options?

[chewy555]

He is not riding a motorcycle to work, its a bicycle. I have not seen saddlebags for a bicycle.

My apologies. This is why I should not post before 7am, or at least until I've had 2 cups of coffee first.

Well, should you decide to get a motorcycle, you've got a good source for saddlebags now!

Thats ok. I had to read the post 2 times before I saw that it was a bicycle. Thanks for the info on the saddlebags, I will be looking for a motorcycle soon and may want to put saddlebags on it.

KaiserB, I had not seen those before. Thanks for the info.

[KaiserB]

He is not riding a motorcycle to work, its a bicycle. I have not seen saddlebags for a bicycle.

My apologies. This is why I should not post before 7am, or at least until I've had 2 cups of coffee first.

Well, should you decide to get a motorcycle, you've got a good source for saddlebags now!

Thats ok. I had to read the post 2 times before I saw that it was a bicycle. Thanks for the info on the saddlebags, I will be looking for a motorcycle soon and may want to put saddlebags on it.

KaiserB, I had not seen those before. Thanks for the info.

One other option I just thought of is getting an over the tire (rear) rack and bolting a small metal ammo box to it. Then use this method to make it secure: http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/lo ... mocant.htm

That way you could lock the box separate from the bike if needed or just lock the box while it is on the bike.

[mr.72]

Bike is stored INSIDE the building.

There is no place to lock a bicycle outside the building, and even if there was, that is a major theft magnet.

Have any of you guys ridden a bicycle any distance before? Putting 10+ lb of extra racks, boxes, etc. onto the bicycle and riding it to work are just simply not an option. A hard plastic lockable pistol case small enough that it only holds a pistol and nothing else would be ok, as long as I could take it into the building in my bag and put it in my locker. However this is obviously not going to work.

Things like this make a CHL kind of useless for a lot of people. I know, not you.

[DoubleJ]

but I'm assuming that your bike doesn't have hard-saddlebags that lock like an Ultra Classic or a Gold Wing. There is a company that makes saddlebags for nearly all types of bikes called Leatherlyke. They're not terribly cheap but they are lockable, hard saddlebags. I'm actually going to buy these b/c my leather saddlebags are pretty much worn out, and I think they're rather nice. This would be equivalent to locking in a car, IMHO. Just a thought. Good luck on your predicament.

He is not riding a motorcycle to work, its a bicycle. I have not seen saddlebags for a bicycle.

"Well, why don't you cry about it, saddlebags!?"

[The Annoyed Man]

As it is, it looks like since my employer will not allow me to secure the gun on the premises, then I cannot effectively carry while on my ~1 hr each way bicycle commute.

I am making no judgment here because each of us has to figure out to what extent we are willing to change things in order to be able to be armed, and where exactly that desire to be armed fits into our other priorities. That being said...

...why not just drive your car to work? What are your motivations for insisting on riding a bicycle instead of driving? Again, I'm making no judgment, but are you placing being "green" or getting exercise ahead of being armed? It seems to me that, since you have a situation in which the "green/exercise" options necessarily cancel out the "armed" option, then you've already realized that you can't have both, and you've made that choice in favor of the former over the latter. That's fine for you, if you've decided that this is your particular priority in recognition of the fact that you can't have both.

OTH, if not being armed during your commute is really bothering you, then you should accept the fact that you can't have both, and put that priority above the "green/exercise" priorities - and change your routine accordingly. We would all like to have our cake and eat it too, but life doesn't usually work out that way often requires making adjustments.

(...plus, your 1 hr each way suddenly becomes 20 minutes, and you have time for that second cup of coffee before leaving the house... )

[mr.72]

being armed is not my top priority in my life.

Life has to have balance... I am painfully aware that many people on this forum, and on other gun-related forums, do not seem to value balance in their lives with respect to being armed or gun ownership.

I ride my bicycle to work for a large number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the so-called "green" movement. They have mostly to do with my own fitness, time management, stress level, fuel cost, and convenience, in that order. I understand that most Americans don't value fitness. I also understand that most Americans also don't understand time management or stress management. So I don't expect any sympathy on this forum or any other internet forum regarding my choices in favor of these things.

We need a legal option.

Unfortunately most cyclists and gun owners are at opposite ends of the political spectrum so I see little odds of any ground being gained in favor of a legal option. A lot of gun owners would rather just run over me with their gigantic truck and think that bicycles should not be allowed on public roads anyway. A lot of cyclists think big trucks should not be allowed on public roads and gun owners should not be allowed to vote. I think a lot of the bubbas who harrass cyclists may well be gun owners and the last thing they want is armed cyclists who can fight back!

