Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Andrew Ekleberry

    No, it doesn’t make more sense that infrastructure spending should keep pace with population over GDP. GDP is how much wealth the country produces. Thus, GDP determines how much money we have to spend. If you make only $30,000 a year, and you pop out six kids, just because you have 6 kids, doesn’t mean you should spend 90% of your budget on housing. Does not matter how many kids you have, if you can’t afford a bigger house. Your spending should be within ratio of your income. Just like infrastructure spending, should be within ratio of your GDP.


    Mark Tedrow

    To be fair, there are two through lanes and two right turn lanes in each direction. The turn lanes just happen to extend back to the previous intersections. Traffic models, by the traffic engineer, showed queue lengths extending too far to shorten the queue lanes (according to the design professionals).
    Since there is no parking or drop off areas near the intersections, the overall road width is the same as many other streets in Boston.



    Thank you Chief Koss. Please continue to speak up. Cyclists and pedestrians need all the friends in law enforcement that we can get.



    Im a resident of Atwater Village and I do not prefer a road diet!!



    Of course, he qualifies it by suggesting he might overlook “going a little fast or distracted driving”… but small victories, I guess.


    Kevin Love

    Imagine that. Teenage children being immature and having poor judgement.

    Or perhaps the poor judgement is demonstrated by allowing children to drive two-ton lethal weapons. In civilized countries, car driving is restricted to adults, not children.


    James Conal

    In my opinion this is the best music producing software, some of the best producers use it to make their beats.



    the author of the “children aren’t welcome” story appears to live in Olympia, Washington; not Washington, DC



    This is great! There’s a whole chapter in Walkable City where Speck talks about how all computer models are shit and can be adjusted to prove just about anything. I’ve always thought it would be interesting to make a map of a city’s desire paths like in the second-to-last image to see what patterns emerge.



    There are some misleading statistics here.

    The first chart shows that spending is stable as a percent of GDP. But there is no reason for growth in infrastructure spending to keep up with growth in GDP. It makes more sense for infrastructure to keep up with population – so we have the same amount of transportation and water per person, not per dollar. If anything, we should want water use and transportation per person to decline, as we conserve water and build smart growth that requires less transportation.

    The second chart shows that cost of construction in dollars has increased. In combination with the first chart, this gives the impression that we are not keeping up with the rising cost of infrastructure – but in reality, the first chart shows spending as a percent of GDP, not spending in dollars, so the impression that we are not keeping up is misleading.

    I think that streetsblog readers realize that, in the past, we often built too much infrastructure. Robert Moses was the world champion in building infrastructure.

    As a result we have too much of some kinds of infrastructure (freeways) and too little of other kinds (public transit, rail, electrical grid). To those who conflate thenm all and just say we need more infrastructure, I respond


    John D

    I haven’t seen any research on this, but my opinion is that we are building significantly better infrastructure (part of the cost explanation)…

    the move to epoxy-coated rebar alone probably doubled the lifespan of reinforced concrete. foundation work is much more high-tech than at the advent of the highway era. where you can see the original concrete in the NYC subway system, it’s obviously of very poor quality with voids and grapefruit sized inclusions.


    Larry Littlefield

    That chart does call into question the funding shortage. And as for the “transportation specific” inflation index, it sounds a lot like what you here in other government-funded industries. We increase our pensions and gave ourselves raises, therefore our funding has dropped relative to our needs.

    In New York and New Jersey, at least, there is another side to the story, however. Spending that before the early 1990s was funded by taxes has been funded by debt since. So it is highly questionable whether that 2.4% spending as a share of GDP will continue.


    David Hembrow

    The junction which we ride through quickly at the start of that video is actually quite special. It’s one of three traffic light junctions in Assen which defaults to green for bikes so that we rarely stop there at all. In that case it’s actually one of three traffic lights in a row, two of which don’t apply to the cycle-path and one of which is the default to green.

    If I was to ride on the road in that location that would be very much slower than the cycle-path as a road cyclist potentially has to stop three times in a few hundred metres while on the cycle-path you usually don’t have to stop at all.

    More about default to green here:

    That particular junction can be seen in context here:

    Incidentally, that default to green traffic light, which rarely stops cyclists, was the only traffic light which featured on my nearly 20 mile each way commuting route a few years back. Rarely having to stop at all, and equally rarely having to slow down, are reasons why I usually averaged well over 20 mph on my commute:

    Cycling is efficient in the Netherlands. That is why Dutch people not only cycle a lot for their short journeys, but also make long journeys by bike far more often than people who live in other nations.


