A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old November 23rd 13, 06:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:12:27 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

I ~guarantee that I would smoke you through town this way and *not*
get creamed by any right-hook.


Someone who takes lots of risks, ignores traffic laws, doesn't mind offending other road users etc. can certainly be faster. We know that big city bike messengers are notorious for that stuff.

But what is the "smoke you through town" really worth?


Feeling alive.

Taking five minutes off a half-hour journey? Maybe even ten minutes?

If you're getting paid per delivery, yes, that adds up. Make more deliveries per day, make more money, buy nicer tattoos. Cool!


Therapist: I'm going to say a word, and you tell me the first
word that comes into you mind. Ready? "Wheelie... "

Frank: "Tattoo"

But for a person with a typical job, house & family, the five minutes just means watching a few more commercials on TV, or otherwise wasting the time. It's never going to save the world.


What's important
In this world
A little boy
A little girl

Riding fast can be fun.


Yep.

I used to routinely put a stopwatch on my homeward commute and rode it as fast as I could. But if I caught a red light, I stopped and waited for a green. It made the green lights even sweeter.


Cool!

For me it's less about speed or time than being unstoppable.

(Of course as bicycling increases to Portland levels and begins to look
a little like Amsterdam or Copenhagen in spots, well... you may have to
give up the road warrior life and... well, isn't that the goal? :-)


You don't have to be a "road warrior" to be competent and comfortable in traffic.

http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/


Yeah, the "intact males" lady :-)
Ads
  #272  
Old November 23rd 13, 08:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:37:47 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

The hassle that the bike box effectively (I initially said
"practically") removes has to do with *sitting* stopped at the red light
waiting for the fresh green to proceed straight ahead, and cars turning
right on red (no problem, until... ) not paying attention to the change
of the light and turning across my path - which I have not yet embarked
on and won't, even with the green light, until I know it's clear and no
right-hooking traffic.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the stale green ("moving" right
hook).


Well, then, we've definitely heard it both ways here.


Either you're coming down with dementia (in which case - no joke -
I care), or I'm picking fights with a retard. Either way I've got
to stop.

But if the purpose is just to prevent a right hook on a stationary cyclist caused by a right turn on red, why not just say "No Right Turn On Red"? Do that and enforce it well, and your problem is solved without enticing cyclists to pass on the right.


If that was the purpose, sure; but it's not.

(And your "enticing" point is just plain stupid.)

Again: They seem to have implemented that "No Right Turn On Red" simultaneously with the installation of bike boxes. Therefore, any benefit from the simple "No Right Turn On Red" is being wrongly attributed to the bike boxes.


Not wrongly if the no turn on red is an element of the bike box
design, and it seems that it is a necessary component.

Still, the box itself obviously does more than the prohibition on
red turns. It positions the bicyclist out of the blind spot (and
more).

You'll argue *anything* to "Just Say No" to facilities, won't you.
  #273  
Old November 23rd 13, 08:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Dan writes:

snip


You'll argue *anything* to "Just Say No" to facilities, won't you.


One more time: If you have any pride in these (two, was it?)
facilities in your area that you are responsible, you'll show
them to us.
  #274  
Old November 23rd 13, 11:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:41:38 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:37:47 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:


The hassle that the bike box effectively (I initially said
"practically") removes has to do with *sitting* stopped at the red light
waiting for the fresh green to proceed straight ahead, and cars turning
right on red ...


It has nothing whatsoever to do with the stale green ("moving" right
hook).




Well, then, we've definitely heard it both ways here.


Either you're coming down with dementia (in which case - no joke -
I care), or I'm picking fights with a retard.


There's that fourth grade insult tendency again. You'll never make it to even eighth grade discussion level, will you?

I _had_ said that I thought the bike boxes were implemented in response to Tracey Sparling's death due to a right turn on red as she sat to the right of a large vehicle, and another similar case a few days later. See for example
http://www.neighborhoodnotes.com/new..._bike _boxes/

I was then told that no, both deaths involved moving (not stationary) bikes, passing motor vehicles on the right, and that's what triggered the bike box installation.

