Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74
  1. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.
    Whether or not bicycles are defined as vehicles is irrelevant to any discussion of operating rules, because giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles covers the issue. We in California consciously decided not to ask for a change in definition, because that would cause a very large number of problems elsewhere in the Vehicle Code, which might never be corrected or, very likely, would be corrected to harm cyclists.

    California's proposed bikeway system and its proposed mandatory side path and mandatory bike lane laws caused the creation of cyclist activism in this nation. We managed to throw out the most dangerous bikeway designs, to reject the mandatory side path law, and to water down the mandatory bike lane and side of the road laws so as to eliminate most of the items in which they conflicted with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Not too bad. If we had not done these things, cyclists would be having a much harder time today.

  2. #27
    I drink your MILKSHAKE Raiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Rockhopper FSR Comp, 1999 Specialized Hardrock Comp FS, 1971 Schwinn Varsity
    Posts
    15,071
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  3. #28
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Neither Forester nor I have ever advocated against MUPs.
    We don't advocate against bike lanes as much as we advocate against the invalid arguments made in their support.

    Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
    If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.
    Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MGL7CDNMK1.DTL
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  4. #29
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
    If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.
    Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MGL7CDNMK1.DTL
    "The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

    That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

    What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    "The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

    That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

    What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.
    The installation of bike-lane striping on Valencia Street in San Francisco was done a long time ago. I visited that street, after striping, I think in the time I still lived in the Bay Area. Other things were done, though I forget just what.

    But consider the argument. Bicycle transportation increased 144%? There's no evidence of that, because all that was measured was the cycling volume on Valencia Street. There's no evidence, so far as I know, that the increase was in new cyclists rather than diverted cyclists.

  6. #31
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
    If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.
    Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MGL7CDNMK1.DTL
    "The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

    That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

    What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.
    Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.

    Anyway you guys need to come out to Baltimore the most bike friendly city in America as we only have ~5 miles worth of bike lanes (but tucked away in a far out of the way corner) and lots of low speed multi-lane roadways. You can experience many delightful and bike encouraging events on our roadways such as buses forcing you into the door zone, the near pass, honk and swerve maneuver that all our SUV owners love to do to show their appreciation of cyclists. There are also educational opportunities as Soccer Moms try to expand cyclists’ vocabulary with what was previously only reserved for sailors.

    Ok tongue in cheek but my point is not having bike lanes does not necessarily increase cycling either. Anyway I think I have a healthy amount of skepticism and I have been pushing for some bike traffic counts before we install more bike lanes as I would like to see more facts on the subject.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  7. #32
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.
    Bingo!!! Hand that Human Car a cookie.

    Exactly... no peer review studies have been done by anyone regarding any aspect of cycling.

  8. #33
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.
    Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.

    In the mean time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on creating bike lanes when the only engineering justification is keeping bicyclists out of the way of slowing down motor traffic.

  9. #34
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.
    "Cyclists fare best... "

    Sounds like a bold claim to me.

  10. #35
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No one claims that there has been an official study done to show that riding VC is known to be safer.

    All the evidence we have, including studies of bike-car crashes, indicate it is, hence "Cyclists fare best...", but no official studies that clearly conclude this.

    In contrast, there is no evidence that bike lanes make cycling safer, period.

  11. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car
    Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.
    Known? But there is considerable evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than general public cycling. Vehicular cycling is riding in accord with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The rules of the road have been worked out to provide a reasonable balance between safety and convenience, and violating those rules is a known cause of collisions, for all kinds of drivers. Those groups of cyclists who ride more in accordance with the rules of the road have a far lower collision rate than those groups who ride less in accordance with the rules of the road.

    That is significant evidence. Contrariwise, there has been no evidence whatsoever that violating the rules of the road produces a lower collision rate.

  12. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Those groups of cyclists who ride more in accordance with the rules of the road have a far lower collision rate than those groups who ride less in accordance with the rules of the road. ...
    I think this statement above is just plain false.

    As far as I know, the lowest accident rate ever recorded for any group of cyclists is that recorded by Moritz in '96 in his survey of LAB members. Respondents to his survey were primarily recreational riders averaging about 15 years experience. Their collective accident rate, as impressive as it is compared to other recorded rates from other surveys, would be considered almost unworkably bad to any veteran messenger. Many messengers I know will ride 4-5 times as many miles annually as the average survey respondent and encounter orders of magnitude more road users, while achieving a per-mile accident rate that is far, far lower. It has to be. At the rate in the Moritz survey -- the lowest rate ever formally recorded! -- I would have been involved in about 10 'serious' (by Moritz' definition) accidents/collisions and around 100 minor accidents, so far.

