AG: Make some noise
 

On 11/20/2014 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 20.11.2014 15:08, schrieb dgk:
The type A
who insists on running in the center is a big problem since we don't
know which side to pass on.

I solve this by calling out loud 'Which side an I supposed to pass on?'
while I'm still far enough away to react on their decision; normal
pedestrians get a 'Hi' or 'Good day' or equivalent.


Usually it's not the runners who bother me as they seem to keep to one
side. It's the inline skaters that tend to take up the whole path going
side to side. And I find that a large percentage of these are wired for
sound and don't hear me.

I try to avoid multi-use paths where possible.

AG: Make some noise
 

On 11/19/2014 8:17 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 7:48 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:


Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
known to solve all problems :-)

--

Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...

Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
:-)

OK, let's develop the analogy.

If the path narrows down so much that there's no room for a bicyclist to
pass the pedestrian, should the pedestrian be required to jump off the
path when a bicyclist approaches? If that's not possible (say, if the
path crosses a very narrow, three-foot-wide bridge) should the
pedestrian squeeze off to the side and tempt bicyclists to pass at speed?

We know that if there's lots of pavement to share, these situations are
much less critical. The slower traveler can stay close to the side and
the faster traveler can easily pass. It's when the passageway is too
narrow, for example, that one must engage one's brain.

Oh, and let's note who started this debate "on yet another newsgroup."

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Make some noise
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:12:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 8:17 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 7:48 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:


Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
known to solve all problems :-)

--

Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...

Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
:-)

OK, let's develop the analogy.

If the path narrows down so much that there's no room for a bicyclist to
pass the pedestrian, should the pedestrian be required to jump off the
path when a bicyclist approaches? If that's not possible (say, if the
path crosses a very narrow, three-foot-wide bridge) should the
pedestrian squeeze off to the side and tempt bicyclists to pass at speed?

We know that if there's lots of pavement to share, these situations are
much less critical. The slower traveler can stay close to the side and
the faster traveler can easily pass. It's when the passageway is too
narrow, for example, that one must engage one's brain.

Oh, and let's note who started this debate "on yet another newsgroup."

Well O.K., lets develop the analogy a bit further.

In another group, that will not be mentioned, every time someone
reports an accident where a cyclist is hurt or killed, a number of the
denizens, without knowing any details other than "cyclist dies",
immediately call for lynching the motor vehicle driver. People talk
about hitting cars that come too close to them with metal devices,
etc.

Perhaps in fair play we should be crying out for lynching, or at least
tar and feathering, of any cyclist that hits a pedestrian?

Or suggest that the pedestrians carry a cane to beat off the attacking
cyclists?
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: Make some noise
 

Joy Beeson wrote:
Before you overtake someone, MAKE SOME NOISE. "Hi!" is popular for
this purpose when overtaking another bicycle on the road. When
overtaking a pedestrian on a recreationway, I like to give a little
more information. After experimenting with many phrases, I settled on
"I am on your left". This usually elicits a smile and a step to the
right.

Or the classic handlebar bell.

Last time I was in the Netherlands, I noticed that even racing bikes
have them. I didn't confirm, but I'm guessing that it's a legal
requirement.

Smith

AG: Make some noise
 

On 11/20/2014 7:31 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:12:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 8:17 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 7:48 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:


Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
known to solve all problems :-)

--

Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...

Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
:-)

OK, let's develop the analogy.

If the path narrows down so much that there's no room for a bicyclist to
pass the pedestrian, should the pedestrian be required to jump off the
path when a bicyclist approaches? If that's not possible (say, if the
path crosses a very narrow, three-foot-wide bridge) should the
pedestrian squeeze off to the side and tempt bicyclists to pass at speed?

We know that if there's lots of pavement to share, these situations are
much less critical. The slower traveler can stay close to the side and
the faster traveler can easily pass. It's when the passageway is too
narrow, for example, that one must engage one's brain.

Oh, and let's note who started this debate "on yet another newsgroup."

Well O.K., lets develop the analogy a bit further.

