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

Build it and they will come - but where are they?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 21st 18, 10:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,392
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On 4/21/2018 4:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2018 4:03 PM, sms wrote:

In my house, the new infrastructure has resulted in an
100% increase of household members cycling to work.


OK.

In our house and in our previous house, I cycled to work
using no special segregated infrastructure at all. Nobody
else cycled to work. But given that my wife had home health
medical clients all across the county, that's not surprising.

Near the houses of each of our adult kids, there are bike
lanes and/or separate MUPs. Nobody in those families cycles
to work. One still rides occasionally, including some trips
to the store, but puts in far more miles running. The other
doesn't ride at all, despite bike lanes right outside the
front door.

More interesting to me is visiting the town where one kid
lives. Yes, there are bike lanes. Yes, they have gravel in
them. They just don't have bikes in them - IOW, I see about
two bikes per year using the lanes.

One of those lanes is on my normal route to their local
hardware store. It runs along the curb past a playground all
the way up to a T intersection, where almost all traffic
turns right. It's an invitation to a right hook crash.


Frank, you don't see the big picture.

If a couple million dollars of pavement and striping in
Santa Clara increased a household's commuters from one to
two, then it's clear that if the nation would merely replace
all structures with underground bunkers and pave everything
dead smooth, without curbs or automobile lanes, we could
have 330 million commuters! Extrapolate, man!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
  #12  
Old April 21st 18, 10:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,626
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:43:46 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:21:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What we've heard: "Build it and they will come." That is, separate the
bikes from the cars with paint; or better, with flexible poles; or even
better with parked cars, and bicycle riding will surge. People will
leave their cars at home, and America will become Amsterdam. Or at
least, Amsterdamish.

What else we've heard: "It's working! After adding just one bike lane,
my little town had a 100% increase in bike mode share! It went from 0.2%
to 0.4% and 0.4% is really good for America!!"

What the data show:
https://cyclingindustry.news/wp-cont...2018/04/t2.jpg

That's from
https://cyclingindustry.news/townley...bike-business/

They're building it, and the design consultants are getting wealthy. But
"they" don't seem to be coming.

--
- Frank Krygowski


NYC has been counting the number of people entering and leaving its central business district (Manhattan below 60th St) annually for many years. Bikes have been included since the mid 1990's. There are mechanical counters for both bikes and vehicles on the bridges. Here are the inbound rush hour readings for bikes and vehicles for 2016 - the latest year.

Brooklyn Bridge Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 306, 261
Brooklyn Bridge Vehicles(8-9am, 9-10am): 2,553, 2,532
Brooklyn Bridge Pct Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 11.99%, 10.31%

Manhattan Bridge Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 438, 401
Manhattan Bridge Vehicles(8-9am, 9-10am): 1,673, 1,369
Manhattan Bridge Pct Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 26.18%, 29.29%

Williamsburg Bridge Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 667, 659
Williamsburg Bridge Vehicles(8-9am, 9-10am): 2,062, 2,001
Williamsburg Bridge Pct Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 32.35%, 32.93%

Queensboro Bridge Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 424, 309
Queensboro Bridge Vehicles(8-9am, 9-10am): 2,266, 2,048
Queensboro Bridge Pct Bikes(8-9am, 9-10am): 18.71%, 15.09%


I wouldn't pay too much attention to Franki-boy Krygowski; he's statistically illiterate, and not overly attached either to any truth that doesn't serve his perversely distorted narrative. You need to check anything he tells you with an original reliable source.

Those are pretty good local bicycle spot shares, considering the size of New York. Thanks for quoting them. It would be great if we could generalize to the entire country from there, but that would be a bridge too far (pun intended).

Andre Jute
Only the best numbers are good enough
  #13  
Old April 21st 18, 11:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,626
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:01:37 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What we've heard: "Build it and they will come." That is, separate the
bikes from the cars with paint; or better, with flexible poles; or even
better with parked cars, and bicycle riding will surge. People will
leave their cars at home, and America will become Amsterdam. Or at
least, Amsterdamish.

What else we've heard: "It's working! After adding just one bike lane,
my little town had a 100% increase in bike mode share! It went from 0.2%
to 0.4% and 0.4% is really good for America!!"