    As the statistics you compile indicate, experience level is the only variable that is shown to have an effect on accident rate. Nobody has more experience than veteran messengers, few achieve better accident rates, and few ride less in accordance with the rules of the road. How does that work?

    Robert

  13. #38
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Alright, there it is, "the challange..." prove that collision rates of cyclists who ride "in accordance to the rules of the road" are better than those that ride in the ultimate "adaptive mode" of messengers.

  14. #39
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.

    In the mean time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on creating bike lanes when the only engineering justification is keeping bicyclists out of the way of slowing down motor traffic.
    Bike lanes that can be created with a line of paint or thermoplastic do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Way to pull a number out of your ass, dude.

  15. #40
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,453
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^^^
    I think he is mixing in the planning that goes with those bike lanes, not realizing that the planning will have to be done, bike lanes or no, as bike lanes are only a very small component of what goes on when planning a new road.

    Gotta love numbers pulled from the a-hole regions. I'd like to see some supporting evidence for that!
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  16. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Alright, there it is, "the challange..." prove that collision rates of cyclists who ride "in accordance to the rules of the road" are better than those that ride in the ultimate "adaptive mode" of messengers.
    I don't think anybody is going to prove anything in the near term, because the data doesn't quite exist. But I think the rate recorded by Moritz would be pretty much a dealbreaker for long-term messenger work -- and if the VC-ists are right, shouldn't scofflaw messengers have an accident rate that is much worse than the all-time best recorded accident rate? Food for thought anyway.

    Robert

  17. #42
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,453
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Basically, what this shows is that accident rate is not a pure measure of exposure hours and that defining exposure hours per accident might be a shell game. What is more important, but hard to quantify, is the effect of experience as a function of accident rate by exposure hours. The directly contradicts Helmet Head's argument that safety is not a strong function of experience.

    It does, though, beg the question of what type of experience is required to lower the accident rate and can some of this experience be supplimented by book or classroom learning.
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  18. #43
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,501
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    I don't think anybody is going to prove anything in the near term, because the data doesn't quite exist. But I think the rate recorded by Moritz would be pretty much a dealbreaker for long-term messenger work -- and if the VC-ists are right, shouldn't scofflaw messengers have an accident rate that is much worse than the all-time best recorded accident rate? Food for thought anyway.

    Robert
    Moritz's study is useful since it shows similar results when using the same limited sampling and crude statistical techniques as used previously by Kaplan in the 70's.

    I wouldn't place too much credence on a study of risk that deals in "accident rates" that are nothing more than accident totals and considered accident severity as "serious" if it involved $50 or more property damage or medical costs. Is there any accident with any injury or damage that costs less than $50 if it can't be fixed treated by the cyclist? Moritz himself acknowledges the application limitations of his study and described it asmostly providing a snapshot of an unrepresentative slice of North American cyclists.

  19. #44
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    Bike lanes that can be created with a line of paint or thermoplastic do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Way to pull a number out of your ass, dude.
    They've been planning and painting and repainting bike lanes for 30 years now. It adds up. But maybe it's only tens of millions. Whatever. My point stands. It's not warranted for engineering reasons.

  20. #45
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    Tdirectly contradicts Helmet Head's argument that safety is not a strong function of experience.


    What argument that safety is not a strong function of experience???

    I think knowledge and understanding of traffic, and how one can safely interact with it, is the ultimate key.

    Experience certainly helps one gain such knowledge and understanding. The instincts follow.
    But that implies you learn something with experience.

    In most cases, and I don't see why traffic cycling would be an exception, anything where learning helps, books and classes can accelerate the process. After all, that's why Forester and Hurst wrote their books.

    It makes sense that knowledge of the rules of the road is a help in predicting the behavior of others (though not relying on it 100%!), as well as following them.

    It is possible that once knowledge and understanding and instincts reach a high enough level, the cyclist can relatively safely bend the rules more and more. That's what makes it an art. There are two ways to get there. The hard way, with lots of crashes, or the easier way, by learning and obeying the rules and staying out of the crashes while gaining the requisite knowledge and understanding. Hurst is clearly a proponent of the school of hard knocks, though kudos to him and his book for trying to give folks a chance to bypass at least some of crashes. I however prefer the Forester/VC approach, where crashes are not necessarily part of the learning process.

  21. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    Moritz's study is useful since it shows similar results when using the same limited sampling and crude statistical techniques as used previously by Kaplan in the 70's.
    The Moritz numbers for LAB members were quite a bit better than what Kaplan found for LAB members 20 years earlier. I wonder if there were far fewer older, seasoned riders among the survey respondents in '76, than in '96. Moritz's findings were corroborated fairly nicely by Ken Kifer in a small survey on his website of similarly experienced touring cyclists, imo. FWIW -- www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
    As Kifer himself wrote: "..it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very seriously."

