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 12-30-07, 08:38 PM   #1
Tom Bombadil
His Brain is Gone!
Thread Starter
 
Tom Bombadil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paoli, Wisconsin
Bikes: RANS Stratus, Bridgestone CB-1, Trek 7600, Sun EZ-Rider AX, Fuji Absolute 1.0, Cayne Rambler 3
Posts: 9,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Illinois passes bill requiring 3-foot clearance while passing

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/c...LAW_S1.article

Note the statistics from 2006 - 9 bicycle-vehicle accidents per day and 26 bicycle deaths, in Illinois alone.
__________________
"Too often I would hear men boast of the miles covered that day, rarely of what they had seen." Louis L'Amour

There are two types of road bikers: bikers who are faster than me, and me. Bruce Cameron - Denver Post
Tom Bombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-07, 08:50 PM   #2
slim_77
Senior Member
 
slim_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: chicago,Il
Bikes: yes please
Posts: 2,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Glad they made an entire story of it. Couldn't find it anywhere in the Chicago Tribune.

edit: link to the full text of law. clicky.

Last edited by slim_77; 12-30-07 at 09:07 PM.
slim_77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-07, 08:59 PM   #3
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)
Astonishingly, at least one Bike Forums A&S safety nannies is critical of three foot minimum passing laws because he thinks they send the wrong message to the public.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 09:33 AM   #4
John E
feros ferio
 
John E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Bikes: 1959 Capo; 1980 Peugeot PKN-10; 1981 Bianchi; 1988 Schwinn KOM-10;
Posts: 17,167
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Astonishingly, at least one Bike Forums A&S safety nannies is critical of three foot minimum passing laws because he thinks they send the wrong message to the public.
What would this person propose instead? Personally, I strongly support the 3-foot passing law and would apply it to all vehicles moving at greater than pedestrian speeds.
__________________
"Early to bed, early to rise. Work like hell, and advertise." -- George Stahlman
Capo [dschaw'-poe]: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger, S/N 42624
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1981 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
John E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 09:38 AM   #5
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)
It's been written he thinks its all golden out there on the roads if a bicyclist is properely positioned and throwing the right combination of superVC buttwaggles and steely-eyed glares to the motorists.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-31-07 at 08:12 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 10:12 AM   #6
Az B
Fattest Thin Man
 
Az B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Bikes: Miyata 610, Vinco V, Rocky Mountain Element
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az
Az B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 01:05 PM   #7
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John E View Post
What would this person propose instead? Personally, I strongly support the 3-foot passing law and would apply it to all vehicles moving at greater than pedestrian speeds.
Since Bek's memory must be failing (again), the reason to be against a 3 foot passing law, which would take the place of a "safe distance" law, is that it might encourage motorists to only try and give 3 feet when often more is necessary, such as at higher speeds. I personally do not want to be passed at 3 feet by someone going 50mph more than me, especially not a vehicle on the larger side. No reasonable person would pass a pedestrian that close and I'd prefer not to do anything to make people feel that it's ok to pass a cyclist that close.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 01:24 PM   #8
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)
you so vigorously defend your mentor the safety nanny, joe!

I beleive the statue would encourage motorists to give AT LEAST 3 feet of passing clearances the way you intrepret it.

It puts 3 feet MINIMUM passing into the drivers' manuals. You think that's worse than educating motorists to simply 'pass safely?' and it also gives weight in the eventuality of bicyclist/motorist accidents. If a bike is hit by a passing vehicle, proving fault in the accident will be easer to ascribe to the motorist.

Do you OFTEN ride roads with 50MPH speed differentials and why do you feel a 3 feet minimum passing law WOULDN'T get you better treatment from motorists? You really believe a 3 foot passing law would get more motorists passing less safely?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 04:51 PM   #9
Recycle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NE IL
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker, Giant Cypress DX
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
The Illinois 3 foot law does not replace the "safe distance" requirement, it adds to it.

