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

Interesting piece on bicyles/roads/history

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.

Interesting piece on bicyles/roads/history

Old 06-10-13, 04:37 PM
  #1  
squirtdad
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 7,152

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

Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1215 Post(s)
Liked 428 Times in 324 Posts
Interesting piece on bicyles/roads/history

Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing


https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
__________________
Looking for more time to ride what I have
squirtdad is online now  
Old 06-10-13, 04:52 PM
  #2  
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by squirtdad View Post
Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing


https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
Excellent link!!!!

I like the chronological breakdown.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 06-10-13, 07:36 PM
  #3  
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 5 Times in 5 Posts
I do wish he had chosen his closing words a little better. To wit:

By teaching school children how to drive their bicycles in traffic, they will have a jump start on learning how to drive cars better when they grow up.
groan.

Last edited by CbadRider; 06-11-13 at 09:01 AM. Reason: Removed inflammatory comment
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 06:49 AM
  #4  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 8,194

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked 307 Times in 193 Posts
Drivers think the roads are "their" roads. History shows that starting before 1900 the League of Wheelmen was the driving force for good roads. So-------------in fact auto drivers are actually driving on "our" roads.
rydabent is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 07:32 AM
  #5  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
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 rydabent View Post
Drivers think the roads are "their" roads. History shows that starting before 1900 the League of Wheelmen was the driving force for good roads. So-------------in fact auto drivers are actually driving on "our" roads.
Unfortunately, bob shanteau is also one of those 'repeal the LAB' bliviots..... he's fallen into quite the cadre of anti-cycling tools. And it's a shame. The vehikularists position is dedicated to repealing everything positive that's happened in american cycling in the last 40 years out of a terribly misguided impression no bike laws or facilities of any kind is a preferable position for cyclists.

Last edited by CbadRider; 06-11-13 at 09:03 AM. Reason: removed derogatory comments
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 07:56 AM
  #6  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Drivers think the roads are "their" roads. History shows that starting before 1900 the League of Wheelmen was the driving force for good roads. So-------------in fact auto drivers are actually driving on "our" roads.
Why aren't riders of horses (or pedestrians) complaining?

Roads existed before bicycles.

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 08:12 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 08:11 AM
  #7  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by squirtdad View Post
Interesting piece on the whole bike as part of traffic thing


https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-m...of-bicyclists/
Originally Posted by link
The
California Drivers Handbook
shows a motorist straddling a lane line to overtake a bicyclist, which violates the requirement to drive entirely within a single lane.
This is wrong.

Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).

As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:31 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 08:18 AM
  #8  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 8,194

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked 307 Times in 193 Posts
njkayaker

But the roads before the League of Wheelmen got involved were little more than cow paths. The Wheelmen lobbied for smooth easily passable roads. Remember early bikes did not have inflateable tires, and needed smooth roads.
rydabent is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 08:23 AM
  #9  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,625

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

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8874 Post(s)
Liked 1,217 Times in 837 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is wrong.

Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).

As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.
Are there not laws that prohibit lane splitting in most states... wouldn't that require moving completely over?
genec is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 08:24 AM
  #10  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
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 njkayaker View Post
Why aren't riders of horses (or pedestrians) complaining?

Roads existed before bicycles.
What makes you think pedestrians aren't complaining?

Trouble is, the vehikular cykling movement is akin to pedestrians lobbying to remove sidewalks, curb cuts, ADA standards, crosswalks, overpasses, pedestrian crossing signals and vulnerable user laws protecting pedestrians.

It's a sham, seeking to furtively marginalize cyclists under absurd posturing their pogrom is good for cycling.

Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-13 at 08:28 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 09:10 AM
  #11  
CbadRider
Senior Member
 
CbadRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Posts: 5,935

Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I deleted the disruptive posts and cleaned up the thread.

If you can't discuss this topic without throwing insults or regurgitating old arguments, then don't post. Anyone continuing to do so will be asked to leave the thread.

CbadRider
Forum Admin
__________________
Originally Posted by Xerum 525 View Post
Now get on your cheap bike and give me a double century. You walking can of Crisco!!

Forum Guidelines *click here*
CbadRider is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 11:51 AM
  #12  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,625

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

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8874 Post(s)
Liked 1,217 Times in 837 Posts
From that piece...

