Advocacy & Safety - Helmets Mandated by Insurance Policies???

If you want to decrease frivilous lawsuits, like when bicyclists who crash because of stupid riding decisions and sue a driver or club instead of taking personal responsibility, then make it "loser pays".

Temporary social assistance is a good thing, generational welfare is a terrible thing.

This alleged problem of stupid cyclists irresponsibly suing clubs or drivers deserves the same "where's the beef" skepticism as the baloney-like claims about insurance companies mandating helmet wear.

That sort of thing is one of the major reasons I will not join a club and do not take part in group rides. I would never want to be part of a group with any rule more restrictive than "Don't run into the other riders."

What about other guidelines such as:
-no aerobars while other cyclists are close
-no handsfree while in pack
-no earphones
-no use of cell phone in pack, separate from pack to use phone
-follow all traffic laws
-stay in line within one lane while stopped at intersections
-pass on right (this is for passing other slower riders, not for rotating lines, etc.)
-signal turns (verbal or by hand) and call out direct road hazards

What about other guidelines such as:
-no aerobars while other cyclists are close
-no handsfree while in pack
-no earphones
-no use of cell phone in pack, separate from pack to use phone
-follow all traffic laws
-stay in line within one lane while stopped at intersections
-pass on right (this is for passing other slower riders, not for rotating lines, etc.)
-signal turns (verbal or by hand) and call out direct road hazards

the need to avoid each and every one of these hazards is reason enough not to ride with any of these club dooshes. If you need to be told this, you don't belong there in the first place...too bad the ones that need to be told the most are exactly the same ones who don't 'get it'

What about other guidelines such as:
-no aerobars while other cyclists are close
-no handsfree while in pack
-no earphones
-no use of cell phone in pack, separate from pack to use phone
-follow all traffic laws
-stay in line within one lane while stopped at intersections
-pass on right (this is for passing other slower riders, not for rotating lines, etc.)
-signal turns (verbal or by hand) and call out direct road hazards

All good guidelines -- and all things that should be the responsibility of the individual participants, not written down as official club "rules." The proper response to someone violating one of these bits of common sense would not be to quote a "club rule," but rather, for the other riders to castigate the offender for being an idiot.

This alleged problem of stupid cyclists irresponsibly suing clubs or drivers deserves the same "where's the beef" skepticism as the baloney-like claims about insurance companies mandating helmet wear.
I agree with this.

I think clubs might be overly worried about the risk of liability suits.

====================


All good guidelines -- and all things that should be the responsibility of the individual participants, not written down as official club "rules." The proper response to someone violating one of these bits of common sense would not be to quote a "club rule," but rather, for the other riders to castigate the offender for being an idiot.
If the rules/guidelines make sense, having them published before-hand makes sense too. Publishing them is a service to the partcipant because they prepare ahead of time. Publishing them before hand is a service to the leader because it makes his/her job easier. Neither the participants or the leader will have any interest in nagging people about simple crap that could be conveyed before hand.

Some responsible people might not know about "all those things". The published list serves to educate them about the things that they might have missed.

If the rules/guidelines make sense, having them published before-hand makes sense too. Publishing them is a service to the partcipant because they prepare ahead of time. Publishing them before hand is a service to the leader because it makes his/her job easier.

Some responsible people might not know about "all those things". The published list serves to educate them about the things that they might have missed.

They are published on the back of every ride map given out to all that sign in. While called 'guidelines' it also states 'please read and comply' I prefer documented ones vs. other clubs where leaders and other riders seem to make up rules on a whim, which only leads to tensions. Its part of why I am fine w/a helmet rule for large sized clubs. Such a rules takes away one more thing (and a big one as far as debate goes) for people to bicker about during the ride or about other riders.

If the rules/guidelines make sense, having them published before-hand makes sense too. Publishing them is a service to the partcipant because they prepare ahead of time. Publishing them before hand is a service to the leader because it makes his/her job easier. Neither the participants or the leader will have any interest in nagging people about simple crap that could be conveyed before hand.

Some responsible people might not know about "all those things". The published list serves to educate them about the things that they might have missed.


They are published on the back of every ride map given out to all that sign in. While called 'guidelines' it also states 'please read and comply' I prefer documented ones vs. other clubs where leaders and other riders seem to make up rules on a whim, which only leads to tensions. Its part of why I am fine w/a helmet rule for large sized clubs. Such a rules takes away one more thing (and a big one as far as debate goes) for people to bicker about during the ride or about other riders.

