Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-23-07, 09:15 PM   #226
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The scarcity of specific examples of daytime square crashes into unnoticed cyclists in the motorist's path in this thread only supports my belief.
I feel that this "scarcity" is strictly an artifact of the manner in which collisions are reported, and the manner in which this thread has supposedly collected them.

As noted in the other threads, media do mention when a bike lane or shoulder incident was involved. But I have never, seen an accident report in the media here that provided any detailed information such as a cyclist's position within a lane. However you make this a criteria for reports to be accepted. Hence, the reports I have provided are basically discarded.

Because cyclists are rare here, evidence of bicycle accidents is rare as well But if your theory is correct, motorists would drift into cars parked in the curb lane fairly often and not have violent rear-end collisions very often. However I have never personally seen the former collision type, but hundreds of the latter.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 09:59 PM   #227
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...almost all of the overtaking crashes I hear about involve drifting into an unnoticed cyclist in a bike lane or shoulder. I'm not claiming that's scientific evidence. That's just what I have noticed. The scarcity of specific examples of daytime square crashes into unnoticed cyclists in the motorist's path in this thread only supports my belief.
Do you somehow keep track of these reports or just what you remember. If not isn't this sort of like the, "I just bought a new car and now I see that everyone else in town has one too" phenomenon? We find what we are looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In any case, my position is I don't KNOW which position is more safe. I certainly don't know of any studies that tell me one way or the other. I do know that I sure SEEM to be treated as if I'm noticed when I ride in the lane and then move into the shoulder/bike lane to let motorists pass, as opposed to when I just ride in the shoulder/bike lane.
Soooo, 227 posts worth of argument over something you are not even sure about and all parties agree cannot be proven? Well...that's productive.
deputyjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 10:58 PM   #228
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
HH, I'm not going to explain for the upteenth time. Forgive me, I don't know how to say it any plainer and I think everyone else pretty much gets it. Perhaps the reason you feel so misunderstood by so many people and tend to blame their reading comprehension, isn't their problem at all, but rather yours. Perhaps 'What we have here is a failure to communicate.'

Explain for the 'upteenth' time? You don't even understand the implications of your own statements.

You said:

1) "Never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you.."
2) "Just because I assume nobody sees me does not mean that I don't do everything possible to ensure that they 'might' see me."

That makes no sense to me.

If you're assuming you're not seen (and riding accordingly), why would you want to be seen anyway, much less care enough to try to be seen?

How would being seen change anything for you if you're assuming you're not seen?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 11:04 PM   #229
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
Because cyclists are rare here, evidence of bicycle accidents is rare as well But if (helmet head's) theory is correct, motorists would drift into cars parked in the curb lane fairly often and not have violent rear-end collisions very often. However I have never personally seen the former collision type, but hundreds of the latter.
and points to the realistic observation by ghettocruiser, and penalty points against mr. head's artifice in his assumptions.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 11:08 PM   #230
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
Because cyclists are rare here, evidence of bicycle accidents is rare as well But if your theory is correct, motorists would drift into cars parked in the curb lane fairly often and not have violent rear-end collisions very often. However I have never personally seen the former collision type, but hundreds of the latter.
Are cars parked in the curb lane any where near as rare as as the cyclists are there?

If they are, then, yes, per my theory, motorists would drift into the very rare occasional car parked in the curb lane fairly often.
But, I suspect cars are expected to be parked in the curb lane much more often than traffic is expected to be in the shoulder or bike lane.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 11:14 PM   #231
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
MORE suspect assumptions?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:31 AM   #232
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Are cars parked in the curb lane any where near as rare as as the cyclists are there?

If they are, then, yes, per my theory, motorists would drift into the very rare occasional car parked in the curb lane fairly often.
But, I suspect cars are expected to be parked in the curb lane much more often than traffic is expected to be in the shoulder or bike lane.
No, I'm not comparing the number of bicyclists vs parked cars, I'm using motorist's collisions with cars on the traveled and untraveled parts of the road for this comparison.

Motorists could also expect cars driving on the road in front of them to slow down, but they run into them anyways.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:45 AM   #233
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head

1) "Never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you.."
2) "Just because I assume nobody sees me does not mean that I don't do everything possible to ensure that they 'might' see me."

That makes no sense to me.
Sounds like a personal problem.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:52 AM   #234
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Helmet Head-


Do you use a daytime visible rear blinkie and high vis clothing- (alert shirt, ANSI safety vest, lime green jersey, etc)-or slow motion vehicle triangle when you occasionally cycle, helmet head?

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-24-07 at 09:18 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:54 AM   #235
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
makes sense to me. you do everything possible to make sure you are seen, but don't assume they see you.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:05 AM   #236
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
No, I'm not comparing the number of bicyclists vs parked cars, I'm using motorist's collisions with cars on the traveled and untraveled parts of the road for this comparison.