    Joe R.

    I won’t be one to denigrate you efforts although I will note with velomobiles the equipment can make a marked difference. For example, there’s this video shot in a Milan SL where the rider seems to be able to maintain upward of 70 km/hr:

    I actually want to eventually purchase one of these for myself, although in NYC I’ll probably need to take it on the highways to realize its full potential.

    Nobody really knows the ultimate potential of human-powered transportation. If we can perfect reliable laminar flow we could probably see peak speeds in excess of 100 mph, and cruising speeds of around 75 mph. We would just need to design places where such vehicles could run at those types of speeds.


    Joe R.

    You do have bridges though in some of the cities you mention where people riding in otherwise mostly flat territory would be faced with “hills”, albeit man-made in this case. The solution really isn’t that difficult, either. Put a barrier between both directions of bike traffic, and make the downhill portion a lot wider than the uphill portion. On some of the East River bridges we should probably design for up to 50 mph on the downhill side because those are speeds you may hit with a stiff tailwind (and NYC is quite windy much of the time). I personally hit 61 mph descending the Queensboro Bridge back in 1985, although I was in the car lanes (no bike specific lanes at the time).



    Education could make a difference. By teaching residents about induced demand and other facts about transportation planning, you would think that residents would make more informed decisions. Unfortunately, you’ve got to fight against decades of car culture and a strong pro-car anti-everything-else bias… it’s not easy.



    the sharp 90 degree turn slowed down the group of roadies.

    You have to do 90º turns VCing, as well. And whether you’re going right or left those often include stop signs and stop lights, which are greatly reduced with separated infrastructure.



    Things are often not what they seem….The route by car to end up heading in the same direction as you last see those cyclists going is now approximately 200 m longer than that by bike and drivers have to stop for a traffic light (with a sharp left turn on the road) and negotiate a roundabout before they can continue in the same direction

    Precisely. As someone who’s lived in the Netherlands and now is back in the US, I find the anti-infrastructurist handwringing over turns surprising.

    When I do a vehicular left here in SF due to lack of other options I often find myself 1) waiting till the last second of the light once oncoming cars stop and/or 2) waiting through a red light cycle in the left-turn lane before I can turn in the first place. And when you VC you also have to stop on a red when turning right, of course!

    Though I noticed that newer design in the Netherlands often prioritizes more modern designs, my experience is that even on stretches with frequent 4-way protected intersections you still get around quite fast.

    The fact that all your right turns are free and uninhibited and the 2-step lefts are–at worst!–no more time than what cars have to do makes it all move along swimmingly.



    And I agree that not all infra that can accommodate an 8yo is “infantile infra” (I like that term) but too many if the projects that PfB and the GLP have featured are just that!

    One thing worth pointing out…just because you drive a car that can go fast doesn’t mean you should expect to test its limits on a crowded commercial arterial. You can and should go elsewhere for that. Similarly, athletic sprinters are probably not going to choose this sidewalk to go their fastest:

    Why would someone on a bike expect to be able to exceed 25mph/40kph at *all times* regardless of spatial context? That’s unrealistic as per the social contract of sharing space with many others in built-up areas. Remember, PfB focuses on urban and suburban infrastructure such as this:

    No matter your mode on this urban commercial street, you’re not going faster than 20mph. And that’s ok!

    However, PfB in statements like that I called out, seems to allude that only protected infra will work.

    A low-stress network is only as good as its weakest links or people won’t use it. It makes sense for PfB to focus on the weakest links.

    But I’ve never heard them state that only protected infra will work anywhere, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

    Remember, even Portland’s arterials still mostly look like the arterial I linked above (that’s Sandy Blvd)–while you can go 25mph and probably faster on a nearby Neighborhood Greenway if you want a fast cross-town route, the 99% of people who don’t want to VC on a car-centric arterial are effectively cut off from key services along arterial corridors.

    So, they just drive, further reinforcing the infrastructural status quo.

    That Hembrow is able to keep up with them for over a minute is VERY telling.