I don't have a problem with them as guidelines, published or not. However, I would object to the use of the "please read and comply" statement as "comply" implies that these are rules that must be obeyed, rather than suggestions to be considered.

I raised the same objection about 15 years ago when the company where I worked instituted a "no-smoking" policy. I am a non-smoker with asthma who is very uncomfortable in the presence of smoke and personally benefited from the new rule. (My desk was right next to the desk of a pipe smoker.) However, I went to the office of the company vice president in charge of that facility and objected to the new rule. I said that employees should have the right to smoke or not smoke at their own desks, and if I or anyone else were bothered by the smoke, it should be our responsibility to talk to that person ourselves and ask them not to smoke, rather than anyone telling them what to do. My protest had no effect, but I'm still glad I made it.

I don't have a problem with them as guidelines, published or not. However, I would object to the use of the "please read and comply" statement as "comply" implies that these are rules that must be obeyed, rather than suggestions to be considered.

I raised the same objection about 15 years ago when the company where I worked instituted a "no-smoking" policy. I am a non-smoker with asthma who is very uncomfortable in the presence of smoke and personally benefited from the new rule. (My desk was right next to the desk of a pipe smoker.) However, I went to the office of the company vice president in charge of that facility and objected to the new rule. I said that employees should have the right to smoke or not smoke at their own desks, and if I or anyone else were bothered by the smoke, it should be our responsibility to talk to that person ourselves and ask them not to smoke, rather than anyone telling them what to do. My protest had no effect, but I'm still glad I made it.

There is/was one small "flaw" in your "argument," and that is that said desk isn't the employee's "own desk" rather it is company property. And the company has the right to pass whatever rules it deems necessary to protect it's property as well as the health of all of it's employees.

As sadly there are a LOT of careless smokers out there who lay their butts anywhere that they please and good/expensive furniture ends up getting burn marks on them. Also there are plenty of people out there who seem to think that it is their inalienable right to smoke whenever and wherever they want and to hell with what anyone else thinks. Or whatever health problems that they may have.

Now then the company's that are starting to tell their employees that they can't smoke at home when they are off the clock that is wrong. No company/employer should be able to tell an employee what s/he can do on their own time. I know that some companies are putting the "blame" as it were on smoker's health insurance costing more. If that is truly the case then make the individual smoker pay more for his/her insurance. If health insurance is a benefit given to all employees with no paycheck deduction. Then make the smoker's pay the difference.

Let's save the completely ridiculous argument of "Y THE F SHOULD I AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?" for another thread, OK?

THIS thread is about the equally ridiculous excuse "Right - but this is purely a safety and liability concern". So Sqqoodri, ask at your club for a copy of their insurance policy and share with us the clause that shows their requirement for helmets.

Bicycling is a very safe thing to do. Always has been and is now. Helmets are unnecessary for the vast, vast majority of casual cyclists.

I was on your side til you called me ridiculous, fool; your self-righteousness about this issue is nauseating. It's a fact of life that extra costs incurred by the free enterprisers are passed on to the consumer, who more and more frequently has little choice about consuming (case in point -- INSURANCE!).

Randya was right -- you are FOS...and I'm not laughing.

I said that employees should have the right to smoke or not smoke at their own desks, and if I or anyone else were bothered by the smoke, it should be our responsibility to talk to that person ourselves and ask them not to smoke, rather than anyone telling them what to do.

They should have the RIGHT to endanger MY life and health? I don't think so. I'll be quite happy to NOT ever ride with you.

That said, I disagree with mandatory helmet rules, and would not ride with a club that required helmets. It's a large part of why I quit riding brevets. I'll wear a helmet if required for a ride I really want to do (usually because some of my friends are riding) but I much prefer to ride without one.

Hey DX-Man, I said the argument was ridiculous, not you. And it is, but I won't be dragged into it here. Feel free to start another thread and I might join in.


Originally Posted by RapidRobert http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=9721211#post9721211)If you want to decrease frivilous lawsuits, like when bicyclists who crash because of stupid riding decisions and sue a driver or club instead of taking personal responsibility, then make it "loser pays".

Temporary social assistance is a good thing, generational welfare is a terrible thing.