In another group, that will not be mentioned, every time someone
reports an accident where a cyclist is hurt or killed, a number of the
denizens, without knowing any details other than "cyclist dies",
immediately call for lynching the motor vehicle driver. People talk
about hitting cars that come too close to them with metal devices,
etc.

Perhaps in fair play we should be crying out for lynching, or at least
tar and feathering, of any cyclist that hits a pedestrian?

Or suggest that the pedestrians carry a cane to beat off the attacking
cyclists?

Well, what I've called for is this: If a person kills or seriously
injures another person while driving a car, they should be forbidden to
drive for life.

We can work on details, if you like. Things like, how bad would a
"serious" injury have to be to qualify? (Death certainly qualifies.)
How would we handle victim culpability? (e.g., someone deliberately
jumping in front of a car, someone who blatantly and egregiously
violated a law that caused the crash, etc.)

But once such details are worked out, I'd be happy to apply that same
punishment to bicyclists who kill or seriously injure other road users.
That is, if your bike kills a pedestrian, you're never allowed to ride a
bike again.

There won't be many such cases anyway. I suspect that cycling causes
perhaps a few thousand serious injuries and maybe a handful of deaths of
non-cyclists per year in the U.S. It's a far cry from driving, since in
the U.S., cars kill over 4000 pedestrians and over 30,000 other
motorists per year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Make some noise
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:12:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/20/2014 7:31 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:12:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 8:17 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:20:34 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 7:48 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:


Probably the walkers/runners should "take the lane" as it is popularly
known to solve all problems :-)

--

Not to get into this debate on yet another newsgroup, but if you look at
what happens when pedestrians walking at 4-6km/h "take the lane" where
bikes are riding at the legally limited 20k/h you begin to see a pattern...

Hmmm.... I would imagine it will be much the same as a bicycle taking
the lane on a highway where motor vehicles are whizzing by at 80 or 90
:-)

OK, let's develop the analogy.

If the path narrows down so much that there's no room for a bicyclist to
pass the pedestrian, should the pedestrian be required to jump off the
path when a bicyclist approaches? If that's not possible (say, if the
path crosses a very narrow, three-foot-wide bridge) should the
pedestrian squeeze off to the side and tempt bicyclists to pass at speed?

We know that if there's lots of pavement to share, these situations are
much less critical. The slower traveler can stay close to the side and
the faster traveler can easily pass. It's when the passageway is too
narrow, for example, that one must engage one's brain.

Oh, and let's note who started this debate "on yet another newsgroup."

Well O.K., lets develop the analogy a bit further.

In another group, that will not be mentioned, every time someone
reports an accident where a cyclist is hurt or killed, a number of the
denizens, without knowing any details other than "cyclist dies",
immediately call for lynching the motor vehicle driver. People talk
about hitting cars that come too close to them with metal devices,
etc.

Perhaps in fair play we should be crying out for lynching, or at least
tar and feathering, of any cyclist that hits a pedestrian?

Or suggest that the pedestrians carry a cane to beat off the attacking
cyclists?

Well, what I've called for is this: If a person kills or seriously
injures another person while driving a car, they should be forbidden to
drive for life.

How about doing away with any "death by auto" charges and fall back
on Murder and/or Manslaughter? If you were to be, for example, driving
too fast for existing conditions and you hit someone then you go to
jail.

It does appear to me though that in the U.S. death by auto seems to
have become some sort of a misdemeanor, if not an outright act of God.
Funny though, When I was in the Air Force we were told that only about
1 - 2% of accidents were actually an act of God and the rest were due
to unsafe pacts or practices.

But I guess with auto's it is an accident :-(

We can work on details, if you like. Things like, how bad would a
"serious" injury have to be to qualify? (Death certainly qualifies.)
How would we handle victim culpability? (e.g., someone deliberately
jumping in front of a car, someone who blatantly and egregiously
violated a law that caused the crash, etc.)

There was a trial in San Francisco involving an accident to a cable
car operator. the Court ruled that the amount owing to the individual
injured was the difference he could have earned in his remaining
lifetime if he was uninjured less the amount he could earn after being
injured. Perhaps a judgment like that for car accidents would work.

