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 11-27-10, 03:31 PM   #1
Ekdog
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Ekdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Posts: 4,376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Richard C. Senel, M.D. Why Motorcycle and Bicycle Helmets Should Be Mandatory

Stop a minute and look at the box that your latest computer or television came in. It's packed securely and safely in expanded foam similar to what helmets are made out of. Sony or Apple wouldn't think of shipping their product without this security, but we send our children out to play with less protection than a $100 DVD player. We must not be thinking clearly. The once nerdy white foam shell helmets now come in colorful and stylish designs that any child or adult would be proud to wear. You can protect your child for the $30 that you might spend on a pizza dinner.

An interesting article by Richard C. Senelick, M.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar..._b_786402.html
Ekdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 04:07 PM   #2
Kurt Erlenbach
Senior Member
 
Kurt Erlenbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 2,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is the lede (or what should be):

"The period of time before and after 1977 gives a clear picture of what happens when you require people to wear a helmet. Deaths and serious brain injuries were significantly reduced by the use of helmets. A 1992 study in the Journal of Trauma compared helmeted and unhelmeted motorcycle accident victims. The chance of a severe brain injury was 66 percent in those without a helmet compared to 38 percent for those smart enough to wear a helmet. The cost of medical care for the unhelmeted was more than four times greater than those with a helmet and 44 percent of the medical care was paid out of public funds." (emphasis added)



In my libertarian days, I used to think that helmet laws were a good example of government overreach. Now that so much medical care is government-paid, it is clear that helmet laws save tax money. Call it nanny state if you want, but it's needed.
Kurt Erlenbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 04:35 PM   #3
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: 17,314
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Once again Kerlenbach is spot-on. The unasked question, however, is whether pedestrians and motorists should be required to wear helmets, for the same reason. I recall a ca. 1960 design of driving helmets which looked like regular street hats and which were being proposed for John Q. Motorist. Improved restraints and airbags may have weakened the argument somewhat, but helmets still might protect car occupants in side collisions.
__________________
"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 11-27-10, 05:10 PM   #4
Speedo
Senior Member
 
Speedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston Area
Bikes: Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti
Posts: 1,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dr. Senel seems to be basing his bicycle helmet recommendation on:

"We know that bicycle helmets reduce serious traumatic brain injuries by 95 percent, ..." (quoted from the referenced article)

Of course! Who wouldn't, if it were true? But those big number reduction claims have long been discredited. Where helmets have been made mandatory, reductions in head injuries have no where near kept up with the increases in helmet use. See for example...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d09de18c5e3a3a

If bicycle helmet effectiveness is no where near the 95% claimed, what's the justification for mandatory use?

Speedo

Last edited by Speedo; 11-27-10 at 05:11 PM. Reason: clarification
Speedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 06:25 PM   #5
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekdog View Post
Stop a minute and look at the box that your latest computer or television came in. It's packed securely and safely in expanded foam similar to what helmets are made out of. Sony or Apple wouldn't think of shipping their product without this security, but we send our children out to play with less protection than a $100 DVD player. We must not be thinking clearly. The once nerdy white foam shell helmets now come in colorful and stylish designs that any child or adult would be proud to wear. You can protect your child for the $30 that you might spend on a pizza dinner.

An interesting article by Richard C. Senelick, M.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar..._b_786402.html
Well, I counter this article (and analogy) with another

Quote:
This note was written as a web page. If you're reading it on a web page, you're reading it on a computer. I'd like you to stop for a moment and think about that computer. When it arrived from its maker - possibly when you bought it - it was packed in a strong cardboard box. Inside the strong cardboard box was almost certainly some polystyrene foam packaging material. Probably at least 40mm of it, surrounding and protecting your computer from the inevitable bumps it would incur in transit - bumps like being dropped from someone's hands onto the warehouse floor, or thumped up against another, similarly packaged computer.

By and large, for these sort of bumps, the packaging works, and your computer probably arrived home safe and sound.

Now think about your bicycle helmet. Like the packaging your computer came in, it is worn to protect a very valuable object - your brain. Like the packaging your computer came in, it is made of polystyrene foam - and typically it's a good bit less than 40mm thick.

I would like you to stop again, and think about the box your computer came in. I'd like you, as a thought experiment, to imagine taking your computer, putting it back it in its original box, and placing the box in the middle of the street. Now I want you to imagine getting into a car and driving into the box at just thirty miles an hour. You've imagined that? Good. Now do you think you would be able to use the computer afterwards?

Polystyrene foam is just polystyrene foam. Polystyrene foam is a light, weak, compressible solid which rapidly becomes brittle with age and is easily damaged by solvents. It doesn't become magically stronger just because it's formed into a cycle helmet. The same foam that didn't protect the computer in the thought experiment is equally not going to protect your head in similar circumstances.

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-27-10 at 06:56 PM.
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 07:09 PM   #6
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo View Post
Dr. Senel seems to be basing his bicycle helmet recommendation on:

"We know that bicycle helmets reduce serious traumatic brain injuries by 95 percent, ..."
Which we all know is absolute bunk, yet there are those who swear on stacks of bibles that it's true, despite evidence to the contrary.
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 08:02 PM   #7
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Another Kool-Aid drinker who pulls out the same discredited numbers and revisionist history.