The FTR law needs to be repealed in order to once again give bicyclists the same rights and duties as other drivers. Unfortunately, since that law has been on the books longer than most of the readers of this article have been alive, most people see the law as normal and reasonable. But it is not. It is the result of the mistaken idea that bicyclists cannot control travel lanes. Not only is the idea that bicyclists cannot or should not control travel lanes responsible for the FTR law, it is also responsible for low mode share. FTR thinking leads to the belief that bicyclists controlling travel lanes is somehow rude or more dangerous than riding at the edge of the road or on the sidewalk.
This is all well and good and of course Forester constantly chants this... But bear in mind that the piece also points out that drivers, LEOs and judges don't understand the existing laws... and I contend that most motorists have no idea of the laws and that many LEOs try to enforce their own view of what the laws should be... so deleting the FTR law isn't going to mean a thing to a driving pubic that essentially has no clue anyway.

But let's go on. The biggest irony is that the piece points out that cyclists once rode along just as motorists, and shared the road completely... before lane lines existed. And before cars had the performance they have today, and the roads were as crowded as today, and before surface arterial road speed limits were and are approaching 55MPH... But, OK, I'll accept that before lane lines, cyclists were equals on the road... so all we have to do is implement the ideas of Hans Monderman and stop coddling motorists with "slot car" designed roads with helpful signs every 10 feet.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-448747.html
It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.
When we have to tell motorists to watch out for pedestrians at street corners... well frankly something is terribly wrong...

There really is no reason for that sign to exist... drivers that have passed a test and hold a license should be well aware of their responsibilities... but if they have to be told to watch for peds... do you really think they have a clue as to FTR laws? NOT HARDLY.
Attached Images
File Type: gif
r10-15.gif (3.2 KB, 142 views)
genec is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:28 PM
  #13  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
njkayaker

But the roads before the League of Wheelmen got involved were little more than cow paths. The Wheelmen lobbied for smooth easily passable roads. Remember early bikes did not have inflateable tires, and needed smooth roads.
I know about that.

So what? What about the Romans?

The roads that they had made "smooth" probably were a tiny percentage of roads anyway (most likely in cities).

There was still a heck of a lot of road usage by non-cyclists (regardless of the quality of those roads).
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:29 PM
  #14  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
"Lane splitting" is one thing. Passing is another.

Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.

The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").

This is wrong.

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

Originally Posted by genec View Post
Are there not laws that prohibit lane splitting in most states... wouldn't that require moving completely over?
As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).

In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.

Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).

Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).

Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).

No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.

Why are you talking about lane splitting?

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:50 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:30 PM
  #15  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
What makes you think pedestrians aren't complaining?
???

Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?

(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 12:36 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:47 PM
  #16  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 28,217

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 354 Times in 225 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
???

Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?
Where? See https://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-de...50BDD8D4D.html
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:48 PM
  #17  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
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 njkayaker View Post
???

Where are they complaining? What are they complaining about?
What does it matter pedestrian advocacy groups are tirelessly working to improve equity and pedestrian access/safety.

(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)
exactly. that's the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists. it's as if pedestrians were lobbying long and hard to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians on equal footing as motorists.

Bob Shanteau and his ilk promote a denigratory view of cycling, unwittingly (or deviously) seek to marginalize cycling with their flipflopped muddle of cyclists rights, and promote an 'advocacy' platform that seeks to set cycling back 40 years in this country.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:51 PM
  #18  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Where? See https://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-de...50BDD8D4D.html
What? The all powerful Bike Lobby?
Not quite. (And one can dismiss almost anything in the WSJ Opinion page.)

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:06 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:53 PM
  #19  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
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 njkayaker View Post
Not quite.
how about alliance for biking AND walking

or

americawalks.org/

are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america? the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists is akin to pedestrians lobbying long to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians sharing the road.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 12:54 PM
  #20  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
What does it matter pedestrian advocacy groups are tirelessly working to improve equity and pedestrian access/safety.
??? That some pedestrians have complaints about something doesn't mean those complaints are relevant to this discussion.

If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
how about alliance for biking AND walking

or

americawalks.org/

are you seriously suggesting there aren't pedestrian advocacy groups in america?
No, silly. These advocacy groups aren't arguing that pedestrians should walk in the middle of highways. You are just throwing irrelevant crap into this thread.

Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
(I'd like to see where pedestrians are complaining about not being able to walk in the middle of the road as "traffic".)
exactly. that's the ludicrous premise of the vehikular cycling dogmatists. it's as if pedestrians were lobbying long and hard to get rid of sidewalks, overpasses, and vulnerable user laws to go back to the good old days of pedestrians on equal footing as motorists.
Here, you sort-of half get what I was saying. The argument that bicyclists "own" the roads because of the "good roads" initiative is a weak argument. That's is a "precedent" argument, and using it means that pedestrians and horse riders would have a better claim to "owning" the roads than bicyclists do.

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:03 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 01:02 PM
  #21  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,625

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

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8874 Post(s)
Liked 1,217 Times in 837 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
"Lane splitting" is one thing. Passing is another.

