Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/23/2018 8:19 AM, Duane wrote:

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face.Â* My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded.Â* I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it.Â* That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

Seeing him more quickly isn't necessarily useful. If you wouldn't have
seen him quickly enough without his light, then and only then was the
light useful.

I've mentioned the time I was driving on a rural highway and saw a
flashing white light literally a mile away. A cyclist had some
super-lumen white headlight fastened backwards on her bike's rear rack.
The light was so bright that I was shielding my eyes once I finally
passed her.

I would have seen her perfectly well if she had no taillight at all. But
I imagine she tells tales of how it's saved her life.

(BTW, that light is illegal in this state. White lights aren't allowed
as taillights. State law says "white lamps and white reflectors shall
not be used on the rear of the bicycle.")


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/23/2018 10:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

I'm actually not restricting my comments to rails-to-trails conservancy
projects. Again, I was on a statewide committee evaluating 53 different
grants. Many were not rails-to-trails, but I don't remember even one
that I'd expect to carry more than a tiny percentage of utility cycling.

I understand there are paths in certain locales that one could cherry
pick, showing high utility use. But even city or suburban paths (and
bike lanes) I'm aware of get very little utility use. It's almost all
recreation cyclists.

BTW, we were recently talking to a travel agent about a possible trip,
and I asked one question about bringing our folding bikes, and/or other
bike access. She immediately told us that she would never ride a bike
even on a bike trail, because bicycles are far too dangerous. She goes
to a spinning class instead. Oh, and of course she knows two women whose
helmets saved their lives. :-(


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 8:19 AM, Duane wrote:

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face.* My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded.* I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it.* That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

Seeing him more quickly isn't necessarily useful. If you wouldn't have
seen him quickly enough without his light, then and only then was the
light useful.

I've mentioned the time I was driving on a rural highway and saw a
flashing white light literally a mile away. A cyclist had some
super-lumen white headlight fastened backwards on her bike's rear rack.
The light was so bright that I was shielding my eyes once I finally
passed her.

I would have seen her perfectly well if she had no taillight at all. But
I imagine she tells tales of how it's saved her life.

(BTW, that light is illegal in this state. White lights aren't allowed
as taillights. State law says "white lamps and white reflectors shall
not be used on the rear of the bicycle.")

Are you or the lawmaker confusing vehicles and riders? How about, say, a
reflective white bunny tail? Would she be told that's illegal to wear on
HER rear, too?

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:45:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 10:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be..
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

I'm actually not restricting my comments to rails-to-trails conservancy
projects. Again, I was on a statewide committee evaluating 53 different
grants. Many were not rails-to-trails, but I don't remember even one
that I'd expect to carry more than a tiny percentage of utility cycling.

I understand there are paths in certain locales that one could cherry
pick, showing high utility use. But even city or suburban paths (and
bike lanes) I'm aware of get very little utility use. It's almost all
recreation cyclists.

BTW, we were recently talking to a travel agent about a possible trip,
and I asked one question about bringing our folding bikes, and/or other
bike access. She immediately told us that she would never ride a bike
even on a bike trail, because bicycles are far too dangerous. She goes
to a spinning class instead. Oh, and of course she knows two women whose
helmets saved their lives. :-(


--
- Frank Krygowski

In a city near me they are going to improve the main road through a section of town. One of those improvements is a bicycle lane. Great, except... The vast majority of the bike lanes in that city are right in the door zone of the parked cars next to the bike lane = more dangerous to ride the bike lane than it is to ride in the traffic lane further away from parked cars.

Many people simply do NOT realize how far an open car door extends into a bike lane.

Nearby there is a 75kms long rail-trail that one weekdays hardly has anyone on it except in the early evenings and most of those people riding it have their cars parked in the parking lot at the trail head and those people don't ride very far = about 10 kilometers in one direction if that. One the weekends in summer it's far faster and safer to use the nearby road to get to the next town that the rail-trail connects to. On weekends the rail-trail is full of dog walkers with dogs on long thin retractable leashes that can't be sen stretching across the trail and with the walkers wearing earbuds/headphones with the volume so high they can not hear a bell or yell.

Cheers

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:00:28 PM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 8:19 AM, Duane wrote:

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face.Â* My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded.Â* I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it.Â* That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

Seeing him more quickly isn't necessarily useful. If you wouldn't have
seen him quickly enough without his light, then and only then was the
light useful.

I've mentioned the time I was driving on a rural highway and saw a
flashing white light literally a mile away. A cyclist had some
super-lumen white headlight fastened backwards on her bike's rear rack.
The light was so bright that I was shielding my eyes once I finally
passed her.

I would have seen her perfectly well if she had no taillight at all. But
I imagine she tells tales of how it's saved her life.

(BTW, that light is illegal in this state. White lights aren't allowed
as taillights. State law says "white lamps and white reflectors shall
not be used on the rear of the bicycle.")