Motorists could also expect cars driving on the road in front of them to slow down, but they run into them anyways.
Of course, what matters in each individual case is the expectations of the driver.

Millions of people slow down their cars every day in front of other drivers without getting hit. Every now and then, though, there is a rear-ender. In those cases, the driver behind, for whatever reason, almost certainly did not expect the car in front of him to slow down.

That's the point: the role of expectation in crashes. When a motorist is driving along a road with parked cars in the parking lane, he is likely to expect them to be there, parked, because they usually are there, parked.

On a road with a shoulder or bike lane, motorists are likely to expect the shoulder or bike lane to be empty, because they usually are empty. Further, when the rare occasional cyclist is riding in the bike lane or shoulder, motorists pass them almost always without incident. To the motorist, it's a routine non-event. The presence of the cyclist in the bike lane or shoulder is irrelevant to what the motorist is doing. There is nothing alarming about a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane or shoulder. There is nothing worth noticing. Cyclists like that are easy to ignore.

Now, combine the expectation of the bike lane/shoulder to be empty and the perceived irrelevance of a cyclist who happens to be riding up ahead in the expected-to-be-empty bike lane or shoulder with a driver who is tempted to attend to some distraction, and you have all the ingredients for tragedy: the driver is likely to not notice, or ignore, the cyclist and attend to the distraction anyway, making himself vulnerable to drift into the expected-to-be-empty bike lane/shoulder "buffer" space.

It's not a scientific theory, of course, or based on studies. But it is based on common sense assumptions, and logic. The common sense assumptions are:
  1. Shoulders/bike lanes are usually empty.
  2. If something is usually empty, it is often expected to be empty.
  3. Passing a cyclist in a riding in a shoulder/bike lane is usually a non-event to the passing driver.
  4. Cyclists riding in bike lanes/shoulders, when they are noticed, are not perceived to be significant potential hazards to many drivers approaching from behind.
  5. Drivers are human.
  6. Drivers choose to attend to distractions sometimes.
  7. Drivers are significantly more likely to choose to attend to a distraction at times when they feel it's safe to look away from the road than at times when they feel it's not safe to look away from the road.
  8. Drivers are more likely to drift while they are attending to a distraction than when they are paying attention to what is in the road ahead of them.
Now, do you need studies to "prove" any of the above assumptions are true?

Last edited by Helmet Head; 03-24-07 at 09:45 AM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:09 AM   #237
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That makes no sense to me.
That seems to be your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe you could try reading it a few more times rather than asking for it to be reposted.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:20 AM   #238
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
makes sense to me. you do everything possible to make sure you are seen, but don't assume they see you.
But what does "don't assume they see you" really mean?
How does that impact what you do on the road?

I mean, cyclists who really "don't assume they see you" typically choose to ride on sidewalks. It's almost impossible to ride vehicularly if you never assume anyone sees you. Sure, at night in light traffic you can do it. But the more traffic there is, the more impossible it becomes. Never assuming others see you makes riding vehicularly impossible in many traffic situations.

Trivial example: you come to a 4-way stop at the same time as a car coming from the side, and the driver is waving for you to go, do you assume he doesn't see you and wait, or do you assume he does see you and go? If the latter, how is that consistent with "never assume anyone sees you or notices you"?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:36 AM   #239
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
well in that case, they have given you a sign that you are noticed, right? so you are not assuming anything...
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:55 AM   #240
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
well in that case, they have given you a sign that you are noticed, right? so you are not assuming anything...
Not assuming anything???

You're assuming they have seen you and you're assuming the gesture is intended for you.
You can never know for sure that anyone sees you. All you can do is make reasonable assumptions about whether they have seen you or not. The BEST you can do is assume they have seen you, and a wave like that is pretty good evidence of it. But it's still an assumption.

That's my point. If you NEVER assume you are seen, why bother trying to be seen? I mean, when Chip says never, does he mean never, or does he mean sometimes, unless there is reasonable evidence of being seen? If he means the latter, why does he say "never", and why do all of you support him on this?

The only reason to bothing trying to be visible is so that it is reasonable to assume that you are seen in certain cases when it matters, such as in the trivial 4-way stop example. The whole point of trying to be visible is so that you are able to assume that you are seen.

This idea that you should assume you are never seen, or you should assume you're invisible, is probably one of the most crippling notions out there. How in the heck do you negotiate for right of way to merge left in traffic while assuming you are never seen? How can you ride on a road with a narrow lane where a truly invisible cyclist would surely be run over while assuming you are never seen? How do you stop in an intersection waiting for oncoming traffic to clear before you turn left while never assuming you are seen?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 10:13 AM   #241
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Of course, what matters in each individual case is the expectations of the driver....snip
You did not address my point in any way. You restated comments you made earlier.

