Can you make it to the market on a bike?



"John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
>>
>> > The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
>> > less than five miles an hour."
>>
>> The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
>> minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
>> occasionally to tell truth?
>>
>> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
>> (page 4)
>
> Jack
> The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
> arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
> certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
> type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?


Almost all real world statistics are non-Gaussian and the average is a poor
indicator. The table says the data uses averages

>
> in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
> situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
> look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
> travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See
> http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png.
> I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
> althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
> commutes.

Most real world statistics are power law which means the statistics for
different countries will be similar.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Jens Müller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?
>>> They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
>>> you really **** them off, they will do it on purpose.
>> Data, please. How often does that happen?
>
> This is ever the complaint of those who do not possess a lick of common
> sense.

This is ever the complaint of those trying to defend a statement they
have no evidence for whatsoever.

>>>> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.
>>> Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
>>> bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.
>> You're driving [riding] too far on the right.

> ???

The more right you drive, the less the distance motor-vehicle drivers
will keep when overtaking.

>>>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
>>>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
>>>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.
>>> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is
>>> up
>>> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.
>> No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.
>
> NEVER! Whenever a bike path crosses a road or street on which there are
> motor vehicles, the cyclist must stop, look and listen. If you don't do
> this, you will die like the dog that you are.
>
>>> By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.
>>>
>>>> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?
>>> I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!
>> "Common sense" ...
>>
>> Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.
>>
>> Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
>> Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
>> times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
>> exact situation.
>
> For Christ's sakes, when you are on a bike path crossing a road, you must
> stop, look and listen. What is there about this that you do not understand?
> Note well that I am talking about bike paths, not g.d. bike LANES on the
> streets.
>
Bike paths next to the carriageway, yes. They are part of the street and
thus subject to the same Vorfahrt rules.

Is your "must" a factual or a legal one?
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>
>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
>>> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.
>>
>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
>> tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
>> routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
>> give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.
>>
>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
>> vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem, and
>> you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see that
>> it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than being a
>> pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging on the
>> suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need bike
>> paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.
>
> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth
> responding to.

You know I'm right, little man.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the
> hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much
> democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.

Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the
reason there isn't bike lanes.

>> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
>> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
>> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish
>> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
>> greens spout off.
>
> We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and
> we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to
> get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.

Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.
 
On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
> cycling?-

A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
still "Made in USA"...

Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.
 
On Jul 25, 2:11 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of the
> > hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too much
> > democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is the
> reason there isn't bike lanes.

Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH
INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;)

>
> >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
> >> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is
> >> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish
> >> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
> >> greens spout off.
>
> > We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks) and
> > we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need to
> > get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.
>
> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.

OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key
West? No wonder people feel so free down there.
 
On Jul 25, 4:40 am, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
> > peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
>
> > RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
>
> > OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
> > listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
> > secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
> > of choice...
>
> > "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
> > nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
> > participation" -A. d. Benoist
>
> > Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
> > who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
> > waste of time --and money.
>
> > "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
>
> > "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
>
> > And this one...
>
> > "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
> > government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
>
> > Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.
>
> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

OK fine, we will have them with the revolution. The sheep in democracy
votes for the wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wolf couldn't care
less about bikes once in power. Take the lane and problem solved...

The Revolution Will Not be Motorized
by Robin Buckallew
So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the
world. So what? Quit *****ing and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get
off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your
ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but
early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the
world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the
change you want to see in the world".
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html

*WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE*
Yes, why not. If we are some more than a nuisance to drivers, then we
too belong in the lane, the middle of the lane that is, since we can't
be happy with the scraps of riding in the gutter, and then be
terrorized there too, like it happened to me the other day when a
black SUV blasted the horn in an act of intimidation. The Big Fish
eats the Little Fish, but the sardines had it. Well, the Jungle may
never be the same...

Please see 'RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS' at http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88
 
On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
> > driver.
>
> Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
> country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
>
> No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
> zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
> its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks.
Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.
 
On Jul 25, 12:16 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
> > of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
> > because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
> > information from it.
>
> You only need to die once in order to be quite dead.

Unless you believe you can enjoy biking in Heaven. I don't. :(
 
On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be
> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is that
> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the
> lane with motor vehicles.

They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads
will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we
insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing
from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though...

http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon:&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution!&l4=

THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
>> cycling?-
>
> A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
> still "Made in USA"...
>
> Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.
>
>

Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the
production and delivery of a gallon of milk?

Tony
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
>>> driver.
>> Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
>> country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.
>>
>> No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
>> zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
>> its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.
>
> I would avoid both to ride bikes among cars and to swim among sharks.
> Sometimes they are hungry, sometimes they are plain stupid.


Cars are always stupid.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 3:06 am, "Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
>>> cycling?-
>>
>> A gallon of milk is better than a gallon of gas. Hopefully the milk is
>> still "Made in USA"...
>>
>> Gas guzzlers are feeding injustice and terrorism.
>>
>>
>
> Do you know how much gas is consumed and methane produced in the
> production and delivery of a gallon of milk?

Hm, not sure how much gas goes into the production of a 50 lb bag of feed,
but a good dairy goat will eat approximately 1-2 lb of feed a day. My
friend buys hers 400 lb at a time, because that will fit in her storage bin.
2 miles to the feed store, so 4 miles round trip. At 20 mpg, that is .2
gallons of gas per 400 lb of feed, or roughly .001 gal gas/day. Most goats
will produce between .75-1.5 gal milk per day, depending on how recently
they've given birth and when they are scheduled to be bred again.
Non-milking goats need to be fed almost nothing most of the year, except
kids. So if you factor in energy cost of production of the feed + feeding
studs and goats to breeding age, probably a good guess would be .01-.03 gal
gas/gal milk. I drive about 1 mile to get milk.

Goats usually don't fart unless they're sick, but they belch fairly
regularly.

I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.

HTH;

Amy
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.
>

If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with
their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact
that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end up
with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is about 17
miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car like the Prius.
And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel consumption of agriculture
in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport and distribution.

Surprised?

Tony
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 25, 2:11 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Some things are worth doing for the sake of civilization regardless of
>> > the
>> > hoi polloi who do not know their asses from a hole in the ground. Too
>> > much
>> > democracy in action is a recipe for disaster.
>>
>> Hey, all I'm saying is that don't think it's a lack of democracy that is
>> the
>> reason there isn't bike lanes.
>
> Oh yes. Democratic societies would build BIKE LANES and have HEALTH
> INSURANCE, though I don't know how the last one applies here. ;)

Errr, no they wouldn't. The last might be true if most people didn't have
health insurance.

>> >> I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot
>> >> cheaper than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding
>> >> is
>> >> the perfect antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I
>> >> wish
>> >> the naysays would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic
>> >> greens spout off.
>>
>> > We need bike paths going every which way (just as we need sidewalks)
>> > and
>> > we also need mass transit going every which way. The main thing we need
>> > to
>> > get rid of is the god damn private motor vehicle.
>>
>> Nah, we need people who can learn to live with other forms of
>> transportation, whether it be cars or bicycles.
>
> OK, and where are they coexisting? Perhaps in small places like Key
> West? No wonder people feel so free down there.

Well... not in a lot of places. We need to change some policies changed in
this country, along with some fundamental assumptions. I won't get into
them, other than to say that the one that comes to mind is that driving is a
"right" and not a "priveledge".
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 25, 4:40 am, "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
>> > peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
>>
>> > RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
>>
>> > OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
>> > listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
>> > secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
>> > of choice...
>>
>> > "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
>> > nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
>> > participation" -A. d. Benoist
>>
>> > Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
>> > who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
>> > waste of time --and money.
>>
>> > "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
>>
>> > "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
>>
>> > And this one...
>>
>> > "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
>> > government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
>>
>> > Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
>> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
>> therefor
>> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.
>
> OK fine, we will have them with the revolution. The sheep in democracy
> votes for the wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wolf couldn't care
> less about bikes once in power. Take the lane and problem solved...
>
> The Revolution Will Not be Motorized
> by Robin Buckallew
> So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the
> world. So what? Quit *****ing and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get
> off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your
> ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but
> early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the
> world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the
> change you want to see in the world".
> http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html
>
> *WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO TAKE THE LANE*
> Yes, why not. If we are some more than a nuisance to drivers, then we
> too belong in the lane, the middle of the lane that is, since we can't
> be happy with the scraps of riding in the gutter, and then be
> terrorized there too, like it happened to me the other day when a
> black SUV blasted the horn in an act of intimidation. The Big Fish
> eats the Little Fish, but the sardines had it. Well, the Jungle may
> never be the same...