[bdickens]

I would suggest that you write to your State Representatives outlining your dilemma and asking for their help in fixing it. You can't be the only CHL in Texas with the same or similar problem. I know if I worked a lot closer to home, I'd probably want to bicycle to work, too.

[mr.72]

Thanks, Byron. I will do that.

[The Annoyed Man]

being armed is not my top priority in my life.

Life has to have balance... I am painfully aware that many people on this forum, and on other gun-related forums, do not seem to value balance in their lives with respect to being armed or gun ownership.

Like I said, I make no judgment about your priorities. To each his own, as long as it doesn't involve unnecessarily killing another human being. I was merely curious about your reasons for not wanting to change your routine. But you have to recognize that what is "balance" for you may not be "balance" for someone else. Everybody has a different point of equilibrium. It's one of the things that I love about my Christian faith is that Jesus meets us where we are.

I ride my bicycle to work for a large number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the so-called "green" movement. They have mostly to do with my own fitness, time management, stress level, fuel cost, and convenience, in that order. I understand that most Americans don't value fitness. I also understand that most Americans also don't understand time management or stress management. So I don't expect any sympathy on this forum or any other internet forum regarding my choices in favor of these things.

I actually did offer exercise (or "fitness," as you put it) as a possible reason for your having made this choice, nor did I condemn it. I merely pointed out the incompatibility of it with both the current laws and your employer's intransigence.

We need a legal option.

I completely agree.

Unfortunately most cyclists and gun owners are at opposite ends of the political spectrum so I see little odds of any ground being gained in favor of a legal option.

I'm a bike owner and rider, and a politically conservative gun owner. So are most of my friends. We don't choose necessarily to commute on our bicycles, but then there are some very good reasons for driving a car instead - like needing to meet with clients at greater distances than bicycling makes practical, or in my case, being physically limited by how long I can stand riding a bicycle because of pain management. One of my two best friends back in California is a politically liberal lawyer. He is also (or was, before I moved) my principal biking buddy. He drives a car from his home in Tujunga to his office in Century City (about 30 miles), because he also has to appear in court (in other parts of Los Angeles), and go see clients. I will bet that if you surveyed a majority of citizens who share your particular political viewpoint, you would find that they also do not commute by either bicycle or public transportation. By the way, they are a major reason why you do not enjoy the options you desire regarding carrying your weapons. You can't blame that one on gun owners. We'll actually support making it more practical for you to go about being armed if that is your wish.

A lot of gun owners would rather just run over me with their gigantic truck and think that bicycles should not be allowed on public roads anyway. A lot of cyclists think big trucks should not be allowed on public roads and gun owners should not be allowed to vote. I think a lot of the bubbas who harrass cyclists may well be gun owners and the last thing they want is armed cyclists who can fight back!

I can't help but think that might be a little bit extreme. Like I said, I make no judgment about your priorities, but you are seeing things from a very one-sided viewpoint when it comes to sharing the road with motor vehicles. I don't condone bad behavior on the part of drivers, but neither do I condone bad behavior on the part of bicyclists, and believe me, it does exist. How about bicyclists who insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast, effectively blocking all traffic on their side of the road, at 15 mph in a 35 mph zone, and refusing to make way for the motor vehicles stacking up behind them? That is flat arrogant, and it is not defensible in a society in which we are required to share the roads. No, harassing bicyclists is not acceptable, but neither is acting in a manner which simply begs for it and dares the motorists to do something about it. There is cumulative bad behavior on both sides, and both sides are responsible for the situation. You can't blame it all on the car drivers. You want them to be model citizens? Then you need your bicyclists to also be model citizens.

There are all kinds of other arguments to be made... for instance, how much of your bicycle tire taxes goes toward paying for the upkeep of those roads you ride on? Exactly none of it. Whereas a significant chunk of every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel sold does pay for that upkeep. Bicyclists are not paying their fair share for the use of those roads, but they want all the benefits. That's just one example.

Look, I have nothing against bicycles. I like to ride them, and actually, I would encourage those who can commute on one to do so for exactly some of the reasons you've outlined. But I do think you need to see the larger picture when it comes to your RKBA and those folks with whom you have chosen to share your political fortunes.

Lastly, regarding your above comments regarding "most Americans" and bicycle and fitness.... My brothers and I once toured France on bicycles for a whole month. It was a great trip. One day, riding down a 4 lane highway in the middle of the country, in the white line demarcated bike lane, about 20 klicks outside of Perigueux, with no other cars within sight in either direction, a French motorist deliberately ran my brothers and I into the road-side ditch on a down hill at a high rate of speed. It is a miracle none of us was killed or injured. We had to limp the rest of the way into town, as one of my brothers' bicycles was heavily damaged in the crash.