But once such details are worked out, I'd be happy to apply that same
punishment to bicyclists who kill or seriously injure other road users.
That is, if your bike kills a pedestrian, you're never allowed to ride a
bike again.

There won't be many such cases anyway. I suspect that cycling causes
perhaps a few thousand serious injuries and maybe a handful of deaths of
non-cyclists per year in the U.S. It's a far cry from driving, since in
the U.S., cars kill over 4000 pedestrians and over 30,000 other
motorists per year.

This primitive country I now live in takes the same attitude toward
injuring someone with a vehicle as they do to any other injury you
might inflect. And, they have this ruling that initially and until
proved different, the biggest vehicle is at faulty. A bicycle hits a
pedestrian, it is the bicycle's fault. If a car hits a bicycle the car
is at fault, a truck hits a car...

Note that this is "initially" and evidence may well prove the larger
vehicle not to be at fault, but it does, I believe temper some of the
aggressiveness that I read here about U.S. traffic.

Either that or the people here are just nicer :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: Make some noise
 

On 11/22/2014 6:44 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:

This primitive country I now live in takes the same attitude toward
injuring someone with a vehicle as they do to any other injury you
might inflect. And, they have this ruling that initially and until
proved different, the biggest vehicle is at faulty. A bicycle hits a
pedestrian, it is the bicycle's fault. If a car hits a bicycle the car
is at fault, a truck hits a car...

Note that this is "initially" and evidence may well prove the larger
vehicle not to be at fault, but it does, I believe temper some of the
aggressiveness that I read here about U.S. traffic.

That sounds good to me!


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Make some noise
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:23:31 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Multiuse pathways are like rural roads, and the watchword should be that
wheeled traffic keeps right and foot traffic keep left.

That makes almost as much sense as "semis keep right, pickups keep
left."

The quaint superstition that walking on the left has magical qualities
infests, as near as I can tell, the entire United States. I once had
a deputy stop his patrol car to order me to cross a state road twice
because it was "safer" than walking ten feet on the right shoulder!

Thoughtlessly walking on the left worked fairly well in the
nineteen-forties, when gas was expensive, and it was very rare that a
family had more than one car. When I was first allowed to walk along
a road by myself, Mother told me that if I heard a car coming, I
should get completely out of the road, press up against the fence, and
wait there until that car was completely out of sight.

Walking on the left is ONLY for occasions when you intend to yeld
right-of-way to everything that comes along, and it isn't for all of
those occasions. When I'm walking up Sunday Lane, for example, I walk
in the center of the lane so that I can step to the side that the car
isn't using, or to the side where it's possible to get out of the
street. (It usually turns out that the driver intends to park in the
place where I went to get out of his way. Sunday Lane is )

AG: Make some noise
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:26:56 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

Something that absolutely was not intended to be sent. Some arcane
combination of keystrokes caused a half-written draft to vanish, and I
found it in the "sent" folder.

Please delete it unread. My first drafts nearly always say the exact
opposite of what I intended.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: Make some noise
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:18:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/22/2014 6:44 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:

This primitive country I now live in takes the same attitude toward
injuring someone with a vehicle as they do to any other injury you
might inflect. And, they have this ruling that initially and until
proved different, the biggest vehicle is at faulty. A bicycle hits a
pedestrian, it is the bicycle's fault. If a car hits a bicycle the car
is at fault, a truck hits a car...

Note that this is "initially" and evidence may well prove the larger
vehicle not to be at fault, but it does, I believe temper some of the
aggressiveness that I read here about U.S. traffic.

That sounds good to me!

Another novel thing that they do here. If a vehicle should hit another
vehicle, or pedestrian and someone dies the police immediately take
the offending vehicle operator into custody.

They may decide later that there is no reason to arrest the operator
and release him but the initial act is "grab him" and that way, if
they later decide that they do want him, they've got him.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

My favorite way to protect expensive pants is to carry them in my
pannier. If you have to look respectable between the place where you
park your bike and the place where you can change pants, you can wear
your suit pants over your riding shorts.

