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

Ouch. This happened to me once



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old February 22nd 18, 11:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,254
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/20/2018 9:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!


Yes, the physically separated bicycle facilities are often not the
fastest route, at least in terms of peak speed. But at least around
here, they often are a) the shortest route, and b) the route with the
fewest stops (fewest traffic lights, stop signs, rail crossings). On the
minus side, they are often unlit, and while there are no bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes, you still have bicycle-bicycle crashes and
bicycle-pedestrian crashes.

While everyone has anecdotes about bicycle infrastructure, sometimes it
really helps to look at the facts (sorry Frank!) when evaluating the
effectiveness of infrastructure. There is a "study of studies" entitled
"The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and
crashes: a review of the literature" that is worth reading, at least the
conclusions:

"On-road marked bike lanes were found to have a positive safety effect
in five studies, consistently reducing injury rate, collision frequency
or crash rates by about 50% compared to unmodified roadways
[61,62,65-67]. Three of those studies [61,66,67] found a similar effect
for bike routes. One study [63] found that there was an increase in
crash rates in the year following installation of marked bike lanes on a
major road, especially for a section counter to on-road traffic flow,
but this effect was not sustained over the long term."

"The evidence to date suggests that purpose-built bicycle only
facilities (e.g. bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, cycle tracks at
roundabouts) reduce the risk of crashes and injuries compared to cycling
on-road with traffic or off road with pedestrians. Street lighting,
paved surfaces, and low-angled grades are additional factors that appear
to improve cyclist safety. The major advantage of infrastructure
modifications, compared to helmet use, is that they provide
population-wide prevention of injury events without requiring action by
the users or repeated reinforcement. Given the influence of safety on
individuals' decisions to cycle, the importance of cycling modal share
to safety, and the ancillary benefits of this active and sustainable
mode of transportation, infrastructure enhancements have the opportunity
to promote an array of improvements to public health."

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-069X-8-47?site=ehjournal.biomedcentral.com
Ads
  #52  
Old February 22nd 18, 02:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

sms wrote:
On 2/21/2018 2:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."


You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
one's identity.


Of course Joerg never said any such thing, it's just one more of a
series of the fabrications that some people are famous for.

You're right. I believe what Jorge has said is "Roads are dangerous, I
don't ride a bike unless I have a separate bike path."

He has also said that his neighbours say "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a
bike until you have a separate bike path."


  #53  
Old February 22nd 18, 03:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,149
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:03:19 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/19/2018 8:42 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
on the brake pedal.


True. Anyone that has good DRLs has experienced the difference. But it's
not 100% of the time.

I've never liked the narrative of "let's pass more laws to make
everything safe for everyone," but education seems to be working on most
people, since most commuters on bicycles, other than students, now are
using DRLs. But last Sunday we were out on a trail and I did not
understand why mountain bikers were using DRLs off-road, since there
were not very many of them around.

Will we ever educate everyone? No. But we did get Frank to buy a good
battery powered light with DRL functionality, the Oculus, so there is
hope for the future of our country.


These poor, poor, uneducated riders. No DRLs. They will soon die. https://d3qvqlc701gzhm.cloudfront.ne...16c80c729f.jpg These guys, too. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300
All dead.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #54  
Old February 22nd 18, 03:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-21 10:57, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/21/2018 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.

We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1


Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a
bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the
door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a
tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them
for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or
on roads?


As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and
say, "Well,
you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note
that there's
never an omelette.


Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically
connected. Regular people must stand in line to get one,
only one per family, and when it's their turn all omelettes
are already gone.




What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so
whether they prefer riding on bike paths or
riding on bike paths or on roads?



I quote Pauli, "That's so bad it's not even wrong."

Joerg, you have no argument and you ought to know better.

I, for one, would rather NOT ride on kiddy paths, a significant reason
among many being I'm hardly ever going where one exists.

"Hey Ms Customer! How about ditzing around on the kiddie path over near
Mugger's Lane instead of going to work today?" pffft.

I admit to absolutely hating the stupid boondoggles; I go out of my way
to find another route on principle. I also avoid door-zone painted lanes
and other crap of their ilk.


Sorry, but now you are making the same assumptions and then get into the
same prejudices as others here. I do not mean badly designed kludges.
What I mean is this:

https://goo.gl/maps/vuvriaGd6dQ2

There is a bike lane plus bike path plus a nice bike bridge to cross.
That is qver the top but I'll gladly take it.

Or this where especially during rush hour you have the option of either
crossing a busy road farther away at a traffic light or over this bike
path bridge totally unfettered and without Diesel smoke blowing into
your face and lungs:

https://goo.gl/maps/any8WdopRf82

That city knows how it's done right. I went through there yesterday. It
is a joy and the stores there are rewarded by me and others preferring
them over ones in other towns sans bike system connection. This results
in more tax Dollars into city coffers, with which they can build more
infrastructure, which results in even more tax Dollars ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #55  
Old February 22nd 18, 03:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-22 03:45, sms wrote:
On 2/20/2018 9:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without
exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to
point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and
the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim
the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities
providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a
trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be
nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a
percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront
cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride
over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but
it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I
just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some
awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!


Yes, the physically separated bicycle facilities are often not the
fastest route, at least in terms of peak speed. But at least around
here, they often are a) the shortest route, and b) the route with the
fewest stops (fewest traffic lights, stop signs, rail crossings). On the
minus side, they are often unlit, and while there are no bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes, you still have bicycle-bicycle crashes and
bicycle-pedestrian crashes.

While everyone has anecdotes about bicycle infrastructure, sometimes it
really helps to look at the facts (sorry Frank!) when evaluating the
effectiveness of infrastructure. There is a "study of studies" entitled
"The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and
crashes: a review of the literature" that is worth reading, at least the
conclusions:

"On-road marked bike lanes were found to have a positive safety effect
in five studies, consistently reducing injury rate, collision frequency
or crash rates by about 50% compared to unmodified roadways
[61,62,65-67]. Three of those studies [61,66,67] found a similar effect
for bike routes. One study [63] found that there was an increase in
crash rates in the year following installation of marked bike lanes on a
major road, especially for a section counter to on-road traffic flow,
but this effect was not sustained over the long term."

"The evidence to date suggests that purpose-built bicycle only
facilities (e.g. bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, cycle tracks at
roundabouts) reduce the risk of crashes and injuries compared to cycling
on-road with traffic or off road with pedestrians. Street lighting,
paved surfaces, and low-angled grades are additional factors that appear
to improve cyclist safety. The major advantage of infrastructure
modifications, compared to helmet use, is that they provide
population-wide prevention of injury events without requiring action by
the users or repeated reinforcement. Given the influence of safety on
individuals' decisions to cycle, the importance of cycling modal share
to safety, and the ancillary benefits of this active and sustainable
mode of transportation, infrastructure enhancements have the opportunity
to promote an array of improvements to public health."

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-069X-8-47?site=ehjournal.biomedcentral.com


Oh, oh, now you are coming with hard facts. That is greatly poo-poo'ed
upon by some here :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #56  
Old February 22nd 18, 03:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 135
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 22/02/2018 10:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:03:19 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/19/2018 8:42 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
on the brake pedal.


True. Anyone that has good DRLs has experienced the difference. But it's
not 100% of the time.

I've never liked the narrative of "let's pass more laws to make
everything safe for everyone," but education seems to be working on most
people, since most commuters on bicycles, other than students, now are
using DRLs. But last Sunday we were out on a trail and I did not
understand why mountain bikers were using DRLs off-road, since there
were not very many of them around.

Will we ever educate everyone? No. But we did get Frank to buy a good
battery powered light with DRL functionality, the Oculus, so there is
hope for the future of our country.


These poor, poor, uneducated riders. No DRLs. They will soon die. https://d3qvqlc701gzhm.cloudfront.ne...16c80c729f.jpg These guys, too. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300
All dead.


Yeah I guess they'll be in the same cycling hell as all those idiots in
Montreal that don't use DRLs. I bet in all of last season I saw less
than 5 DRLs and we probably have nearly as many cyclists as you do.


  #57  
Old February 22nd 18, 03:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 3:03:19 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/19/2018 8:42 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
on the brake pedal.


True. Anyone that has good DRLs has experienced the difference. But it's
not 100% of the time.

I've never liked the narrative of "let's pass more laws to make
everything safe for everyone," but education seems to be working on most
people, since most commuters on bicycles, other than students, now are
using DRLs. But last Sunday we were out on a trail and I did not
understand why mountain bikers were using DRLs off-road, since there
were not very many of them around.

Will we ever educate everyone? No. But we did get Frank to buy a good
battery powered light with DRL functionality, the Oculus, so there is
hope for the future of our country.


These poor, poor, uneducated riders. No DRLs. They will soon die.
https://d3qvqlc701gzhm.cloudfront.ne...16c80c729f.jpg
These guys, too.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300
All dead.

-- Jay Beattie.


Were there bikes in those pictures? I didn't see any.

  #58  
Old February 22nd 18, 04:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,966
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/21/2018 11:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:16:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/21/2018 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:22:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:


Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
in traffic?


There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.

But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?


Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.

Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
drive is no longer necessary?

I think that public school driver's education classes are far less
common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but
that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all.
It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes.

And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
trying.

I have the feeling that is wrong. Why "respect for bicycles"? Are they
somehow different then other slow moving "vehicles" (note the legal
definition). There are already sufficient highway rules and
regulations. Just enforce them.


I think a large part of the problem is ignorance. I'm just back from a
bike club meeting where one friend was telling me about a motorist
yelling "You're not supposed to be on the road."

Sure, enforcement helps. But cops can intercept only a tiny fraction of
people who violate laws. And it's even worse because a lot of cops are
ignorant about bike laws.

We need education on these issues, delivered in many ways.


Well, it goes without saying that traffic policemen should be familiar
with the traffic regulations :-)

But your friend's comment rather emphasis the lack of knowledge
exhibited by many motorists. For example, In New Hampshire someone
riding a horse has the same rights as someone driving a car. My guess
is that a very large percent of the driving public doesn't know that.

Enforcement doesn't have to catch all the evil doers all it has to do
is catch enough of them that word gets round - "Hey, don't speed on
Downer Road, they'll catch you and the fine is awful."

But "Bike Laws"? As far as I've read there are only one or two
specific bicycle laws as most states simply state that they are
"vehicles" with all the rights of any vehicle.

I can't comment on the U.S. but here I see bicyclists breaking both
the traffic laws and what might be termed the laws of common sense
almost daily. Perhaps cyclists also need to study up on what's right
and what's wrong.


Cyclists over there probably need to study up. Cyclists around here
certainly do. But just saying "You need to study" almost never works.
Almost everyone starts out with the assumption "I already know what I'm
doing." And if someone says "No you don't," the reaction is almost never
"Hmm, I need to study."

A few years back, an administrator in a local health department got a
small grant, enough to pay for two billboards. The billboards said
something like "Ride your bike to work" and in somewhat smaller font,
"Ride _with_ traffic, use lights at night, obey all traffic laws" or
something like that. I think that effort was a tiny step in the right
direction.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #59  
Old February 22nd 18, 04:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,204
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2018-02-22 06:50, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote:
On 2/21/2018 2:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."

You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
one's identity.


Of course Joerg never said any such thing, it's just one more of a
series of the fabrications that some people are famous for.

You're right. I believe what Jorge has said is "Roads are dangerous, I
don't ride a bike unless I have a separate bike path."


I never said that. Yesterday I rode Green Valley Road into Cameron Park,
something I do about once a week.


He has also said that his neighbours say "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a
bike until you have a separate bike path."



That is correct. When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
"Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if possible.

Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #60  
Old February 22nd 18, 04:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,966
Default Ouch. This happened to me once

On 2/22/2018 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-21 10:57, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/21/2018 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-20 19:00, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess
up but after having lived long enough in Germany, the
Netherland and the US I can rightfully say that the German
bike facility planners are the worst of the three groups.
By far.

We've just been looking at examples of American facilities
that did not work and British facilities that did not work.
Jay has talked at length about the faults with many of
Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike boxes, installed to
reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks greatly.)
We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate
bike facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an
Ottowa, Canada cycle track that scored three car-bike
crashes in its first three weeks. A Columbus, Ohio cycle
track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes in its
first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London
generated a cluster of crossing conflict fatalities a few
years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in
America, or Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too
many examples. Basic physics and fundamental principles of
traffic movement argue against many of the designs you tout.
And green paint or copious warning signs can't prevent
crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.


+1


Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a
bike shop and undoubtedly 95% of people coming through the
door are cyclists (discount the grandparents buying a
tricycle for li'l Joey). What if you'd ask every one of them
for a week or so whether they prefer riding on bike paths or
on roads?


As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and
say, "Well,
you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note
that there's
never an omelette.


Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically
connected. Regular people must stand in line to get one,
only one per family, and when it's their turn all omelettes
are already gone.




* What if you'd ask every one of them for a week or so
* whether they prefer riding on bike paths or
* riding on bike paths or on roads?


I quote Pauli, "That's so bad it's not even wrong."

Joerg, you have no argument and you ought to know better.

I, for one, would rather NOT ride on kiddy paths, a significant reason
among many being I'm hardly ever going where one exists.

"Hey Ms Customer!* How about ditzing around on the kiddie path over near
Mugger's Lane instead of going to work today?"* pffft.

I admit to absolutely hating the stupid boondoggles; I go out of my way
to find another route on principle. I also avoid door-zone painted lanes
and other crap of their ilk.


Sorry, but now you are making the same assumptions and then get into the
same prejudices as others here. I do not mean badly designed kludges.
What I mean is this:

https://goo.gl/maps/vuvriaGd6dQ2

There is a bike lane plus bike path plus a nice bike bridge to cross.
That is qver the top but I'll gladly take it.

Or this where especially during rush hour you have the option of either
crossing a busy road farther away at a traffic light or over this bike
path bridge totally unfettered and without Diesel smoke blowing into
your face and lungs:

https://goo.gl/maps/any8WdopRf82

That city knows how it's done right. I went through there yesterday. It
is a joy and the stores there are rewarded by me and others preferring
them over ones in other towns sans bike system connection. This results
in more tax Dollars into city coffers, with which they can build more
infrastructure, which results in even more tax Dollars ...


Joerg, it's fine to point to million dollar bike bridges, or multi-mile
million-dollars-per-mile rural sidepaths. But it's beyond foolish to
pretend those are going to be built on any but the tiniest proportion of
roads. It's also foolish to pretend they are going to transform American
transportation. (See any cyclists in those Street View photos?)

When people whine for bike facilities, your examples are not the normal
result. The normal result is a lot closer to what's shown at
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of...August2017.htm
Click the arrows for many more examples.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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
OUCH Nuxx Bar UK 56 March 11th 11 08:56 PM
Ouch! B. Lafferty Racing 0 August 30th 06 01:16 PM
Ouch! Danny Colyer UK 0 January 11th 06 09:41 PM
Ouch again! Bill C Racing 0 July 15th 05 11:55 PM
ouch audrey UK 5 May 11th 05 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.


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.