Notices
Northeast Connecticut | Maine | Massachusetts | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New York |Rhode Island | Vermont |

Central Park Cyclists out of control

Old 09-04-19, 10:38 AM
  #26  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
The thing is that removing or yellow flashing the traffic lights might work for 95% of people, but it can't be done on account of the small percentage that needs an assisted crossing.

That they currently don't get one given the widespread dishonoring of the lights is a bit beside the point - legally they still do, which is quite different than removing the mechanism that is supposed to give that opportunity.

What I think *would* work is push button activated lights, though they'd likely need some anti-abuse features that limit how often they will activate (at worst defaulting to the current cycle).

The lights would then also need to be actively enforced; but if activations outside congested hours are rare, that should be an acceptable burden on cycling.

Also the out-of-control salmoning, especially in the pedestrian lane needs to be enforced. Maybe redesign in a bidirectional way could work, though given the current "business" of the park eliminating service vehicles seems unlikely.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 11:02 AM
  #27  
Steve B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 3,396

Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Soma Smoothie, Miyata City Liner, Specialized FSR Comp, Fuji Professional

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 54 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by zacster View Post

I had been noticing that myself when I ride in Prospect Park. Why are there traffic lights on the way up the hill, in the middle of a long stretch, in some seemingly random places. And then also PP has many fewer pedestrians and cyclists than CP and doesn't need that level of control.

.
So a case of no follow thru by DOT when they made Prospect car free, they left the traffic lights, that really serve no function.

They kind of did this on a designated AND separated 2 way bike lane along Shore Front Pkwy, in the Rockaways, where there are 8 or 9 lights between B73 and 108 (1.5 miles). The lights are needed for auto traffic calming as much as anything, not really much use for folks in the bike lanes as any cars on what are mostly one-way side streets that has green isn't moving into the bike lane. I assume maybe useful for pedestrian crossing traffic, which typically crosses outside the designated crosswalks in any event.
Steve B. is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 05:14 PM
  #28  
dendawg
Senior Member
 
dendawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,354
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
The thing is that removing or yellow flashing the traffic lights might work for 95% of people, but it can't be done on account of the small percentage that needs an assisted crossing.

That they currently don't get one given the widespread dishonoring of the lights is a bit beside the point - legally they still do, which is quite different than removing the mechanism that is supposed to give that opportunity.

What I think *would* work is push button activated lights, though they'd likely need some anti-abuse features that limit how often they will activate (at worst defaulting to the current cycle).

The lights would then also need to be actively enforced; but if activations outside congested hours are rare, that should be an acceptable burden on cycling.

Also the out-of-control salmoning, especially in the pedestrian lane needs to be enforced. Maybe redesign in a bidirectional way could work, though given the current "business" of the park eliminating service vehicles seems unlikely.
Some of the lights in CP have been converted to activate on demand. The problem I have found is that as a pedestrian when I activate one, most cyclists ignore it, or if I'm cycling most tourists cross without activating it. FWIW some towns on the east end of LI have pedesrian activated cross walks that many motorists ignore as well
dendawg is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 06:00 PM
  #29  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by dendawg View Post
Some of the lights in CP have been converted to activate on demand. The problem I have found is that as a pedestrian when I activate one, most cyclists ignore it, or if I'm cycling most tourists cross without activating it.
Some of us stop at all red lights. Some will not stop at any.

Most would probably stop if the light being red was infrequent and seemed to have a purpose.

That's where the improvement - for everyone - could be realized.

Minimize the frequency of red lights. And the enforce the heck out of them.

Last time I rode in the park I watched a light go red again only 15 or so seconds after turning green, without a pedestrian in sight. I stopped of course, but the whole thing seemed absurd. If there are presently button activated lights, they are presently lost in such noise.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 06:36 PM
  #30  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,521
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times in 147 Posts
Not to worry.

Hizzoner has a plan:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...s-bike-riders/
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 07:16 PM
  #31  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia View Post
Don't be absurd. Someone asked him off-the-cuff questions, and like a smart politician he acknowledged concerns but made no hasty decisions.

There's no actual policy plan presented there.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 07:43 PM
  #32  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,521
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times in 147 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Don't be absurd. Someone asked him off-the-cuff questions, and like a smart politician he acknowledged concerns but made no hasty decisions.

There's no actual policy plan presented there.
Donít be so gullible.

The Nanny State is gonna get you, sooner or later.

Have fun with that.
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 07:46 PM
  #33  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia View Post
Don’t be so gullible.
Indeed, don't be.

Recognize when you've been trolled by so-called media with a political agenda.