This alleged problem of stupid cyclists irresponsibly suing clubs or drivers deserves the same "where's the beef" skepticism as the baloney-like claims about insurance companies mandating helmet wear.

That's a fair point. I wrote it without thinking too much into it. You're right, it's all probably much ado about nothing, promoted by many without really thinking about it and the unintended consequences, and only a problem in the one case of clubs requiring, not strongly recommending, but requiring helmets on their rides.

I suppose I should say that I think helmets are a great idea for many riders, even if it's only because they want a place to mount a mirror (which is a REAL piece of safety equipment on the road).

I mount my mirror on the bill of a ball cap, no helmet required

I recently rode in a group ride, not a "club" ride, but similar dynamics. I was one of two unhelmeted riders, and the absence of our helmets stirred an interesting debate. One fairly officious fellow trotted out the usual "Darwin" comments, and the usual health-care-cost BS, making the claim that riders without helmets are idiots and fools -- and then proceeded to run every single stop sign for the next 50 miles.

And I thought to myself, I've actually never seen a group/club ride where traffic signals were given more than passing observance. And these are the same guys proclaiming to be concerned about safety?

snip...

In the earlier thread you, specifically, were one who made that claim. Yet now you state that it:
"Makes no sense for insurance companies to detail 'requirements'." So do you or don't you think that companies that insure bike clubs have a requirement for a mandatory helmet policy?

:rolleyes: "State","Claim", "Think" or "..." ? Guilty as charged your honor!

Geary

The bike club makes the rules. You don't like them, you're not part of the ride. You get hurt, you're not part of the ride cuz you didn't follow the rules. Simple.

The bike club makes the rules then lies about why. That's my assertion, because they constantly cite their insurance requirements and liability as the reason they require helmets. Yet still, nobody can prove it by showing the clause in a policy.

When I find myself in a discussion about helmets with one of their zealous helmeted members, I want to be informed. I don't want to be accusing them wrongly. If there really is an insurance requirement, I want to know. You see, I think the insurance companys know that more helmets means more accidents because people ride riskier when helmeted, which means less profits for them. Lidless riders ride safer, especially in the constant bombardment of fear mongering by the clubs and the helmet meme infected, about how "dangerous it is to ride a bike".

The bike club makes the rules. You don't like them, you're not part of the ride. You get hurt, you're not part of the ride cuz you didn't follow the rules. Simple.

And if you are a part of a ride on the street and get hurt in a traffic accident, it doesn't matter, as far as holding a club liable, if you are wearing a helmet or not, or following the club rules or not.

I believe injured cyclists aren't going to collect a dime from their club for any injuries suffered on non competitive street rides without proof of club leader(s)' gross negligence causing the accident (perhaps in selection of route/time of day, or perhaps encouraging danger practices such as tight formation pelotons or flaunting of traffic rules by the group.) Helmet wear is not a factor at all.

The bike club makes the rules. You don't like them, you're not part of the ride. You get hurt, you're not part of the ride cuz you didn't follow the rules. Simple.

Exactly, the clubs have the right to pass whatever rule they deem needed to protect the club and club members. If one doesn't like the rules that they have to abide by to ride, it's simple don't ride with that club. Either find a club that allows riders to ride without a helmet or start your own club and make your own rules.

If one doesn't like the rules that they have to abide by to ride, it's simple don't ride with that club. Either find a club that allows riders to ride without a helmet or start your own club and make your own rules.

Bingo!

:beer:

They're called Critical Mass and locally, the San Jose Bike Party. The latter averaged 3000 riding the past four months, easily 80% lidless (though helmets are RECOMMENDED by the organizers), riding 20-30 miles between 8pm and midnight. Look up SJBP on the web.

The bike club makes the rules then lies about why. That's my assertion, because they constantly cite their insurance requirements and liability as the reason they require helmets. Yet still, nobody can prove it by showing the clause in a policy.


... the clubs have the right to pass whatever rule they deem needed to protect the club and club members. If one doesn't like the rules that they have to abide by to ride, it's simple don't ride with that club. Either find a club that allows riders to ride without a helmet or start your own club and make your own rules.

I agree with both of these arguments; good thing they're not directly related.

RR says, "Quit lying and saying it's an insurance thing!"
DC says, "Their club, their rules -- live with them or go make your own."

I guess one club rule is, "Lie to outsiders to make ourselves look responsible and mature."