Passing is allowed and, to be able to pass, you have to not stay "entirely in the lane". The "entirely in the lane" requirement also doesn't apply when you are turning.

The article is talking about passing (not "lane splitting").



This is wrong.

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


As far as I know, there aren't any laws explicitly prohibiting lane splitting (maybe, some states prohibit it but it's not common).

In California, motorcyclists can lane split but there isn't any explicit law that allows it. There is an explicit "motorcycles can lane split" law in TX.

Clearly, bicyclists sharing a lane with vehicles is allowed (explicitly or implicitly). Otherwise, there wouldn't need to be any "substandard width lane" laws (among other things that clearly establish "lane sharing" for bicyclists and cars).

Note that this "lane sharing" isn't "lane splitting" (which is riding in between two lanes).

Some states explicitly allow motorcycles to share the lane with other motorcyclists. Most states allow cyclists to ride abreast (sharing the lane).

No state (as far as I know) requires a full lane change when passing.

Why are you talking about lane splitting?
Merely pointing out that in some states (as you noted) it is expressly forbidden, yet in all states, it is expected that cyclists should split lanes... yet another irony of the vastly unknown bike laws.

As a cyclist, I really just want a safe pass... something that has ever widening distances as speed goes up... none of this "well I didn't hit you did I." Every time I hear that comment, I want to wave my fist past the face of the offender and then say "well I didn't hit you did I..."

But whatever... no, passing does NOT require a full lane change... but it does require a modicum of courtesy towards another human being.
genec is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 01:09 PM
  #22  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,773
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2262 Post(s)
Liked 253 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Merely pointing out that in some states (as you noted) it is expressly forbidden, yet in all states, it is expected that cyclists should split lanes... yet another irony of the vastly unknown bike laws.
What is one state that explicitly disallows "lane splitting"?

And, cyclists riding at the right side of the road way is not "lane splitting" (which is, basically, straddling a lane marker).

And riding at the right side of the roadway is explicitly allowed in all states.

It's normal and common for laws to explicitly specify exceptions to the general law.

There's no "irony" because: 1) it's not "lane splitting" and 2) exceptions to the general laws are common.

Originally Posted by genec View Post
But whatever... no, passing does NOT require a full lane change...
Then, why the heck are you arguing that a full lane change is required?

Originally Posted by genec View Post
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
This is wrong.

Passing is an exception to the requirement to "drive entirely within a single lane" (it has to be: otherwise passing would not be legal).

As far as I know, there isn't any legal requirement to move completely into another lane when passing.
Are there not laws that prohibit lane splitting in most states... wouldn't that require moving completely over?
What the heck are you talking about??

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-11-13 at 01:20 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 01:51 PM
  #23  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,625

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

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8874 Post(s)
Liked 1,217 Times in 837 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post

Then, why the heck are you arguing that a full lane change is required?
Uh, never did... In fact I explicitly state a "As a cyclist, I really just want a safe pass... something that has ever widening distances as speed goes up..."

I did state that some states have laws against lane splitting... but then seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to cyclists. But again I don't advocate that a motorist has to move to another lane... you seem to be taking my comment much further than I intended. Drop it.
genec is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 02:06 PM
  #24  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
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 njkayaker View Post
??? That some pedestrians have complaints about something doesn't mean those complaints are relevant to this discussion.

If you want cyclists to be "safe" like pedestrians, you should be arguing that they keep to the sidewalk.

No, silly. These advocacy groups aren't arguing that pedestrians should walk in the middle of highways. You are just throwing irrelevant crap into this thread.
no, no, you seemed genuinely unaware there are pedestrian advocacy groups in america. My analogy is apt, and you agree with my point- pedestrian advocacy groups AREN'T arguing that pedestrians should just waik in the middle of highways. This slanted, denigratory 'opinion' piece is akin to pedestrian advocates lobbying to rip out all the sidewalks and get rid of vulnerable user laws.



What the heck are you talking about??
one could ask the same of you. You disagree with at least some of the premise of the piece of vehicukar cykling propaganda.

Last edited by Bekologist; 06-11-13 at 02:12 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-11-13, 03:35 PM
  #25  
Siu Blue Wind
BACK2ME
 
Siu Blue Wind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,154
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1843 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times in 211 Posts
Okay everyone, *tinks glass* listen up. work with me here.

BEK IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!!! GOT THAT??

Okay now that THAT's over,

Bek please leave this thread. I'm tired of the complaints and frankly, ain't nobody got time for dat. Thank you.
__________________
Originally Posted by making View Post
Please dont outsmart the censor. That is a very expensive censor and every time one of you guys outsmart it it makes someone at the home office feel bad. We dont wanna do that. So dont cleverly disguise bad words.
Siu Blue Wind 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.