A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 1st 09, 08:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Bill Baka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,083
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka writes:
Lately my urban riding style has been just that.
I enjoy riding to various urban communities and
neighbourhoods, and then walking around them,
savouring all the good stuff they have to offer.
When I'm done, I mount up again and ride off to
the next. I enjoy the best of both cycling and
peripatetic worlds.

Why drag the bike with you?? It seems kind of silly to ride it there and
then have to walk it.


Done right, it's not a matter of "drag". Push the bike
along with one hand on the saddle. It's easy enough
to steer around once you get the hang of it.


I just put my hand on the steering stem and with a minimum of effort can
change the direction. Sort of extra work is all.

It's kinda like walking down the street with your
hand in the back pocket of yer wife's or girlfiend's
[sic] jeans which so reveal her coltish curvatures.
(Nod, nod, wink, wink.)


Well, which one? Wife or girlfriend?

If you drove a car to those places, you'd have to
park it and probably have to feed a parking meter.


"Nevermore", said Bill.

A bike, you get to take along with you, when you
know how to comfortably do so. And then you don't
have to walk back to where you parked it.


Walk in a circle, big one, but that is the essence.


cheers again,
Tom


Bill

Ads
  #22  
Old June 1st 09, 10:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Tom Sherman wrote:

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).


Can you apply your reasoning to peds with a straight face? Are you in
favor of a system under which peds must signal, keep to one lane, wear
helmets, stop at stop signs, pull over and stop for lights and sirens,
etc?

From a public safety standpoint, is a cyclist more like a motorist or
more like a ped?

Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.


That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now
because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and
endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing,
and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If
even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you?

Chalo
  #23  
Old June 1st 09, 10:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,093
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Tom Sherman wrote:

Nonsense. Treating cyclists as equal road users is pro-cyclists. In the
real world, Peter Cole's fantasy of a free-for-all for people on
bicycles while motorists are severely restricted in behavior will not
happen, as it would be seen as a minority (cyclist) repressing a
majority (motorists).


Can you apply your reasoning to peds with a straight face? Are you in
favor of a system under which peds must signal, keep to one lane, wear
helmets, stop at stop signs, pull over and stop for lights and sirens,
etc?

From a public safety standpoint, is a cyclist more like a motorist or
more like a ped?

Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.


That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now
because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and
endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing,
and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If
even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you?

Chalo
  #24  
Old June 1st 09, 12:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:


Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.


That doesn't wash. We got most of the traffic rules we have now
because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and
endanger public safety. Cyclists and peds have done no such thing,
and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. If
even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you?


This may be an obscure reference to some. An article explaining Idaho's
(unique) stop & red light policies for cyclists:

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6346

"The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their
momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically,
stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.
Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another
driver's turn."

Of course there's the "vehicular POV:

http://bikelaws.org/laws/Idaho.pdf

"Idaho permits bicycle drivers to treat stop signs as yield signs. Some
think this is a good. However, it is inconsistent with the important
principle that cyclists are drivers who should follow standard traffic
laws."

I guess that "important principle" was on the other tablets Moses
carried down.
  #25  
Old June 1st 09, 05:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

On Jun 1, 7:54*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Oh Please! Peter Cole just wants to be able to do whatever he wants on a
bicycle, ignoring all rules, while enforcing rules on motorists. Just
admit you are anti-motorist and be done with it.


That doesn't wash. *We got most of the traffic rules we have now
because unrestricted motorists make a bloodbath of the roads and
endanger public safety. *Cyclists and peds have done no such thing,
and should not bear the ethical burden that belongs to motorists. *If
even the Idaho lege can begin to understand this; why can't you?


This may be an obscure reference to some. An article explaining Idaho's
(unique) stop & red light policies for cyclists:

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6346

"The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their
momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically,
stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs.
Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another
driver's turn."

Of course there's the "vehicular POV:

http://bikelaws.org/laws/Idaho.pdf

"Idaho permits bicycle drivers to treat stop signs as yield signs. Some
think this is a good. However, it is inconsistent with the important
principle that cyclists are drivers who should follow standard traffic
laws."

I guess that "important principle" was on the other tablets Moses
carried down.


In reading the text of the law, it's not quite accurate to say that
stop lights are treated as stop signs. The stop light law essentially
allows a slow rolling right turn on red (or its mirror image for one-
ways) but doesn't seem to allow proceeding straight through.

And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater
expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs;
but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to
Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say.

IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same
regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal
stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and
get to watch this a lot.)

