|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:13:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: Per John B.: There is even a protocol for riding the wrong way... Don't leave us hanging..... -) The individual that is riding the wrong way keeps to the outer edge of the pavement when meeting another vehicle while the vehicle going the right way keeps to his lane. If a motorcycle or bicycle, required by law to ride "on the left side of the road", this involves two vehicles passing each other on the outer lane. I might add that this is most common on divided highways with a raised median where crossing the road might require a 2 Km., or longer trip to the closest U turn opening and then back.. -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution." And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes. And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are _safer_ for bicyclists. They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!" There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it. Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James! But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less pollution? More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank. I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip. I assume nothing of the sort. It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say) responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool. (* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.) They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are. Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways) where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful. I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet mania at its peak. Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also offer physical safety benefits after all! It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far different, too. How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses, much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces, more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think that it's just the bike facilities. It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A. For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified. I live in a place that fits Frank's reviled model of "any infrastructure is good infrastructure." It isn't. Some of it is quite dangerous -- and expensive. I have plenty of conflicts with cars and buses, and in some places those conflicts are exponentially greater than they were 30 years ago. OTOH, it's still not that bad or that scary -- yet a new or new-ish crop of cyclists wants facilities built, presumably to their front doors. IMO, separate facilities are fine in some places (e.g. over the bridges in some high traffic areas), but they are incredibly expensive and unnecessary in others. Around here, the worst places to ride are the shoulderless arterials through former farm land now suburbs. Money would be better spent improving and widening those roads and not putting in some side path which will be appropriated by the runner, dog walker and stroller set. -- Jay Beattie. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:49:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution." And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes. And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are _safer_ for bicyclists. They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!" There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it. Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James! But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less pollution? More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank. I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip. I assume nothing of the sort. It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say) responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool. (* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.) They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are. Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways) where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful. I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet mania at its peak. Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also offer physical safety benefits after all! It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far different, too. How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses, much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces, more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think that it's just the bike facilities. It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A. For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified. I live in a place that fits Frank's reviled model of "any infrastructure is good infrastructure." It isn't. Some of it is quite dangerous -- and expensive. I have plenty of conflicts with cars and buses, and in some places those conflicts are exponentially greater than they were 30 years ago. OTOH, it's still not that bad or that scary -- yet a new or new-ish crop of cyclists wants facilities built, presumably to their front doors. IMO, separate facilities are fine in some places (e.g. over the bridges in some high traffic areas), but they are incredibly expensive and unnecessary in others. Around here, the worst places to ride are the shoulderless arterials through former farm land now suburbs. Money would be better spent improving and widening those roads and not putting in some side path which will be appropriated by the runner, dog walker and stroller set. -- Jay Beattie. One might implement a law, as is, I believe, done in Holland, that the auto is deemed to be largely responsible. see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/ for an explanation of the law in Holland which is rather detailed. If a motorist knew, without doubt that he/she would be likely to be at least financially liable, if he/she hit a bicycle, than he/she might be more careful not to hit them. I might mention that in the "good old days" probably the greatest motivation for a company to implement safety rules was that the insurance company wouldn't pay if safety rules weren't enforced. -- cheers, John B. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution." And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes. And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are _safer_ for bicyclists. They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!" There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it. Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James! But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less pollution? More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank. I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip. I assume nothing of the sort. So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes from previous motorists? Roughly? It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say) responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool. (* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.) And I note, you chose not to comment on those points. I guess you now agree that we can choose what to comment on, yes? ;-) They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are. Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways) where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful. I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet mania at its peak. Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also offer physical safety benefits after all! It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far different, too. How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses, much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces, more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think that it's just the bike facilities. It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A. Apparently you, like many "paint and path" advocates, misunderstand the motivation behind the style of riding advocated by me and by those behind programs like Effective Cycling, the League of American Bicycling's courses, the CAN-BIKE courses, the British cycling education courses, etc. The motivation is not to transform the culture, magically or otherwise. The motivation is to enable those who choose to learn the techniques to ride safely and enjoyably in the real world as we know it. You might say it's a practical alternative to "Oh gosh, I'd love to ride my bike if only we had completely segregated pathways that would take me everywhere I'd like to go. THEN I'd be SAFE!!!" FWIW: When I began riding as an enthusiastic adult, I had a very brief dalliance with the segregation idea. In some magazine or other, I read an account of someone's bike tour that briefly mentioned the idea of a coast-to-coast (U.S.) segregated bike trail. I now can't even remember whose pipe dream that was; but I briefly thought "Oh, that would be so nice." Within a day or two, I had considered it enough to know that it was flat out impossible. And within a year or two, I was reading about how to ride and enjoy the roads we actually have. If I'd stuck to the bike segregation dream, I'd still be waiting for a "safe" place to ride my bike. But given the wonderful experiences I and my family have had through bicycling, I'm sure glad I didn't wait. Which doesn't mean others should stop trying to convert their own city into Amsterdam. But if they want to do that, I just wish they'd start with something other than bad copies of Amsterdam's bike facilities. The Dutch realise not everything they do works well. Theirs is a system of continuous improvement. If a type of crossing is seen to be causing crashes, they re-engineer it to try to make it better. That brings up the point that Mikael Colville-Andersen (one of the world's most prominent bike facility proponents) thinks that most U.S. cycletracks are nuts. Why? Because in the U.S., they're typically two-way on one side of the road. He says that the northern European countries learned long ago that such a design is much more dangerous. But his message hasn't sunk in with the "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" crowd. It seems to be working, whatever they're doing. Healthier people and a healthy economy. What seems to be working is the entire constellation of differences that I noted above. Again, it's not just bike facilities that make the difference. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On 6/6/2016 10:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified. Agreed. It seems that more and more "bicycle advocates" want nothing less than "protected" cycletracks, and they want them everywhere. It's nonsense. Interestingly, the highway 1/10 mile from my house wouldn't be a bad place for a pair of cycletracks. (And I say "pair" to preclude the insane two-way-on-one-side that even segregation fan Colville-Andersen objects to.) This half mile of highway has almost no intersections and few driveways (the big danger spots for cycletracks), it has high traffic volume, and it's the only route over the interstate to connect maybe a thousand residences and the biggest shopping complex in the county. But practically speaking, it's not going to get cycletracks. There are political difficulties involving jurisdiction borders, there are big engineering difficulties, and there are much more pressing needs for the huge pile of money required. After our residents are willing to accept Amsterdam's tax burdens, speed restrictions, liability laws and all the rest - IOW after our culture is transformed - maybe there will be the political will and money to build this tiny chunk of paradise. And maybe, if and when I'm reincarnated, I can take a peek and see if that happened. But I doubt it will. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On 07/06/16 12:49, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote: It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A. For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. Yes, I dare say bicycle mode share there is similar to Australia. Maybe a couple of percent average across the country. -- JS |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
On 07/06/16 14:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote: Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution." And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes. And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are _safer_ for bicyclists. They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!" There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it. Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James! But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less pollution? More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank. I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip. I assume nothing of the sort. So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes from previous motorists? Roughly? No idea, but probably greater than zero. I.e. I doubt more people drive as a result. It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say) responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool. (* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.) And I note, you chose not to comment on those points. I guess you now agree that we can choose what to comment on, yes? ;-) Your benefits reasoning above was all about lessened pollution, though you have stated in the past, I'm sure, that there are benefits beyond just pollution reduction - i.e. increased fitness, reduced risk of heart disease and obesity, etc. Hence you obviously know there are many benefits to increased levels of cycling both to the individual and society, and my comment that I know you already know it. They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are. Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways) where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful. I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet mania at its peak. Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also offer physical safety benefits after all! It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far different, too. How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses, much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces, more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think that it's just the bike facilities. It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A. Apparently you, like many "paint and path" advocates, misunderstand the motivation behind the style of riding advocated by me and by those behind programs like Effective Cycling, the League of American Bicycling's courses, the CAN-BIKE courses, the British cycling education courses, etc. The motivation is not to transform the culture, magically or otherwise. The motivation is to enable those who choose to learn the techniques to ride safely and enjoyably in the real world as we know it. Sadly though, those techniques do not make riding on the road with motor traffic safe enough (perceived or actual) to encourage many ordinary people to ditch their car. You might say it's a practical alternative to "Oh gosh, I'd love to ride my bike if only we had completely segregated pathways that would take me everywhere I'd like to go. THEN I'd be SAFE!!!" They don't have "completely segregated pathways that would take me everywhere I'd like to go" in NL either. Gross exaggerations. FWIW: When I began riding as an enthusiastic adult, I had a very brief dalliance with the segregation idea. In some magazine or other, I read an account of someone's bike tour that briefly mentioned the idea of a coast-to-coast (U.S.) segregated bike trail. I now can't even remember whose pipe dream that was; but I briefly thought "Oh, that would be so nice." Within a day or two, I had considered it enough to know that it was flat out impossible. And within a year or two, I was reading about how to ride and enjoy the roads we actually have. If I'd stuck to the bike segregation dream, I'd still be waiting for a "safe" place to ride my bike. But given the wonderful experiences I and my family have had through bicycling, I'm sure glad I didn't wait. Which doesn't mean others should stop trying to convert their own city into Amsterdam. But if they want to do that, I just wish they'd start with something other than bad copies of Amsterdam's bike facilities. Well, there's something we can agree on. -- JS |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
Am 06.06.2016 um 22:49 schrieb James:
They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are. Right. Combine that with the facts that in a European city like Copenhagen, * you have road crossings every few hundred yards * the majority of accidents are of the type 'crossing accidents' * drives present the same danger as crossings any you'll see that the benefit of cycling on a sidewalk evaporates. The net result is that a right sidewalk is more dangerous than lane riding by a factor 3 and a left sidewalk is more dangerous than a right sidewalk by another factor 3. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
Am 07.06.2016 um 00:56 schrieb James:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet mania at its peak. Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. I think you are wrong here. My memory places Germany and Switzerland at a lower accident risk per million km cycling. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
riding on the sidewalk
Am 07.06.2016 um 06:38 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote: On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote: More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank. I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip. I assume nothing of the sort. So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes from previous motorists? Roughly? Zero. Comparative studies in various European cities give evidence that the only thing that changes the proportion of motorists in a city it to implement restrictions on motorists. Improving public transports or improving cycling facilities largely only shifts the shares between pedestrians, public transport users and bicycles, not motorists. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Riding on the sidewalk | Dan O | Techniques | 0 | August 30th 12 05:24 AM |
Bicycle Fatality 2/1 while riding on sidewalk | Ronko | Techniques | 4 | February 3rd 10 01:14 AM |
Riding on Sidewalk | AMuzi | Techniques | 96 | February 2nd 10 04:11 AM |
Riding up Sidewalk Curbs | Unicorn | Unicycling | 11 | May 15th 07 03:11 PM |
International sidewalk riding | fastturtle | General | 0 | July 5th 05 06:48 PM |