    Huh? He’s posted several videos on his channel where he goes quite fast–if it’s even a competition–so I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

    Look, you can even go fast through a protected intersection!

    the Hembrow video you link to seems to show these roadies being held up by the infra.

    How so? At the beginning they were stopped at a red light waiting for cross traffic but that would’ve been the case were they biking with the cars, too. Also, in this particular case what you don’t see is the area after where the bikers later turn left corresponds to yet another traffic light for cars in the left-turn lane in the car roadway. Were they to VC there they’d be sitting and waiting for a left-turn light cycle yet again.

    This is not the case in the separated infra, which through various means prioritizes bike through-movement. In other words, they’re getting a free and fast left where they woudn’t VCing.

    Not to mention the fact that every time they turn right at intersections such as those you see in the beginning of the video it’s yet another free and fast right even if the cars have a red.

    Even by myself, I constantly found myself choosing the road when riding in Germany because even their 3 meter wide sidepaths could not be safely navigated at speeds greater than 50kph when going downhill!

    That’s kind of a separate issue in a few ways. Not the least of which is the fact that in the bigger picture of urban and suburban biking, the top biggest cities in the US either are entirely flat or the hilly areas that they have are their least dense. The list:

    1) NYC
    2) Los Angeles (flattest areas are densest. Hilly areas are mostly low density and/or recreational areas)
    3) Chicago
    4) Houston
    5) Philadelphia
    6) Phoenix
    7) San Antonio
    8) San Diego (somewhat similar pattern to LA)
    9) Dallas
    10) San Jose (very similar pattern to LA)

    As I’ve pointed out various times, that’s even true in SF. The densest areas in SF both in terms of residents and commercial/work hubs tend to correspond to the flattest areas (this is no coincidence–there are good historical reasons for this).

    So while hills do merit their own design considerations, at a high level raising the hills card as a protected-bike-lane killer is largely a distraction and ignores the low-hanging fruit where they *can* pervasively be implemented.



    Many neighbors and advocates pushed for no more than two through lanes in each direction. Unfortunately, there were enough other citizens who were very vocal about their fears of traffic congestion from losing the overpass that MassDOT included enough lanes so that they could guarantee it would handle all the traffic the overpass did (plus more.)



    Since the Highway Trust Fund has FOR YEARS been operating at a deficit – meaning the gas tax has NOT covered expenditures and the difference has been made up by GENERAL REVENUE diverted to the Highway Trust Fund, that ‘moral high ground’ no longer exists.


    Joe R.

    Your last sentence really illustrates the problem in a nutshell. There might be people who have great ideas and will be great leaders, but they simply lack the thick skin needed to continually fight those who are against them. Arguably, you’ll need such people to change the system to the one I suggest but those people wouldn’t ultimately become the leaders. What I’m saying here is the best people for the job are often incapable of getting that job due to the process. A great example of this with which I’m intimately familiar are scientists. They’re often great at what they do, but suck at getting funding for their research, or even at getting hired for the job in the first place, because they find the entire process both distasteful, and consider it a waste of their talents.

    On another note, I initially thought Obama might have been in the same league as some of the people you mentioned but he suffered from two problems. One, he doesn’t seem to have much of a spine to really fight for his ideas. Reagan was probably the last President who was good at that, even if he was arguably on the wrong side of history with trickle down economics. Two, he expended quite a bit of political capital getting his controversial health care plan passed. Instead, he should have expended it on far less controversial and far more useful infrastructure spending. Had he pushed things like HSR and better local transit, I think he may have made good progress despite his enemies in Congress.



    Let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You’re saying that 8-year-olds should not be able to safely ride to school or a friends house so that you can always ride 25 mph instead of occasionally having to slow to 20 mph?



    No, you didn’t explain how to get intelligent competent people into power. You’re assuming a deus ex machina change in system.

    I’ve spent decades studying *how you change the system*. You have to pay attention to that. How did Earl Grey pass the Great Reform Bill? How was the English Bill of Rights and the Glorious Revolution pushed through? How did FDR pass the New Deal? How did the Federalists push through the Constitution? How were the February and October revolutions accomplished? How did Sun-Yat-Sen oust the Dowager Empress?

    For what it’s worth, FDR, Lincoln, and Wilson were most certainly smeared heavily by the propaganda press of their time. They figured out how to bypass it and outcompete it, FDR with his “fireside chats”. Jefferson was a propaganda master himself.

