Tickets to ride: more citations

ggw · 2012-11-29 08:18:15

@Mallory Art

I empathize. I haven't met anyone who isn't affected by this sort of public humiliation.. regardless. I can testify that for the most egregious ones some of the mental baggage will remain.

I don't know how to minimize the possible long term effect. Are there any psychologists reading this that have suggestions?

You should evaluate the "education mitigation" option. I didn't. After it was all completed I didn't save any money and had my work schedule disrupted by the requirements. However, one might squeeze worth out of the process because you end up rubbing shoulders in an extended manner with fellow citizens in a distinctly abnormal way... a lot like serving on juries.

Please believe that what happened to you was a random hook thrown into a huge school of fish. It won't happen anytime again soon. The infraction on your record is inconsequential unless you ever might be in a position of public trust (what a phrase!) where it might be brought up by your opposition. Barring that, "erasure" should be a non-consideration.

At the least you have yet one more of the scars of life that slowly accumulate. At party circle chats those grant you a nod of the head in a world weary way.

cycling74 · 2012-11-29 10:04:03

MalloryArt wrote:

The problem I have with this whole situation is; in the time I was getting pulled over, and immediately after, I saw multiple driving infractions that were not addressed in any way.

You stood out in the crowd and got noticed. That's a good thing. My number one goal when riding in traffic is guaranteeing people see me. Sure they sometimes see me roll through that stop sign or stop, look, and proceed through that stop light, but they do see me. It's when they don't see you that you have a serious problem.

Very rarely will a driver see you and then still try to run you over. That almost never happens.

Also, make certain you don't roll through stops in front of any cops. They tend to take it personally, thinking you saw them and still did it. And yeah, the bicycle infraction can affect your auto insurance too. Better get it wiped off your record.

dougmc · 2012-11-29 10:16:44

MalloryArt wrote:

The problem I have with this whole situation is; in the time I was getting pulled over, and immediately after, I saw multiple driving infractions that were not addressed in any way.

The reality is ... the guy who ticketed you is only one cop. He can't pull over everybody at once. He picked one offender (you) and ticketed them.

The reality is ... you've probably run lots of red lights (all when you can safely do so, of course) and just always got away with it until now. I'm totally with you that you wait until it's safe to do so, but the reality is -- it's still against the law, and you're still taking a risk of a ticket.

Motorists break the law when it's safe to do so as well, and they usually get away with it as well -- but not always.

but honestly it makes me want to be an A-hole and starting using the full lane (so as to avoid the situation I just mentioned) and not try hard to get over to the right to allow cars to pass.

I'm not sure I get the connection between a ticket for running a red light and taking the full lane, but if you are in a situation where taking the full lane is safer (which is most situations where you don't have a shoulder or bike lane), then absolutely, you should do it. If you want to move over to let somebody pass, feel free, but do it on your own terms.

However, it feels pretty crappy to be seen and treated as a second class citizen because I choose a healthier option of commuting, both for myself and the environment.

You're a second class citizen because you actually got a ticket? The cop doesn't care about your healthier option of commuting -- he cares that you broke the law.

As for taking the class, if you've never done it before, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to do the ACA class to dismiss the ticket. (The city only lets you do it every year or two, mirroring the defensive driving rules.)

MichaelBluejay · 2012-11-29 14:30:09

dougmc wrote:

You're a second class citizen because you actually got a ticket?

No, I think the complaint is that he got ticketed while drivers who were breaking the law and being a more dangerous public threat, weren't. None of us can complain about getting ticketed when we run afoul of the rules, but we can sure complain about it when there's a disparity in how justice is meted out. When bicyclists go to JAIL (not just a ticket) for riding on the sidewalk, while drivers who run red lights and kill cyclists don't even get cited for traffic infractions, it does tend to fan the flames.

dougmc · 2012-11-29 18:07:57

MichaelBluejay wrote:

No, I think the complaint is that he got ticketed while drivers who were breaking the law and being a more dangerous public threat, weren't.

Well, a cop isn't going to stop writing somebody a ticket for a minor traffic violation just so he can go give another person a ticket for a minor traffic violation.

When bicyclists go to JAIL (not just a ticket) for riding on the sidewalk, while drivers who run red lights and kill cyclists don't even get cited for traffic infractions, it does tend to fan the flames.

Yes, that was screwed up. But didn't the sidewalk riding arrest happen like 15 years ago? Your page says late 90s.. Have there been more? Certainly, that's very much the exception rather than the rule.