What the data show:
https://cyclingindustry.news/wp-cont...2018/04/t2.jpg

That's from
https://cyclingindustry.news/townley...bike-business/

They're building it, and the design consultants are getting wealthy. But
"they" don't seem to be coming.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Okay, so Americans won't ride on the road with the cars, and they won't
ride in cycle lanes "protected" from cars. So, perhaps, Americans just
don't want to cycle, or their infrastructure is already so far developed
in favoring the automobile that they're right not to cycle, because it's impossible.

The question is, Franki-boy: Why should your underlying assumption that
cycling is superior to driving have any greater validity than their
underlying assumption that an automobile is a necessity of life? Do you
have an answer that doesn't rely on some faith-substitute, like Gaia-worship?

Andre Jute
Carfree for a generation now. I practice what I preach.


I think taking cycling percentages for the US on a whole is misleading.
It’s a pretty varied country. Ask Jay for example about his conga line
commute in a place that isn’t exactly flat. Last time I was in New
Orleans there were bikes and bike lanes everywhere. Even had a redneck
neighbor bitching about them to me before my sister told him to watch it.

Maybe if you take just commuters it’s different. People tend to not live
near their jobs. At least until urban regentrification starts.

At any rate, just arguing against infrastructure doesn’t make much sense in
my opinion. Better to argue against bad infrastructure. There’s enough
of that to go around.


--
duane


The most misleading bicycle statistic in the States is the one about annual sales of bikes. I have no reason to doubt the tally, but clearly bike sales don't mean those bikes are ridden which would, in almost any other field, be at least a reasonable conclusion.

Every year that passes without the long forecast conversion to cycling, and with every failure of inadequate bike infrastructure, I become more convinced that the first things are missing or, to put it more positively, the Amsterdam experiment succeeded because the attitude of the people was receptive. You can see it in Dutch usages and laws. On a much more limited scale, you can probably see it in Portland even though the topography and infrastructure are both, according to Jay, not ideal, not to mention adverse weather for much of the year, but where trendy Gaia worship has led to substantial bicycle mode share. Your experience, and Frank's, and others you can find in any cycling conference, of being abused for being a cyclist, doesn't speak of a receptive attitude.

Andre
Ride tall
  #14  
Old April 21st 18, 11:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,626
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 4:24:41 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
That's what I predict for the futu bad MV traffic will produce butt-cracks on gas/electric motor bikes speeding down the bicycle facilities with no possible police intervention. I get into scrapes with the eBike low-life on a regular basis -- people who are clearly not cyclists or even pretending to be cyclists. They are just ratting-out down the facilities on juiced-up bikes.


If you're suffering from low blood pressure, a visit to
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/
will raise any cyclist's blood pressure. It is where the guys hang out whose only interest in bicycles is as a frame to attach a humongous electric motor and gigantic battery. As far as they're concerned the pedals are for resting your feet, not to pedal.

Andre Jute
Lightly electrified
  #15  
Old April 21st 18, 11:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,194
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On 4/21/2018 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

Frank, you don't see the big picture.

If a couple million dollars of pavement and striping in Santa Clara
increased a household's commuters from one to two, then it's clear that
if the nation would merely replace all structures with underground
bunkers and pave everything dead smooth, without curbs or automobile
lanes,* we could have 330 million commuters! Extrapolate, man!


Exactly. And you have to realize that "a couple million dollars" is
pocket change in the scheme of things. A "Bicycle Boulevard" costs very
little and results in significant increases. But we are now working on
converting striped bike lanes into protected bike lanes. It's necessary
because without a physical barrier the bicycle lanes are used for
pick-ups/drop-offs, loading zones, cell phone waiting areas, etc..

The big money has been in creating safe ways to cross freeways and other
major highways. A simple bicycle/pedestrian overpass across an eight
lane freeway will cost $8 million. We have two high schools where it's
extremely difficult for students living in one area to get to school
either by foot or bicycle, so they mostly get driven to school. The
proposed overpass will likely get at least a couple of hundred of these
students to cycle to school on nice days, and will also serve as a
commuter route for others.

$8 million pays for about 1/5 of a mile of above-ground light-rail line,
0.035 miles of above-ground heavy rail (BART), and about 1/2 mile of an
eight lane freeway. With our local transit agency having a 9% fare
recovery, I'd rather spend money on enabling more cycling.
  #16  
Old April 22nd 18, 12:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,851
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On 4/21/2018 6:39 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/21/2018 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

Frank, you don't see the big picture.