    We need leaders who are on the right side, perhaps because of enlightened self-interest — but who are also completely merciless.



    Technically the war on drugs was started by the leftover Prohibitionists (look up the Marihuana Tax Act).



    Unfortunately, “three lanes in each direction” sounds like a death trap. It may be cheaper but it’ll probably be even more of a pedestrian barrier than the overpass. What about a road diet?


    David Hembrow

    Things are often not what they seem. Please note that until 2007 it was possible for car drivers to also make a left turn at that same location. It is no longer possible to make that left turn in that location by car.

    The route by car to end up heading in the same direction as you last see those cyclists going is now approximately 200 m longer than that by bike and drivers have to stop for a traffic light (with a sharp left turn on the road) and negotiate a roundabout before they can continue in the same direction. i.e. while you may think the left turn looks inconvenient by bike, and indeed it is a sharp turn which does require you to slow down, the overall effect is to actually make cycling more efficient than it would be if you cycled on the road.

    The location of the turn is here:


    Andy B from Jersey

    David, please. There was never an insult on your abilities as a cyclist in my statement. It was clear that you were going fast but it was also clear that the sharp 90 degree turn slowed down the group of roadies. That one ended up on the sidewalk was also telling.

    I like your videos and find them to be a useful teaching aid but one can come to a different conclusion than the one you are trying to make which is what I did.

    With respect and regards and nothing else.


    Ian Turner

    “Chinese Drivers Pay for Roads. Why Can’t Americans?” Bloomberg View


    David Hembrow

    I agree. It appears to be a significant step forward from North American standards of the past. Sharrows really should go, though, and I suspect that the concept of a “quiet” street acceptable to all is still some way removed from how quiet equivalent streets in the Netherlands are. Traffic calming is not really the point. It’s not just the speed of cars which is an issue, but also their presence. Such streets shouldn’t have any through traffic on them.


    David Hembrow

    What a bizarre view. How does my ability to keep up with a group for a short time make that group slow ?

    You appear to somehow imagine that my being able to (almost) keep up with a group of roadies for the very short period of one minute going like hell on my town bike somehow proves that they must be going slowly. Where’s the logic ? How slowly do you imagine that I cycle ? Why do you think that I cycle slowly ? I’m not the quickest guy out there, but I’m fitter than *you* think I am !

    In other videos taken on other occasions I catch up with and overtake roadies and mopeds. Do you think that indicates that they must be going extremely slowly ? I’ve averaged 45 km/h when racing for 3/4 of an hour, and very nearly 40 km/h when racing continuously for six hours.

    Can you do better ? If so, great. But what’s with this effort to denigrate my efforts ? Take your performance related insults someone else.


    Andy B from Jersey

    Again I’m not implying that protected infra is useless. It has its place as both you @Dennis_Hindman:disqus and @disqus_2xADSo7Zq7:disqus have so well articulated. However, PfB in statements like that I called out, seems to allude that only protected infra will work. Somehow this keeps popping up in their statements even though they make more moderate and measured statements at other times.

    And Gezellig, I love you man! ;), but the Hembrow video you link to seems to show these roadies being held up by the infra. That Hembrow is able to keep up with them for over a minute is VERY telling. A group this large of fit roadies should easily be able of cruising at 40kph (25mph). And I think we both agree that once you put hills into the equation, the usefulness of sidepath infra breaks down for roadie cyclists. Even by myself, I constantly found myself choosing the road when riding in Germany because even their 3 meter wide sidepaths could not be safely navigated at speeds greater than 50kph when going downhill!

    And yes, I hesitate at using the term “16 to 60″ for I too have ridden with some very fit 85 year olds!

    And I agree that not all infra that can accommodate an 8yo is “infantile infra” (I like that term) but too many if the projects that PfB and the GLP have featured are just that! I have ridden some of them, found them wanting and decided to use the motor vehicle traffic lanes or other parallel roadways.



    Streets which have lots of motorists and a bicycling infrastructure consisting of only signs does not increase the appeal for bicycling. Residential streets alone are difficult to create into a complete network of low-street routes without having some protected bike lanes or bike paths that connect them together. Residential streets are also not what most people use for the majority of the distance of their trips. Ever notice that there are few pedestrians or motorists on residential streets? Why would people traveling by bicycle not choose, like everybody else, arterial streets which are usually the fastest and most direct way to get somewhere? At least six times more adults responded that they would be willing to ride on a busy street that had a barrier to separate them from motorists compared to a conventional bike lane. Busy streets with no separation appealed to less than a sixth of the adults who would ride where there are bike lanes.