I was there when Mistric was threatening to arrest cyclists who ran red lights a few years back -- that would be a more recent incident -- but as far as I know, he never did follow through on his threat. (I suspect the video of him saying that got showed to his superiors who said "um, no".)

As for motorists who screw up and kill somebody, the general lack of penalty is pretty well established no matter who the victim is -- another motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. The only reliable ways for an actual penalty to be assigned are 1) for the offending motorist to be found to be drunk or driving extremely recklessly (double or triple the speed limit, fleeing from the police, etc.) or 2) for the victim to be a police officer -- and generally even for #2, the penalty is usually a class C misdemeanor moving violation of some sort -- having one of their own killed motivates them to do *something*, but the need to support their claim in a court tends to rule out anything more serious.

MichaelBluejay · 2012-11-29 18:26:20

Who said anything about an officer stopping a ticket to give someone else a ticket? I think the issue is that the cop had lots of choices for whom to give a ticket, and he chose the person who was probably the least public threat.

You say "the" sidewalk-riding arrest as though it happened just once. It didn't. I don't remember how many cases I heard of, and I probably didn't hear of all of them. I don't know when the last incident was -- I no longer try to track this stuff.

Being drunk is *not* a reliable way for a cyclist-killing motorist to face justice. Melissa Graham was so drunk she was barely conscious when she killed Andrew Turner and hit Heather Sealey, but faced no penalty. And drunk Armando Reza intentionally rammed cyclists, while drunk, and without a license, and was sentenced to only 10 days in jail.

savanni · 2012-11-29 19:08:47

The cyclist in this case was the first one out. She put that in her post to begin with. Thus the only one breaking the law at the time. What, is the cop supposed to sit back and wait to see a whole bunch of people breaking the law and *then* decide?

Come on. This is not a defensible attack of the cop. Let's stay focused on the cops who are actually harassing cyclists who are not breaking the law.

MichaelBluejay · 2012-11-29 22:18:40

savanni wrote:

What, is the cop supposed to sit back and wait to see a whole bunch of people breaking the law and *then* decide?

Yeah, pretty much, considering that the "wait" time would probably be near nil. If you had to wait a long time to see a driver break the law, then I'd agree with you. But we all know that's not the case. From a public safety standpoint, it makes sense to target those who are the greater public safety threat.

Of course I wouldn't be so sensitive about this issue if drivers who injure and kill others were reliably penalized, but we all know that's not the case either. The driver who ran a red light and killed a YBP volunteer didn't even get a ticket for running the red light. The cyclist who started this thread -- and who didn't actually injure anyone -- got a greater punishment.

m1ek · 2012-11-30 09:59:57

Mallory, left on red is legal in at least one scenario in Austin (one-way to one-way). Running a yellow light is also not illegal. Recommend you focus on what you unquestionably did wrong rather than focusing on all the others, because running a red light is not, despite the self-serving justifications you sometimes hear, going to make you more safe.

jma6610 · 2012-11-30 21:45:19

I find myself agreeing with doug and savanni. Let's not blame the cop here. It's unrealistic to think that he could have simply let one person go who is already stopped just to get another. ...and although I don't think that the original poster mentioned it, but wasn't this a bike cop? What did you want him to do, chase after a car on a bike?

It's also unrealistic to suggest that "from a public safety standpoint, it makes sense to target those who are the greatest threat..." if that were the case, then thieves would be ignored simply because folks are also committing robberies and robbers would be ignored because people are committing murder. I admit this is an extreme example, but the point is that people should not have the idea that they can ignore certain moderately serious law violations simply because others are committing other violations are more serious. I might fault a cop who specifically spends his or her time out on more rural roads specifically targeting cyclists who very clearly aren't causing problems going through a sign when no one is around, but I don't see evidence of that here.

MichaelBluejay · 2012-11-30 23:24:04

jma6610 wrote:

It's also unrealistic to suggest that "from a public safety standpoint, it makes sense to target those who are the greatest threat..." if that were the case, then thieves would be ignored simply because folks are also committing robberies and robbers would be ignored because people are committing murder.

That's a terrible analogy. The better comparison would be to a cop witnessing a theft and a robbery at the same time, or a robbery and a murder at the same time. If the cop then went after the lesser criminal then yeah, it would be poor judgement. Drivers are constantly rolling stop signs and going through the first second or so of red lights at most intersections in the central city. One can find a ticketable offense by a driver nearly immediately.