But if you don't sweat a lot and if you don't mind wearing the pants
out in the saddle area, you *can* buy a pants protector. This is a
sort of half gaiter that you can strap on to protect the inside of
your ankle and shin.

(I'm wearing a home-made pants protector in this pictu
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/...S/LINJERSF.JPG
back view:
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/...S/LINJERSB.JPG )
(store-bought varieties are only half as high)

If you are wearing black work pants, all you need is two safety pins
and two pieces of tape or ribbon that are long enough to wrap around
your leg twice.

My tapes are three and a half feet long; even if your legs are
thicker, a three-yard packet of tape should be plenty. It should be
half an inch wide, as knots in narrower tape tend to jam.

Sit down with your knees bent and form a pleat on the outside of your
leg. It's easiest to just stick a pin close to and parallel to your
leg, leaving the excess fabric sticking out like wings, but it looks a
little less dorky to smooth the excess into a dart and pin it flat.
The wing method is a trifle more reliable.

Next, smooth your pants upward, stroking any excess fabric to above
your knee, and wrap a tape around your leg in the notch below the
knee. For some reason I've never heard explained, garters *must* wrap
around twice or they won't hold. No matter how wide or narrow the
tape is, it must go around twice. Mysterious, but experience shows
that it's true.

Put the middle of the tape where you want the knot to be, then hold
the ends together and pull to make them even. Cross, bring them back
to the beginning point, and tie a bow knot. (Same knot you tie in
shoelaces.) Tension must be just so: you should be able to feel the
tape while you are tying the knot, then be completely unaware of it
afterward. Be sure your knees are bent while tying the tape: its
purpose is to keep your pants loose over the knee so that they don't
pull while you are riding.

When you get to work, pull both bows undone, use the safety pins to
fasten the tapes together, and put the whole mess into your pocket.

I'm awkward about getting on and off; if I mount and dismount a lot of
times during a ride, the right pin is likely to bump against the
saddle and open. It's best to look down each time you mount and make
sure the pins are still there and still closed. A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

AG: Make some noise
 

NFN Smith wrote in news:m4o0cq$6pp$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

Joy Beeson wrote:
Before you overtake someone, MAKE SOME NOISE. "Hi!" is popular for
this purpose when overtaking another bicycle on the road. When
overtaking a pedestrian on a recreationway, I like to give a little
more information. After experimenting with many phrases, I settled on
"I am on your left". This usually elicits a smile and a step to the
right.

Or the classic handlebar bell.

Last time I was in the Netherlands, I noticed that even racing bikes
have them. I didn't confirm, but I'm guessing that it's a legal
requirement.

A warning device such as a bell or horn certainly is required in Ontario and
most other provinces in Canada under their various versions of a "Highway
Traffic Act." If you strike a pedestrian or another cyclist and do not have
one, they will likely charge you. The warning device does not have to be
eleborate, just a single-dinger will do. Mine is a compact bell, and I had
to attach it to the handlebar stem since it will not fit around the Cinelli
bars I ride.

I am off for a ride. Here's hoping it's not the last of the year.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/wea...ontario/ottawa
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.


Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

Frank Krygowski wrote in news:m4sv7m$6n1$1@dont-
email.me:

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.


Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.

On the very rare occasions that I ride in trousers, I use the same Terry's
pant clips that I bought for about 20 cents in 1971.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: Make some noise
 

On 11/23/2014 10:38 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

A warning device such as a bell or horn certainly is required in Ontario and
most other provinces in Canada under their various versions of a "Highway
Traffic Act." If you strike a pedestrian or another cyclist and do not have
one, they will likely charge you. The warning device does not have to be
eleborate, just a single-dinger will do. Mine is a compact bell, and I had
to attach it to the handlebar stem since it will not fit around the Cinelli
bars I ride.