Are you or the lawmaker confusing vehicles and riders? How about, say, a
reflective white bunny tail? Would she be told that's illegal to wear on
HER rear, too?

In Ontario Canada a bicycle on the road IS a vehicle and thus it's illegal for it to have a rear facing white light or a strobe light that faces forward or rearward. I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights. I've taken to wearing a flip up/down sunglasses on my eyeglasses so that I can flip it down when the bright lights would otherwise blind me.

Cheers

On 23/07/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:00:28 PM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 8:19 AM, Duane wrote:

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face.Â* My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded.Â* I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it.Â* That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

Seeing him more quickly isn't necessarily useful. If you wouldn't have
seen him quickly enough without his light, then and only then was the
light useful.

I've mentioned the time I was driving on a rural highway and saw a
flashing white light literally a mile away. A cyclist had some
super-lumen white headlight fastened backwards on her bike's rear rack.
The light was so bright that I was shielding my eyes once I finally
passed her.

I would have seen her perfectly well if she had no taillight at all. But
I imagine she tells tales of how it's saved her life.

(BTW, that light is illegal in this state. White lights aren't allowed
as taillights. State law says "white lamps and white reflectors shall
not be used on the rear of the bicycle.")

Are you or the lawmaker confusing vehicles and riders? How about, say, a
reflective white bunny tail? Would she be told that's illegal to wear on
HER rear, too?

In Ontario Canada a bicycle on the road IS a vehicle and thus it's illegal for it to have a rear facing white light or a strobe light that faces forward or rearward. I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights. I've taken to wearing a flip up/down sunglasses on my eyeglasses so that I can flip it down when the bright lights would otherwise blind me.


Same rules apply in Quebec as far as flashing white lights. I think
rear red lights can be flashing. Like Ontario though, DRLs are not
mandatory on bicycles.

I've been blinded at night by bright bicycle lights when jogging or XC
skiing on trails.

As I said, there was one instance where I actually saw a rider because
of his flashing light in the sun (an no, it wasn't 1/2 mile away but
more like 20 meters) but that was the only time. And this is illegal
here anyway.

On 23/07/2018 2:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:45:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 10:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 5:33:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

Well, SMS is talking about trails created by a local planning authority -- a home rule city or county, and you're talking about rails-to-trails conservancy projects, which are a different thing. The two major rail-trail projects in my area get lots of bike traffic, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 Two of our rail trails have a morning bike rush hour.

I think the close-in portions of these trails are rather unique because useful rail rights of way remain in use -- or the smart landowners take back theproperty when the right of way is abandoned, and cities don't have the money to buy them -- or they think they own them, build facilities and then get a wake up call, like the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle -- which goes right through the UW and gets lots of bicycle traffic. A lot of rail-trails, however, are in the middle of nowhere, and it is probably the rare rail-trail that gets as much use as in PDX or Seattle.

You have to look at each project and decide whether it was a good idea based on objective criteria and not wishful thinking. Again, I'm fine with roads and think the best bang for the buck is bike lanes.

I'm actually not restricting my comments to rails-to-trails conservancy
projects. Again, I was on a statewide committee evaluating 53 different
grants. Many were not rails-to-trails, but I don't remember even one
that I'd expect to carry more than a tiny percentage of utility cycling.

I understand there are paths in certain locales that one could cherry
pick, showing high utility use. But even city or suburban paths (and
bike lanes) I'm aware of get very little utility use. It's almost all
recreation cyclists.

BTW, we were recently talking to a travel agent about a possible trip,
and I asked one question about bringing our folding bikes, and/or other
bike access. She immediately told us that she would never ride a bike
even on a bike trail, because bicycles are far too dangerous. She goes
to a spinning class instead. Oh, and of course she knows two women whose
helmets saved their lives. :-(


--
- Frank Krygowski

In a city near me they are going to improve the main road through a section of town. One of those improvements is a bicycle lane. Great, except... The vast majority of the bike lanes in that city are right in the door zone of the parked cars next to the bike lane = more dangerous to ride the bike lane than it is to ride in the traffic lane further away from parked cars.

Many people simply do NOT realize how far an open car door extends into a bike lane.

Nearby there is a 75kms long rail-trail that one weekdays hardly has anyone on it except in the early evenings and most of those people riding it have their cars parked in the parking lot at the trail head and those people don't ride very far = about 10 kilometers in one direction if that. One the weekends in summer it's far faster and safer to use the nearby road to get to the next town that the rail-trail connects to. On weekends the rail-trail is full of dog walkers with dogs on long thin retractable leashes that can't be sen stretching across the trail and with the walkers wearing earbuds/headphones with the volume so high they can not hear a bell or yell.

Cheers


The new Quebec Highway Code caught people's attention because the fines
for missing reflectors went from 15 bucks to 60. Given the 6 required,
that's a $360 fine. And with road bikes not having pedals to mount the
required reflectors, it was an issue. They've modified it to allow
reflective tape to replace these.

