From: jammer@eskimo.com (Lyle Harwood)
Subject: Re: Bicycles are Vehicles (was Mandatory Helmets)
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 09:43:18 GMT

Dennis Wicks (wix@eskimo.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec10.031248.17806@eskimo.com> timf@eskimo.com
(Timothy R. Flanagan) writes:
: >                             I only ride on the sidewalk when I have
to
: >(bicyclists *do* have to, as we aren't allowed to park anywhere
else).
: >When I am on the sidewalk, I ride at a velocity equal to that of the
: >pedestrians, sometimes slower so as not to frighten them.  (There's
nothing
: >quite so unpredictable as a wide-eyed pedestrian trying to jump out
of the
: >way of a bicycle.  They *always* seem to jump *into* one's path.)
: >
: There is nothing quite so unpredictable as a cyclist wobbling
: down the sidewalk at a speed so slow they can barely keep their
: balance.  They always seem to wobble right in front of you.
: 
: Cyclists _never_ have to ride on the side walk!  Dismount and
: become a pedestrian.  Walk your bike when you are on the
: sidewalk.
: 
: Other than that, I admire your attitude and actions.  I wore out
: several bicycles of various makes before I learned to drive, so I
: know what it is like to be out there among the four-wheeled
: beasts on a two-wheeler!

There is one more issue I haven't seen addressed here.
That issue is that I pay a considerable amount of money on a yearly
basis
in the form of liscense fees to use *my* roads.

Bicylclist do not. 

The issue would be resolved, in my mind, by any tax, even a token, but
as it is, I do not share the use of a resource that I have purchased 
with people who have not contributed to it's upkeep.

The idea that I be inconvienced in any way by someone useing a resource
that I've purchased is abhorent to me. I did not purchase it for them.

Officer Flanagan, you seem like a reasonable man, and a credit to your
uniform. You sound like the type of man I want as a police officer.

[A
Except for one statement.

Force will never change nor alter my mind, only reason will.
When any weapon makes it's appearance, any discussion with me will
cease, instantly, to be about the subject we WERE talking about,
and will become a contest of force.

You are correct, in my opinion, in your assumption that even with a gun,
you are seriously "outgunned" when facing a person in a motor vehicle.
In keeping with my statement above that I want men like you as police
officers, I urge you to reconsider your tactic of displaying weapons
to motorist. 

You may run into someone who will immediately enter a contest of force
with you.

It would be a shame to lose an officer of your caliber.

The way you described the incident in question, you used your
authorization to carry concealed weapons as an instrument of
"payback".

This is a sane use of deadly force? 

You were in no danger, officer. Furthermore, you targeted the wrong
person...

I carried a gun for 5 years before I sobered up.
The one thing I learned, because of the finality of the option, was how
to controll my temper.

I am still sensitive to an implied use of deadly force. 
I still would not tolerate it around me.

Such actions are the actions of punks, street gangs, and children of the
type I used to be.

I urge you not to display your weapon untill you intend to use it.
I also urge you, by the same token, not to hesitate if you do.
Fireing a weapon may end, if not solve, a problem, but pointing never
will.

Newsgroups: seattle.general