    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    I wouldn't place too much credence on a study of risk that deals in "accident rates" that are nothing more than accident totals and considered accident severity as "serious" if it involved $50 or more property damage or medical costs. Is there any accident with any injury or damage that costs less than $50 if it can't be fixed treated by the cyclist? Moritz himself acknowledges the application limitations of his study and described it asmostly providing a snapshot of an unrepresentative slice of North American cyclists.
    Indeed the Moritz survey can be questioned on many levels and drawing conclusions from it is a sketchy endeavor. It is also among the most solid statistical evidence available on the subject.

    Robert

  22. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head


    What argument that safety is not a strong function of experience???

    I think knowledge and understanding of traffic, and how one can safely interact with it, is the ultimate key.

    Experience certainly helps one gain such knowledge and understanding. The instincts follow.
    But that implies you learn something with experience.

    In most cases, and I don't see why traffic cycling would be an exception, anything where learning helps, books and classes can accelerate the process. After all, that's why Forester and Hurst wrote their books.

    It makes sense that knowledge of the rules of the road is a help in predicting the behavior of others (though not relying on it 100%!), as well as following them.

    It is possible that once knowledge and understanding and instincts reach a high enough level, the cyclist can relatively safely bend the rules more and more. That's what makes it an art. There are two ways to get there. The hard way, with lots of crashes, or the easier way, by learning and obeying the rules and staying out of the crashes while gaining the requisite knowledge and understanding. Hurst is clearly a proponent of the school of hard knocks, though kudos to him and his book for trying to give folks a chance to bypass at least some of crashes. I however prefer the Forester/VC approach, where crashes are not necessarily part of the learning process.
    Of course, there is the social acceptability factor as well. Hurst advocates knowing so much about the rules by which traffic operates that one can figure out how to disobey them to one's advantage with little risk. That level of skill is a far cry from that of most drivers, and is attained by constant immersion in traffic as a business proposition. It is also correct that drivers of emergency vehicles are allowed to disobey the rules, and they are given the training to be able to do so with small increase in public danger. However, Hurst is similar to any advocate of unlawful behavior who argues that it's acceptable as long as you don't get prosecuted. The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way. Hurst is taking advantage of everyone else. He may say that he just sneaks between cars in a way that delays none of them. All I can say is that when I have been in areas permeated by bike messengers, as a pedestrian I have been threatened by being run down by them, in a most unpleasant way. And, as a cyclist, I hate to see the display of real violations of the rules of the road, because of the harm that does to all the rest of us. There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.

  23. #48
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,453
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mr Forester,

    I understand that messengers in general, and Robert Hurst in particular, probably stretch the rules to the detriment of the image of cyclists to the general population, but this is hardly what he advocates in his book. I think his only sin here is being generally more accepting of bending the rules to a cyclist's favor than more rigid bicycling advocates.

    As you said though, he bicycles that way, or used to, as a business proposition. A messenger is paid to do what he does, otherwise the messenger company would only hire drivers. I understand why he bends the rules the way he does during the course of his work. It is simple capitalism. He is good at messenging and people pay for his services, no harm, no foul, in my opinion. But he hardly advocates this position in his book. The closest thing to a "recommendation" is an acknowledgement that bicycles have an advantage in traffic and it is not always wrong to take advantage. He actually explicitly says that many cyclists take too much advantage of these liberties. And he give you credit, saying your book was a breath of fresh air on the subject.
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  24. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    Mr Forester,

    I understand that messengers in general, and Robert Hurst in particular, probably stretch the rules to the detriment of the image of cyclists to the general population, but this is hardly what he advocates in his book. I think his only sin here is being generally more accepting of bending the rules to a cyclist's favor than more rigid bicycling advocates.

    As you said though, he bicycles that way, or used to, as a business proposition. A messenger is paid to do what he does, otherwise the messenger company would only hire drivers. I understand why he bends the rules the way he does during the course of his work. It is simple capitalism. He is good at messenging and people pay for his services, no harm, no foul, in my opinion. But he hardly advocates this position in his book. The closest thing to a "recommendation" is an acknowledgement that bicycles have an advantage in traffic and it is not always wrong to take advantage. He actually explicitly says that many cyclists take too much advantage of these liberties. And he give you credit, saying your book was a breath of fresh air on the subject.

    I am one of those who considers that simple capitalism requires some regulation for the public good.

  25. #50
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.
    Indeed, but whether a given approach is socially undesirable is not relevant to the question at hand: how safe is it compared to VC? In particular: is there any evidence that an experienced messenger is more or less safe per mile or hour of bicycling than is a typical experienced vehicular cyclist?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •