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

Johns Hopkins research on safe passing in Baltimore

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.

Johns Hopkins research on safe passing in Baltimore

Old 04-14-12, 02:32 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
Johns Hopkins research on safe passing in Baltimore

Recent study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school for Public Health found that:

* Overall, bike lanes in Baltimore improve cyclist safety

* Without bike lanes, drivers had trouble sharing the road with cyclists

* One in six Baltimore drivers, or about 17 percent, violated the 3-foot law

* Researchers found a 20 percent increase in motorist adherence to the 3-foot law for bike lane streets compared to standard streets.

Summary at Streetsblog 3 foot passing compliance - bikelanes improve safe passing in Baltimore

and link to Johns Hopkins study Is 3 foot law working in Baltimore?
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 03:43 PM
  #2  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
This study is interesting but doesn't go very far, with only 5 riders and 10 total hours of riding. As it is the study seems to suggest that total road width is the main factor, as VPD changes with travel lane width on streets that have identical bike lanes. Also, note that "sharrows" in Baltimore are quite inferior to sharrows as they were meant to be, so no valid comparison between bike lanes and sharrows available here. It would be good to see this type of work extended to many more riders, more streets, more cities.

Last edited by RobertHurst; 04-15-12 at 12:29 AM.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 04:05 PM
  #3  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Recent study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school for Public Health found that:

* Overall, bike lanes in Baltimore improve cyclist safety

* Without bike lanes, drivers had trouble sharing the road with cyclists

* One in six Baltimore drivers, or about 17 percent, violated the 3-foot law

* Researchers found a 20 percent increase in motorist adherence to the 3-foot law for bike lane streets compared to standard streets.

Summary at Streetsblog 3 foot passing compliance - bikelanes improve safe passing in Baltimore

and link to Johns Hopkins study Is 3 foot law working in Baltimore?
This is just another in a long line of studies aimed at justifying motorists' prime concern when creating bike lanes, which is how well do bike-lane stripes keep cyclists out of motorists' way. Overtaking clearance has very little to do with cyclist safety, particularly for city cycling. Close overtaking crashes occur only for the far outliers of any overtaking clearance distribution, and, as any statistician ought to know, far outliers are extremely unpredictable and the means and deviations of the distribution are practically irrelevant to their occurrence.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 05:05 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 RobertHurst View Post
This study is interesting but doesn't go very far, with only 5 riders and 10 total hours of riding. As it is the study seems to suggest that total road width is the main factor, as VPD changes with travel lane width on streets that have bike lanes. Also, note that "sharrows" in Baltimore are quite inferior to sharrows as they were meant to be, so no valid comparison between bike lanes and sharrows available here. It would be good to see this type of work extended to many more riders, more streets, more cities.
Yep, the study size was limited. However, It's very likely studying more riders, more streets and in more cities would show similar results. The researchers should set up static traffic cams at select roads with varied infrastructure and lane widths.... I predict similar results with 100 riders and 2000 hours of riding observed.

The study sample size is limited, but there's no reason to suspect a change in results. And, passing clearance isn't the only benefit from bike lanes.

When there's more room for bikes and cars to share the road, there's less encroachment on bicyclists; motorists pass giving bicyclists more room.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-14-12 at 05:23 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 06:03 PM
  #5  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,613
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1293 Post(s)
Liked 65 Times in 43 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post

* Without bike lanes, drivers had trouble sharing the road with cyclists
In other words, bike lanes do a great job in their primary purpose of getting cyclist the hell out of the motorist way so they can continue speeding by in close proximity.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 07:04 PM
  #6  
ItsJustMe
Seńior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749

Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
So, when cyclists are moved off to the side, out of the way, car drivers are farther away from them.

You don't say!
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 07:09 PM
  #7  
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
.....prevailing wisdom recognizes a LACK of dedicated space for bike traffic encourages close passing AND stunts ridership to boot.

Baltimore has about a one percent ridershare - paltry. I think Baltimore citizens need all the help they can get.

from an article with Baltimore's 'bicycle czar'.....

"Baltimore can be a very tough place to ride a bike. As far as if you're being run off the road or afraid of motorists, it happens."

maybe more space for safe passing is a good thing, eh?

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-14-12 at 07:23 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 08:34 PM
  #8  
TheHen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
.....prevailing wisdom recognizes a LACK of dedicated space for bike traffic encourages close passing AND stunts ridership to boot.

Baltimore has about a one percent ridershare - paltry. I think Baltimore citizens need all the help they can get.

from an article with Baltimore's 'bicycle czar'.....

"Baltimore can be a very tough place to ride a bike. As far as if you're being run off the road or afraid of motorists, it happens."

maybe more space for safe passing is a good thing, eh?
No argument that building high-quality bike lanes and bike paths is a good thing and can, at least temporarily, lead to measurable increases in bike use. However, it is much cheaper and would likely have a much higher return on investment to simply start enforcing the law. Baltimore is rather notorious for their failed police department. After all, what good is a bike lane if the motorists just drive/park in it? They're going to need the enforcement leg of this stool in order to succeed in the long run. If one in six motorists are violating the passing distance law then it should be pretty easy to catch as many as the cops want. Obviously, they don't want to catch any at this time.

By the way, if Baltimore is anywhere near one percent for bike use, it has come a long way since my last trip there in '86. I rode in and spent a couple weeks with the future-dean of the school of public health and I saw about two bikes the whole time.
TheHen is offline  
Old 04-14-12, 09:11 PM
  #9  
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 CB HI View Post
..... bike lanes do a great job in their primary purpose of getting cyclist the hell out of the motorist way so they can continue speeding by in close proximity.
Have a single ten foot travel lane with 35 to 40 mph traffic on one side, and parked vehicles on the other, definitely makes for some butt pucker moments.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:31 AM
  #10  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
This is just another in a long line of studies aimed at justifying motorists' prime concern when creating bike lanes, which is how well do bike-lane stripes keep cyclists out of motorists' way. Overtaking clearance has very little to do with cyclist safety, particularly for city cycling. Close overtaking crashes occur only for the far outliers of any overtaking clearance distribution, and, as any statistician ought to know, far outliers are extremely unpredictable and the means and deviations of the distribution are practically irrelevant to their occurrence.
It's true. "Close overtaking crashes" are much more rare than straight-up hits from behind caused by motorist failure to notice the cyclist in the lane.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:50 AM
  #11  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
The Sharrows of Baltimore:

"Sharrow road markers in this study were placed on the right edge of the travel lane and in some cases partially hidden underneath parked vehicles."

<facepalm>
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:55 AM
  #12  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
Have a single ten foot travel lane with 35 to 40 mph traffic on one side, and parked vehicles on the other, definitely makes for some butt pucker moments.
For traffic speeds that high, research suggest that the addition of a bike lane actually decreases passing distance.

All these passing-distance studies of recent years are pretty spotty. Good for entertainment purposes.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 01:14 AM
  #13  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
All the talk of "close passes" reminds me of that frog who jumps half the distance to the wall with each jump. How dangerous is the vehicle that doesn't hit you? Not very.

Close passes are in the eye of the beholder. Some people hate 5-foot passes. Some people feel aggrieved by any pass that involves any degree of lane-sharing whatsoever. And some don't mind a two-foot pass, especially at moderate speeds.

It's nice that Forester acknowledges "Overtaking clearance has very little to do with cyclist safety..." He should tell the most strident members of the VC congregation, who always insist that their near-constant middle-lane posturing "prevents close passes."
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 07:34 AM
  #14  
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 RobertHurst View Post
All the talk of "close passes" reminds me of that frog who jumps half the distance to the wall with each jump. How dangerous is the vehicle that doesn't hit you? Not very.

Close passes are in the eye of the beholder.
Oh, its much more than that, Robert. If cities have road networks that encourage close passing and there is not much room for bike traffic, there is a social barrier to greater bicycling participation.

If a city develops or leaves in place a road network where close passes are the norm, less people will bicycle.

The formula repeated in city after city is clear : plan for bike traffic in the transportation mix, and more people bicycle. Minimizing the potential for close passes removes a primary disincentive to travelling by bike.


New York City's transition from the 1980's to today is a prime example of this dynamic.

leave roads so messenger types and messenger wannabes and gung ho young men are the only ones that feel okay traffic jamming amidst close passes, see rider share stunted in communities.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 08:20 AM
  #15  
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 RobertHurst View Post
For traffic speeds that high, research suggest that the addition of a bike lane actually decreases passing distance.

All these passing-distance studies of recent years are pretty spotty. Good for entertainment purposes.
Definitely not, especially when local municipalities use them to help implement "shoe horned" minimum standard bicycling infrastructure.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 10:22 AM
  #16  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
snips
It's nice that Forester acknowledges "Overtaking clearance has very little to do with cyclist safety..." He should tell the most strident members of the VC congregation, who always insist that their near-constant middle-lane posturing "prevents close passes."
No, Hurst is wrong in assuming that the intent of controlling a lane is to prevent close overtaking movements. The intent of controlling the lane is to prevent incipient motorist/motorist collisions, head-ons or sideswipes, with the resulting danger to cyclists as the overtaking motorist tries to extricate himself from the danger. That is, controlling the lane forces the motorist who desires to overtake to recognize that he must use the adjacent lane in the normal manner for overtaking another vehicle.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:03 PM
  #17  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Oh, its much more than that, Robert. If cities have road networks that encourage close passing and there is not much room for bike traffic, there is a social barrier to greater bicycling participation.

If a city develops or leaves in place a road network where close passes are the norm, less people will bicycle.

The formula repeated in city after city is clear : plan for bike traffic in the transportation mix, and more people bicycle. Minimizing the potential for close passes removes a primary disincentive to travelling by bike.


New York City's transition from the 1980's to today is a prime example of this dynamic.

leave roads so messenger types and messenger wannabes and gung ho young men are the only ones that feel okay traffic jamming amidst close passes, see rider share stunted in communities.

Cycling tends to be easier on wider roads. I'm not exactly blown away by this concept.

Keep in mind though if passing distance is your windmill that the addition of a bike lane stripe to 35-mph-plus roads (I know you like the idea of bike lanes on high speed roads) seems to decrease passing distance.

And I doubt it is wise to install infrastructure that is designed to attract fearful beginners first, and provide improved utility for all cyclists second. So the trick is to attract beginners while not throwing them and all the current cyclists under the proverbial bus. I think it can be done. But some of the more "attractive" designs are outright dangerous in my opinion and rather silly. Now let's see what Forester has to say...
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:04 PM
  #18  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
No, Hurst is wrong in assuming that the intent of controlling a lane is to prevent close overtaking movements. The intent of controlling the lane is to prevent incipient motorist/motorist collisions, head-ons or sideswipes, with the resulting danger to cyclists as the overtaking motorist tries to extricate himself from the danger. That is, controlling the lane forces the motorist who desires to overtake to recognize that he must use the adjacent lane in the normal manner for overtaking another vehicle.
No it doesn't.

That was quick.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:13 PM
  #19  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
No it doesn't.

That was quick.
Please explain this vague assertion.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 12:45 PM
  #20  
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 RobertHurst View Post
Cycling tends to be easier on wider roads. I'm not exactly blown away by this concept.

Keep in mind though if passing distance is your windmill that the addition of a bike lane stripe to 35-mph-plus roads (I know you like the idea of bike lanes on high speed roads) seems to decrease passing distance.

