cycling - level of "safety"



Matt O'Toole wrote:

> This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
> fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
> things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
> I know there will be drunks on the road.


Ironically, it's probably the fear of being run down from behind that
inspires many uninformed riders to ride facing traffic -- thus moving
them from the low- to the high-probability column.

RichC
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen to cyclist
> to zero?



I think it is a nice goal. If you don't have aggressive goals you don't
accomplish much.


>
> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me if I
> consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with the fact that
> only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed in Tucson.


I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all experienced
cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them while they
rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my 50
years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents in so
short a period until now.

Why don't
> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?


I'm particularly lucky at this point in my life. I live in Tucson
becasue I want to live here. No issues of school, work or family are
involved. So, thanks for the offer but I'll stay here. But you are
certainly welcome to come out and visit and ride. Many pros do their
winter base training here. Tucson is a fantastic place to live and
ride. I wouldn't trade it for anywhere. That said I'm still disturbed
by what I'm seeing happen vis-a-vis cyclists and motorists.
 
Hola!
Here in San Diego the local branch of the League of American
Bicyclists (San Diego County Bicycle Coalition or something like that)
has a grant from either the City of SD or the local Association of
Governments to conduct adult bicycle training classes for free (to the
students). I took an eight hour long one -- most of which I knew
already, if only at the level of habit, but it WAS nice to find my
intuitions confirmed, made explicit and systematized. And the chance to
ride along El Cajon Blvd and practice left turns across two lanes of
traffic with a riding group that was NOT composed entirely of habitual
or experienced riders was a lot of fun.

If I had to guess, I'd say the local government figures its
easier/cheaper/more effective per dollar to reach cyclists to train
them about the mistakes both cyclists and motorists make, and how to
avoid them, then to try to reach the masses of motorists. Given the
prevalence of off-kilter lifted trucks and SUVs around here, I'd
probably imagine the folks on bikes are an easier sell, too.

Mind you, getting ADULT cyclists into a class is a tough sell -- "I
already know how to ride a bike!" I wouldn't have gone either if I
hadn't started riding with a (rather informal) group -- and decided a
street skills brush up was in order!

As for the "is it SAFE?" question, nothing is absolutely safe. For
example, I once saw someone break a leg at a chess tournament (do not
do victory dances near stairs!).

On the other hand, I've also seen a nocturnal no-lights sidewalk-rider
get clobbered by a high-speed rolling-stop right-turning pickup truck
(that had come a bit too close for comfort to me when the driver ran a
red light at the merge just before the intersection). How do you assign
blame for that mishap?

[email protected] Robert Leone

gds wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

snip
> Yet, at least in Tucson I see no where near the effort at public
> education or enforcement regarding cycling and cyclist/motor vehicle
> incidents. So, I guess my feeling is that there should be.

SNIP
 
gds <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>>
:>> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen
:>> to cyclist to zero?
:>
:>
:> I think it is a nice goal. If you don't have aggressive goals you
:> don't accomplish much.

I agree with you here. I just hope there is something that actually can be
done that will have an impact. Honestly, I'm very doubtful, but I won't
stand in the way of someone willing to try, and I'd even pitch in.

:>
:>
:>>
:>> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me
:>> if I consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with
:>> the fact that only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed
:>> in Tucson.
:>
:> I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
:> number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
:> being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
:> have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all
:> experienced cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them
:> while they
:> rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
:> visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
:> cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my
:> 50 years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents
:> in so
:> short a period until now.
:>

Well, that explains your concern. It's always more real when it happens
within your own sphere of influence.


:> Why don't
:>> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?
:>
:> I'm particularly lucky at this point in my life. I live in Tucson
:> becasue I want to live here. No issues of school, work or family are
:> involved. So, thanks for the offer but I'll stay here. But you are
:> certainly welcome to come out and visit and ride. Many pros do their
:> winter base training here. Tucson is a fantastic place to live and
:> ride. I wouldn't trade it for anywhere. That said I'm still disturbed
:> by what I'm seeing happen vis-a-vis cyclists and motorists.

Sounds nice, really. I'd like to do just that (ride there, that is).
 
Wayne Pein wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:


>> Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
>> learning to anticipate drivers' actions.


> Absolutely. It takes 2 to tango. The motorist makes the mistake or overt
> aggressive maneuver, and the bicyclist enabled it and was unable to deal
> with it. Bicyclists also cause it by passing on the right.


I frequently see this scenario here in Chicago: a car is waiting at a red
light and signaling a right turn. A cyclist passes the car on the right in
order to cross the intersection against the red. The cyclist has to slow and
look for cars coming at him left and right, leaving less than his full
attention for whether the light is changing and what the car next to him is
doing. It's a receipe for a right hook. The cyclist is putting waaaay more
faith in drivers than I have. So whenever I see statistics like gds's from
Tucson, I figure the odds are better for people who exercise a few
precautions.

--
Paul Turner
 
Bob wrote:
>
>
> Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?


You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.

First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
not zero that nothing is working.

As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
that? Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
one (or more) of the 5.
 
gds wrote:

> I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
> number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
> being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
> have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all experienced
> cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them while they
> rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
> visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
> cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my 50
> years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents in so
> short a period until now.
>


It seems these incidents were purposeful assaults. Is this a predictable
consequence of "Bicycle Friendly?" The bicyclists were not in a bike
lane (or were they?) where they are "supposed" to be (given that the
good citizens/government has generously provided space of their own), so
the puddin headed criminal motorist thinks it is open season on them.
Trading Paint!

Recently a paved shoulder was added to a 2 lane rural road my wife and I
have regularly ridden on for 12 years. Previously the fog line was
directly on the edge of pavement. The shoulder was installed by the MPO
"for bicyclists." It varies in width from 4 inches to 2.5 feet. We don't
ride on it, but many bicyclists do, teetering on the edge of pavement.
Since it was installed, motorist harassment of us has increased because
of our perceived audacity to ride to the left of the line, and not where
we are "supposed" to be (even though it is not marked as a bike lane).

Wayne
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
> gds <[email protected]> wrote:
> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
> :>> gds <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>> :> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5
> :>> :> cyclist deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
> :>>
> :>> No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you
> :>> should hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept
> :>> some risk.
> :>>
> :>> IMO, no death is insignificant.
> :>
> :> Well I certainly agree with your last comment.
> :>
> :> As to hanging up my pedals and my acceptance of risk. Don't confuse a
> :> concern for safety with being "afraid." You seem to have a need to
> :> attack folks for raising points for discussion rather than
> :> contributing
> :> to the discussion.
> :> FYI I have cycled well over 100,000 miles, have rock climbed for
> :> years
> :> and am a certified instructor, and am a licensed pilot. I have a very
> :> good understanding of risk. I also have a very good understanding of
> :> the need to mitigate risk and a very low tolerance for needless
> :> accidents.
>
> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen to cyclist
> to zero? I'm sure you'd consider that minimal risk, right? And how do the
> numbers for cyclist compare to those of motorist in Tucson?


Anything is possible, start by banning the automobile, that will
eliminate all automobile versus bicycle collisions. The chances of a
colision with an automobile will be reduced to zero, however, after
doing that, you may have 10 times the cyclists, and get 10 deaths from
bicycle versus bicycle collisions, you can't always win.

> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me if I
> consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with the fact that
> only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed in Tucson. Why don't
> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?


There is always the possibility that it's just a bad year, try looking
at the average over the last 10 years, there are some numbers missing,
that could make the percentages work or not work. Out of a population
of 400,000 how many are cyclists, and what is the average annual mileage
of those cyclists.

For example if .01% of the population are cyclists and they ride an
average of 50 miles per year, then your risk of death is 1 in every 400
miles, and your risk of an accident is 1 in every 4 miles, those suck.

However if the percentage of cyclists is 75% and they go an average of
5000 miles your risk of death is 1 in 1,500,000,000 miles, and your
chance of a collision is 1 in 15,000,000 miles; much better odds.

Without specific knowledge of cycling in Tucson, and knowing where it
fits in the equasions (likely between the two examples), it doesn't take
many cyclists going very far, to make the odds staggering against.

There are other things to consider, you really need a detailed study,
like the one the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada did in 1999 (link
http://tinyurl.com/6ywuj ), the value of a number of collisions based on
population, doesn't provide enough information.