If a couple million dollars of pavement and striping in Santa Clara
increased a household's commuters from one to two, then it's clear
that if the nation would merely replace all structures with
underground bunkers and pave everything dead smooth, without curbs or
automobile lanes,* we could have 330 million commuters! Extrapolate, man!


Exactly. And you have to realize that "a couple million dollars" is
pocket change in the scheme of things. A "Bicycle Boulevard" costs very
little and results in significant increases. But we are now working on
converting striped bike lanes into protected bike lanes. It's necessary
because without a physical barrier the bicycle lanes are used for
pick-ups/drop-offs, loading zones, cell phone waiting areas, etc..

The big money has been in creating safe ways to cross freeways and other
major highways. A simple bicycle/pedestrian overpass across an eight
lane freeway will cost $8 million. We have two high schools where it's
extremely difficult for students living in one area to get to school
either by foot or bicycle, so they mostly get driven to school. The
proposed overpass will likely get at least a couple of hundred of these
students to cycle to school on nice days, and will also serve as a
commuter route for others.

$8 million pays for about 1/5 of a mile of above-ground light-rail line,
0.035 miles of above-ground heavy rail (BART), and about 1/2 mile of an
eight lane freeway. With our local transit agency having a 9% fare
recovery, I'd rather spend money on enabling more cycling.


While it's unusual for me to agree with Scharf, bicycle boulevards and
access across freeways are two types of bicycle infrastructure that do
make sense to me.

To generalize the latter: Freeways were almost always installed with no
thought to their barrier effect on non-motorists. Driving several miles
to access the nearest crossing point is a minor burden for a motorist,
but a major one for someone not using an engine.

Similarly, it's not unusual for shopping centers to abut residential
areas, but have no access except a trip of one mile or more by motor
vehicle on heavy traffic roads. I favor bike-ped paths that serve as
direct connections. I also favor bike-ped paths linking cul-de-sac
housing developments. Those developments would then limit cut-through
motor traffic (their main goal) while allowing kids to get to school on
their own.

But as with all bike infrastructure, we need to defend our rights not to
use it if we choose. Like it or not, much of it is still badly designed.
Competent cyclists may have good reasons for using the normal road instead.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #17  
Old April 22nd 18, 12:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,061
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:50:15 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 5:01:37 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What we've heard: "Build it and they will come." That is, separate the
bikes from the cars with paint; or better, with flexible poles; or even
better with parked cars, and bicycle riding will surge. People will
leave their cars at home, and America will become Amsterdam. Or at
least, Amsterdamish.

What else we've heard: "It's working! After adding just one bike lane,
my little town had a 100% increase in bike mode share! It went from 0.2%
to 0.4% and 0.4% is really good for America!!"

What the data show:
https://cyclingindustry.news/wp-cont...2018/04/t2.jpg

That's from
https://cyclingindustry.news/townley...bike-business/

They're building it, and the design consultants are getting wealthy. But
"they" don't seem to be coming.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, so Americans won't ride on the road with the cars, and they won't
ride in cycle lanes "protected" from cars. So, perhaps, Americans just
don't want to cycle, or their infrastructure is already so far developed
in favoring the automobile that they're right not to cycle, because it's impossible.

The question is, Franki-boy: Why should your underlying assumption that
cycling is superior to driving have any greater validity than their
underlying assumption that an automobile is a necessity of life? Do you
have an answer that doesn't rely on some faith-substitute, like Gaia-worship?

Andre Jute
Carfree for a generation now. I practice what I preach.


I think taking cycling percentages for the US on a whole is misleading..
It’s a pretty varied country. Ask Jay for example about his conga line
commute in a place that isn’t exactly flat. Last time I was in New
Orleans there were bikes and bike lanes everywhere. Even had a redneck
neighbor bitching about them to me before my sister told him to watch it.


In a typical US city, you need to build for cars and you need to build
for bikes, and I think doing both at the same time is the best idea. If
you strongly favor bikes over cars in a city that is not dead flat and
that has a dispersed population, you end up with Portland -- monumentally
bad motor vehicle traffic and a lot of dopey, sub-optimal facilities for bikes.