    The chart on page 6 of this 2013 bicycle count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition in the city of Los Angeles does not show any significant increase in bicycling with the installation of signed routes compared to streets without them. The volume of bicycling increases on streets with sharrows (mainly residential streets), more so on streets with bike lanes and finally the greatest amount on bike paths.

    The street level bike paths in the San Fernando Valley portion of the city of Los Angeles have users from preschoolers to adults in spandex on road bikes. About a month ago I rode along the Orange Line and Balboa Park bike paths on a Saturday afternoon and had different groups totaling of about 50-60 road bike riders dressed in racing gear pass me in a 15-minute time period as I headed east from the grand opening of the Reseda Blvd protected bike lane. These paths seemed to be very appealing to these road bike riders.

    It costs several time more than conventional bike lanes per mile to get a arterial street comfortable enough for a parent to feel its alright to have their 8-year old ride on it. This would have to involve at the minimum physical barriers to separate the motorists from bicycle riders and by doing this it also creates a broader appeal for potential adult users.

    “In God we trust, everyone else must bring data,” W. Edwards Deming–engineer, statistician and business consultant.



    For example a Signed Bicycle Route can be a totally appropriate bicycle facility for the “8 to 80 crowd” on roads with little traffic and/or have been traffic calmed.

    Yep. And many American cities already have these. But what they all too often don’t have is a comprehensive low-stress network.

    Sure, riding on that quiet residential street is nice. But what about when it ends here?

    Yes, yes, there are VC techniques for that. But fewer than even 1% of adults care to bike this way. And who can blame them? Sorry, that’s just not going to change if the infrastructural status quo is kept.

    This continued idea from Green Lane Project that anything but protected bike lanes is “Black Diamond Bike Infra”

    PfB has repeatedly stated the more holistic view of Low Stress Networks:

    Check out the first sentence!

    And there’s this:

    They didn’t even use the word protected bike lane–it’s just low-stress networks. Isabella presumably lives on a quiet residential street more or less suitable to shared-space environments like those many American cities already have in abundance.

    However, it’s at crucial points where the low-stress network fails. The glaring points are indeed where protected bike lanes can sometimes come in. They’re super important as a part of a cohesive whole, even if they form a numerically small number of streets.

    While smartly placed protected bike lanes are indeed disproportionately important per mile, I’ve never seen PfB or even any commenter here or in person suggest protected infra needs to be on every street.

    If designed for an 8 year old, the facility almost always become unusable for an adult cyclist with a modest amount of competence.

    “8-to-80″ is not synonymous with “infantilizing infrastructure.”


    Andy B from Jersey

    “…starting with bike infrastructure that will be useful to the smallest
    number of people and continuing into the more broadly appealing

    What a horribly biased and completely false statement! Each one of those solutions has an appropriate place and can be equally suitable for a wide variety of cyclists. For example a Signed Bicycle Route can be a totally appropriate bicycle facility for the “8 to 80 crowd” on roads with little traffic and/or have been traffic calmed.

    This continued idea from Green Lane Project that anything but protected
    bike lanes is “Black Diamond Bike Infra” is totally false and has
    angered many bike/ped planning professionals. Now citizens and
    politicians are demanding protect infra everywhere, even when it is not
    appropriate, cost effective or even the safest option.

    And to be honest, I’m really not liking this notion that all bicycle facilities need to be usable for 8 year old. If designed for an 8 year old, the facility almost always become unusable for an adult cyclist with a modest amount of competence. There are places, like local residential streets where designing for 8yo is appropriate but elsewhere I’d prefer the idea of facilities being usable for “16 to 60.”


    Alex Brideau III

    I know it’s an advisory committee to LADOT, not Public Works’ Bureau of Engineering. Here is their webpage:

    I often attend, though I’m not an official committee member.


    Marven Norman

    I’ve skimmed through them and I agree. They’d be a step backwards for the Dutch, but are certainly some of the more forward-thinking pieces I’ve seen in the American microcosm. As long as local advocates are acutely in tune with a project and the unique needs of bicyclists, these standards can certainly help the engineers do a much better job than they’ve thus far done in most places.