I reject that "most Americans" stuff, because in my experience, it doesn't cut the mustard when the rest of the world is full of blankety blanks who are just as bad, and in many cases, much worse.

[srothstein]

being armed is not my top priority in my life.

Life has to have balance... I am painfully aware that many people on this forum, and on other gun-related forums, do not seem to value balance in their lives with respect to being armed or gun ownership.

I disagree. We do value baance in our lives. We may have chosen a different balance point than you have, but we value balance.

I ride my bicycle to work for a large number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the so-called "green" movement. They have mostly to do with my own fitness, time management, stress level, fuel cost, and convenience, in that order. I understand that most Americans don't value fitness. I also understand that most Americans also don't understand time management or stress management. So I don't expect any sympathy on this forum or any other internet forum regarding my choices in favor of these things.

Again, I disagree. We understand and value fitness, stress management, and time management. We may place different values on them and have different methods of solving these issues, but we do value them. For example, my time management balance says driving to work is more important than the time it would take me to bicycle. I understand your choice, even if I disagree with it.

I think the reason youdon't get sympathy for your choices is that you are asking people who have a different set of values than you. It is not a lack of value, just a different set. If I value being armed and my time more than I value riding a bike to work, I will not be able to sympathize very much when you made a knowing choice to place your values differently. I am not syaing your choice is wrong, or even worse than mine, just different.

We need a legal option.

I am not sure I agree with you on this. I value private property rights and think an employer should be able to ban guns. This is just one of the factors you need to take into account when you make your lifestyle choices. I am sure you did not mean it this way, but some of what you are saying comes across to me as someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too. You want to be able to ride a bike and not suffer the consequences of that choice.

Unfortunately most cyclists and gun owners are at opposite ends of the political spectrum so I see little odds of any ground being gained in favor of a legal option. A lot of gun owners would rather just run over me with their gigantic truck and think that bicycles should not be allowed on public roads anyway. A lot of cyclists think big trucks should not be allowed on public roads and gun owners should not be allowed to vote. I think a lot of the bubbas who harrass cyclists may well be gun owners and the last thing they want is armed cyclists who can fight back!

This is probably the paragraph that got me to respond and also started to get me upset. I don't like the sterotyping in this paragraph, along with what I perceived as a claim of moral superiority. Not all gun owners ride trucks, nor do all gun owners hate bikers or the environment. Most gun owners have a much closer familiarity with the real outdoors wilderness environment than do many bikers or environmentalists. They may take a much more pragmatic or realistic view (depends on point of view), but they know the environment from their outdoors activities such as hunting.

Basically, I expect negative sterotypes from the anti-gunners. I hope to not see them here, from us about bicyclists or bicyclists about gunners.

[boomerang]

We need a legal option.

You have many options. If you don't like the one you picked previously, try another.

[mr.72]

I actually did offer exercise (or "fitness," as you put it) as a possible reason for your having made this choice, nor did I condemn it. I merely pointed out the incompatibility of it with both the current laws and your employer's intransigence.

Yes I know and I agree.

I will bet that if you surveyed a majority of citizens who share your particular political viewpoint, you would find that they also do not commute by either bicycle or public transportation. By the way, they are a major reason why you do not enjoy the options you desire regarding carrying your weapons. You can't blame that one on gun owners. We'll actually support making it more practical for you to go about being armed if that is your wish.

Well, I don't know where I revealed my political viewpoints or how you might divine exactly which citizens would share them. I am a libertarian, for the most part.

The reason most people in TX, of whatever political stripe, do not use public transportation or ride bicycles to work is because it is completely impractical due to distances, lack of pedestrian corridors, and weather. Public transportation is a colossal waste of tax money anyway, as was pointed out in a recent Cato Institute report.

This is totally OT though so not worth discussing much further.

I can't help but think that might be a little bit extreme. Like I said, I make no judgment about your priorities, but you are seeing things from a very one-sided viewpoint when it comes to sharing the road with motor vehicles. I don't condone bad behavior on the part of drivers, but neither do I condone bad behavior on the part of bicyclists, and believe me, it does exist. How about bicyclists who insist on riding 3 or 4 abreast, effectively blocking all traffic on their side of the road, at 15 mph in a 35 mph zone, and refusing to make way for the motor vehicles stacking up behind them? That is flat arrogant, and it is not defensible in a society in which we are required to share the roads.