I'm all for (what's the current trendy word? O Yeah!) transparency. If you require helmets for your club rides, just say it's a club rule, and you don't ride with the club without it, we care about keeping our heads protected. Stop laying it off on a lie.

People generally lie for one of these reasons:

1.) Afraid of the truth;
2.) not of immediate benefit or gratification;
3.) pathologically unable to be honest.

None of these are people I care to associate with.

People generally lie for one of these reasons:

1.) Afraid of the truth;
2.) not of immediate benefit or gratification;
3.) pathologically unable to be honest.


4) Deflection to remove yourself from the argument.

I have a feeling that's where a lot of club/ride organizers fall. They assume it's necessary or fear the general litigiousness of American society so deflection is an easy way to say, "Hey I'm with you, but the man says it's got to be this way." End of discussion. You are now talking to the wrong person.

I vaguely remember the 5 borough bike tour in NYC requiring helmets because the people who did not pay to take part, snuck in, raced, and hurt(killed) themselves typically did not have helmets. After the rule change those people were the ones wearing motorcycle helmets usually propped on top of their heads as they were too hot. I think now they hire professional security and have check points.

I have never participated in a sponsored group ride because, although I have and almost always use a helmet, the very notion that I should be compelled to wear it as a condition precedent to participate in a group ride turned me off . . . especially that bit about the requirement having to do with insurance.

. . . and I've also often wondered just what organizers of a ride can do to 'non-participants' who decide to tag along for the ride. Can they legally stop me from riding amongst them on streets that are open to the public?

In my area, there are organized rides that run between our covered bridges, etc. These occur on open rural roadways spanning many miles. They do not close those roads to the public for such events, so, what's to keep me from following such an organized group around if I so choose? No doubt, there would be some riders who would straggle along, riding even slower than I. So, if I pass them, I'm then intermingling with the group. Who could stop me, helmet or no helmet?

I've always been curious about that.

I'm not determined enough to deliberately ride amongst a group to find out on my own - I'm really not interested in being part of such group rides, but I've often been curious.

Caruso

I have never participated in a sponsored group ride because, although I have and almost always use a helmet, the very notion that I should be compelled to wear it as a condition precedent to participate in a group ride turned me off . . . especially that bit about the requirement having to do with insurance.

. . . and I've also often wondered just what organizers of a ride can do to 'non-participants' who decide to tag along for the ride. Can they legally stop me from riding amongst them on streets that are open to the public?

In my area, there are organized rides that run between our covered bridges, etc. These occur on open rural roadways spanning many miles. They do not close those roads to the public for such events, so, what's to keep me from following such an organized group around if I so choose? No doubt, there would be some riders who would straggle along, riding even slower than I. So, if I pass them, I'm then intermingling with the group. Who could stop me, helmet or no helmet?

I've always been curious about that.

I'm not determined enough to deliberately ride amongst a group to find out on my own - I'm really not interested in being part of such group rides, but I've often been curious.

Caruso

I've also wondered about that, and have asked about it here in possibly this thread. The consensus is/was that IF the ride is taking place on a public road and it isn't blocked of then the public can join. You might get the "stink" or "evil" eye from the "senior" members of the group but there isn't anything that they could do to stop you. IF they tried to call the cops on you for not leaving them they would be told that it is a public street and that you can go where you want. IF you had a video camera and they threatened to call the cops and if you had footage of them running stop signs/red lights you might want to point that out to them. Reminding them that if you showed your footage to the police that they would be in more trouble.

Also as has been said when I asked, other then for those who like to try to ruin things for others, why would you want to ride "along with" a group that doesn't welcome you?

Also as has been said when I asked, other then for those who like to try to ruin things for others, why would you want to ride "along with" a group that doesn't welcome you?

To be fair, how do you know that the GROUP doesn't welcome you? All you know is that the leaders don't.

I have never participated in a sponsored group ride because, although I have and almost always use a helmet, the very notion that I should be compelled to wear it as a condition precedent to participate in a group ride turned me off . . . especially that bit about the requirement having to do with insurance.

. . . and I've also often wondered just what organizers of a ride can do to 'non-participants' who decide to tag along for the ride. Can they legally stop me from riding amongst them on streets that are open to the public?