    The first one is very, very true.



    I haven’t read the report yet but it looks very promising and is very welcomed. I’m especially encouraged by the chart above that’s in the report and indicates a bit of the differences in different types of facilities. It’d be nice if they quantified this more in terms of the protection each offers and the likely size of the population that each will serve.

    This is quite a ways short of European design standards and of the CROW manual but appears a giant step forward from where U.S. traffic engineering has been.



    Alex, can you explain what power that advisory group has? I worry that it’s more of a forum for internal discussions and that groups such as the BOE do not see this highly skilled dedicated group as a voice of power and consideration in the City.


    John Bottleman

    The irony of your comment being that night time and off peak hours are when roads become the deadliest in terms of sparse speeding traffic, which is when lane reductions become most effective at saving lives. Regardless, the traffic study commissioned by the BOE shows that car volumes on this span have been flat for 10 years and in slight decline, which is why speeds were clocked at 55mph. All of this evidence points to a lane reduction as the best method for calming speeders and granting safe access to those who wish to travel without a car.



    Yech, I would hope we can do better than 30 years. I wouldn’t expect it (the US likes few things more than dead bicyclists), but I hope for it.


    Norman Green

    We drive across this bridge 2-3 times a week, and bike across it occasionally. It needs two lanes of vehicle traffic. Perhaps on weekends and holidays it could be reduced to one lane during day-light hours.



    What’s in those images are even better than the NACTO designs. I hope to see some of these in New York within the next 30 years.



    It would be nice if they could leave that relic behind at some point. I’ve seen them doing it in fairly urbanized neighborhoods like Downtown and Koreatown. Its bonkers.



    That’s actually a relic of LADOT’s design standards that call for roads to be wider than they actually are. The only way that comes to fruition is when a new development goes in and overhauls the sidewalk. That’s when LADOT says “hey, you gotta build the road to our design standards,” and the road gets wider in front of that new development.


    Joe Linton

    I am an L.A. bicyclist and I find this bridge pretty useful. There are only a handful of streets (4 streets in about 8 miles – drivers have those, plus 2 freeways) that cross the river, the 5 Freeway, and parallel rail tracks. None of these bridges are really optimal for walking or bicycling.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    It’s great that LA’s DOT has hired the brilliant Janette Sadik-Khan, who headed New York’s DOT and caused fundamental changes to occur in our streets. She was the first commissioner of that agency who saw her mandate as something other than exclusively serving the needs of drivers; she saw it as improving the conditions for all users of the streets, including those people whose interests had been neglected (namely, bicyclists and pedestrians) under the prevailing orthodoxy.

    Sadik-Khan oversaw the remaking of many New York streets to allow for more comfortable bicycling, thereby inducing even more people to take up riding. Under her commissionership, bicycling skyrocketed in New York, as did the quality of life of bicyclists. We here in New York miss her terribly.

    But, the only reason that Sadik-Khan had any success is that the mayor who appointed her, Michael Bloomberg, gave her unflagging support, defending her unapologetically in the face of relentless criticism and denunciation on the part of many other sectors of the establishment (including, by the way, on the part of the current mayor when he held the post of Public Advocate).

    Without support from the chief executive, no city agency, not even one headed by a visionary genius such as Sadik-Khan, could have made any difference in the design of our streets. So, while it is encouraging to see that LA’s DOT under its head Seleta Reynolds has retained such a prominent and accomplished expert in the field of livable streets as Sadik-Khan, this expert’s input will go to waste if the DOT’s initiatives are not strongly backed by Garcetti in the manner of Bloomberg.

    As to the bridge in question: I can say as someone who has never been to L.A., but who had until recently been planning a trip there (trip cancelled due to personal disaster; oy, long story), that this bridge looks like a pretty useful bike route. According to the elevation maps that I have seen, this bridge appears to be a convenient pass around much bigger hills. So making it even more attractive to bicyclists seems like a good idea.

    I’d be very interested to read any impressions that L.A. bicycists have of this bridge and its usefulness to bicyclists.


    Theodosius Cruizius

    That is the worst song about Los Angeles ever.

    here is the best:


    Theodosius Cruizius

    Nixon’s “silent majority” or do you mean dead people?