Well unfortunately, I completely disagree. Now I realize that it may be courteous for a cyclist to get over and allow people to pass just like it would be courteous for any slow driver to get over and allow someone to pass. But far and away most bicycle-auto accidents occur while the cyclist is being passed. The safest thing for a cyclist to do is ride in the lane of traffic and the least safe thing for them to do is encourage drivers to pass them. You would never pass a bus or a dump truck or other slow-moving motor vehicle the way you want to pass a bicycle.

In fact most of the behavior you might think is rude or arrogant on the part of cyclists are things they have adapted in order to enhance their safety. The safest thing to do, if you truly want cyclists to have to abide by all regular traffic laws, is to treat them like you would any other vehicle on the road. That means they ride right there in traffic with everyone else and you have to follow them slowly. If they are kind enough to get over to the shoulder and allow you to pass, then don't get all bent out of shape when they decide that the red light or stop sign ahead is not doing anything to improve their safety so they go ahead and run it.

There are all kinds of other arguments to be made... for instance, how much of your bicycle tire taxes goes toward paying for the upkeep of those roads you ride on? Exactly none of it.

I will definitely get on board for a system that bills each user of the road according to the impact their vehicle has on the cost of upkeep of the roads. I guarantee you a bicycle + rider with a 1 square inch contact patch on the road, moving at 20 mph and weighing a total of 180 lb has virtually zero impact on the road and does not accelerate the maintenance requirement of that road one bit. If nothing but bicycles were on the roads, then those roads would last nearly forever, at least until erosion or a flood or ice caused them to crack and degrade. We are talking 10x as long as they last with cars driving on them.

Likewise howabout my 2,200 lb car costs 1/2 as much for taxes as your 4,500 lb truck? Certainly I am having at most, half of the wear and tear impact on the road when I drive it. You want to drive an 8,000 lb diesel quad cab truck? You should have to pay more! Fair is fair right?

Bicycles do not degrade these roads at all.

I will fully support bicycles paying a road tax as soon as they begin making roads exclusively for bicycles and we only have to pay for the upkeep of those roads.

Bicyclists are not paying their fair share for the use of those roads

Of course they are. Their use of those roads, as a percentage, is so small that it is irrelevant. Their impact to the roads in terms of maintenance and upkeep is virtually zero. Bicycles need only a 3 foot corridor to ride, and bicycle paths 3' wide will accommodate thousands of bicycles per day, do not require excavation or engineered road bed, reinforcement, concrete or any other expensive measure to build, and will last a half a century under regular use. The fact of the matter is that the roads are built for motorized transport, and virtually 100% of the engineering, cost of building, and cost of upkeep is directly resultant of their use by motorized vehicles. Bicycles are not even in the noise floor. Rain and wind cause far and away more wear and tear on the roads than bicycle traffic.

But I do think you need to see the larger picture when it comes to your RKBA and those folks with whom you have chosen to share your political fortunes.

I don't know with whom I share my political fortunes. It's certainly not cyclists. Most of them are flaming liberals and we don't get along.

Lastly, regarding your above comments regarding "most Americans" and bicycle and fitness

I never excluded other countries, but I just have no idea.

I only know about Americans.

[Captain Matt]

It sounds like your problem is with your company's policy. The easiest solution is don't get caught.

[drinks]

Chevy, you just ain't old enough, us 60-70 year old types have not only seen them, but had them in the '40s and '50s, right along with the spring clip carrier on the rear for boys and the girl's front mounted baskets.
Oh these kids, nowadays!

[The Annoyed Man]

In fact most of the behavior you might think is rude or arrogant on the part of cyclists are things they have adapted in order to enhance their safety. The safest thing to do, if you truly want cyclists to have to abide by all regular traffic laws, is to treat them like you would any other vehicle on the road. That means they ride right there in traffic with everyone else and you have to follow them slowly. If they are kind enough to get over to the shoulder and allow you to pass, then don't get all bent out of shape when they decide that the red light or stop sign ahead is not doing anything to improve their safety so they go ahead and run it.

Well, I for one am certainly glad to know that you think bicyclists should get tickets for holding up traffic, just like any excessively slow car driver would. I'm also glad to know that you agree to an annual safety inspection of your bicycle, and an annual licensing fee. I especially like the part about new bikes being sold with daytime headlights, not to mention working brake lights and turn signals.

Good grief. Cars and bicycles are not the same thing, and the nation's roads and highways were designed for use by cars and trucks, not for bicycles. You and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree, because in my view, when a bicycle rider pulls over to allow cars to pass, it's not simply an act of kindness. It's a recognition that to not do so is just plain arrogant, not to mention dangerous.

Anyway, good luck with that "have your cake and eat it too" thing regarding your handgun rights.