And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane
operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes
kill.

But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything
they want. For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street
is a significant danger to me when I'm riding.

- Frank Krygowski
  #26  
Old June 1st 09, 08:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Frank Krygowski wrote:

And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater
expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs;
but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to
Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say.


Yes, but the site home page says:
"Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should
define the bicycle as a vehicle. This seems to make sense, because a
bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they
act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." "

They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists. I've already
explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I
(at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best
practice".

IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same
regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal
stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and
get to watch this a lot.)


The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're
describing behavior or treatment.

And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane
operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes
kill.


Obviously.

But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything
they want.


Nobody said that. Nor should pedestrians, but the "don'ts" list is
short, and the penalties are trivial. I think reds as stops and stops as
yields is a pretty good baseline for bikes. I'd go further, but that's me.

For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street
is a significant danger to me when I'm riding.


I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights.
Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the
unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I
don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and
one or both riding fast.

In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are
generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the
right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at
walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not
legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without
lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at
jogging speed. If you want to cycle fast, you have to have powerful
enough lights, ditto for driving. The big difference is biking it's your
neck mainly.
  #27  
Old June 1st 09, 08:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,193
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes in part:

IMO, local cyclists and motorists are treated pretty much the same
regarding stop signs. It's pretty unusual for either to make a legal
stop if nobody will be affected. (I live across from a stop sign and
get to watch this a lot.)


So far in our local police "crackdown," officers are merely
handing out "information" tickets. Later on, it'll be the
real thing. It'll be interesting to see if they ticket cyclists
for not coming to a full, foot-down stop at stop signs.

And IMO motorists should be held to a higher standard, just as crane
operators in factories are held to high standards. Motorist mistakes
kill.


Then maybe MV regs and bicycle regs should be separate.
Same roads, different vehicles, different regulations.
Realistically, I think most legislatures currently have
bigger fish to fry than updating traffic legislation
which has heretofore been deemed "good enough for now."

But it does NOT follow that cyclists should be able to do anything
they want. For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street
is a significant danger to me when I'm riding.


Without enforcement, traffic legislation is only good for resolving
the matter after the fact, if that lightless wrong-way rider hits ya.
On the other hand, heavy-handed (cycling regulations) enforcement only
serves to scare ridership off the streets.

What we really need is to inculcate a culture where street/road users
are considerate to each other during their brief, fleeting encounters.
That doesn't happen with rote, mummery adherence to the letter of the
law. It doesn't even happen with stern lectures, such as the officers
handing out these "information" tickets seem to enjoy giving. I guess
we all have to "grow" it within our own respective attitudes. Let the
law enforcement go after those few who are unwilling to do so, and
leave the rider with no mandatory bell[*] on his bike alone.


cheers,
Tom

[*] I have a bell ~and~ a horn. Not out of obedience to the law.
I just like playin' with 'em.

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca




  #28  
Old June 2nd 09, 01:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Tom Keats wrote:

Then maybe MV regs and bicycle regs should be separate.
Same roads, different vehicles, different regulations.


Heretic! Problem is, most of the "advocates" have bought into "vehicular
cycling" dogma. VC isn't without its good points, but it strays into
irrationality with the "same rules, same roads" mantra, and the
reflexive opposition to traffic segregation. I'm all for equality, but
physics is physics.

What we really need is to inculcate a culture where street/road users
are considerate to each other during their brief, fleeting encounters.


I'm sure virtually every social problem could be solved by cooperation,
courtesy and empathy. The problem is, culturally, we've been moving in
the opposite direction, especially in the US. Behaving out of individual
self-interest is considered natural, rational and even progressive (see
Ayn Rand). Acting out of social consciousness, altruism or even courtesy
is regarded as meddlesome, inefficient and misguided. We reap what we sow.

Not to abuse this topic with a rant, but this Darwinian ethic has
reached its inevitable result in both our current economic crisis and
our increasingly hostile roads. Greed is not good. Pursuing
self-interest exclusively may (sometimes) increase material wealth and
individual freedom, but the consequences may range from unpleasant to
lethal.

Those few societies that have dramatically reversed the decline of
walking and cycling have done so with policies of accommodating the
needs, and protecting the safety, of vulnerable travelers. Those of us
hanging on to the Darwinian approach have seen continuing decline.
"Crackdowns" on "scofflaw" cyclists (or pedestrians), even if
successful, will only have us marching in a more orderly fashion towards
(figurative) extinction.
  #29  
Old June 2nd 09, 05:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

On Jun 1, 3:04*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater
expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs;
but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to
Idaho's law. *Pretty mild objection, I'd say.