So please correct me without the fourth grade insults. Was it not those deaths that motivated Portland to install bike boxes? (i.e. is the article I linked wrong?)

Were those deaths moving bike, "passing on the right" incidents?

Did Portland then really install bike boxes that are intended to prevent a different crash type, i.e. _only_ stationary bike, right-turn-on-red deaths?

And if the intent was only to prevent right-turn-on-red problems, why not just say "No Right Turn On Red" and enforce it, as is supposedly normal east of the Atlantic? Certainly, if there are no right turns on red, there will be no right turn on red deaths.

Or was the entire exercise a ruse, an excuse to try out some new "It's Innovative! It's European!!" paint scheme?

- Frank Krygowski
  #275  
Old November 24th 13, 01:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Friday, November 22, 2013 10:04:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


big snip

Portland is leading


the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars


and the light rail and the buses and everything else).




Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!



I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!



"Now just make your Love Offering to Ms. Birk's consulting firm... And ignore that data behind the curtain!!!"



http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


As the article notes: "On a neighborhood level, inner northeast had the highest rate of bicycling to work with 14 percent. The lowest bike-to-work number was a meager 1 percent in east Portland."

The inner northeast and southeast neighborhoods have lots of bike boulevards and considerable infrastructure. They are flat-ish (apart from the slope up to Mt. Tabor) and populated by a lot of young professionals. 14% is a phenomenal number for an American city, and that number grew in part because of the facilities, at least according to what people tell me who use them.. I personally do not like a lot of bicycle facilities, but others do -- which goes to show you that everyone is not me.

BTW, it is not just sunny weather commuters. http://tinyurl.com/lwowuxp
I now have to fight for rack space on crummy days -- something I never had to do 20-30 years ago, back when the only people using the rack were me and the guy who had lost his license because of a drunk driving conviction. I kind of miss those days.

The dismal numbers are out in the far east part of town. I don't know how to grow the numbers out there -- it's not what we would call part of the bicycle culture, although there are a lot of people who commute on the Springwater Corridor, including one hard-core commuter in my office.
That bit of infrastructure gets a ton of use.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #276  
Old November 24th 13, 04:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:30:54 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2013 10:04:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:




On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:




big snip



Portland is leading
the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars
and the light rail and the buses and everything else).


Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!



I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!


http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


As the article notes: "On a neighborhood level, inner northeast had the highest rate of bicycling to work with 14 percent. The lowest bike-to-work number was a meager 1 percent in east Portland."

The inner northeast and southeast neighborhoods have lots of bike boulevards and considerable infrastructure. They are flat-ish (apart from the slope up to Mt. Tabor) and populated by a lot of young professionals. 14% is a phenomenal number for an American city, and that number grew in part because of the facilities, at least according to what people tell me who use them. I personally do not like a lot of bicycle facilities, but others do -- which goes to show you that everyone is not me.


I've never doubted that bike facilities get more people biking, whether or not those facilities are actually beneficial. Although I suspect that some of the increased counts at certain facilities are just shifts from other nearby routes.

But again, the mode shares quoted in the article are really shares of a small portion of Portland's traffic. In your Northeast, 14% of residents may commute by bike; but overall, only 4% of residents use bikes for most trips, and I'm guessing city residents are not the majority of the traffic in the city.

I've waited in long, nearly-stationary lines of traffic on the inbound highways - US 26, on I-84 and I-5. I've searched diligently for parking places downtown. Despite certain fantasies, it's not a very European scene. I could be wrong, but I doubt that bicycles make up more than 1% of the vehicles on the move at any time. And I know cycling is much lower in bad weather..

The dismal numbers are out in the far east part of town. I don't know how to grow the numbers out there -- it's not what we would call part of the bicycle culture...


