Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

"Is an anti-bike fraud being committed in your name" blog post from biking in L.A.

Notices
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.

"Is an anti-bike fraud being committed in your name" blog post from biking in L.A.

Old 01-12-12, 06:15 PM
  #1  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
"Is an anti-bike fraud being committed in your name" blog post from biking in L.A.

is an anti bike fraud being committed in your name?

Fascinating, thoroughly disgusting and shocking story of anti-bicycling 'advocacy' being committed in California....


I've long suspected C.A.B.O. of being a sham, committed to thwarting bicycle progress in California.....

Apparently, so does the "Biking in LA" blogger.


Originally Posted by Biking in L.A.
when that so-called advocacy runs counter to the interests, safety and desires of the overwhelming majority of California cyclists, I feel I have no choice but to speak up and point the finger.

Especially when it purports to be done in our name.

That’s exactly what happened this week when CABO — the California Association of Bicycling Organizations — successfully opposed AB 819, a bill in the state assembly that, in its original intent, would have allowed California counties and municipalities to implement advances in bicycling infrastructure that have been proven to work in other places......

Despite their protestations to the contrary, CABO isn’t the state’s leading bike advocacy group. Or even one of the leading groups.

In fact, I suspect they are a fraud.

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-12-12 at 06:19 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 06:55 PM
  #2  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,711

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10180 Post(s)
Liked 2,237 Times in 1,548 Posts
Hold on... while indeed CABO may not be representing all cyclists (cyclists are a very diverse group and are largely poorly represented at the legislative level.)

CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:

In our letter to Assemblymember Wieckowski, we expressed opposition to Assembly Bill 819 unless amended. AB819 will be amended, and CABO is now in support.

AB 819 would have permitted local agencies to follow “innovative” bikeway design guidelines from sources other than the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as currently mandated by law. The reasoning for our opposition is in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis, quoted from our letter:

We are always open to innovative ideas, but a number of facility innovations that initially seem attractive also appear to present significant safety issues. The available research on these facilities is not always reliable, despite being cited in a guide produced by a private organization. Legitimizing these designs, in effect, by statute, rather than by technical review, could expose bicyclists to potentially dangerous facilities.

We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design, and we would enthusiastically support an alternative approach that would provide an efficient process for experimenting with new designs. A Caltrans sanctioned experimental procedure would relieve local agencies of liability for nonstandard designs; it would enable experimentation with innovative and improved designs in a controlled and rigorous manner that would be consistent across jurisdictions; and it would provide reliable information for revision of the Highway Design Manual.

As indicated in the bill analysis, the Assembly Transportation Committee recommended that AB819 be amended to specifically require procedures allowing local agencies to request Caltrans to consider innovative and modified bikeway project designs, and the author and sponsor of the bill have agreed to these amendments. This addresses our concerns above, and so CABO is now in support of AB819.
https://www.cabobike.org/2012/01/11/c...mbly-bill-819/

Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
genec is online now  
Old 01-12-12, 07:39 PM
  #3  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Hold on... while indeed CABO may not be representing all cyclists (cyclists are a very diverse group and are largely poorly represented at the legislative level.)

CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819.
Clearly another sham thread from Bek.

I am glad there are some cycling groups willing to work to ensure facilities are safe rather than just throwing them out there.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:18 PM
  #4  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Hold on... while indeed CABO may not be representing all cyclists (cyclists are a very diverse group and are largely poorly represented at the legislative level.)

CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:



https://www.cabobike.org/2012/01/11/c...mbly-bill-819/

Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
That's a laugh. Supporting experimentation by CALTRANS in a 'controlled, rigorous manner' is a total stonewall. a similar 'revised bill' tactic was deployed by CABO to muddle the recent california 3 foot passing bill.

I'm reporting the impression a few seem to get about CABO, that they appear to perhaps be representing a MINORITY of bicycle interests, and not the voice of the bona fide and the majority of bicycling advocates in California, and what's actually being advocated for.

Here's what streetblog san francisco had to say about CABO's 'revised' bill......

Originally Posted by streetsblog sf
"But the bill’s reach could be limited by an amendment proposed by the California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO), a smaller coalition which argues that using outside guidelines for bikeways could be problematic. Their alternative proposal, which will be considered at a State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on Monday, would only allow new types of bike facilities to be established under an experimentation process within Caltrans.
link to streetblog on HB819

somethings' rotten in California, standing in the way of progressive planning for bike traffic. tying new bikeway implementation up in CALTRANS vetting is, like the original blogpost indicates, likely to add years of delay to better road and bikeway designs for California cyclists.