The law reads:
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall leave a safe distance, but not less than 3 feet, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.
That same bill added the words "and safe" as bolded in the next section on road position:
Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways -Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

The 3 foot passing minimum also appears to help define "substandard lane width" in item 3 of the road position section.
Recycle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 07:07 PM   #10
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
I beleive the statue would encourage motorists to give AT LEAST 3 feet of passing clearances the way you intrepret it.
"At least 3 feet" still can be interpretted as "3 feet is OK."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
It puts 3 feet MINIMUM passing into the drivers' manuals. You think that's worse than educating motorists to simply 'pass safely?' and it also gives weight in the eventuality of bicyclist/motorist accidents. If a bike is hit by a passing vehicle, proving fault in the accident will be easer to ascribe to the motorist.
Why not put something into the driver's manual about the reasons for passing at a safe distance? Simply saying 3 feet minimum does nothing to encourage motorists to give cyclists plenty of space. If a cyclist is hit by a passing vehicle, OBVIOUSLY the pass was NOT made at a safe distance. Having the 3 foot standard does nothing, although it could give a motorist an out who thought he was passing a cyclist at 3 feet but passed closer and the resulting wind blast caused the cyclist to crash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Do you OFTEN ride roads with 50MPH speed differentials and why do you feel a 3 feet minimum passing law WOULDN'T get you better treatment from motorists? You really believe a 3 foot passing law would get more motorists passing less safely?
I do often ride roads where there's the potential for a 50mph speed differential and I do not think a 3 feet minimum law would make any difference in how I am passed. Do you think motorists will suddenly decide to study the applicable cyclist laws in the vehicle code when this law is passed? Even if a motorist does read the law, do you want them remembering "3 feet" or "safe"? I'd prefer the latter. I certainly don't expect them to remember all the little intricacies of the wording of the law. Hell, the cops around me don't even know the law that well. But they've always passed at a safe distance

Last edited by joejack951; 12-31-07 at 07:12 PM.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 07:15 PM   #11
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)
except when they're pulling you over and ticketing you

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-31-07 at 07:27 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 07:22 PM   #12
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
except when they're pulling you over and ticketing you for riding too far right than practicable
Too far left The officer was completely in the left lane when he pulled next to me.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 08:08 PM   #13
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,327
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Az B View Post
While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az

+1
dynodonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 03:27 AM   #14
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil View Post
Illinois passes bill requiring 3-foot clearance while passing
I think it's a good law, but you won't see much difference on the road. I didn't when FL did the same thing a couple years ago. The drivers who were passing with a safe separation will continue to do so, the cagers who didn't still won't, regardless what the law says.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 09:07 AM   #15
JeffB502
Arrogant Safety Nanny
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Maria, CA
Bikes: 2007 Trek 7.2 FX, 2008 Trek Madone 5.2
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From the article:
Quote:
Some drivers will move all the way over into another lane when passing a bicycle, which is a nice gesture but unnecessary and possibly dangerous to the driver.
I'm just wondering...is the writer trying to imply that it's safer to give a 3 foot passing distance than a full lane? How could it be dangerous to move fully into the next lane to pass a cyclist? This statement seems to be an opinion from the writer that the 3 foot passing law will discourage motorists from making "unnecessary and possibly dangerous" complete lane changes to pass cyclists.

Riding a 55mph road on a regular basis, I have been passed by full size tractor trailers traveling near the speed limit, probably at about 3 feet, and that is a little too close for comfort, especially if I'm riding into the usual 15mph or so headwind. I really like the wording of the actual law, but I hope the message given to the general public doesn't get dumbed down to the point where people only get the "3 foot passing distance" part of it and not the "safe distance" part.
JeffB502 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 10:16 AM   #16
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffB502 View Post
From the article: I'm just wondering...is the writer trying to imply that it's safer to give a 3 foot passing distance than a full lane? How could it be dangerous to move fully into the next lane to pass a cyclist? This statement seems to be an opinion from the writer that the 3 foot passing law will discourage motorists from making "unnecessary and possibly dangerous" complete lane changes to pass cyclists.

Riding a 55mph road on a regular basis, I have been passed by full size tractor trailers traveling near the speed limit, probably at about 3 feet, and that is a little too close for comfort, especially if I'm riding into the usual 15mph or so headwind. I really like the wording of the actual law, but I hope the message given to the general public doesn't get dumbed down to the point where people only get the "3 foot passing distance" part of it and not the "safe distance" part.
Exactly my point. I didn't read the article otherwise I probably would have caught the same statement. As you have stated, that's completely the opposite attitude that motorists need to have. It's just as important to not have motorists thinking that way on a 2 lane road as it is on a 4 lane road.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 05:10 PM   #17
-=(8)=-
♋ ☮♂ ☭ ☯
 
-=(8)=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 40205 'ViLLeBiLLie
Bikes: Sngl Spd's, 70's- 80's vintage, D-tube Folder
Posts: 7,903
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Az B View Post
While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az

They have that law in Fl, too.
Insert 500 roflmao smilies -----here-----.