Which is an important point! Culture and fashion are pretty random, and notoriously hard to control. Those best at influencing it are probably the big money corporations, using sophisticated ads, product placement, publicity machines, etc. When Chevy, Subaru, Cadillac or Mercedes demonstrate that driving one of their vehicles gives you traffic-free streets and sexy female passengers, it's hard for most guys to think about how wonderful bike boxes are!

- Frank Krygowski
  #277  
Old November 24th 13, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:41:38 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:37:47 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:


The hassle that the bike box effectively (I initially said
"practically") removes has to do with *sitting* stopped at the red light
waiting for the fresh green to proceed straight ahead, and cars turning
right on red ...


It has nothing whatsoever to do with the stale green ("moving" right
hook).




Well, then, we've definitely heard it both ways here.


Either you're coming down with dementia (in which case - no joke -
I care), or I'm picking fights with a retard.


There's that fourth grade insult tendency again. You'll never make it to even eighth grade discussion level, will you?

I _had_ said that I thought the bike boxes were implemented in response to Tracey Sparling's death due to a right turn on red as she sat to the right of a large vehicle, and another similar case a few days later. See for example
http://www.neighborhoodnotes.com/new..._bike _boxes/

I was then told that no, both deaths involved moving (not stationary) bikes, passing motor vehicles on the right, and that's what triggered the bike box installation.

So please correct me without the fourth grade insults. Was it not those deaths that motivated Portland to install bike boxes? (i.e. is the article I linked wrong?)


Um... I don't really know the answer to that at all. In fact, I
don't know much about the bike boxes at all - except what I read
when you started that thread about how they were a failure, and
what I have read and seen in pictures during this thread, and what
I observed that evening on 3rd and Madison.

But I *think* the Sparling case was an acknowledged impetus.

Were those deaths moving bike, "passing on the right" incidents?


Sparling's bike was moving just *before* the accident (not sure
if it was moving at the moment of impact - I suspect maybe not,
but she had moved into the intersection), but there was no passing
involved (on the right, left, or otherwise), nor was it a right
turn on red.

What it *was* was the "stale green" problem - the stated primary
problem bike boxes are intended to solve. And now that I think
about it, it is ~exactly the same thing as the "hassle" that I
described routinely experiencing, except that I do not proceed
into the intersection, get killed, and provoke a "something must
be done about this". For me it's just a routine hassle.

Did Portland then really install bike boxes that are intended to prevent a different crash type, i.e. _only_ stationary bike, right-turn-on-red deaths?


As above, I don't know what they were thinking; I only know what
I've read (including the stated primary purpose - "primary"
purpose literally implying not the "only" purpose), and what I've
reverse engineered in my mind after analysing the installations.

You'd have to ask whoever installed them, but here's my guess:

1) Position bicyclists out of the motorist's blind spot in order
to prevent what happened to Tracy Sparling.

2) Expand bike infrastructure in general, which serves to encourage
more bicycling, give precedence to alternative modes on at least
*part* of the road ("take from the rich and give to the poor"),
inform and condition motorists to watch for bikes on their right
at intersections, generate learning from experimentation, and
maybe also advance the cause by _doing something_.

And if the intent was only to prevent right-turn-on-red problems, why not just say "No Right Turn On Red" and enforce it, as is supposedly normal east of the Atlantic? Certainly, if there are no right turns on red, there will be no right turn on red deaths.


This is why I got exasperated and called you that un-PC thing (no
offense intended to the "developmentally disabled"): You have been
arguing that prohibiting right turn on red addresses my problem -
which it does. But I did not even call it a "problem", rather a
"hassle" (meaning just one of those things that there's really no
feasible solution for - short of driver's coming to expect bicyslists
on their right and deferring to their legal right-of-way - *not* a
problem worth addressing with either bike boxes *or* prohibiting right
turns on red). I only even brought it up (in response to your claim
that uncritical cyclists would be lured to their doom by the pretty,
but useless, green paint) as a valid tangible benefit of bike boxes
that happen to be already installed - *not* as a problem to be
addressed by installing bike boxes.