Recognize also, when an alarmist headline is unsupported by the actual content of the article, which slanted as it is, doesn't contain the same blatant distortion of fact, but merely sets a trap for your mind to fill in the desired falsehood.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 07:47 PM
  #34  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,521
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times in 147 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Don't be absurd. Someone asked him off-the-cuff questions, and like a smart politician he acknowledged concerns but made no hasty decisions.

There's no actual policy plan presented there.
You donít follow the news much, do you?

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...zze-story.html

Or this...

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/09/...-for-cyclists/

Seriously man, Hizzoner is an empty vessel.
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 07:51 PM
  #35  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,521
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times in 147 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Indeed, don't be.

Recognize when you've been trolled by so-called media with a political agenda.

Recognize also, when an alarmist headline is unsupported by the actual content of the article, which slanted as it is, doesn't contain the same blatant distortion of fact, but merely sets a trap for your mind to fill in the desired falsehood.
You really need to pay more attention.

You seem to be one of the many Kool-Aid drinkers that blindly follow Hizzoner.

Are you a staffer?
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 09-05-19, 08:33 AM
  #36  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
One verbal interchange took place. Multiple people republishing the original biased distortion of that does not create new facts.

You need to learn to distinguish what the interviewee said, from what the interviewer asked, and discussion from policy decision.

Or, like many of those involved in this media charade, you may just hear what you want to hear, regardless of the facts.

Last edited by UniChris; 09-05-19 at 08:36 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-05-19, 08:51 AM
  #37  
StanSeven
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,180

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 618 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 51 Posts
Ok, guys. Enough with the political stuff. Let’s get back to the topic or move it to P&R
StanSeven is offline  
Old 09-20-19, 11:45 AM
  #38  
bipedalconsumer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NYC
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by dendawg View Post
Some of the lights in CP have been converted to activate on demand. The problem I have found is that as a pedestrian when I activate one, most cyclists ignore it, or if I'm cycling most tourists cross without activating it. FWIW some towns on the east end of LI have pedesrian activated cross walks that many motorists ignore as well
With regard to button-activated lights, the issue of tourists (and others...) crossing without activating the light would be very hard to address without perhaps some prominent signs and warnings... it seems that tourists immediately pick up on and imitate the wider NYC phenomenon of pedestrians crossing streets at will and largely ignoring the relevant traffic lights.
bipedalconsumer is offline  
Old 09-21-19, 10:42 PM
  #39  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by bipedalconsumer View Post
With regard to button-activated lights, the issue of tourists (and others...) crossing without activating the light would be very hard to address without perhaps some prominent signs and warnings...
Actually, pedestrians ignoring the buttons would be the goal.

Since the odds are better than even that another party (on foot or on wheels) is going to ignore the light, it's already basically devolved to a situation of look and be careful. As a result the lights fail to serve anyone's interest, because they are either an annoyance if against you, or an absurdly false promise if in your favor.

But putting the lights on buttons not only preserves the possibility that someone mobility challenged who really needs a protected crossing (and is willing to wait for it) could in legal theory get one, if having the lights activate becomes a rarity, then enforcing them becomes much more socially tenable enough that they might actually get a protected crossing.

(I stop at deserted park lights; it feels downright silly to do so, but it is what they mean. I express my objection mostly by avoiding the park... and for that matter, the street grid, unless I'm in a mood to deal with that.)

Last edited by UniChris; 09-21-19 at 10:47 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-23-19, 05:46 PM
  #40  
Giant321
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'd have to say pedestrians are less dangerous than the casual rent a biker who doesn't ride straight, takes selfies, and doesn't pay attention at all.
Giant321 is offline  
Old 09-23-19, 07:46 PM
  #41  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,955
Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked 197 Times in 157 Posts
Ok, a bit late here, but the news seems to be everything but a Central Park Cyclist.

But, I do see notes of a Central Park Cyclist that recently was killed after hitting a pedestrian.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/08/...al-park-crash/

And, of course, a cyclist that killed a pedestrian a couple of years ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/n...k-cyclist.html
https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-w...dable-accident

Originally Posted by ChiroVette View Post
This is a huge problem, and some of this is the fault of cyclists who are so focused on their interval training and their segments that they throw all caution to the wind to beat their times and such.
Too many people and too little space.

I have enjoyed STRAVA a bit, but I refuse to slam most segments on the local bike paths. Just too stupid. (although I have 2 straight, flat, wide bike path segments that I like, but won't overdo it). There are plenty of other places where one can safely go fast on the roads. Nonetheless, I can imagine options being more limited in New York.

What I'd like to see with STRAVA is a blackout feature where city officials could black-out all challenge segments from certain bike paths & parks. Not necessarily everywhere, but target a few trouble spots.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 09-23-19, 07:52 PM
  #42  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 22,955
Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9174 Post(s)
Liked 197 Times in 157 Posts
What is Governors Island like?