When I looked up the bicycle ordinances in our little town, I found that
not only was a bell required, but it was actually illegal to verbally
warn a pedestrian! The ordinance said a bicyclist must warn a
pedestrian, and "the warning must be made only by a bell." In effect,
it was illegal to say "I'm passing on your left," or even "Excuse me."

And that wasn't the most ludicrous ordinance, either. Fortunately, it
wasn't too difficult for me to get Council to repeal _all_ the local
bicycle ordinances. That's because the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a
law passed that prohibited local bike ordinances that are fundamentally
different from state laws.

So now, the local cops are supposed to enforce only the much more
logical state laws.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Make some noise
 

Frank Krygowski wrote in
:

On 11/23/2014 10:38 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

A warning device such as a bell or horn certainly is required in
Ontario and most other provinces in Canada under their various
versions of a "Highway Traffic Act." If you strike a pedestrian or
another cyclist and do not have one, they will likely charge you. The
warning device does not have to be eleborate, just a single-dinger
will do. Mine is a compact bell, and I had to attach it to the
handlebar stem since it will not fit around the Cinelli bars I ride.


When I looked up the bicycle ordinances in our little town, I found
that not only was a bell required, but it was actually illegal to
verbally warn a pedestrian! The ordinance said a bicyclist must warn a
pedestrian, and "the warning must be made only by a bell." In effect,
it was illegal to say "I'm passing on your left," or even "Excuse me."

And that wasn't the most ludicrous ordinance, either. Fortunately, it
wasn't too difficult for me to get Council to repeal _all_ the local
bicycle ordinances. That's because the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a
law passed that prohibited local bike ordinances that are fundamentally
different from state laws.

So now, the local cops are supposed to enforce only the much more
logical state laws.

Canada's constitutional set up has long precluded most such nonsense,
except where it concerns people riding on sidewalks. Tots on little
bicycles present not much of a hazard, yet some of their elders think they
can ride on the pavements or sidewalk at a rate of knots and incommode the
passers-by.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.


Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.


Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.


Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.


Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s. They
kept irritating me because my pants would gradually work their way out
of the clips, then get either caught or stained by the chain and chainring.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

Am 24.11.2014 16:11, schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar
bags.

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)

At least during the cool season (temperature below 10°C / 50F), I put
the socks around the pants. OK, it looks horrible but it keeps me warm
and the pants stay outside the chain.

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?

Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:11:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/23/2014 7:34 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:

A spare pin in your
wallet is a good idea -- or three or four; safety pins have a lot of
uses.


Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

Now, I lube my chain using a hot wax/oil mix, so it's much less likely
to smear black stuff on my cuffs.

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar bags.


Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s. They
kept irritating me because my pants would gradually work their way out
of the clips, then get either caught or stained by the chain and chainring.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)

Or a turn or two of twine and a bow knot :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:25:07 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 24.11.2014 16:11, schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar
bags.

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)

At least during the cool season (temperature below 10°C / 50F), I put
the socks around the pants. OK, it looks horrible but it keeps me warm
and the pants stay outside the chain.

Hard to do if your wearing knee socks and sock garters :-)
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:03:01 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Rolf Mantel considered Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:25:07
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Am 24.11.2014 16:11, schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar
bags.

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)

At least during the cool season (temperature below 10°C / 50F), I put
the socks around the pants. OK, it looks horrible but it keeps me warm
and the pants stay outside the chain.

Back when I was a kid, my mum used to tell me off for that, because it
stretched out the socks so they kept slipping down :-)

I thought knee socks slipped down around the ankles was traditional
dress. At least that's the way mine worked when I wore "knickers" as
they were called in the U.S.. :-)
(For our English friends, "knickers" was a USian name for knee length
pants. Perhaps "Plus Fours" in the Queen's Own.


On a more recent cycle promotion in Cambridge, I got (free, which is
always the best price) some "slap-wrap" retroreflective leg bands,
which work very well. Being low on the bike, they light up like
beacons in a dipped beam headlight.
The inside is coated with some kind of flock material, which is very
good at stopping them slipping when worn as trouser bands, although
I've used them every time I've ridden at night since I got them for
the visibility benefit, even when in shorts.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On 11/24/2014 8:06 PM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:25:07 +0100, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 24.11.2014 16:11, schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 11/24/2014 6:34 AM, John D. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

I've always got at least two safety pins clipped inside my handlebar
bags.

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain? I
thought all you "old Fellows" had one of those :-)\

As an old fellow, those are what I used way back in the 1970s.

Then I tried large (2") safety pins. No more problems. And the safety
pins are lighter! ;-)

At least during the cool season (temperature below 10°C / 50F), I put
the socks around the pants. OK, it looks horrible but it keeps me warm
and the pants stay outside the chain.

Hard to do if your wearing knee socks and sock garters :-)

But once knickers (or for the Brits: plus-fours) come back into style
for men, these problems will be a thing of the past.

(I guess in Britain, if a guy's wearing knickers, it signifies something
entirely different.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:03:41 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?

Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.

Cuffs are out of style? You mean I can't cuff my levis up a turn to
show off my new alligator skin boots?
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On 11/24/2014 6:03 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?

Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.


http://www.amazon.ca/ROSWHEEL-Cyclin...ds=bike+straps


http://www.amazon.com/Green-Guru-Nar...WPCNW237HPX9HX


http://www.bikelegstrap.com/

http://www.mec.ca/product/4001-405/c...pants%2Bstraps

My favorite LBS has a candy jar on the counter full of these fluorescent
green wide elastics with Velcro fasteners. I don't remember the brand.
Seems like there are a lot of options that aren't clips.

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:27:51 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 6:03 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

Goodness, don' you have a "pants clip" that clips around your ankle to
hold your pants secure and prevent it from getting into the chain?

Pants clips stopped working when cuffs went out of style.


http://www.amazon.ca/ROSWHEEL-Cyclin...ds=bike+straps


http://www.amazon.com/Green-Guru-Nar...WPCNW237HPX9HX


http://www.bikelegstrap.com/

http://www.mec.ca/product/4001-405/c...pants%2Bstraps

My favorite LBS has a candy jar on the counter full of these fluorescent
green wide elastics with Velcro fasteners. I don't remember the brand.
Seems like there are a lot of options that aren't clips.

In long pants season I always wear the reflective bands just above the
shoes. I've only lost one in many years of using them.

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:06:59 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

Or a turn or two of twine and a bow knot :-)

I lost a safety pin on the "I forgot my wallet" shopping tour. (Not
one red cent to spend, &*%#&!!!) Lacking a pin, I tied a square rag
from my emergency kit around my ankle. Worked better than the pin,
but had people asking how I got injured.

(There are now both money and safety pins in my emergency kit -- which
is slowly regenerating after a tragic loss; perhaps I should keep a
list of what's in it in an off-site backup. I've replaced the
tube-repair kit, but the only list of what was in the hide-repair kit
was written on the box.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: How to ride in ordinary pants
 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:41:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Instead of all that, I simply use safety pins to pin my pants leg more
tightly around my ankle - or ankles, depending on how narrow the pants
legs are.

On last Friday's Tour d'Warsaw, I used only pins because there were
too many layers for garters to work. My pants rubbed on my knees even
though the two innermost layers were tights.

Not so I couldn't stand it, though. It helped, perhaps, that the
outermost layer was ripstop that slid easily over the sweat pants
underneath.

The pins left holes in the ripstop, so I'm going to have to think up
something else -- after I get through my three-page "to sew" list.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: Visible Clothing: ROY G. BiV
 

While dressing by dawn's early light, I picked up jeans that I'd
dropped on the floor while undressing in the dark the previous
evening. Something black lay crumpled under them. ?? -- I'd hung up
all my black garments, what could this be? A closer look revealed a
white line against the black, and I realized that it was a bright-red
T-shirt with an outline map of Indiana printed on the back.

Red makes you stand out in a crowd, but it turns black at sunset, and
even in bright daylight, red isn't all that visible from a distance.

Orange is famous for visibility.

My spouse and I used to wear matching orange T-shirts on organized
rides. He was easily visible to the casual glance on a hilltop a good
mile away.

Once, when I was a passenger on a multi-day drive on I 90, a fleck of
orange at the edge of a woods in the distance caught my eye. Careful
observation revealed that it was a hunter in a blaze-orange vest
walking toward me. He was far enough away to stay in sight for quite
a while and I had nothing to do, so I watched him. Something seemed
odd about the way he moved; eventually I realized that he was paying
attention to something to his right. I looked at the focus of his
attention and managed to make out a hunter in a bright red vest.

Orange is required by law in a great many places because tests have
shown that it's the most-visible color -- but only in bright daylight
when seeing isn't much of a problem. At twilight, orange is
indistinguishable from khaki.

Yellow is my default.

By day, yellow is second only to orange. At night, yellow is almost
as visible as white and much less likely to be mistaken for a shred of
fog or a reflection off a wet leaf. And yellow is the only color that
can shine through rain and fog, hence its frequent use in raincoats
and firemen's turnout gear.

Green is the color to which the human eye is most sensitive, and green
can be perceived as colored far later into dusk than any other color.
"Slime green" *does* stand out on a city street, and I admired the
visibility of a lime-green jersey I once followed through the
Voorheesville "tunnel" in my car.

But we evolved sensitivity to green because there is a *lot* of green
around. Once, looking out an airplane window, I saw a column of
smoke. Trash-burning or disaster? I could see flames, but from
nearly straight overhead I couldn't see what was burning. A thread of
white against the flames: ah, someone is trying to put it out. I
followed the stream of water to see who, and saw a lime-green fire
engine. It didn't contrast with the grass-green vegetation at all
well. I don't think I'd prefer a lime-green jersey for a ride in the
country.


I don't think anybody has ever proposed blue or violet as a visible
color. Pity, because they are right purty -- but purple doesn't wash.
That is, when it fades, even a tiny little bit, it looks dirty.

A light shade of any color beats the deleted out of black.



--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When I started riding, I used the signals given in the driver's
manual. I pretty soon noticed that whenever I signaled a right turn,
car drivers waved back.

So I started signaling right turns by pointing right with my right
arm, a mirror image of the left-turn signal given in the book. A few
weeks ago I downloaded the Indiana drivers' manual, and was delighted
to see that this signal had been legalized for the operators of
two-wheeled vehicles.

I don't think the book mentioned the "I'm going straight" signal:
point straight ahead, raising the arm a bit if it needs to be seen by
operators behind you. This is frequently useful information, but
impossible to convey with tail lights.

After I begin a left turn at The Entrance, I swing my arm to point at
my exact destination so that the drivers draining out of the tunnel
know how to be where I ain't. At less-complex intersections, there is
seldom need to signal after entering the intersection.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 23:44:10 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When I started riding, I used the signals given in the driver's
manual. I pretty soon noticed that whenever I signaled a right turn,
car drivers waved back.

So I started signaling right turns by pointing right with my right
arm, a mirror image of the left-turn signal given in the book. A few
weeks ago I downloaded the Indiana drivers' manual, and was delighted
to see that this signal had been legalized for the operators of
two-wheeled vehicles.

I don't think the book mentioned the "I'm going straight" signal:
point straight ahead, raising the arm a bit if it needs to be seen by
operators behind you. This is frequently useful information, but
impossible to convey with tail lights.

After I begin a left turn at The Entrance, I swing my arm to point at
my exact destination so that the drivers draining out of the tunnel
know how to be where I ain't. At less-complex intersections, there is
seldom need to signal after entering the intersection.


I think that the important thing about hand signals is that other
people understand what you intend to do. If it takes bouncing up and
down and waving your arms over head to indicate that you intend to
turn across six lanes of traffic than I suggest that it is the correct
thing to do.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Hand Signals`
 

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:


You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.


There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.


Here in Massachusetts, it seems traffic circle, or roundabout Yield signs are
interpreted by motorists as "everyone must stop for me".

This is true when I'm in the rotary whether I'm on a bicycle or in my big
honkin', global warming, Dodge Ram 4x4 hemi!

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:02:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.

A couple of countries I've lived in have a unique method of training
drivers. They post a couple of cops at the round-a-bout and everyone
that does it wrong gets fined.

A couple of days and everyone is merrily going 'round" and no more
problems :-)

But, I'm wondering. What happens if you "hold up your hand like a
traffic cop" and the guy doesn't stop?
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 16:55:03 -0500, smharding
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:


You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.


There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.


Here in Massachusetts, it seems traffic circle, or roundabout Yield signs are
interpreted by motorists as "everyone must stop for me".

This is true when I'm in the rotary whether I'm on a bicycle or in my big
honkin', global warming, Dodge Ram 4x4 hemi!

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On 12/8/2014 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:02:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/6/2014 10:44 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you have
done. They don't care.

You don't signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you are
doing. They can see that for themselves.

You signal to tell the operators of other vehicles what you intend to
do.

There are a few situations where I use signals to tell motorists what
_they_ are supposed to do.

The simplest situation occurs at a four-way stop. Often a motorist will
approach from my right to arrive the same time, or just before, I do, so
he has the right of way. Many of those motorists won't proceed, perhaps
because they expect me to run the stop sign. Some will enter
"politeness wars" ("You go." "No, you go.") that delay everyone. I
solve this by waving "Go ahead" as I'm coming to a stop, so they know I
won't ride in front of them.

The newest situation occurs at our new roundabout, the first in our
county. Our motorists are not geniuses, and many are not using it
properly. Usually their mistake is to treat the yield signs as stop
signs and delay everyone, but I've seen cars approach far too fast when
I'm in the circle, as if they're not going to yield to me. In that
case, I've held up my hand in a traffic cop's "Stop!" gesture.

A couple of countries I've lived in have a unique method of training
drivers. They post a couple of cops at the round-a-bout and everyone
that does it wrong gets fined.

A couple of days and everyone is merrily going 'round" and no more
problems :-)

But, I'm wondering. What happens if you "hold up your hand like a
traffic cop" and the guy doesn't stop?

We'll see if that ever happens, I guess. I haven't had to do this more
than a couple times, and I hope and expect people will get better at
roundabout rules.

But if a motorist failed to yield, I suppose I'd evade by moving onto
the circular center island. It has no curbs. And if there were a
crash, at least it would be a glancing blow, not a 90 degree or head-on
collision.

If I get in a crash there, I'll report it here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.
--
Cheers,

John B.

AG: Hand Signals`
 

On 12/8/2014 7:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:48:15 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:08:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I use hand signals only when I'm turning, just as the operator of a motor
vehicle does (or should).


SMH

Don't they have "turn lights" in America :-?

Apparently only the most expensive cars have turn signals, and those
people are too important to use them.

Truly? In the small 3rd world country I reside in use of "turn lights"
is nearly universal even when only changing lanes on the highway.

Really, the use of turn signals is amazingly uncommon in the U.S. (I
was going to write "in Ohio," but it occurs to me it's been the same
everywhere.)

It's most frustrating to me when leaving our little neighborhood, trying
to turn out onto the busy five lane road. I'll be waiting for one last
car coming from the left to pass by, so I can scoot out into a brief
clear space. And the car will slow, and slow further; then turn into
the street I'm trying to exit. Some drivers seem to flick the turn
signal on at the same time they begin cranking the wheel to the right.
Many others will never signal at all.

We had friends from Ireland visit us a few years back. The lack of turn
signals caused some astonishment in our friends. "They don't use their
indicators!"

On the plus side, it's not that uncommon for cops to use this as
justification for stopping a known bad guy. Newspaper reports sometimes
say "XXXX was cited for an improper turn, possession of narcotics,
possession of drug paraphernalia..." If these guys were smart enough to
drive really carefully, they'd last longer on the streets.

But as one of my cop friends told me, "They're not Einsteins, Frank."

--
- Frank Krygowski