From the motorcycle side, I'll bet they try hard to ignore the study that said full-face helmets (like the pic in the article) can act as a 'guillotine' of sorts, transferring facial impact directly to the spine and severing the spinal cord at the base of the skull, causing immediate death. Read that one in '93. And when he stated that it's a 'fact' that most motorcycle injuries are at the public's expense, I knew we were dealing with a mouthpiece for the pro-helmeters out there.

Anybody else ready for the lies to stop?
DX-MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 08:54 PM   #8
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerlenbach View Post
In my libertarian days, I used to think that helmet laws were a good example of government overreach. Now that so much medical care is government-paid, it is clear that helmet laws save tax money. Call it nanny state if you want, but it's needed.
Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling, a mathematical model concludes.
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-10, 10:56 PM   #9
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
So we want to save health care cost.

What are the health cost for a motorcyclist that dies on the road from not wearing a helmet - $0.
What are the health cost for a motorcyclist that lives with life long disabilities by wearing a helmet - often over $1,000,000.

For the sake of saving health care cost, we should encourage motorcyclist to ride without helmets.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:24 AM   #10
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerlenbach View Post



In my libertarian days, I used to think that helmet laws were a good example of government overreach. Now that so much medical care is government-paid, it is clear that helmet laws save tax money.....
No it is not clear at all. Evidence suggests that bicycle helmet laws cost society more money than they save. Cycling is *healthy* and good for society whether helmets are used or not.

Even if bicycle helmets did save tax money (evidence suggests they don't) a mandatory helmet law could never save more than a tiny fraction as much as would a law against being overweight or eating junk, for instance. If saving tax money really is your goal, then you should focus on policy that could actually have a measurable impact on public health costs.

So, you're all for government determining what we can and can't eat, right? Why or why not.
RobertHurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:39 AM   #11
FlatSix911
Senior Member
 
FlatSix911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Altos, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
The best reason for a helmet I have ever found ...



FlatSix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 01:19 AM   #12
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hold on I'm going to post a picture of an obscenely obese person on a government sponsored scooter about to have a government sponsored stroke.

oh here ya go


Last edited by RobertHurst; 11-28-10 at 01:38 AM.
RobertHurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 01:35 AM   #13
009jim
Senior Member
 
009jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Bikes: Giant CRX3, Trek 7100
Posts: 1,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, it's clearly beneficial for cyclists and motorcyclists to wear helmets; but the ultimate question is why not motorists too? I'll tell you why - because if motorists had to wear helmets, it would piss-off a lot of women and a lot of politicians and therein lies a prime example of the shear bigotry of so many aspects of our society. Oh, we simply can't have a rule that would piss-off all those women. The laws should have been bundled together:- do we want helmets for everyone or no-one? Not some minority that can be easily oppressed. A similarly stupid law would be to legislate for black people to wear helmets; or mexicans, or people in wheelchairs!
009jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 07:34 AM   #14
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Bikes:
Posts: 1,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Research by Dr. Mayer Hilman (UK) into cyclist head injury fatalities (can't find the source, unfortuantely) showed that about 92% of those who died from brain injury would have died anyway from other, less immediately threatening injuries. He estimated that only about 6 UK riders would have their lives saved p.a.

If you are hit by a motor vehicle, especially coming from the opposite direction, with a collision speed in excess of 30mph, the standard helmet will protect you somewhat, from about 12/14mph of the impact. However, you may:
1. flip up over the hood, hit the windscreen with your head and break your neck (death/paralysis)
2. flip right over the car (possibly ditto) and be run over by following vehicle
3. splat into the windscreen of a 40 ton truck (a 30mph to stop or even 30 mph one way to 30 mph in the opposite direction) in which case the force of the impact may sever a major blood vessel (aorta, anyone), push your ribcage thro' your lungs/heart/blood vessels/cause massive internal haemorrhaging, etc)
4. go over the hood of the car/pickup and land rolling on the other side with only relatively minor injuries
5. the aerodynamic rear of a fancier helmet may catch the ground/vehicle and spin your head round causing spinal/brain shaking injuries
6. land on your face pushing your nose up into your frontal cortex
7. etc., etc.

I always wear a helmet to save me from minor damage but prefer to avoid putting the helmet to the test by avoiding being hit.

The carefully researched British Medical Assoication study, Cyclng & Health, showed that the benefits of cycling as little as 4 miles daily were about 20 times more likely to extend your life span by keeping you healthy than you were to die in a traffic collision.

By the way, jumping off the ridgeline of a 2 storey house is the equivalent of a 30 to zero crash. Fancy relying on a helmet to keep you alive if you go off head first?
atbman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 08:46 AM   #15
Kurt Erlenbach
Senior Member
 
Kurt Erlenbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 2,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For the sake of this discussion, I don't care about what people eat, what pedestrians, car drivers or passengers wear, what you wear when you jump off the house, or any such things. Most bike crashes are simple affairs: clip-out failure, scraping a curb and falling, hitting a pothole, or maybe a bump from a car. In each you will fall with varying degrees of force from the bike, and there is a good chance of hitting your head. I would much prefer hitting my head with a bike helmet on, than not. I would prefer not having the accident in the first place, but as Lance said, if you're afraid of falling off the bike, don't get on it. For the more serious and less likely accident - getting hit by a car at speed, etc. - a helmet won't help, nor will anything else other than avoiding the crash.