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-12-12 at 08:41 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:28 PM
  #5  
dynodonn 
Banned.
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,464
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 26 Posts
Great, letting one of the state governmet agencies that helped nix our 3 foot rule, continue being the sole governing body that sets our minimum infrastructure standards. Hopefully the California D.O.T will make a mandatory requirement of their engineers to bicycle the same cycling infrastructure they design.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:46 PM
  #6  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
CABO wouldn't want



these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:46 PM
  #7  
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I dunno why we're worried about it, it's not like California (or Texas, for that matter) are REALLY still part of the USA, anyway..........................

Standing,
And
Remaining
Calm
As the
Stupidity
Mounts..............
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:52 PM
  #8  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
CABO wouldn't want

these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
So your hate is really about VC.

More of your "any facility no matter how unsafe, bike belong" BS.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 08:55 PM
  #9  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
????

my hate?

BS?

dude, catch a grip.

aloha.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 09:00 PM
  #10  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
CABO worked for a better bill and then supported the bill.

Yet you claim things are rotten.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-12-12, 09:16 PM
  #11  
prathmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
CABO wouldn't want



these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
The motorists shown parked there shouldn't want that catching on either since under California Vehicle Code, Section 21460 b) they are prohibited from driving across the double parallel white lines shown to the left of the bike lane.

Maybe it would be good for experimental designs to be properly vetted so that such contradictions with other statutes as well as any other safety concerns can be identified and dealt with before they are implemented.
prathmann is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 12:15 AM
  #12  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by prathmann View Post
The motorists shown parked there shouldn't want that catching on either since under California Vehicle Code, Section 21460 b) they are prohibited from driving across the double parallel white lines shown to the left of the bike lane.

Maybe it would be good for experimental designs to be properly vetted so that such contradictions with other statutes as well as any other safety concerns can be identified and dealt with before they are implemented.
What? Then we might end up with some sort of consistency from locale to locale. We wouldn't want cyclists to be able to freely move between jurisdictions without encountering some sort of puzzling, one-off, latest-greatest would we?

Of course, all of this knicker-twisting might have been unnecessary if Cal-Trans had been allowed to keep its bike division at the end of Jerry Brown's last term as governor back in '82.
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 07:33 AM
  #13  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
CABO worked for a better bill and then supported the bill.

Yet you claim things are rotten.
I'm not the only one claiming things are rotten with CABO. It appears CABO stonewalls and obstructs progressive bike advocacy in California.

CABO also misrepresents themselves as the voice of california bike advocacy organizations, yet the largest bike advocacy organizations in California do not belong to CABO, and do not support CABO's efforts in the state house.

read the article.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 07:45 AM
  #14  
Transformer
Fair Weather Cyclist
 
Transformer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 147

Bikes: R&M Frog, Moulton TSR

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It amuses me that people assume all cyclists have the same opinions on cycling-related legislation.
Transformer is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 07:55 AM
  #15  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
who thinks that? However, bike advocacy organizations come together and build a consensus in policy direction in california, and other states. Unified support for AB819 coming out of the California Bike Summit is an example.

Originally Posted by bikinginLA
....while CABO’s opposition to AB 819 may or may not reflect the desires of its members, it’s far from the desires of most bike advocates in the state, as well as that of most mainstream cyclists.

Yet CABO continues to lobby state officials and legislators, purporting to speak on your behalf, while actively opposing your interests.
well, there's mainstream, and there's fringe. CABO's efforts run counter to the efforts of most bicycle advocacy organizations in California, and most mainstream cyclists.

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-13-12 at 07:59 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 09:45 AM
  #16  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,711

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10180 Post(s)
Liked 2,237 Times in 1,548 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
So your hate is really about VC.

More of your "any facility no matter how unsafe, bike belong" BS.
You know... that whole VC thing is something of a logical fallacy: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." While that statement in of itself is true, it is a logical argument with some built in "IFs." The biggest "IF" is being treated as "the driver of a vehicle..." a cyclist by themselves may act in the best manner of a driver of a vehicle, but there is no guarantee he will be treated so in kind. In fact, the faster the motor vehicle traffic on the road in question, the less chance the cyclist will be treated as a driver of a vehicle. Forester himself even discusses this (although in his typical roundabout manner). Forester outlines that when there is a speed difference of 15MPH or greater between cyclist and motorist, negotiation becomes difficult (you are treated less as an equal user of the road). Forester then goes on to even illustrate how a cyclist should shift into pedestrian mode when traffic is too fast or heavy (by making a three point left turn, rather than a vehicular turn).

So the fact is, vehicular cycling works well at low traffic speeds... 25-35MPH, but as traffic speeds are faster, the likelihood of being treated as a driver of a vehicle diminishes, such that at highway speeds, cyclists are seen more as obstacles than as vehicles (with drivers.) It is particularly on these high speed roads that some form of alternative, other than riding in a VC manner, becomes increasingly necessary.
genec is online now  
Old 01-13-12, 12:02 PM
  #17  
weshigh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 600

Bikes: All-City Space Horse!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
CABO worked for a better bill and then supported the bill.

