#11
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote: On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote: snip Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths. It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back. Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that. We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of this month it will also result in a more direct bike path connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot, Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and healthy. Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his position and was against them. The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard, which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational and transportational cyclists, including children, and can resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for "Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose to use those two arterials. Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling." https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/. Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman. Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in the numbers of cyclists─probably not something that he would want to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle infrastructure. That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and, to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar (stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it. I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing rides. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in safety. Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that the truck had underride protectors on the sides. This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or using their bicycle as the main means of transportation. No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 4/24/2020 4:52 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote: snip Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths. It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back. Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that. Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his position and was against them. I don't believe Forester ever opposed bicycle boulevards, and I'm sure I've been in far more discussions with him than Scharf has. Furthermore, I know several very prominent allies of Forester, and not one of them opposes bicycle boulevards. One anti-Forester writer did make the same claim Mr. Scharf is making. Here's Forester's written response: "Epperson tries to argue the shakiness of my opinions, in that I once advocated but have now abandoned what has proved to be a good idea, bicycle boulevards (BB). Epperson provides no evidence that I have abandoned bicycle boulevards, and I do not recollect having abandoned them." Forester did object to the design of the termini on some bicycle boulevards, and there are some that are badly designed. That's not the same as categorically opposing all bicycle boulevards. And as with so many pretty, shiny and "innovative" bike facilities, the devil is in the details. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On Friday, 24 April 2020 19:15:35 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote: On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote: snip Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths. It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back. Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that. We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of this month it will also result in a more direct bike path connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot, Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and healthy. Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his position and was against them. The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard, which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational and transportational cyclists, including children, and can resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for "Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose to use those two arterials. Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling." https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/. Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman. Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in the numbers of cyclists─probably not something that he would want to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle infrastructure. That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and, to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar (stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it. I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing rides. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in safety. Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that the truck had underride protectors on the sides. This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or using their bicycle as the main means of transportation. No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ I do NOT clench my teeth when riding in traffic. When I commuted in Toronto Canada I ENJOYED my commute especially the ride home after work. By the time I got home I was nicely relaxed and any stresses from work were left somewhere on the road behind me. Cheers |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:44:21 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Friday, 24 April 2020 19:15:35 UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote: On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote: On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote: snip Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths. It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back. Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that. We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of this month it will also result in a more direct bike path connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot, Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and healthy. Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his position and was against them. The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard, which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational and transportational cyclists, including children, and can resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for "Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose to use those two arterials. Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling." https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/. Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman. Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in the numbers of cyclists?probably not something that he would want to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle infrastructure. That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and, to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar (stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it. I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing rides. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in safety. Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that the truck had underride protectors on the sides. This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or using their bicycle as the main means of transportation. No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ I do NOT clench my teeth when riding in traffic. When I commuted in Toronto Canada I ENJOYED my commute especially the ride home after work. By the time I got home I was nicely relaxed and any stresses from work were left somewhere on the road behind me. Cheers The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually necessary?" I have ridden in at least three foreign countries that, at least when I ride there, had no bike lanes although I believe that Singapore has now built some, with no problems what so ever. And, I might add that Thailand, where I now ride, has the 5th highest traffic death rate in the world, nearly 3 times that of the U.S. (per capita) and yet, I really can't remember a time where I felt endangered. I might add that Frank and "J" and James, in Australia ( that rides a lot), and of course "Sir" in the north lands, all seem to get along without bicycle paths, or at least don't seem to mention riding on them. My understanding is that, in the U.S., State laws entitle a bicycle to use public roads, as they do here, so why can't bicyclists just ride? The argument that if we build bike paths more people will ride bikes seems, well, similar to the theory that "if we build lower bridges more people will bungee jump". From my admittedly limited reading of State's traffic laws all that is really required is to enforce the existing laws, for all vehicles using public roads, to safeguard those timid chaps on two wheels. As an aside, building bike paths costs the taxpayer money while enforcing existing laws should not add to the existing tax burden. -- cheers, John B. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 4/24/2020 2:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