Yes, but the site home page says:
"Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should
define the bicycle as a vehicle. *This seems to make sense, because a
bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they
act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." "

They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists.


Apparently they are VCs according to your particular definition. Both
you and Jim Dyer need to realize that there are differences of opinion
among those who consider themselves VCs.

Example question: Does John Forester (author of _Effective Cycling_
and originator of most of VC's concepts) believe bicycles should be
considered vehicles?


..
..
..
..
Answer: No.

I've already
explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I
(at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best
practice".


We'd have to have a mutually accepted definition of VC before I know
what differences in opinion we may have.

But for myself: I ride separate bike trails when they are going where
I want to go and not too dangerous. I find them aesthetically
pleasant and good for recreation, and sometimes (rarely) good short
cuts. But the notion that we should have them everywhere - currently
pushed as one of the alternatives to VC - is daffy.

I find bike lanes to be worse than useless. I find barrier separated
sidepaths worse than bike lanes. And I find that almost all advocates
for those facilities to be starry-eyed nincompoops who can't visualize
simple traffic interactions. That's why they advocate door zone bike
lanes, barriers that prevent cyclists from turning left, bike trails
that cross major streets fifteen feet into a turning motorist's
inattention zone, etc.

The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're
describing behavior or treatment.


I think crackdowns on inconsequential things (like "no foot down" at
stop signs) are foolish. OTOH, I'd like to see cyclists forced to
ride on the right side of the street and use lights at night. And
anyone dumb enough to run a red light when a cop is within eyeshot
deserves _some_ sort of penalty!


For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street
is a significant danger to me when I'm riding.


I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights.
Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the
unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I
don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and
one or both riding fast.


Well, admittedly I've had more problems - or near problems - on the
one-block shortcut bike path near my home. But with a wrong-way
rider, the closing speed is greater than my speed closing on a
stationary hazard, so outrunning my lights is really not my fault. My
lighting system is chosen to work with proper road behavior. Also,
when somebody's dim enough to ride that way, there's no way you can
predict what they will do at the last second.

In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are
generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the
right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at
walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not
legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without
lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at
jogging speed.


The difference is easy to understand. A jogger can leap sideways,
even over a curb or ditch,to avoid a crash. An oncoming cyclist
can't. And again, someone dim enough to ride that way probably has
zero avoidance knowledge and skill.

Wrong way riding is illegal for many, many good reasons. This
shouldn't need discussion.

- Frank Krygowski
  #30  
Old June 2nd 09, 08:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:04 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
And regarding the site rating Idaho's bike laws - seems the rater
expressed his opinion that bikes should follow MV laws at stop signs;
but left is as a comment, which did not change the rating given to
Idaho's law. Pretty mild objection, I'd say.

Yes, but the site home page says:
"Occasionally, we hear from people who believe all 50 states should
define the bicycle as a vehicle. This seems to make sense, because a
bicycle is actually a vehicle and because "Cyclists fare best when they
act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." "

They're clearly dyed-in-the-wool vehicular cyclists.


Apparently they are VCs according to your particular definition. Both
you and Jim Dyer need to realize that there are differences of opinion
among those who consider themselves VCs.

Example question: Does John Forester (author of _Effective Cycling_
and originator of most of VC's concepts) believe bicycles should be
considered vehicles?


.
.
.
.
Answer: No.


I've just read (3 time) Forester's section: "Drivers: motorists and
cyclists" in "Bicycle Transportation", and it strikes me as a bunch of
confusing hair splitting. Hard to say what he thinks or what practical
implications it has.

I've already
explained my reservations about that. The objection that Jym Dyer and I
(at least) have is this notion of VC as a panacea, or even a "best
practice".


We'd have to have a mutually accepted definition of VC before I know
what differences in opinion we may have.


I think Forester's oft-cited quote pretty much sums it up.


But for myself: I ride separate bike trails when they are going where
I want to go and not too dangerous. I find them aesthetically
pleasant and good for recreation, and sometimes (rarely) good short
cuts. But the notion that we should have them everywhere - currently
pushed as one of the alternatives to VC - is daffy.

I find bike lanes to be worse than useless. I find barrier separated
sidepaths worse than bike lanes. And I find that almost all advocates
for those facilities to be starry-eyed nincompoops who can't visualize
simple traffic interactions. That's why they advocate door zone bike
lanes, barriers that prevent cyclists from turning left, bike trails
that cross major streets fifteen feet into a turning motorist's
inattention zone, etc.