Again, I'm not excusing law-breaking by cyclists. We should all certainly expect to get ticketed if we break the law. It's just that based on the history (including, but not limited to, ARREST of cyclists for minor traffic infractions, while declining to arrest at-fault drivers who kill or injure cyclists, and my witnessing cops commit felonies first-hand, including physically assaulting me for fun), it's very easy to believe that the police often have misplaced priorities.

jma6610 · 2012-12-02 22:41:43

It's not a terrible analogy at all. What seems to be clear is that you have labelled all of the cops with the same brush and are grossly overgeneralizing a few cases claiming that "the police" do something when what you're really describing is a single police officer doing something you don't like. Police officers are individuals and have a good bit of discretion in how to handle various matters. You seem to be suggesting that there is some type of formal organizational bias against cyclists. I'm not saying that this is not possible, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that it is occurring in Austin - perhaps in some small town elsewhere in Texas, but I don't see the evidence here. Would I believe that individual officers make bad decisions occasionally - absolutely - just like people do in any organization. ...but I simply see no evidence that there is some widespread anti-cycling bias as you imply.

...and there is simply no way that the officer in question in this particular incident saw multiple simultaneous violations - while I haven't lived in Austin all that long, I have never observed 2 traffic violations simultaneously, and I have never "immediately" observed an offense worthy of a ticket when I have been out driving.

MichaelBluejay · 2012-12-02 23:37:06

I'm sorry, but you're seriously misrepresenting me.

What seems to be clear is that you have labelled all of the cops with the same brush and are grossly overgeneralizing a few cases...

No, I don't believe that most officers are bad or will illegally abuse citizens. But a large enough percentage of them do, sure. Why did they fight tooth and nail against having an independent police monitor or a citizens' review board? Why did they so strongly oppose any oversight to weed out the "few bad apples"?

You seem to be suggesting that there is some type of formal organizational bias against cyclists.

No. It's not "organizational", it's just that police are simply *people* and they have bias against cyclists for the same reason that non-police officer *people* do. Whatever percentage of the general population carries that bias, is likely reflected when citizens become police officers. I don't think that people suddenly, magically lose their bias when they become cops.

I simply see no evidence that there is some widespread anti-cycling bias as you imply.

Among the general population or among cops? You think that neither has bias, or that the general population does but that somehow police are immune to it? Evidence of bias is widespread: The Chronicle just said that inattentive drivers "are as much a public threat as cyclists who don't use their damn hand signals". Blowing something ridiculously out of proportion like that is a splendid example of bias. We also see drivers constantly complaining about cyclists who "break the law", who never complain about other *drivers* breaking the law, even though they're the ones causing the carnage. A few years ago I barely rolled a stop sign downtown after just barely not coming to an absolute stop; I'm sure I slowed more than a non-trivial percentage of drivers at that intersection. Yet an SUV driver felt compelled to turn his vehicle around to lecture me about how bicyclists are supposed to follow the law "like drivers". (A pedestrian who witnessed the whole thing volunteered that I didn't do anything wrong and that the driver was just a jerk.) And then we have the massive evidence about at-fault drivers facing little to no consequences for hurting and killing cyclists. So you're welcome to your opinion that there's no such thing as bias against cyclists, but the evidence tells me otherwise.

I have never observed 2 traffic violations simultaneously, and I have never "immediately" observed an offense worthy of a ticket when I have been out driving.

Wow. I think if you sit at any busy intersection in town you'd see drivers running the red on pretty much every cycle, and drivers rolling stop signs at least every couple of minutes. If you include not signaling turns or not stopping before the marked stop line, we're talking well over 50% of drivers.

glockdoc · 2012-12-03 12:44:50

I was in Round Rock the other day, believe it was the east side of 620/I35 frontage with the redlight cam looking north. The lite changed and the cars kept on coming- I didn't think that cam would ever stop flashing. That has got to be a real cashcow for the city of RR.

jma6610 · 2012-12-05 00:40:10

No, I don't believe that most officers are bad or will illegally abuse citizens. But a large enough percentage of them do, sure. Why did they fight tooth and nail against having an independent police monitor or a citizens' review board? Why did they so strongly oppose any oversight to weed out the "few bad apples"?

I suspect that "they" fought a citizen's review board for the same reason that police departments in many areas of the country fight them - because they are notorious for not working well, demoralizing police departments, acting capriciously, and acting in a way that will likely bring legal liability to the city.

It's not "organizational", it's just that police are simply *people* and they have bias against cyclists for the same reason that non-police officer *people* do. Whatever percentage of the general population carries that bias, is likely reflected when citizens matriculate to become police officers. I don't think that people suddenly, magically lose their bias when they become cops.