And I doubt it is wise to install infrastructure that is designed to attract fearful beginners first, and provide improved utility for all cyclists second. So the trick is to attract beginners while not throwing them and all the current cyclists under the proverbial bus. I think it can be done. But some of the more "attractive" designs are outright dangerous in my opinion and rather silly. Now let's see what Forester has to say...
What do you suggest for high speed traffic corridors? I think you recommend completely separated infrastructure. I can get behind that.

smooth overtaking in a separate lane on a 35mph road is not nearly the frightful proposition as its made out to be, nor do bikelanes on higher speed traffic corridors throw existing cyclists 'under the proverbial bus'

60mph roads in SoCAL likely need something to more positively promote bicycling, they aren't going to be striping sharrows in a 60 mph traffic lane.

Baltimore cyclists need some combination of countermeasures to help induce bicycling. I suspect a combination of sharrows and bikelanes along routes recognized as significant for bike travel would be a great starting position - oh, right, they're already doing that.

And the data seeping in from Baltimore, as limited as it is, supports more room for bicyclists and the positive effects from bikelanes on roadway traffic dynamics.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-15-12 at 01:16 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 02:20 PM
  #21  
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Please explain this vague assertion.
You wrote: "...controlling the lane forces the motorist who desires to overtake to recognize that he must use the adjacent lane in the normal manner for overtaking another vehicle."

That is obviously false. There is nothing magical about being in the middle of the lane that will 'force' a motorist to make a complete lane change. 'Lane-controlling' cyclists still get close passes.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 03:11 PM
  #22  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
You wrote: "...controlling the lane forces the motorist who desires to overtake to recognize that he must use the adjacent lane in the normal manner for overtaking another vehicle."

That is obviously false. There is nothing magical about being in the middle of the lane that will 'force' a motorist to make a complete lane change. 'Lane-controlling' cyclists still get close passes.
So what, Hurst? You are not paying attention. The overtaking clearance has nothing to do with the purpose of controlling the lane, which is to prevent motorists from overtaking into traffic that is in the adjacent lane, thereby causing really nasty incipient collision situations which may well involve the cyclist.
John Forester is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 03:25 PM
  #23  
TheHen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post

And I doubt it is wise to install infrastructure that is designed to attract fearful beginners first, and provide improved utility for all cyclists second. So the trick is to attract beginners while not throwing them and all the current cyclists under the proverbial bus. I think it can be done. But some of the more "attractive" designs are outright dangerous in my opinion and rather silly.
I just felt that needed to be repeated. I'm getting rather fed up with the crappy so-called bike infrastructure that is being designed and put in place by people who have obviously never ridden. It is unclear to me whether the primary purpose of much of this is to entice newbies to give it a try or to get bikes out of the way of motorists, but they clearly do not function to improve the safety and efficacy of cycling.
TheHen is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 03:28 PM
  #24  
contango 
2 Fat 2 Furious
 
contango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996

Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
You wrote: "...controlling the lane forces the motorist who desires to overtake to recognize that he must use the adjacent lane in the normal manner for overtaking another vehicle."

That is obviously false. There is nothing magical about being in the middle of the lane that will 'force' a motorist to make a complete lane change. 'Lane-controlling' cyclists still get close passes.
A lane controlling cyclist who does get a close pass has given themself some space to move into if they need it. If a cyclist hugging the very edge of the road gets a close pass the only place they can go is off the road.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
contango is offline  
Old 04-15-12, 03:51 PM
  #25  
sindlero
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'd like to weigh in on this discussion from the City of Brotherly Love. Philadelphia has a network of bike lanes that works well at times. In the center of the city, there is much violation of these lanes. Contractors, delivery folks, etc. park in these lanes, forcing the cyclist to move into car traffic. There is NO enforcement of bike lane space. I have called City Council, Streets Dept, Transportation Planning, Parking Authority and the Police. I got a big shoulder shrug and double talk. What's even more frustrating, is that the local advocacy group, the Bicycle Coalition, isn't very motivated to change this around as well. There are enforcement agencies in place to deal with violators---in a city that is always crying about it's revenue stream. To be fair, the same blockages occur with public transit, as buses also deal with the same obstacles. Everyone gets inconvenienced when there is no traffic enforcement. When the bike lanes are clear, it is fairly smooth sailing and cars seem to get it.
sindlero
sindlero is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.