Again, my remarks were qualified for urban environments, particularly
dense urban environments. In this interview:
http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebik...a/forester.htm
Forester doesn't really differentiate.

He does say:

"Cycling according to the bike-safety commands is not safe, and bike
lanes or bike paths next to the road cannot make such cycling safe. That
is because the bike-safety commands and the bikeways that embody them
contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

I disagree vehemently with this. I think the cities of Copenhagen and
Amsterdam are on my side. Obviously you can design dangerous segregated
facilities, but just as obviously (by examples) you can design good
ones, you just have to drop this "universal driver law" idea. I don't
have cyclist inferiority complex, I have cyclist superiority complex. In
dense urban settings, bicycles are the better mode and infrastructure
should reflect that.

Forester started out as a fighter against mandatory sidepath laws.
That's fine, but he's an ideologue against segregated traffic. That's
not so fine. He's barking up the wrong tree and has made a lot of
converts. His goals are simply educating cyclists until they all cycle
his way. My goals are to completely rearrange priorities and
infrastructure, particularly in dense areas to facilitate and promote
utility cycling, including changing laws in ways biased in favor of
cyclists (convenience and safety). It's not a pipe dream, it's been done
elsewhere. We have an easier job because the experiments have already
been conducted. Forester is a voice from the past. Following his advice
will take cycling in this country to virtual extinction.

From what I gather, Forester started out opposing Dutch-style
approaches to cycling here in the US in the 70's. Well, Boston doesn't
look anything like Amsterdam, maybe it could.

The context of this thread is a crackdown. I'm not sure if you're
describing behavior or treatment.


I think crackdowns on inconsequential things (like "no foot down" at
stop signs) are foolish. OTOH, I'd like to see cyclists forced to
ride on the right side of the street and use lights at night. And
anyone dumb enough to run a red light when a cop is within eyeshot
deserves _some_ sort of penalty!


I've already stated my opinion. What especially baffles me is advocacy
organizations requesting crackdown on cyclists. I've never heard of
pedestrians urging crackdowns on jaywalking. If there's a "cyclist
inferiority complex" I think it's among "advocates".


For example, a lightless wrong-way rider on a dark street
is a significant danger to me when I'm riding.

I've heard that before, but I don't get it. I don't out ride my lights.
Besides, it's kind of a redundant system, even given you can't see the
unlit rider, they should be able to see you from 100's of feet away. I
don't see the problem unless you're both unlit, no ambient light, and
one or both riding fast.


Well, admittedly I've had more problems - or near problems - on the
one-block shortcut bike path near my home. But with a wrong-way
rider, the closing speed is greater than my speed closing on a
stationary hazard, so outrunning my lights is really not my fault. My
lighting system is chosen to work with proper road behavior.


I think a light should be chosen to work with reality, but maybe that's
just me.

Also,
when somebody's dim enough to ride that way, there's no way you can
predict what they will do at the last second.


When I encounter a wrong way rider (and I have many times) I just go
further out into the street and give them a wide berth. I don't regard
it as much of a hazard.

In any case, unlit riders and particularly wrong-way riders are
generally not willful scofflaws, they often believe wrong way is the
right way and don't think lights are required. If they're traveling at
walking speed, as they most often are, they may be (functionally, if not
legally) right on both counts. If I can jog against traffic without
lights perfectly legally, I don't see the difference with riding at
jogging speed.


The difference is easy to understand. A jogger can leap sideways,
even over a curb or ditch,to avoid a crash. An oncoming cyclist
can't. And again, someone dim enough to ride that way probably has
zero avoidance knowledge and skill.


I think the "dim" cyclist is probably just ignorant. Many were taught to
ride against traffic. I assume they're at least as interested in
avoiding a collision as I am. I just make it clear which direction I'm
going to zig, so we don't go the same way. Worst case, I stop.


Wrong way riding is illegal for many, many good reasons. This
shouldn't need discussion.


No, but the degree of threat it represents and the best way to deal with
it do.
 




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
Scofflaw Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 2 February 23rd 09 12:04 AM
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success Artemisia[_2_] General 11 September 3rd 07 02:04 AM
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success Artemisia[_2_] UK 10 September 2nd 07 11:39 PM
Crackdown on cyclists wafflycat UK 3 August 7th 07 09:05 AM
Cambridge Police crackdown Tony Raven UK 40 November 8th 06 04:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 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.