We succeed in bringing cyclists in from the established, close-in east
and west side neighborhoods, but we keep adding population in suburbs
where commuting to work by bike is not possible -- except by eBike, which
I think is going to be the next big thing.

SPEAKING OF -- I was riding home last night, and since it was NOT raining
and miserable, I decided to go home up through the cemetery -- which
involves a long MUP from downtown, over the tail end of a recently
reconstructed bridge (with redundant bicycle facilities) and up a hill
with no traffic because it is a cemetery, although you have to hoof
around a fence. https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...7/07/0-16.jpeg Joerg heaven
-- no cars, although the facility can be filled with dopes on bikes.

So, I was climbing up the bridge approach and some guy passed on a bike
with a gas motor on it -- not even an eBike. That's what I predict for
the futu bad MV traffic will produce butt-cracks on gas/electric motor
bikes speeding down the bicycle facilities with no possible police
intervention. I get into scrapes with the eBike low-life on a regular
basis -- people who are clearly not cyclists or even pretending to be
cyclists. They are just ratting-out down the facilities on juiced-up bikes.

-- Jay Beattie.








Just got back from a ride. The weather is finally improving. Was a balmy
5c. Some fat idiot in an oversized SUV felt he had to tell us to take the
bike path. I pointed out that the highway was one block over. Asshole.
He wasn’t even going in our direction. Just felt he had to exercise his
ownership of the road. Not even sure which bike path he’s talking about.

I agree with you about building for cars and bikes. This area was built
for cars. But a bike lane on this road wouldn’t hurt. Of course a law
against stupid would work too.


Here's my tale of woe: I just got back from a ride in the country with my son. Out in the butt-crack region of Clackamas county, this guy in a flashy jacked-up pick-up with giant tires roars by with no room to spare, obviously f****** with us and zooms off. I flip him off. The guy jams on his brakes in the middle of the road, throws it into reverse, lays a patch and starts back toward me. I keep riding full blast forward, hand over my brow looking at the license plate. The guy stops and drives away just as I catch up. Asshole -- and a coward. My son was flipping out, worried that I would get shot or something. I told him that you don't worry about the guys in $30K show-trucks without a spot of dirt. They have too much to lose. Worry about the convicted felons in beaters with nothing to lose. The amazing thing is that everyone else gave us plenty of room. It's that one mega-asshole that can ruin your day.

So, infrastructure content: we did a large part of the return leg on a 20 mile MUP rail-trail. Light pedestrian traffic for such a nice day. Lots of cyclists, but mostly going the other way. It was a nice cruise. The roads are fine, too -- usually.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #18  
Old April 22nd 18, 12:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

rOn Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:21:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2018 2:50 PM, Duane wrote:

Just got back from a ride. The weather is finally improving. Was a balmy
5c. Some fat idiot in an oversized SUV felt he had to tell us to take the
bike path. I pointed out that the highway was one block over. Asshole.
He wasnt even going in our direction. Just felt he had to exercise his
ownership of the road. Not even sure which bike path hes talking about.


One of the best roads out into the countryside goes past a high school.
Maybe 15 years ago road gained three or four mushroom developments of
McMansion houses, but the road itself is a narrow, two-lane former farm
road with deep ditches at each side.

Last year the township got a grant to put in a sidewalk linking two of
the developments to the school. Good idea!

Except yesterday as I rode out into the countryside, I had two motorists
telling me to get on the ******* sidewalk. With one, a guy, it was just
a quick shout, to which I just shook my head "no." The other was a fat
woman driving an environmentally correct hybrid electric car. She was
amazingly abusive, blaring the horn and yelling obscenities. It didn't
matter to her that it's a sideWALK.


The Thai word for "sidewalk" translates to the English "Foot Path" :-)



Maybe the saying should be "Build it and you will be harassed if you
don't use it."

--
Cheers,

John B.


  #19  
Old April 22nd 18, 04:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mark J.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 445
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On 4/21/2018 4:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:50:15 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 5:01:37 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What we've heard: "Build it and they will come." That is, separate the
bikes from the cars with paint; or better, with flexible poles; or even
better with parked cars, and bicycle riding will surge. People will
leave their cars at home, and America will become Amsterdam. Or at
least, Amsterdamish.

What else we've heard: "It's working! After adding just one bike lane,
my little town had a 100% increase in bike mode share! It went from 0.2%
to 0.4% and 0.4% is really good for America!!"

What the data show:
https://cyclingindustry.news/wp-cont...2018/04/t2.jpg

That's from
https://cyclingindustry.news/townley...bike-business/

They're building it, and the design consultants are getting wealthy. But
"they" don't seem to be coming.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, so Americans won't ride on the road with the cars, and they won't
ride in cycle lanes "protected" from cars. So, perhaps, Americans just
don't want to cycle, or their infrastructure is already so far developed
in favoring the automobile that they're right not to cycle, because it's impossible.

The question is, Franki-boy: Why should your underlying assumption that
cycling is superior to driving have any greater validity than their
underlying assumption that an automobile is a necessity of life? Do you
have an answer that doesn't rely on some faith-substitute, like Gaia-worship?

Andre Jute
Carfree for a generation now. I practice what I preach.


I think taking cycling percentages for the US on a whole is misleading.
It’s a pretty varied country. Ask Jay for example about his conga line
commute in a place that isn’t exactly flat. Last time I was in New
Orleans there were bikes and bike lanes everywhere. Even had a redneck
neighbor bitching about them to me before my sister told him to watch it.

In a typical US city, you need to build for cars and you need to build
for bikes, and I think doing both at the same time is the best idea. If
you strongly favor bikes over cars in a city that is not dead flat and
that has a dispersed population, you end up with Portland -- monumentally
bad motor vehicle traffic and a lot of dopey, sub-optimal facilities for bikes.

We succeed in bringing cyclists in from the established, close-in east
and west side neighborhoods, but we keep adding population in suburbs
where commuting to work by bike is not possible -- except by eBike, which
I think is going to be the next big thing.

SPEAKING OF -- I was riding home last night, and since it was NOT raining
and miserable, I decided to go home up through the cemetery -- which
involves a long MUP from downtown, over the tail end of a recently
reconstructed bridge (with redundant bicycle facilities) and up a hill
with no traffic because it is a cemetery, although you have to hoof
around a fence. https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...7/07/0-16.jpeg Joerg heaven
-- no cars, although the facility can be filled with dopes on bikes.

So, I was climbing up the bridge approach and some guy passed on a bike
with a gas motor on it -- not even an eBike. That's what I predict for
the futu bad MV traffic will produce butt-cracks on gas/electric motor
bikes speeding down the bicycle facilities with no possible police
intervention. I get into scrapes with the eBike low-life on a regular
basis -- people who are clearly not cyclists or even pretending to be
cyclists. They are just ratting-out down the facilities on juiced-up bikes.

-- Jay Beattie.








Just got back from a ride. The weather is finally improving. Was a balmy
5c. Some fat idiot in an oversized SUV felt he had to tell us to take the
bike path. I pointed out that the highway was one block over. Asshole.
He wasn’t even going in our direction. Just felt he had to exercise his
ownership of the road. Not even sure which bike path he’s talking about.

I agree with you about building for cars and bikes. This area was built
for cars. But a bike lane on this road wouldn’t hurt. Of course a law
against stupid would work too.


Here's my tale of woe: I just got back from a ride in the country with my son. Out in the butt-crack region of Clackamas county, this guy in a flashy jacked-up pick-up with giant tires roars by with no room to spare, obviously f****** with us and zooms off. I flip him off. The guy jams on his brakes in the middle of the road, throws it into reverse, lays a patch and starts back toward me. I keep riding full blast forward, hand over my brow looking at the license plate.


Did you ID the plates?

Mark J.
  #20  
Old April 22nd 18, 07:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,626
Default Build it and they will come - but where are they?

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:39:20 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
With our local transit agency having a 9% fare
recovery, I'd rather spend money on enabling more cycling.


What, pray tell, is "a 9% fare recovery"?

Is Scharfie telling us that only 9% of passengers actually pay fares?

Andre Jute
Choo-Choso
 




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
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily [email protected] UK 0 February 16th 08 09:41 PM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 5 September 14th 06 09:59 AM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 0 August 25th 06 11:05 PM
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions osobailo Techniques 2 October 5th 04 01:55 PM
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? Andrew Short Techniques 16 August 4th 03 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.