn, skim me, then make a fast right turn in front of me into his development. I thought about following him (I have done this but it usually just results in a shouting match), but instead I just gave him a one finger salute and thought later about all the things I could/should have said to him after following him to his house. I think minus the one finger salute, it was probably the right choice since I am not going to change who he is as a person anyway. Someone running you off the road is different, but still, best to get the LP# and let Johnny Law take care of it.

Johnny Law never takes care of it. If I wanted to kill anybody, it should definetly be whilst driving.

Seriously, if we strip this discussion of all the dogmas, ideologies, whatever, is there any reason at all why I shouldn't pop the driver who deliberately skimmed you? The world doesn't need dangerous scum like that? And you took the words out of my mouth.. you won't change him, no matter how profound the argument, and my place is littered with this trash.

Quoted post said:

Violence is bad, period. Stooping to the level of rogue drivers doesn't fix anything. Understanding on the other hand, will change things.

1. Violence is bad is a dogma, and that argument does nothing for me.
2. Stooping to their level fixes something- it gets rid of the rogue drivers, and other drivers might get afraid of bikers.
3. Understanding is something you haven't brought into this discussion.

Don't get all politically correct with me. I haven't completely made up my mind on this, give me a good argument, not [censored].

Have fun being violent towards someone in a 1 ton hunk of steel, versus your biking shorts and titanium/aluminum/steel frame. Mass x Velocity = force. 1 ton, times 30+ miles an hour = you broken and bleeding (and most likely deceased) on the ground. That's why you need understanding, and why violence is bad, period.

More importantly, cyclists are a minority on the roads. You know what happens when members of a small niche` start getting violent towards a majority? Then cyclists can all start enjoying the stigma that skateboarders do... be viewed as destruvtive, as dangerous, as something to be scared of. A stigma that will be applied to all of us, just because you decided to lash out.

Want to improve things? Don't buy a gun. Talk to your town council and see about getting bike lanes put on your roads. Hell, campaign for it. Don't be destructive, be constructive. Stooping to the level of rogue drivers is bad for everyone.

Aranesp said:

Johnny Law never takes care of it. If I wanted to kill anybody, it should definetly be whilst driving.

Not true. Maybe they don't get 'em all the time or even most of the time, but they do get 'em.

Aranesp said:

Seriously, if we strip this discussion of all the dogmas, ideologies, whatever, is there any reason at all why I shouldn't pop the driver who deliberately skimmed you? The world doesn't need dangerous scum like that? And you took the words out of my mouth.. you won't change him, no matter how profound the argument, and my place is littered with this trash.

Well, if we're going to strip arguments of dogma, ideologies, or whatever, then you won't have anything left in your argument. Yours is chock full of your own ideology and is over-flowing with vigilanteism. And with your attitude, how are you any different than the "trash" you rant about? Answer: you're not.

Aranesp said:

1. Violence is bad is a dogma, and that argument does nothing for me.

It's not a dogma: it's a fact. I've yet to see any studies promoting the benefits of violence.

Aranesp said:

2. Stooping to their level fixes something- it gets rid of the rogue drivers, and other drivers might get afraid of bikers.

No, it fixes nothing. It does perpetuate a violent cycle or escalate things to a level that's even more unacceptable. Moreover, who says you or anyone is fit to judge who should be "violently" eradicated? You must have some omniscient powers that you're not telling people about.

Aranesp said:

Don't get all politically correct with me. I haven't completely made up my mind on this, give me a good argument, not [censored].

You want to be a member of society? Then you have to play by the accepted rules (aka, laws) that society has established. Without adherence to these rules, societies fall apart. That is another fact. There are a lot more people in cars than on bikes, and even if every bike rider packed a gun so that he/she could "remove trash" whenever he/she felt it necessary, it wouldn't be long before more drivers started using their cars to remove cycling trash, or people hid behind bushes and shot at cyclists. Cyclists would become pariahs or even bigger pariahs in their communities, and everything that cyclists have worked for--respect, access to roads, laws to protect cyclists and codify cyclists' rights--well, all that would be [censored] away in short order.

wiggles said:

Talk to your town council and see about getting bike lanes put on your roads. Hell, campaign for it.

Please don't do this, they are great ideas but terrible in practice. Bike lanes become repositories for broken glass, nails, and other debris because there is no traffic to sweep them clean. You end up not able to ride in them without a mountain bike with tire liners, riding on the edge of them to avoid said debris, REALLY pissing motorists off. Spend your time and energy lobbying for motorist education programs, or in the case of new roads, wider right lanes, but please please don't ask for more counter-productive bike lanes.

wilmar13 said:

Please don't do this, they are great ideas but terrible in practice. Bike lanes become repositories for broken glass, nails, and other debris because there is no traffic to sweep them clean. You end up not able to ride in them without a mountain bike with tire liners, riding on the edge of them to avoid said debris, REALLY pissing motorists off. Spend your time and energy lobbying for motorist education programs, or in the case of new roads, wider right lanes, but please please don't ask for more counter-productive bike lanes.

*shrug* The lanes back in my home town were kept immaculate... they ran along the roads since there was no parallel parking, so they got swept daily when the cleaning folks came through. Either way, we can both agree to try to make a positive change for everyone.

wilmar13 said:

Please don't do this, they are great ideas but terrible in practice. Bike lanes become repositories for broken glass, nails, and other debris because there is no traffic to sweep them clean. You end up not able to ride in them without a mountain bike with tire liners, riding on the edge of them to avoid said debris, REALLY pissing motorists off. Spend your time and energy lobbying for motorist education programs, or in the case of new roads, wider right lanes, but please please don't ask for more counter-productive bike lanes.