I could imagine cyclists lobbying to make a "Race Track" around the outer perimeter of the island.

Perhaps add pedestrian sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges from the ferries to the internal park area.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 09-25-19, 10:07 AM
  #43  
bipedalconsumer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NYC
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I'm sure you do, but it's also hard to imagine that without the fear of enforcement many cyclists who ignore lights when there are more of them wouldn't do the same when there are fewer of them
bipedalconsumer is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 04:24 PM
  #44  
bipedalconsumer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NYC
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Actually, pedestrians ignoring the buttons would be the goal.

Since the odds are better than even that another party (on foot or on wheels) is going to ignore the light, it's already basically devolved to a situation of look and be careful. As a result the lights fail to serve anyone's interest, because they are either an annoyance if against you, or an absurdly false promise if in your favor.

But putting the lights on buttons not only preserves the possibility that someone mobility challenged who really needs a protected crossing (and is willing to wait for it) could in legal theory get one, if having the lights activate becomes a rarity, then enforcing them becomes much more socially tenable enough that they might actually get a protected crossing.

(I stop at deserted park lights; it feels downright silly to do so, but it is what they mean. I express my objection mostly by avoiding the park... and for that matter, the street grid, unless I'm in a mood to deal with that.)
Although the total number of crashes increased by 2, It would appear that removing (most) cars from the park has resulted in a 50% reduction in individual cyclists injured, a 400% increase in the number of pedestrians injured, and an overall 24% reduction in individuals injured (including motorists, although since the NYPD classifies e-bikes as motorcycles for accident statistics, it's not clear that the 300% increase from 1 to 3 motorists injured wasn't all or partly accounted for by e-bikes) during the first year or so over the previous period.

While these are small numbers for drawing large conclusions, assuming the data is meaningful, and regardless of which category of road-user is more responsible for accidents, removing most regular auto traffic from CP would appear to have made the road safer for (non-motorized) cyclists, and more dangerous for pedestrians and possibly for e-bike riders, although since the number of cyclists injured dropped by 11 vs an increase of 3 for pedestrians and 2 for "motorists", the overall reduction in cyclist injuries (and in total injuries) were arguably more meaningful, presumably because cyclists simply suffer a lot more injuries than pedestrians, in general.

Nevertheless, whatever behavioural reasons exist behind the accidents, if this data is meaningful, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that it would be appropriate for the MUT to be configured such that the jogging lane is protected from cyclists by some sort of physical barrier such as the ones that were installed this summer in Riverside park after a collision between a cyclist and a child, and the occasional / surprise enforcement of some very stiff fines for bikes that ignore stoplights.

Are the existing stoplights poorly designed for a road dominated by cyclists? Yes, and ultimately, there should probably be walkways over the road for pedestrian crossing, but the current setup is simply chaotic, and there are so many bikes that a pedestrian crossing the road often feels in the precarious position of "dodging" one speeding bicycle after another, and I just can't see how this can be considered appropriate in CP.
bipedalconsumer is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 11:49 PM
  #45  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by bipedalconsumer View Post
removing most regular auto traffic from CP would appear to have made the road safer for (non-motorized) cyclists, and more dangerous for pedestrians
It seems like you are saying the lack of obvious danger from cars has made everyone less careful. That could well be true.

it would seem reasonable to conclude that it would be appropriate for the MUT to be configured such that the jogging lane is protected from cyclists by some sort of physical barrier such as the ones that were installed this summer in Riverside park after a collision between a cyclist and a child
Have you actually been to riverside park since then? It sure does not sound like you have. No linear barrier was installed, what happened was cycling was outright banned on a key section of the greenway, with cyclist diverted onto a hilly path with even more potential for pedestrian conflict, and car conflict too. There is no model there applicable to Central Park.

and the occasional / surprise enforcement of some very stiff fines for bikes that ignore stoplights.
The thing about enforcement is that to modify behavior (and especially to modify popular behavior), it has to be constant enough to create an expectation that violations will be caught. If it's a rare thing, the reality is that most consider it a tax on being unlucky. I stop at lights, but I don't know anyone else who does.

there are so many bikes that a pedestrian crossing the road often feels in the precarious position of "dodging" one speeding bicycle after another
It's actually quite simple for able bodied people to cross the central park drive: treat it like a suburban road, wait for a gap in traffic, and cross.

The lights probably have to remain for the mobility challenged, but at present they are a danger to all, since they are mostly disregarded by users of all sorts. Pushbuttons could hardly make things worse, with luck they might make them better, especially in not creating a conflict between practical behavior and the law.