You seem to have a very negative view of people in general then. I've run into my share of poor drivers who are a hazard to everyone including cyclists. I've also run into a few who clearly have a bias against bikes. ...but when I can see a driver's expression while riding, they are generally smiling at me and not swearing. ...particularly when I'm riding a tandem. Everyone seems to love tandems. ...back to the point, those few individuals whom I have come across who don't seem to like bikes also don't impress me as being good drivers. I see your point about the fact that the cops are people and won't lose their biases when getting the job, but there is also clearly a self-selection mechanism where people who are younger, more fit, and likely better drivers are more likely to be attracted to police work than are those who are otherwise. ...and then there is another selection/filter mechanism called a background check that is going to weed out from law enforcement careers the criminals, those with poor driving records, those with substantial medical problems, those with poor eye-sight, etc. ...and I strongly suspect that the characteristics that I just mentioned are the ones most associated with poor driving and anti-bike bias. In other words, I simply don't buy your argument that the proportion of anti-bike cops vs. other cops is the same (or higher) than the proportion of anti-bike-non-cops vs. other-non-cops. I would strongly suggest that it would be lower than the the anti-bike bias among the general public. ...and the anti-bike bias by the general public I am sure is much lower than what you suggest. I simply have not met a single person who has observed me ride to work or who has seen bike gear in my office or home make negative comments - in contrast, all of the comments I've ever heard have been positive. ...and this includes the comments of every police officer I've ever personally known or spoken to. Do you think that the average cop also has a bias against bike-patrol officers?

Among the general population or among cops? You think that neither has bias, or that the general population does but that somehow police are immune to it? So you're welcome to your opinion that there's no such thing as bias against cyclists, but the evidence tells me otherwise.

What evidence? You're providing selected anecdotes. I must admit that I am also, but I'll admit it.
I'm not saying that there is no anti-bike bias among selected individuals, but I simpy do not see it as widespread as you - among the cops nor among the public. Again, you seem to have a very negative view of people in general. Perhaps I'm just an optomist.

Wow. I think if you sit at any busy intersection in town you'd see drivers running the red on pretty much every cycle, and drivers rolling stop signs at least every couple of minutes. If you include not signaling turns or not stopping before the marked stop line, we're talking well over 50% of drivers.

...not sure where you drive, but I used to drive over 50 hours per week and have never observed the type of thing you're speaking about. Are you sure that you're defining "running a red light" correctly? I would guess that the definition of running a red light in TX is similar to most other states - the light has to be red *before* you enter the intersection to be considered a violation. If you're already in the intersection when it turns red, or you enter while yellow, it might not be good driving, but it isn't illegal. ...and an intersection generally starts back at the crosswalk, so the legal standard is pretty high. I do see a number of drivers go through yellow lights when they probably shouldn't - but shouldn't doesn't equate to illegal.

MichaelBluejay · 2012-12-05 01:50:41

jma6610 wrote:

I suspect that "they" fought a citizen's review board for the same reason that police departments in many areas of the country fight them - because they are notorious for not working well, demoralizing police departments...

Yeah, nothing keeps morale high like having absolutely no oversight!

You seem to have a very negative view of people in general then.... What evidence? You're providing selected anecdotes.

Feel free to look it up. Back when I tracked these things, the percentage of serious car-bike collisions that were hit-and-runs was near 50%. Recent experience shows that this hasn't changed all that much. Next time you look out over a sea of cars, realize that half of those drivers, if they hit you, are quite willing to leave you for dead. But don't let that sour your opinion about people or anything.

Are you sure that you're defining "running a red light" correctly? I would guess that the definition of running a red light in TX is similar to most other states - the light has to be red *before* you enter the intersection to be considered a violation.

Absolutely. I see that very thing all the time. Not long ago, had I stepped off the curb when the light turned to WALK, I would have been creamed by a driver running a light that was indeed red before he entered the crosswalk. And that's not an isolated incident -- you can see these things all day, every day, if you care to look. Just hang out at any intersection.

jma6610 · 2012-12-05 23:05:14

Feel free to look it up. Back when I tracked these things, the percentage of serious car-bike collisions that were hit-and-runs was near 50%. Recent experience shows that this hasn't changed all that much. Next time you look out over a sea of cars, realize that half of those drivers, if they hit you, are quite willing to leave you for dead. But don't let that sour your opinion about people or anything.

That's a complete non-sequitur. Let's assume that you're correct that the percentage of car-bike collisions that were hit-and-runs is near 50%. That seems a bit high, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that's true. To proclaim, however, that this implies that the percentage of all drivers who would commit a hit-and-run on a bike simply goes well beyond your first statement. First, most bike-car accidents are the fault of the car driver and often they are doing something extremely bad. Many are drunk, driving without licenses, driving with revoked or suspended licenses, etc. Many hit-and-runs are drunk drivers who are fleeing not simply because they caused an accident, but because they are afraid of being arrested for drunk driving. ...and seriously injuring someone while drunk implies an additional penalty. ...or driving without a valid license.

