>"A low slung slack chain might have flipped the bike and dumped the rider, and maybe given him a broken arm or leg. I suggest such an injury would be better than decapitation - yes?
With the added advantage that the cops could then have given him hell by prosecuting him through the courts!"<
Roger, thank you for your reply, however, I have to question the wisdom of your postings.
Your original post referenced a wire that had been placed across a trail and that had resulted in someones decapitation.
This type of action simply needed condeming by you. Instead, you went on to offer an alternative tactic to anyone who cared to read your post, namely that a lower chain might have been better.
Whilst you have pointed out 'better' meant being less likely to get decapitated at the expense of other injuries, I fail to see any value in the comment and it falls short of condemming such behaviour.
The fact that you even considered other possible methods of blocking trails that might result in less injury (but injury all the same) I find alarming. No one should knowingly set out to do another harm or be reckless of harm being done.
Let me give you an example, If I spoke to the mother of a murdered young girl and said, "I don't support murder but it would have been better if the attacker had broken your daughters legs and hit her around the face a few times with a claw hammer", it might very well have been preferable to murder but I don't think the sentiment would be seen that way. The family would instead want to hear condemnation of the murder, not a menu of better grizzly options that the offender could have used instead. Similarly I can not understand your reference to a low chain and the sentiment behind it and nor would I suspect, the family of the unfortunate individual who lost his head.
The above may be an extreme example but one that should illustrate my point.
I can only see three possibilities here, either a) you support extreme action such as wires across trails - however this is unlikely as you have already indicated that you do not, although you have only ruled out what you consider 'Extreme' conduct b) You totally oppose the placement of any articles across trails designed to unseat riders of motor cycles - In which case you should have condemed any such action outright and left it at that, or c) you think that placing low chains across trails that might flip a bike, its rider and possibly lead to a broken arm or leg is acceptable (or slightly more acceptable than a wire and not 'Extreme')- In which case, shame on you.
Your comment indicating that if the bike had been 'flipped' with a low chain, an advantage would have been that the cops could have prosecuted the rider I find deeply offensive.
As a police officer who has dealt with numerous collisions involving motorcyles and witnessing first hand the horrific injuries that riders can suffer, I am appalled at the prospect of you seeing any possible advantage in an attempt to dismount a rider from a motorbike.
People that visit this sight by its very nature are interested in the outdoors and read the postings made here. As a member who is clearly shown in the forums as BPL Staff, I suggest that your words carry more sway with many individuals and therefore your responsibilities are greater.
I can only hope that you will clarify your position and condem outright any improvised tactics by walkers to dismount motorcyclists.