And as for addressing the right-on-red deaths... what is that, like
a big truck cutting the corner and dragging its trailer or back
wheels over the bicyclist waiting behind the stop line? I guess
that could happen, so I guess it probably does. How does making
them wait for the green change anything if they don't see the
bicyclist sitting there? What, does it allow the bicyclist to
jump into their field of view? Maybe, but by then won't the truck
driver be watching first their outside front end going wide and
then glance at their inside rear wheels going over the curb -
everywhere *except* their inside front.

The bike box places the bicyclist in the field of view *before*
they begin to move and "execute" the turn (which is probably why
you thought this was what it was supposed to address - because it
does).

Or was the entire exercise a ruse, an excuse to try out some new "It's Innovative! It's European!!" paint scheme?


See guess #2 above :-)

Now, go make your Love Offering to the fringe obstructionist cult
of Forester and Franklin, et al.
  #278  
Old November 24th 13, 04:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Jay Beattie writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 10:04:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


big snip

Portland is leading


the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars


and the light rail and the buses and everything else).




Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!



I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!



"Now just make your Love Offering to Ms. Birk's consulting firm... And ignore that data behind the curtain!!!"



http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


As the article notes: "On a neighborhood level, inner northeast had the highest rate of bicycling to work with 14 percent. The lowest bike-to-work number was a meager 1 percent in east Portland."

The inner northeast and southeast neighborhoods have lots of bike boulevards and considerable infrastructure. They are flat-ish (apart from the slope up to Mt. Tabor) and populated by a lot of young professionals. 14% is a phenomenal number for an American city, and that number grew in part because of the facilities, at least according to what people tell me who use them. I personally do not like a lot of bicycle facilities,


My favorite places to ride have zero bike facilites, but I can
deal with places that have them, still enjoy riding there, and
(as you know) sometimes avail myself of them to considerable
advantage.

... but others do -- which goes to show you that everyone is not me.


And that's the point: Making the mode shift happen. As I said,
I don't even really want butts on bikes, myself. I sympathize with
your experience of having to deal with all other bicyclists, and
love being the Lone Ranger where I ride.

But I also get excited with a little camaraderie now and then,
and love bicycling so much it just wouldn't be right to not want
everyone to feel like they could participate.

BTW, it is not just sunny weather commuters. http://tinyurl.com/lwowuxp
I now have to fight for rack space on crummy days -- something I never had to do 20-30 years ago, back when the only people using the rack were me and the guy who had lost his license because of a drunk driving conviction. I kind of miss those days.


Heh, some guys at the fire station were talking about my commuting,
and one of the officers looked at me point blank with a concerned
expression and asked if I had lost my license :-)

The dismal numbers are out in the far east part of town. I don't know how to grow the numbers out there -- it's not what we would call part of the bicycle culture, although there are a lot of people who commute on the Springwater Corridor, including one hard-core commuter in my office.
That bit of infrastructure gets a ton of use.


I was standing outside City Hall talking with Capizzi (#1) and
Jude (top ten) after the BCC party. Someone introduced me (#2)
to Jude and the first thing she asked was, "Do you ride the
Springwater?"

What it will take to get people to use bikes out there - and out
here where I live - is separated facilities like Springwater and
all over The Netherlands. Also public transit stations (like
The Netherlands). Also there must be more pain involved in
driving cars. People will lament higher gas prices and lower
infrastructure capacity for automobiles, but they'll be thrilled
to find out how great it is to Ride Bike! and be healthy.

People also argue that everything is too far apart to support
active transportation; but cart, horse, horse, cart - whatever
- if people start walking and biking instead of driving, all
of a sudden Main Street will have a comeback opportunity in
downtowns *and* many other community livable spaces, and
Wal Mart will be the one closing stores.
  #279  
Old November 24th 13, 05:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:30:54 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2013 10:04:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:




On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:55:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:




big snip



Portland is leading
the way. They *will* hit 10% and beyond (even *with the streetcars
and the light rail and the buses and everything else).