Last edited by UniChris; 09-29-19 at 11:54 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 05:22 AM
  #46  
bipedalconsumer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NYC
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
It seems like you are saying the lack of obvious danger from cars has made everyone less careful. That could well be true.
Yeah, that seems undoubtedly true for all types of users.

Cyclist deaths from traffic accidents rose by 10% last year, but pedestrian deaths have risen 40% in the past 10 years, since smartphones became commonplace, probably due to distracted driving, but I would have to imagine that distracted walking also plays a major role.

Another viable conclusion would be that that the road is safer for cyclists because the primary threat to cyclists who often share space with cars has been removed, while the road is less safe for pedestrians because without regular motorist traffic, cyclists are less apt to observe stoplights at crosswalks, and in many cases don't ever slow down.

Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
Have you actually been to riverside park since then? It sure does not sound like you have. No linear barrier was installed, what happened was cycling was outright banned on a key section of the greenway, with cyclist diverted onto a hilly path with even more potential for pedestrian conflict, and car conflict too. There is no model there applicable to Central Park.
Yes, I don't know what the terminology is, but there are or were flexible dividers on a small segment where the bike path is diverted. I was just referring to that type of divider, not the general solution.

Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
The thing about enforcement is that to modify behavior (and especially to modify popular behavior), it has to be constant enough to create an expectation that violations will be caught. If it's a rare thing, the reality is that most consider it a tax on being unlucky. I stop at lights, but I don't know anyone else who does.
If the fine were $1,000, bike impounded, and it happened 30 times a day, I think you would start to see compliance.

Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
It's actually quite simple for able bodied people to cross the central park drive: treat it like a suburban road, wait for a gap in traffic, and cross.

The lights probably have to remain for the mobility challenged, but at present they are a danger to all, since they are mostly disregarded by users of all sorts. Pushbuttons could hardly make things worse, with luck they might make them better, especially in not creating a conflict between practical behavior and the law.
The timed lights don't belong on the loop, but they probably can't go away as long as some cars still use the park, and at least until an alternate crossing scheme is in place (such as raised crosswalks or overpasses), there should be some way or other to cause cyclists to stop or slow down around pedestrians, and a way for the elderly and disabled to cross without fear.

For now, button activated lights make sense if they were obeyed. That seems unlikely without enforcement, but considering the amount of traffic day in and day out and thus the potential revenue from fines, it wouldn't be hard for the NYPD to justify full time enforcement while the park is open.

Will CP be a less attractive track for training? Yes... but even if "practical behaviour" means it's unreasonable to expect bikes to ever stop for pedestrians, somehow it still just doesn't seem reasonable for a "mixed use" road to be in some ways less safe or accessible to pedestrians than a regular street.

Last edited by bipedalconsumer; 09-30-19 at 06:23 AM. Reason: Additional comments
bipedalconsumer is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 06:42 PM
  #47  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 844

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 360 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 61 Posts
Originally Posted by bipedalconsumer View Post
Yes, I don't know what the terminology is, but there are or were flexible dividers on a small segment where the bike path is diverted. I was just referring to that type of divider, not the general solution.
I've never seen the book, but I am 100% sure that Rule #1 of flexible divider installation is "Plant flexible dividers between the lanes, not exactly in the middle of the northbound bike arrorws". So I stand by my early summary of there being no applicable lesson from the riverside disaster, except for what not to do.

If the fine were $1,000, bike impounded, and it happened 30 times a day, I think you would start to see compliance.
Given stunts like following someone through three lights before turning on the siren and writing a ticket compounding repeat offender penalties, it comes close to that. But again, it's so sporadic that most dismiss it as unfairly bad luck, rather than being willing to modify behavior. You don't modify behavior with a rare chance of a $1000 fine, you modify it with a certainty of a $50 any day you decide to ignore the lights on the loop.


somehow it still just doesn't seem reasonable for a "mixed use" road to be in some ways less safe or accessible to pedestrians than a regular street.
It isn't. It's actually quite safe, especially if you treat it like the suburban street it is most directly comparable to.

The biggest hazard is probably the salmoning in the pedestrian lane. The next, the "lights that lie" in giving a false sense of safety. But the reality is that if you look for a break in traffic, it's pretty safe to cross.

To an extent, it almost doesn't matter what the rules are - people can adjust to that, though of course there will be winners and losers. The actual hazard (to wallet and life), is that there's a huge difference between the theoretical rules, and the usual majority behavior.

Last edited by UniChris; 10-01-19 at 06:51 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
work4bike
Advocacy & Safety
182
09-24-14 05:17 PM
Steve B.
Northeast
16
07-14-14 08:58 PM
G1nko
Advocacy & Safety
16
07-09-13 11:03 PM
Bumer
Advocacy & Safety
35
10-15-12 06:54 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

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