There is a good chance, when riding a few thousand miles a year on the road, that at some point I will have a significant crash that will bounce my head off the ground. Maybe the helmet will save me from a knot, maybe from a fracture, maybe from a subdural hematoma, or maybe from nothing at all. I am not convinced that drivers behave less safely around me because I have a helmet, and I do not believe that I take more risks because I have a helmet. It's also possible that a helmet could cause one kind of injury while preventing a different one (Seatbelts help preserve your face, chest and head at the expense of your neck and back - I'll take whiplash over smashing into the windshield any day.) Those things are possible, but unlikely. So as I said in a previous post, the cost of wearing it is minimal, while the benefits are significant.
Kurt Erlenbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 09:18 AM   #16
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
no one is saying that there should be a ban on helmets and wearing one should be illegal. This article is saying that there should be a law for people to wear bicycle helmets and to not wear one should be illegal. That's quite a difference, so this proposal has to be justified.

The justification for this lies in the belief that bicycle helmets reduce all serious TBI by 95%, which know is not true. We also know that the toll of injuries of people on bikes is no greater than those same injuries to others who are not riding bikes, so there is no justification of need for a law.

Further, helmet laws have been around for quite some time and we know what happens when they get passed. The publics health suffers while head injuries to cyclists continue. The blind eye to these facts by the author is not shared by others, so more often than not, mandatory helmet laws are defeated and choice is retained.

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-28-10 at 09:48 AM.
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 10:26 AM   #17
Kurt Erlenbach
Senior Member
 
Kurt Erlenbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 2,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I favor motorcycle helmet laws and children's bike helmet laws. Adult bike helmet laws probably would do more harm (discouraging adult causal riders, encouraging discriminatory enforcement) than good (reducing/eliminating an occasional head injury).
Kurt Erlenbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 10:37 AM   #18
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
There should be a law that mandates every man should wear a cup.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 11:01 AM   #19
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 9,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think we need better enforcement of laws that prevent deaths and serious injuries to cyclists.

Motorists get away with causing serious injury and death, and then place the blame for these deaths on cyclists because the "should have been wearing a helmet"
closetbiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:00 PM   #20
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems to me that unless a law is going to be enforced there is no point writing it at all.

In the UK the police appear unable or unwilling to enforce the prohibition on using handheld mobile phones while driving. Just about every day I'm out (on foot or by bike) I see people using their phone while driving. If the police cannot enforce this what hope do they have of enforcing legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets?
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:23 PM   #21
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contango View Post
It seems to me that unless a law is going to be enforced there is no point writing it at all.
At least with what I casually observe, it seems to have an effect on tort cases.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:36 PM   #22
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerlenbach View Post
... Most bike crashes are simple affairs: clip-out failure, scraping a curb and falling, hitting a pothole, or maybe a bump from a car. In each you will fall with varying degrees of force from the bike, and there is a good chance of hitting your head. I would much prefer hitting my head with a bike helmet on, than not. ...
For these type of accidents, you would be much better off not hitting your head in the first place rather than relying on a helmet. May I suggest going back to grade school and learning to tuck your chin into your chest when you go to ground. It works extremely well.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 12:40 PM   #23
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contango View Post
It seems to me that unless a law is going to be enforced there is no point writing it at all.

In the UK the police appear unable or unwilling to enforce the prohibition on using handheld mobile phones while driving. Just about every day I'm out (on foot or by bike) I see people using their phone while driving. If the police cannot enforce this what hope do they have of enforcing legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets?
Easy, London has had several crackdowns of scofflaw cyclist. Cyclist are easy political targets.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 01:06 PM   #24
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Easy, London has had several crackdowns of scofflaw cyclist. Cyclist are easy political targets.
I've never observed such a crackdown. I've had to take evasive action to avoid the usual antisocial cyclists who plough through red lights at pedestrian crossings even when pedestrians are crossing, seen a number of cyclists travelling at speed on pavements (sidewalks) etc.

The problem with crackdowns on cyclists is that the cyclist who is generally responsible but once in a while takes a shortcut (e.g. using the pavement for a short distance when no pedestrians are using it) is more likely to cooperate with the police, while the antisocial cyclist who doesn't care about rules at all and considers the world to be their personal racetrack will simply ignore the police and cycle away. In the absence of any form of registration of bicycles there is little the police can do, unless they are a position to give chase.
contango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-10, 01:08 PM   #25
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
Posts: 3,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblehand View Post
At least with what I casually observe, it seems to have an effect on tort cases.
Perhaps, but when laws are implemented with at least the stated aim of improving safety I'd rather see the improvement in safety than an increase in prosecutions. It's all very well having something extra to hit an errant driver with after they cause an accident, but the fact the accident happened in the first place shows the law failed in its stated aim.
contango 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 11:45 PM.