Yet you claim things are rotten.
It is a better bill if you don't want anything done, which appears to be what CABO is after. If you want new design implemented then it is not a better bill. CALTRANS is known for dragging their feet when it come to these issues.
weshigh is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 12:06 PM
  #18  
weshigh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 600

Bikes: All-City Space Horse!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
You know... that whole VC thing is something of a logical fallacy: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." While that statement in of itself is true, it is a logical argument with some built in "IFs." The biggest "IF" is being treated as "the driver of a vehicle..." a cyclist by themselves may act in the best manner of a driver of a vehicle, but there is no guarantee he will be treated so in kind. In fact, the faster the motor vehicle traffic on the road in question, the less chance the cyclist will be treated as a driver of a vehicle. Forester himself even discusses this (although in his typical roundabout manner). Forester outlines that when there is a speed difference of 15MPH or greater between cyclist and motorist, negotiation becomes difficult (you are treated less as an equal user of the road). Forester then goes on to even illustrate how a cyclist should shift into pedestrian mode when traffic is too fast or heavy (by making a three point left turn, rather than a vehicular turn).

So the fact is, vehicular cycling works well at low traffic speeds... 25-35MPH, but as traffic speeds are faster, the likelihood of being treated as a driver of a vehicle diminishes, such that at highway speeds, cyclists are seen more as obstacles than as vehicles (with drivers.) It is particularly on these high speed roads that some form of alternative, other than riding in a VC manner, becomes increasingly necessary.
+1, totally agree. I ride VC on a daily basis because there is no other choice for me on some of the routes I take. Just yesterday, as this video shows, despite me riding in a VC manner and being in the middle of the lane, I am not treated as a driver of a vehicle. Just someone in the way.
weshigh is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 01:03 PM
  #19  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by weshigh
It is a better bill if you don't want anything done, which appears to be what CABO is after. If you want new design implemented then it is not a better bill. CALTRANS is known for dragging their feet when it come to these issues.
Absolutely.

What shouldn't be lost in this discussion is CABO's underhanded obstructionism of progressive bicycle advocacy efforts in California, and that CABO's advocacy stance is NOT representative of the majority of bike advocacy organizations in California.

quoting the original blogpost from Biking in L.A. ....

Originally Posted by bikinginLAblog
Despite their protestations to the contrary, CABO isn’t the state’s leading bike advocacy group. Or even one of the leading groups.

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-13-12 at 01:07 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 01:07 PM
  #20  
Commodus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
CABO wouldn't want



these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
I don't know what this thread is really about, but that's a friggin great looking bike lane. I would ride the hell out of that thing.
Commodus is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 01:11 PM
  #21  
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
CABO successfully killed a bill streamlining the process allowing these and other types of innovative bikeway facilities to be built up by locales in California, instead relegating them to years of study in strictly controlled studies before being allowed statewide.

i agree, its one heck of a good looking bikelane.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 01:28 PM
  #22  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,711

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10180 Post(s)
Liked 2,237 Times in 1,548 Posts
Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
I don't know what this thread is really about, but that's a friggin great looking bike lane. I would ride the hell out of that thing.
Gotta agree there... wonder where this is?
genec is online now  
Old 01-13-12, 01:37 PM
  #23  
dynodonn 
Banned.
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,464
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1253 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
...but that's a friggin great looking bike lane. I would ride the hell out of that thing.

+2 Compared to the ones I have to ride, yep, it's damn good looking.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 01-13-12, 01:42 PM
  #24  
squirtdad
Senior Member
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 7,517

Bikes: 85 team Miyata (modern 5800 105) , '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) '82 nishiski,

Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1348 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times in 447 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
CABO wouldn't want



these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
ok never mind all the other stuff...... to me this is good, usefull, practical, cost effective "infrastructure". Does not preclude VC style riding if needed, but in the case here it is not needed not wishy washy like sharrows, not sub standard in width, position or safety
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
squirtdad is online now  
Old 01-13-12, 03:28 PM
  #25  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,711

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10180 Post(s)
Liked 2,237 Times in 1,548 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
CABO wouldn't want



these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
Interesting that you deny that CABO wouldn't want this beautiful bike lane... as this bike lane IS in CALIFORNIA...

I did a bit of research, and followed the photo link back to the original source, which is the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition. They feature this bike lane on one of their pages...
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/area-re...infrastructure The bike lane is in Redwood City, on Veterans Boulevard, not far from the Police Station.

Doing a bit more research, I hoped to find a connection between CABO and the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition... and while there is historically a connection... I cannot show that there is current communication and reciprocity. On the other hand, a strong supporter of the San Diego County Bike Coalition Jim Baross is the president of the group. Here is a link to one of their recent meetings with a state Senator. https://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/16/226/#more-226 CABO only meets 3 times a year.
genec is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.