If cyclists off to the side of the lane are at greater risk than cyclists in the centre of the lane, why are cars that are slowing in the centre of the lane hit more often than cars parked at the side of the road?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Every now and then, though, there is a rear-ender. In those cases, the driver behind, for whatever reason, almost certainly did not expect the car in front of him to slow down.

No, not "every now and then". Hundreds of times a day across my city.

And are they always just not expecting a slow down? Odd thing to 'not expect' it city traffic. Or are they not paying attention/momentarily not watching the road? Which seems to the be the problem cyclists are worried about, with good reason, IMO.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 10:15 AM   #242
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the basic concept behind this phrase, for me (not speaking for Chip), is: make yourself visible, but be on the lookout for motorists driving like they don't see you. because they may not.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 12:17 PM   #243
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Do you use a daytime visible rear blinkie
Do you? Hardly anyone has these quite expensive rear lights.
Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 12:40 PM   #244
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Do you? Hardly anyone has these quite expensive rear lights.
Al
The Planet Bike Superflash is daylight visible and only costs $25US (or $20 at www.biketiresdirect.com).
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 12:42 PM   #245
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
The Planet Bike Superflash is daylight visible and only costs $25US (or $20 at www.biketiresdirect.com).
Uhh, it is not that daytime visible. I use two of them. Hi vis gear is far more visible in daylight. Maybe you can see it flash in the day, but only when one gets closer and its not attention grabbing like at night. I use it for very overcast days and when raining.
Al

Last edited by noisebeam; 03-24-07 at 01:07 PM.
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 01:25 PM   #246
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam
Uhh, it is not that daytime visible. I use two of them. Hi vis gear is far more visible in daylight. Maybe you can see it flash in the day, but only when one gets closer and its not attention grabbing like at night. I use it for very overcast days and when raining.
Al
Hmmmm...shortly after I started using one, a co-worker told me that the light was quite noticeable from about 100 meters back. At the time, I was riding eastbound and the sun had only been up for 1 hour.

I agree it's not as visible as some of the high-wattage, high-$$ units, but for the price it's a really good accessory. I run one on the seatpost, and one on the left chainstay, and usually run them day or night.
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 04:16 PM   #247
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
You did not address my point in any way. You restated comments you made earlier.

If cyclists off to the side of the lane are at greater risk than cyclists in the centre of the lane, why are cars that are slowing in the centre of the lane hit more often than cars parked at the side of the road?
You say, "If cyclists off to the side of the lane are at greater risk than cyclists in the center of the lane..."

Why are you assuming cyclists off to the side of the lane are at greater risk than cyclists in the center of the lane?

We're not comparing the risks of:
  1. Cyclist off to the side of lane.
  2. Cyclist in center of lane.
We are comparing the risks of:
  1. Riding in center during gaps, being off to the side only when fsdt is present or approaching.
  2. Being off to the side the entire time.
Quote:
No, not "every now and then". Hundreds of times a day across my city.
The point is, the ratio of number of safe slow downs to slow downs that result in a rear-ender is very high.

Quote:
And are they always just not expecting a slow down?
Yes. If they expected it, they would be prepared for it.

Quote:
Odd thing to 'not expect' it city traffic.
In general, yes. In any specific situation, it is not necessarily so odd to not expect a sudden slow down in front of you.

Quote:
Or are they not paying attention/momentarily not watching the road?
Yes, they are not paying attention/momentarily not watching the road because at that moment they don't expect a sudden a slow down, so they allow themselves to attend to a distraction.

Quote:
Which seems to the be the problem cyclists are worried about, with good reason, IMO.
Except if you spend much time riding in traffic, you know that drivers in general pay much more attention to a cyclist in front of them than to a car in front of them. Man, have I got a good story from my ride today. But that's for another thread.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 04:23 PM   #248
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
the basic concept behind this phrase, for me (not speaking for Chip), is: make yourself visible, but be on the lookout for motorists driving like they don't see you. because they may not.
If that's what "never assume you are seen or noticed" means to you, those are interesting interpretations of the words never and assume, because even if you are on the "lookout for motorists driving like they don't see you", you still are in situations constantly where you must assume you are seen (unless you're riding ninja style on sidewalks and generally totally staying out of the way).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 05:52 PM   #249
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know how I can better explain it to you, sorry!
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 06:12 PM   #250
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rando, you (and chipcom, etc.) can't explain it because there is no way to explain it. The fact is, if you ride in any kind of traffic at all, you MUST assume you are seen, though you can never know for sure that you are.

You can't explain how you ride in traffic never assuming you are seen or noticed, because it's impossible to do, and, so, impossible to explain.

Bye.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 AM.