Thank goodness for lanes ! At least we get 20 inches or so
__________________
-ADVOCACY-☜ Radical VC = Car people on bikes. Just say "NO"
-=(8)=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 05:22 PM   #18
gattm99
Rouleur
 
gattm99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: HARRISBURG IL
Bikes: ROAD MOUNTAIN
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
We were talking about that while riding Saturday Morning. While I don't see it having much of an effect it does put bicycle saftey into the publics view for a moment, and I can't really see how it could hurt.

At the very least it at least reminds some people we are legally allowed on the roads.
gattm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 10:59 AM   #19
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: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gattm99 View Post
it does put bicycle saftey into the publics view for a moment,
Which is why there needs to be a continuous reminder of safe passing laws (which already exist outside of any 3ft law).

I have more than several times heard the AZ 3ft law being interpreted as 'Give cyclist 3ft of space [on the right side of the road]' Twice by cyclists!

That is now a common gross misinterpretation that can only be prevented thru public awareness campaigns. The alternate is to not have a 3ft law and instead focus on safe passing awareness which is less likely to be mis-stated.

Al
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 03:43 PM   #20
richardmasoner
Fritz M
 
richardmasoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Bikes: Trek, Spesh, GT, Centurion
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
(A wasted opportunity to discuss real bike advocacy by descending yet again into name calling. *sigh*)
3 foot passing laws are a distraction from real issues of cyclist safety and waste of political capital. I'm in agreement with Paul Dorn, who writes (regarding a similar 3 foot law in California) that "this bill will offer negligible improvement for bicyclists, and is a distraction from more pressing priorities. AB 60 is a trifling piece of legislation for California's bicycling community, which has many legislative needs and, sadly, minimal political clout."

Read more about his and other's views on the 3 foot law at his Bike Commute website. Paul is former director of the California Bicycle Coalition, served on the board of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and was involved in the early days of San Francisco Critical Mass. In case you have any unwarranted suspicions, Paul is also a committed advocate of facilities for cyclists.
richardmasoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 03:50 PM   #21
richardmasoner
Fritz M
 
richardmasoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Bikes: Trek, Spesh, GT, Centurion
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For those who believe the myth that a hit-from-behind is prima facie evidence of violation of the 3 foot law: In many hit-from-behind reports, (1) the responding police take statements from the motorist only, even when the cyclist survives; (2) the motorist statement is invariably "He swerved right in front of me!"; and (3) if the cyclist survives, the police tickets the cyclist for impeding traffic.
richardmasoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 05:08 PM   #22
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardmasoner View Post
For those who believe the myth that a hit-from-behind is prima facie evidence of violation of the 3 foot law: In many hit-from-behind reports, (1) the responding police take statements from the motorist only, even when the cyclist survives; (2) the motorist statement is invariably "He swerved right in front of me!"; and (3) if the cyclist survives, the police tickets the cyclist for impeding traffic.
And what would you expect the motorist to say? "Oh no, he was right there, but I clipped him anyway?"
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 05:12 PM   #23
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
Which is why there needs to be a continuous reminder of safe passing laws (which already exist outside of any 3ft law).

I have more than several times heard the AZ 3ft law being interpreted as 'Give cyclist 3ft of space [on the right side of the road]' Twice by cyclists!

That is now a common gross misinterpretation that can only be prevented thru public awareness campaigns. The alternate is to not have a 3ft law and instead focus on safe passing awareness which is less likely to be mis-stated.

Al
Apparently motorists forget all the laws they were taught earlier in life as soon as they turn the key... I've noticed several signs around here stating: "Must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" and "Must stop for pedestrians before turning." These are not unusual intersections... but apparently motorists have "not stopped" in the past... and must be constantly reminded.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 05:36 PM   #24
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: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Apparently motorists forget all the laws they were taught earlier in life as soon as they turn the key... I've noticed several signs around here stating: "Must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" and "Must stop for pedestrians before turning." These are not unusual intersections... but apparently motorists have "not stopped" in the past... and must be constantly reminded.
Forget is a problem, but just as bad and in this case worse is misinterpretation. Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.

So this mis-interpretation creates a worse effect for cyclists who are not using the 3ft margin of the road then if the law (or really the marketing of the law) had not happened at all.

Al
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 07:36 PM   #25
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
Forget is a problem, but just as bad and in this case worse is misinterpretation. Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.

So this mis-interpretation creates a worse effect for cyclists who are not using the 3ft margin of the road then if the law (or really the marketing of the law) had not happened at all.

Al
arrrg. Yet again the laws are interpreted by the minds of those that feel they own them... There is no solution. But then again without 3 foot laws... it's "get on the sidewalk."
genec 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 06:43 AM.