snip Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman. I met her several times but did not know her well. https://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/11/08/remembering-ellen-fletcher-palo-altos-pioneer-bicycle-advocate/ She accomplished far more for cyclists than John Forester. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote:
anip No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. He understood it but he never was interested in increasing the number of cyclists. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 4/24/2020 9:12 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote: anip No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. He understood it but he never was interested in increasing the number of cyclists. I think that's correct. And it directly rebuts the frequent criticisms by people like Carlton Reid, John Pucher, Streetsblog and others of that ilk. They frequently say Forester was a failure because he did not increase the number of cyclists. But that was not his objective. He showed those of us who choose to ride a method that works in the real world, and allows us to ride wherever we choose. BTW, I think you can make a case that the Segregationists have failed by their own standard. Yes, you can point to places like Portland that have A) put in lots of segregated facilities and B) have increased bike mode share. But! There are places that experienced increased bike mode share simultaneously with Portland, without installing segregated facilities. San Francisco during the anti-bike-lane lawsuit is an excellent example. It indicates a disconnect between facilities and ridership, and hints that simple "fashion" may be as important in getting people to ride. But more to the point, the Segregationalists cried, "Bicycling is dangerous! We need special places to ride, for SAFETY!" They got a few special places, on a really tiny proportion of America's 4 million road miles. But they convinced millions of people that all the rest of those roads were too dangerous. There has been no big nationwide surge in bicycling in the last 15 years that the "Paint and Path" contingent has yelled the loudest. From https://bikeleague.org/content/new-data-bike-commuting "The 2017 1-year data shows that overall, commuters are choosing to use a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work slightly less than in recent years. Year-over-year, the rate of people biking to work has decreased 4.7%. Among the 70 largest cities (as of 2009 when the League began tracking), a slight majority (37) cities had a year-over-year decrease in bike mode share." From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/ "Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes and bicycle share programs." So much public money was spent hoping to get people out of their cars and riding in nice, "safe" bike lanes; but it may have scared more people away from cycling. Overall, it is such a failure. Oh, and "safe"? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found as many as ten times the crash rate in some "protected" bike lanes. Then there are the national fatality counts, which have turned upward in recent years. Reid, Pucher and others are failures. Their programs are failures. I think they're attacking Forester out of frustration that he was right. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:03:19 +0700, John B. wrote:
The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually necessary?" Depends on motor vehicle driver attitude. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 04:05:41 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:03:19 +0700, John B. wrote: The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually necessary?" Depends on motor vehicle driver attitude. Well, of course I can't comment on people in your part of the world but I would say that I've ridden in three countries, in Asia, with no problems. They might be a bit primitive, possibly, but certainly not what one might call unfriendly to a bicycle. -- cheers, John B. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RIP John Forester
On 4/24/2020 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2020 9:12 PM, sms wrote: On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote: anip No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists. He understood it but he never was interested in increasing the number of cyclists. I think that's correct. And it directly rebuts the frequent criticisms by people like Carlton Reid, John Pucher, Streetsblog and others of that ilk. They frequently say Forester was a failure because he did not increase the number of cyclists. But that was not his objective. He showed those of us who choose to ride a method that works in the real world, and allows us to ride wherever we choose. BTW, I think you can make a case that the Segregationists have failed by their own standard. Yes, you can point to places like Portland that have A) put in lots of segregated facilities and B) have increased bike mode share. But! There are places that experienced increased bike mode share simultaneously with Portland, without installing segregated facilities. San Francisco during the anti-bike-lane lawsuit is an excellent example. It indicates a disconnect between facilities and ridership, and hints that simple "fashion" may be as important in getting people to ride. But more to the point, the Segregationalists cried, "Bicycling is dangerous! We need special places to ride, for SAFETY!" They got a few special places, on a really tiny proportion of America's 4 million road miles. But they convinced millions of people that all the rest of those roads were too dangerous. There has been no big nationwide surge in bicycling in the last 15 years that the "Paint and Path" contingent has yelled the loudest. From https://bikeleague.org/content/new-data-bike-commuting "The 2017 1-year data shows that overall, commuters are choosing to use a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work slightly less than in recent years. Year-over-year, the rate of people biking to work has decreased 4.7%. Among the 70 largest cities (as of 2009 when the League began tracking), a slight majority (37) cities had a year-over-year decrease in bike mode share." From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/ "Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes and bicycle share programs." So much public money was spent hoping to get people out of their cars and riding in nice, "safe" bike lanes; but it may have scared more people away from cycling. Overall, it is such a failure. Oh, and "safe"? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found as many as ten times the crash rate in some "protected" bike lanes. Then there are the national fatality counts, which have turned upward in recent years. Reid, Pucher and others are failures. Their programs are failures. I think they're attacking Forester out of frustration that he was right. +1 nicely done THX. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
John Forester Speaks | jbeattie | Techniques | 76 | October 15th 19 12:24 PM |
Email to J. Forester | James[_8_] | Techniques | 4 | October 24th 13 01:40 AM |
Forester says... | Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_] | General | 184 | February 9th 11 05:01 PM |
Forester says... | Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_] | Techniques | 181 | February 9th 11 05:01 PM |
John Forester's 1955 Viking "Tour of Britain" | Lars Lehtonen | General | 2 | May 23rd 06 07:44 PM |