I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me) and
I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car people
are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you
could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or whatever,
and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good.

> Please see 'RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS' at
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88
>
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen
>>>>> is because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
>>>>> therefor do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.
>>>>
>>>> Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't:
>>>> they tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions,
>>>> provide routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and
>>>> routing) and give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on
>>>> the roads.
>>>>
>>>> The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm
>>>> sure, vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a
>>>> problem, and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you
>>>> can see that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous
>>>> than being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's
>>>> verging on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus
>>>> we need bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.
>>>
>>> What an idiot - in fact, such an idiot that he is not even worth
>>> responding to.
>>
>> You know I'm right, little man.
>
> Examine Peter Clinch's self-serving signature and then examine mine. Now
> you know who is Great and who is a midget and a dwarf. Ah, for the good
> old days of Victorian and Edwardian England!

What? Who the fsck is Peter Clinch?
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
> >> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and
> >> therefor
> >> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.
> >
> > We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
> > children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
> > but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
> > that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
> > injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
> > comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
> > well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
> > double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
> > emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
> > versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.
>
> Bike lanes are not as safe as many imagine them to be. An idiotic driver can
> easily wipe you out and then claim that he never saw you.

We weren't talking about how "safe" they were. The issue was whether
the government would install them given that most people don't ride
bicycles. I pointed out that most voters have children and those
children ride bicycles.

> > In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
> > and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
> > separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
> > bicycle/pedestrian paths.
>
> Bike paths are the only way to go. They are extremely safe as long as you
> keep your speed down.

Not true, unless the paths don't cross streets very often. A
bi-directional path paralleling a street is dangerous at every
intersection. It's been shown that riding the wrong way on a
sidewalk is several times more dangerous than riding in the
same direction as traffic on a roadway (with the accidents
occuring at the intersections).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea about cows, but it's probably fairly similar.
>>
>
> If you divide the amount of methane produced per annum by cows with
> their annual milk production and multiply by 30 to allow for the fact
> that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 you end
> up with about 3.5kg of CO2 equivalent per gallon of milk. That is
> about 17 miles of a 200g/km car or 35 miles of a low emission car
> like the Prius. And that allows nothing for the fossil fuel
> consumption of agriculture in farm vehicles, fertiliser, transport
> and distribution.
> Surprised?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. "They" don't want to hear this.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bike paths are the way to go and surely in the future there will be
>> thousands and thousands of miles of such paths everywhere. The fact is
>> that
>> none of us are safe on the roads and highways where we have to share the
>> lane with motor vehicles.
>
> They won't happen without a revolution. No political will. Our roads
> will remain a jungle until the end of times, which is near if we
> insist on launching war over precious resources. "Saving" is missing
> from the American English Dictionary. There's hope though...
>
> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon:&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution!&l4=
>
> THE BANANA REVOLUTION
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

Cuckoo, cuckkoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Bike Dealer mag cover bent market health?
Replies
31
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Jeff Potter
J
G
A Dragonflyer on the market
Replies
0
Views
484
Recumbent bicycles
gotbent
G
S
RANS should look to Low End Market
Replies
2
Views
598
Recumbent bicycles
dlhii
D
T
Market research, responses needed please!!
Replies
0
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
trike2005
T
C
  • Locked
Wireless Computers for recumbents Revisited or a new look at some GPS on the market
Replies
4
Views
848
Recumbent bicycles
John Riley
J
Top Bottom Back