Ten percent of what? 10% of the traffic on one bridge during one hour on one sunny, pleasant day? 10% "respondents" to surveys, despite the obvious bias that implies? 10% of "residents," so we can pretend that nobody commutes into Portland from beyond the city limits? You can't _possibly_ mean 10% of all commuting or all transportation in Portland - not if you've ever been there!



I know: "Ya gotta believe!!!! Miracles DO happen!!! You'll soon see the MIRACLE of the reverse rapture, where the MOTORISTS are swept away to Satan's hellish freeways deep below us!!! Only the MEEK and the RIGHTEOUS on their BICYCLES will rule over the COMPLETE STREETS of a heaven on earth!


http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367


As the article notes: "On a neighborhood level, inner northeast had the highest rate of bicycling to work with 14 percent. The lowest bike-to-work number was a meager 1 percent in east Portland."

The inner northeast and southeast neighborhoods have lots of bike boulevards and considerable infrastructure. They are flat-ish (apart from the slope up to Mt. Tabor) and populated by a lot of young professionals. 14% is a phenomenal number for an American city, and that number grew in part because of the facilities, at least according to what people tell me who use them. I personally do not like a lot of bicycle facilities, but others do -- which goes to show you that everyone is not me.


I've never doubted that bike facilities get more people biking, whether or not those facilities are actually beneficial. Although I suspect that some of the increased counts at certain facilities are just shifts from other nearby routes.


Maybe. But that's only a problem for statisticians. Bottom line
there actually *are* people riding bikes.

But again, the mode shares quoted in the article are really shares of a small portion of Portland's traffic. In your Northeast, 14% of residents may commute by bike; but overall, only 4% of residents use bikes for most trips, and I'm guessing city residents are not the majority of the traffic in the city.


Statisticians, now demographers...

I've waited in long, nearly-stationary lines of traffic on the inbound highways - US 26, on I-84 and I-5. I've searched diligently for parking places downtown. Despite certain fantasies, it's not a very European scene. I could be wrong, but I doubt that bicycles make up more than 1% of the vehicles on the move at any time.


"Catch!", said the Onceler
He let's something fall
It's a Truffula Seed
The last one of all
Plant a new Truffula
Treat it with care
Feed it clean water
And give it fresh air
Grow a forest
Protect it from axes that hack
Then the Lorax and all of his friends
May come back

And I know cycling is much lower in bad weather.


Don't be so sure. (We know it is for you personally.)

The dismal numbers are out in the far east part of town. I don't know how to grow the numbers out there -- it's not what we would call part of the bicycle culture...


Which is an important point! Culture and fashion are pretty random, and notoriously hard to control. Those best at influencing it are probably the big money corporations, using sophisticated ads, product placement, publicity machines, etc.


*&^$$#$%$# !!!!&%$&^$#&^%^#$%$^)*$ !!!!!!! ... ****!!!

That's the "culture" of your imaginary dip**** birdbrain Fred -
the mind that you seem to ascribe to the vast (apologies to Jobst)
majority - the general public.

Not that you're far wrong, but come on, man - have a little
faith, baby.

The big money corporations are *not* driving Portland's bike
culture.

When Chevy, Subaru, Cadillac or Mercedes demonstrate that driving one of their vehicles gives you traffic-free streets and sexy female passengers, it's hard for most guys to think about how wonderful bike boxes are!


Don't forget the showgirls on your PSA billboards :-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY Times Cycling Article Bret Racing 1 March 20th 09 05:24 AM
Cycling article in todays Irish Times VinDevo UK 0 August 28th 08 02:09 PM
Sunday Times article on cycling safety. Garry from Cork UK 26 March 1st 08 01:40 PM
Another Times article about cycling and trains wafflycat UK 2 April 24th 06 02:48 PM
Times article on cycling 20p per mile dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 15 January 28th 04 05:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.