In my area, there are organized rides that run between our covered bridges, etc. These occur on open rural roadways spanning many miles. They do not close those roads to the public for such events, so, what's to keep me from following such an organized group around if I so choose? No doubt, there would be some riders who would straggle along, riding even slower than I. So, if I pass them, I'm then intermingling with the group. Who could stop me, helmet or no helmet?

I've always been curious about that.

I'm not determined enough to deliberately ride amongst a group to find out on my own - I'm really not interested in being part of such group rides, but I've often been curious.


Good thing you don't or don't desire to race.

Sure you can join a group you meet if they are welcoming socially just as it is for any other type of group - a table at bar, a hike, a walk in the park, a reading club at the bookstore, etc. If they are not welcoming then its just socially weird to stay, even if it is legal.

The organized groups I ride with have this happen occasionally - usually the extra rider is just accommodated no matter the bike, helmet, headphones appearance if they are otherwise exhibiting safe behavior and comfortably in the flow of the ride - of course everyone will be wary of any new rider until they have sufficiently demonstrated safe behavior. Some in the group may observe a guideline violation and ask "Are you part of the XYZ ride?' if the answer is yes then they may be told they need to take off headphone, put on helmet, etc. But when they usually say 'no' the answer is then something like "Oh, OK, well we ride from XYZ park every Sat. 7am and you are welcome to join us next time. If you do you a helmet is required." There is no request for them to leave at that point and they often stick with the group for a bit more with no further discussion.

Also as has been said when I asked, other then for those who like to try to ruin things for others, why would you want to ride "along with" a group that doesn't welcome you?

Good point. I'm not interested in ruining something for others, and, as evidenced by my non-participation thus far, it is clear that my desire to ride with a group has yet to overwhelm my ambivalence towards such an organized activity.

I've often thought it might be fun to participate in a Philadelphia to the Atlantic City Shore MS ride or other large, long distance charitable type rides, but, whenever I check into them, they give me the impression of over-organization, so I stay away.

There is a large club here in my county that has a fall ride to seven covered bridges. I'd like to ride along some time just to see the route and observe the pace, techniques, etc., but (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), I think they not only require helmets, but some proof of ID and health insurance. To me, that's more info sharing than I care to share.

I am certain they would most likely be a friendly group, I just have no desire to embark on that level of organization.

Caruso

There is a large club here in my county that has a fall ride to seven covered bridges. I'd like to ride along some time just to see the route and observe the pace, techniques, etc., but (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), I think they not only require helmets, but some proof of ID and health insurance. To me, that's more info sharing than I care to share.

Is this the Bucks County covered bridges ride? If so, they don't even require helmets - just recommend them. And they have the usual waiver form where you have to sign away your rights to sue them for just about anything. I don't seen any indication that they are overly rule-preoccupied or asking for personal data.

To be fair, how do you know that the GROUP doesn't welcome you? All you know is that the leaders don't.

True, but don't the leaders set the tone for the group rides?

Good point. I'm not interested in ruining something for others, and, as evidenced by my non-participation thus far, it is clear that my desire to ride with a group has yet to overwhelm my ambivalence towards such an organized activity.

I've often thought it might be fun to participate in a Philadelphia to the Atlantic City Shore MS ride or other large, long distance charitable type rides, but, whenever I check into them, they give me the impression of over-organization, so I stay away.

There is a large club here in my county that has a fall ride to seven covered bridges. I'd like to ride along some time just to see the route and observe the pace, techniques, etc., but (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), I think they not only require helmets, but some proof of ID and health insurance. To me, that's more info sharing than I care to share.

I am certain they would most likely be a friendly group, I just have no desire to embark on that level of organization.

Caruso

Other then the helmet requirement, and I fully understand and recognize that a helmet isn't going to offer protection in every type of accident. But the proof of ID, and health insurance just seems to be asking too much.

As I am pretty sure that there is no law that requires an individual to carry ID with them 24/7. Likewise I know of no law that currently requires health insurance to be carried by individuals.

To be fair, how do you know that the GROUP doesn't welcome you? All you know is that the leaders don't.

True, but don't the leaders set the tone for the group rides?

I rode with my local club five or six times before they asked me not to come back. I never went to a club meeting (do bike clubs have "meetings"?), so maybe there's a tone there, but I never really noticed a "tone" on the rides. Just before each of the last few rides started one of the club leaders would remind me of their helmet rule, but once the ride started it was just a ride. Blue skies, headwinds, hard climbs and fast descents. People chatted, and the leaders chatted with those who were right around them, but the leaders weren't out mingling among everyone. They just made sure everyone stayed on route.