What was generally missed is where the law used to say that we had to
ride to the far right except when turning left, it now stipulates
"except to avoid hazards and defines the door zone as a hazard."

We'll see what happens. Last year they added the 1 or 1.5m passing rule
and increased fines for dooring. But as far as I can determine, no one
has been fined for these things.

On 7/23/2018 12:00 PM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 8:19 AM, Duane wrote:

BTW, I was going to work last Friday heading east and the sun was just
in my face.* My current helmet doesn't have a visor and I wasn't wearing
my cycling cap under it so I was getting blinded.* I did see a guy
coming toward me with his front light blinking where I probably wouldn't
have seen him as quickly without it.* That's probably the first time
I've seen that useful.

Seeing him more quickly isn't necessarily useful. If you wouldn't have
seen him quickly enough without his light, then and only then was the
light useful.

I've mentioned the time I was driving on a rural highway and saw a
flashing white light literally a mile away. A cyclist had some
super-lumen white headlight fastened backwards on her bike's rear rack.
The light was so bright that I was shielding my eyes once I finally
passed her.

I would have seen her perfectly well if she had no taillight at all. But
I imagine she tells tales of how it's saved her life.

(BTW, that light is illegal in this state. White lights aren't allowed
as taillights. State law says "white lamps and white reflectors shall
not be used on the rear of the bicycle.")

Are you or the lawmaker confusing vehicles and riders? How about, say, a
reflective white bunny tail? Would she be told that's illegal to wear on
HER rear, too?

I don't know. Here's the code: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.56

I see that the headlamp can be mounted on the bike "or the operator."
It's less clear about the others, but I imagine that they'd be treated
the same...

EXCEPT that it's vanishingly rare for cops to pay attention to bike
light laws. In the case I witnessed, I'd bet ten thousand dollars she
didn't get ticketed.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/23/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights.

I get very irritated by motorists who refuse to dim their lights.
Unfortunately, sometimes when I'm riding at night an oncoming motorist
will actually turn on his brights. I don't think it's harassment. I
think it's "What the heck is that??" coupled with low IQ.

I now do much more night driving on rural roads than I used to. ISTM the
worst headlight offenders are pickup truck drivers. Their lights are
high, they seem to refuse to dim them more than most, and they very
often have auxiliary driving lights that they also leave on. "MFFY."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:32:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2018 5:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

In defense of rail-trails -- I've now cut-out most of the road riding through east Multnomah County, which the ****ty mullet region of Portland. I use two rail-trail MUPs, the Springwater Corridor and the Gresham-Fairview Trail. I ride the last two or three miles on surface streets, and then over the Stark Street Bridge and on to the scenic highway. http://columbiariverhighway.com/wp-c...ridge-2013.jpg The Gresham-Fairview trail is one of those "if you build it, they won't come" trails. You feel like you're in a scene from Omega Man -- nobody around, just me and the trail, which is kind of nice but not terribly cost-effective.

There's one rail-trail I use on my favorite local ride, to a city about
20 miles away. It's a trail along the river on a former inter-urban
street car right of way, built entirely by private donation.

It has pretty views of the river, it bypasses some choppy steep hills,
and it's not uncommon for me see no other trail users on the 7 miles of
it that I use. Yep, I like nice trails that have nobody on them - but
how do you justify spending tax money on those?

And lest we Stephen's and Joerg's deflection and dissembling cause
someone to forget: My claim is that almost all U.S. bike trails are used
almost entirely for recreation. They are really linear parks, with
almost all users arriving and leaving by car. Yes, I've seen bike
commuters using trails in (e.g.) Washington DC and Columbus Ohio. But
there and elsewhere, I saw far, far more people who were just cruising
for fun or exercise.

I wasn't restricting my discussion to urban trails, as they seem to be.
I'm talking about most bike trails. I gave data to back up my assertion,
covering 20 trails in two states.

If S & J have rebutting data for a representative sample of California
bike trails - NOT just cherry picked paths into Apple - they should post it.

But, I wonder. Isn't most bike riding primarily recreation. I'm sure
it is, at least here.


When I lived in the Netherlands it sure wasn't. For me, now in the US,
it is partially for sports and training (not so much recreation) but
there are also plenty of utility rides. Like the ride today.


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.


And before anyone argues "I gotta have a car" I remind you that Frank,
and undoubtedly many others, have ridden from one side of the country
to the other... on a bicycle. Good Lord, Lewis and Clark walked!

I need a car indeed.


That depends on your transportation needs. I even carry machine parts to
clients via bicycle. However, if they are too large or heavy I use the SUV.

This is not a black and white matter. It makes sense to have different
kinds of vehicles but to prefer the ones that improve personal fitness
and are better for the environment where possible. "Possible" is the
salient word here.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/