W
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Somehow cycling does not look so dangerous though it seems to me that
>>Ottawa ON with a population in the 700k range had several years with no
>>cycling fatalities at all.

>
>
> That's probably because the riding season is two weeks long... ;-)
>


Well here in Toronto, ON not far from Ottawa or Kingston, we had the
hottest summer ever, and I was still riding in late November. I saw 3
guys on bikes yesterday, with a balmy high of -9C (15F).

> Mark "did I mention it was 70 degrees F here today?" Hickey


Yeah, well, at least we don't get hurricanes.....

W
 
"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Recently a paved shoulder was added to a 2 lane rural road my wife and I
> have regularly ridden on for 12 years. Previously the fog line was
> directly on the edge of pavement. The shoulder was installed by the MPO
> "for bicyclists." It varies in width from 4 inches to 2.5 feet. We don't
> ride on it, but many bicyclists do, teetering on the edge of pavement.
> Since it was installed, motorist harassment of us has increased because of
> our perceived audacity to ride to the left of the line, and not where we
> are "supposed" to be (even though it is not marked as a bike lane).
>
> Wayne
>


I've found the less lines the better. Two years ago many of my favorite
rides in the hills were all freshly paved. There was a remarkable
difference in the tolerance and the passing room given to me when there were
no lines on the road. With the center line gone and no fog lines, cars were
moving way over. In general whenever I ride on a road with a bike lane
Cars will buzz right next to me without offering any space whatsoever.
 
"rdclark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
>> fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
>> things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
>> I know there will be drunks on the road.

>
>Ironically, it's probably the fear of being run down from behind that
>inspires many uninformed riders to ride facing traffic -- thus moving
>them from the low- to the high-probability column.


Or worse yet, onto the sidewalk.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Fred wrote:

>
> I've found the less lines the better. Two years ago many of my favorite
> rides in the hills were all freshly paved. There was a remarkable
> difference in the tolerance and the passing room given to me when there were
> no lines on the road. With the center line gone and no fog lines, cars were
> moving way over.


I've experienced the same thing on several different roads. I surmise
that it is "taboo" for some motorists to move fully into the opposing
lane when there is a centerline, but the lack of a line imposes no
restrictions and makes the pass more ambiguous.



In general whenever I ride on a road with a bike lane
> Cars will buzz right next to me without offering any space whatsoever.


Yes. There is no perceived need to adjust their trajectory. If the bike
lane is relatively narrow, or the combo bike lane/"car" lane total is
narrow, this leads to close passes. Of course, some malicious motorists
purposefully drive close to the bike lane to torment bicyclists (they
also drive close to bicyclists when there is no bike lane).

Wayne
 
gds wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> > of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> > what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> > eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?

>
> You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.
>
> First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
> it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
> example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
> significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
> ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
> highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
> rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
> not zero that nothing is working.


My question was not rhetorical. What training and enforcement do you
think would have eliminated even one of the five deaths?

>
> As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> that?


Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.

< Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
> statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
> a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
> extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
> number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
> one (or more) of the 5.


See above. I don't mean to sound heartless but if I do, I can live with
it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
gds wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> > of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> > what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> > eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?

>
> You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.
>
> First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
> it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
> example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
> significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
> ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
> highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
> rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
> not zero that nothing is working.


My question was not rhetorical. What training and enforcement do you
think would have eliminated even one of the five deaths?

>
> As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> that?


Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.

< Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
> statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
> a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
> extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
> number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
> one (or more) of the 5.


See above. I don't mean to sound heartless but if I do, I can live with
it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
> Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.
>

I think I've seen more warning signs about not driving through water in
Arizona than I've seen anywhere else. The presence of signs like this is,
oddly, inversely proportional to the presence of water.
 
Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
> > Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.
> >

> I think I've seen more warning signs about not driving through water in
> Arizona than I've seen anywhere else. The presence of signs like this is,
> oddly, inversely proportional to the presence of water.


That can be explained. I imagine lots of Arizonans, when looking at
water, say "Hey - I wonder what that stuff is??" ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
Bob wrote:
> >
> > As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> > that?

>
> Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
> Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
> Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
> expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.
>


As my 4th grade teacher always asked--"Please show your work!" I see
no tests of statistical signifigance in what you write. What
statistical tests are using to come your conclusion of no statistical
signifigance?
You have no data on the age of the dead cyclists. Assuming them to be
at the median is probably a bit risky.


BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
year.

So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.

There is a problem. I love cycling but there is a problem. If pro
cycling folks don't recognize and try to solve the problem who will? My
fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
restrictive ideas.
 
gds wrote:

> BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
> now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
> year.
>
> So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
> have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
> have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
> Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
> the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
> point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.


Regarding statistical significance: The fewer the data points, the
greater the difficulty in assessing significance. Five cycling deaths
(or 11 pedestrian deaths) are a small number, for any statistical
purpose. Numbers that low are guaranteed to show high percentages of
random variation from year to year. (Do you have annual data for,
say, the past ten years, for comparison?)

In fact, five cycling deaths are so few that you should be able to
determine the reason for each and discuss them here in detail. That
would allow us to judge whether Tuscon has a specific problem, far
better than the raw number itself.

As an example: a city could have five cyclist deaths when a landslide
washes away a road during an invitational century. That wouldn't
justify handwringing about the danger of cycling!

So what did cause those five deaths? And again, what have the counts
been in the past ten years?

> My fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
> legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
> restrictive ideas.


That's my fear, too. But I'm not convinced you're helping!

Let's see some more information, to assess whether there really is a
problem.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
> > now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
> > year.
> >
> > So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
> > have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
> > have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
> > Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
> > the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
> > point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.

>
> Regarding statistical significance: The fewer the data points, the
> greater the difficulty in assessing significance. Five cycling deaths
> (or 11 pedestrian deaths) are a small number, for any statistical
> purpose. Numbers that low are guaranteed to show high percentages of
> random variation from year to year. (Do you have annual data for,
> say, the past ten years, for comparison?)
>
> In fact, five cycling deaths are so few that you should be able to
> determine the reason for each and discuss them here in detail. That
> would allow us to judge whether Tuscon has a specific problem, far
> better than the raw number itself.
>
> As an example: a city could have five cyclist deaths when a landslide
> washes away a road during an invitational century. That wouldn't
> justify handwringing about the danger of cycling!
>
> So what did cause those five deaths? And again, what have the counts
> been in the past ten years?
>
> > My fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
> > legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
> > restrictive ideas.

>
> That's my fear, too. But I'm not convinced you're helping!
>
> Let's see some more information, to assess whether there really is a
> problem.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


According to the same news report the annual numbers for both cyclist
and pedestrian deaths is "about normal."

I agree with you about all the problems of dealing with small absolute
numbers. But it creates headlines. And headlines often lead to poorly
thought out "solutions."

I don't think my posting is doing much good or harm as this group is
not central to what political decision makers care about. But I did
have a point in raising the issue. Cyclist accidents and deaths are
headline issues. So, if cycling proponents want to head off restrictive
rule making I think it a good idea to get ahead of the issue rather
than arguing over how cycling problems are much less than motor vehicle
problems.

I am not talking about absolute right and wrong here but rather the
practical matter of perception and how that drives public policy. If
absolute right & wrong drove policy we would be living in a much
different society with less war, hunger, and disease.
 
gds wrote:

>
> I agree with you about all the problems of dealing with small absolute
> numbers. But it creates headlines. And headlines often lead to poorly
> thought out "solutions."
>
> I don't think my posting is doing much good or harm as this group is
> not central to what political decision makers care about. But I did
> have a point in raising the issue. Cyclist accidents and deaths are
> headline issues. So, if cycling proponents want to head off restrictive
> rule making I think it a good idea to get ahead of the issue rather
> than arguing over how cycling problems are much less than motor vehicle
> problems.
>


If perception is the issue, then cycling advocates who want to "get
ahead of the issue" need to do more to change the common perception
that cycling is dangerous. We need to publicize the fact that cycling
is a relatively safe activity. (There is, after all, no such thing as
an absolutely safe activity.)

My article at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
was an attempt to do that. I think we need more efforts in that
direction.

FWIW, the League of American Bicyclists have sent out copies of
newspaper headlines like "Cyclist hit by truck on Main Street!!!!",
followed by pleas for money to "stop the tragedies" or some such tripe.
Entirely counterproductive, in my view.

- Frank Krygowski
 

Similar threads