I'd also doubt the leaders of an organized ride would really set a tone; if you're riding a charity ride or a 4th of July ride or whatever, do you really care about the leader's "tone"? Or are you and everyone else just interested in the ride?

Is this the Bucks County covered bridges ride? If so, they don't even require helmets - just recommend them. And they have the usual waiver form where you have to sign away your rights to sue them for just about anything. I don't seen any indication that they are overly rule-preoccupied or asking for personal data.

That's the group. Perhaps things have changed, but one year I was close to participating, and their collateral material, web site, etc. included those provisions. Perhaps they have changed their policy, or their collateral material seemed more strict than their actual conduct of the events.

As I mentioned previously, I have no issue with the group, their activities or their rules, except that, if my impression gained from my casual perusal of their information is correct, the group is not for me.

To be fair, they seem well-organized, and well-meaning in spirit, and, your personal experience may be totally different than my impression - and that's a good thing.

Obviously, they must be doing something right, since the group seems to be flourishing.

Caruso

The Hancock Handlebars club sponsors one of the oldest organized centuries in the US. I've watched it go from no mention of helmets at all, to helmets recommended, to helmets strongly recommended and finally to helmets required in 2006. It had crap to do with insurance and more to do with self-righteous morons complaining because those darned helmetless riders made cycling look like something anyone could do, rather than the dangerous sport that only they, the beautiful people in the proper attire, had conquered.

So you think the "bicycling is dangerous meme" is a result of club riders with shaved legs in spandex battling the "girlyman" image they hear their construction worker and roofer buddies throw at 'em?

So you think the "bicycling is dangerous meme" is a result of club riders with shaved legs in spandex battling the "girlyman" image they hear their construction worker and roofer buddies throw at 'em?
exactly how is wearing helmets gonna help?

:wtf:

Ask THEM!!! Personally, I think bicycle racing takes LOTS of guts and those people are the ones who need to be wearing the helmets. They plan on riding so risky they'll probably crash. Not the same as a 50 year old on a 40 year old 3-speed out on a Sunday afternoon bike ride .... with a group of children .... on a bike path .... on a sunny day. Get my point?

Helmets allow and encourage those wearing them to ride riskier. That's a fact only disputed by many wearing bicycle helmets. They are totally unnecessary for the average casual cyclist, young or old.

Still, nobody has produced an insurance policy mandating helmets on club rides.

I have been noticing your post here on Bikeforums, and I seem to agree with about all of your post. Why does simply riding a bike have to get so complicated? THis is why I never join bike clubs, and I usually just ride by myself or maybe a couple of friends. I don't see the need to ride in a club, or large fomal groups, let alone get the insurance companies involved in such a nice wholesome activity.


I do enjoy riding with the Critical Mass rides here in Kansas City. That is about as organized as I care to get, on my bicycle.

exactly how is wearing helmets gonna help?

:wtf:

I have been noticing your post here on Bikeforums, and I seem to agree with about all of your post. Why does simply riding a bike have to get so complicated? THis is why I never join bike clubs, and I usually just ride by myself or maybe a couple of friends. I don't see the need to ride in a club, or large fomal groups, let alone get the insurance companies involved in such a nice wholesome activity.


I do enjoy riding with the Critical Mass rides here in Kansas City. That is about as organized as I care to get, on my bicycle.

I hate organized clubs. It takes the spontinaity and fun out of the ride. Sounds like a bunch of control freaks and safty nerds who want to ruin a good time. This is why I ride alone or just with a couple of friends. The most organized ride I ride with are the Critical Mass rides.

LawyerWorldLand: PANSY <em>NEW YORKER </em>TRIES TO BE SATIRICAL ... - 8:09p.m. - [ Traducir esta página ]National Lampoon's stuff--from "Uncle Buckle the Safety Buffalo" ("Look out! Negroes!") to the Sunday Supplement of the newspaper parody ("Negroes--the ...
lawyerworldland.blogspot.com/.../pansy-new-yorker-tries-to-be-satirical.html - En caché - Similares -

Uncle Buckle the Safety Buffalo sez: always ride in groups, put on your flourecent green safety vest, and be safe.