Hmmmm. Bike lanes work great around here (Tucson). And with the recently passed transportation thingee, we're getting more bike lanes(300 more miles or so)/widened roads, as well as intersections that are more cycling friendly.

wiggles said:

*shrug* The lanes back in my home town were kept immaculate... they ran along the roads since there was no parallel parking, so they got swept daily when the cleaning folks came through. Either way, we can both agree to try to make a positive change for everyone.

Well even if you somehow convince local government to spend the resources necessary to maintain the bike lanes (good luck on that), can you install bike lanes everywhere? They only reinforce the image that a bicycle doesn't belong on a "regular road" justifying to [censored] motorists their behavior if you happen to be riding on a road without the painted line "bike lane". IMO "share the road" signs and wider shoulders are a much better solution to limit road rage directed towards cyclists... and eliminating the motorist's ignorance of cyclists rights to be on the road is one way to avoid the violence dilemma altogether.

alienator said:

Hmmmm. Bike lanes work great around here (Tucson). And with the recently passed transportation thingee, we're getting more bike lanes(300 more miles or so)/widened roads, as well as intersections that are more cycling friendly.

Well that is good. I guess it depends on how you define works great, and if you consider it could be better. Google "vehicular cycling". We all want safer roads for cycling, there are several schools of thought on how to achieve this I guess.

Probably depends on the cyclist too. A 35 year old lady riding to the coffee shop on a hybrid, feels much safer about the lane dedicated to her (even with debris) than a racer who rides 20-30mph and is comfortable weaving through heavy traffic.

wilmar13 said:

Well that is good. I guess it depends on how you define works great, and if you consider it could be better. Google "vehicular cycling". We all want safer roads for cycling, there are several schools of thought on how to achieve this I guess.

Probably depends on the cyclist too. A 35 year old lady riding to the coffee shop on a hybrid, feels much safer about the lane dedicated to her (even with debris) than a racer who rides 20-30mph and is comfortable weaving through heavy traffic.

It seems to be a good solution here, especially in a metro area that has nearly 500,000 people and only one major highway thru town. In addition to the bike lanes, there are "share the road" signs everywhere and a state law requiring drivers give a cyclist 3 feet when passing said cyclist. Drivers can be cited for non-compliance.

As for the debris. There doesn't seem to be any more debris in cycling lanes than on any of the roads w/out cycling lanes.

FWIW, Tucson is a pretty cycling aware town, so we have that going for us.

wilmar13 said:

Please don't do this, they are great ideas but terrible in practice. Bike lanes become repositories for broken glass, nails, and other debris because there is no traffic to sweep them clean. You end up not able to ride in them without a mountain bike with tire liners, riding on the edge of them to avoid said debris, REALLY pissing motorists off. Spend your time and energy lobbying for motorist education programs, or in the case of new roads, wider right lanes, but please please don't ask for more counter-productive bike lanes.

Maybe in your world. Where I live the designated bike routes through the city are actually good roads to ride since they are set up with stop signs at every intersection which most cars won't take. It's done deliberately and the bike lanes are designated with paint and the lanes are wide. There are other streets designated with bike lanes that are full of traffic, yet the lanes are plenty safe enough. Most drivers I interact with are polite toward cyclists. You apparently don't live in a bike-friendly place.

Aranesp said:

I am currently considering packing a gun, in case a car pulls over and the driver is 7 feet tall. A gun can be used to cause serious damage to the vehicle, as well as protecting yourself.

great, and if the driver has a gun too?

the BBC called America 'the land of sun, fat people and guns'

i thought it was a bit of a generalisation but i get thier point now.

Are you interested in buying my spare Uzi handlebar brackets? They feature a quick release button for rapid dismount under fire, and have 15 degrees of float for in-motion strafing.

£20 for the pair.

Wheelist.

Commiting a crime because someone else commits a crime doesn't make sense.

Bike lanes that are along the side of parked cars, ie in the door zones are just plain dangerous and they then imply that the cyclist is not on the correct part of the road, when they ride just outside the door zone, which is also outside of the bike lane.

What's a bike lane????
I don't carry a gun because....... I have enough redneck in me to cause me to use it if someone pisses me off.
That is called self awareness.

mikesbytes said:

Commiting a crime because someone else commits a crime doesn't make sense.

Quite right. A thought put to one of the threads on www.26inches.com was to look at getting some evidence against drivers, and one guy came up with the idea of one of those lightweight cameras with a flash sort of memory (Tony Hawk was marketing one). Just an idea.

Balderick said:

Quite right. A thought put to one of the threads on www.26inches.com was to look at getting some evidence against drivers, and one guy came up with the idea of one of those lightweight cameras with a flash sort of memory (Tony Hawk was marketing one). Just an idea.

Here nytimes.com29camera.htmlOpen ↗ is a link to the camera I was referring to.

Aranesp said:

Don't get all politically correct with me. I haven't completely made up my mind on this, give me a good argument, not [censored].

Really think you could draw, aim, and fire faster than that hick can swing his steering wheel? And when your mangled corpse is found on the side of the road with a gun next to it you better believe that driver isn't being charged with anything. Even if he did start it. Adding more tension to a situation like that greatly decreases your odds of making it home at the end of the day.