Although the prevalence of drunk driving is certainly far too high as is the prevalence of folks driving without valid licenses, you simply can't assume that most automobile operators fall into these categories.

Going further, how are you defining, "anti-bike bias" - how would you propose measuring this ? What percentage of the public do you believe has an "anti-bike bias" ? If it is a high percentage, how might that correspond to the number of bikes owned by many families ? Can a parent have an "anti-bike bias" if they have a few bikes in their garage that are ridden by their kids? At what point is it fair to say that the public in general or the police have an "anti-bike bias" - are we speaking about a majority (e.g., 51% or higher ?) Are you proclaiming that it is most of the public and police (perhaps 95%?).

Do you really have that dim an opinion about people in general and car drivers in particular?

In my short 30 mile ride today, I had no less than 4 people wave and smile at me. When I got a flat right as I was coming to a convenience store and was changing it outside, at least 2 asked if I was okay and another few smiled as I put the tire back on and asked if everything was fixed. I had absolutely no one give me any indication that they had an "anti-bike bias." What are you doing out on the road to get so many people mad at you if you think that half would not mind killing you ?

MichaelBluejay · 2012-12-05 23:26:52

jma6610 wrote:

Do you really have that dim an opinion about people in general and car drivers in particular?

When I start seeing only a trivial percentage of drivers selfishly putting others at risk by using cell phones while driving,
when I start seeing the percentage of serious car-bike collisions that are hit-and-runs go far below 50%,
when I start seeing at-fault drivers routinely face real consequences for hurting and killing cyclists and pedestrians,
when the media stops equating "cyclists who don't use their damn hand signals" as "just as much a public threat" as inattentive drivers,
when drivers realize that it's the law-breaking *drivers* that are the real threat and stop lecturing cyclists,
then no doubt my opinion about people in general and drivers specifically will improve.

Until then, I see no reason to be a pollyanna.

What are you doing out on the road to get so many people mad at you if you think that half would not mind killing you ?

Oh, you know, trying to cross the street when the light changes to Walk. Things like that.

savanni · 2012-12-06 00:11:30

Of the three cyclists killed this year and the one still in critical condition (who may yet die? Any word on his current condition?), only one was not a hit-and-run collision. And in that case (Verter Ginestra), the police know who it was and released everything short of the man's name to the news media, but never charged him with anything though he was actually breaking multiple traffic laws at the time he hit the cyclist.

So far as I can tell from social conversation, the anti-bike bias runs around 80% or higher. They can have bikes, but they clearly consider bikes to be toys that should *never* be taken outside of a neighborhood. They miss no opportunity to lecture me about the bikers who break the law (who, incidentally, frequently piss me off as much as they piss of drivers, and that is even when I am *ON* my bike). I respond by slowly discovering who these 80% are and cutting them out of my life.

*however*

While there are a ton of negligent drivers out there (cars have significantly more kinetic energy than bullets, so they should be regulated and policed the same as firearms), there are vanishingly few actually malicious drivers. Just... tons of people with a "me first" complex who believe that their convenience or their "thrill of speed" or "thrill of the open road" should trump my safety.

Finally, so far as the justice system in this country goes, I would not expect actual justice in a car/bicycle collision outside of Portland, Oregon. APD gave a very loud message with Ginestra's death earlier this year that they don't care. I know I could find some officers who disapprove of how cyclists get treated on the roads, but as an institution, this seems to hold. I'm not quite cynical enough to take the next logical step in the argument.

ggw · 2012-12-06 19:45:16

So there is a driver perception of cyclists problem.
I propose that drivers DO see cyclists as a threat.
That feeling is misplaced, but is, none the less, felt.
I haven't run across much discussion of that phenomenon. I have a scenario that illustrates this + 2 first hand accounts of drivers that I know displaying that behavior.

George Wyche

MichaelBluejay · 2012-12-06 20:15:32

George, I'm sure we'd all like to hear your experiences!

dougmc · 2012-12-06 22:03:18

savanni wrote:

Of the three cyclists killed this year and the one still in critical condition (who may yet die? Any word on his current condition?), only one was not a hit-and-run collision. And in that case (Verter Ginestra)

Four in town, and Verter was killed just outside of town, so if he's included, five.

There is one cyclist who was kneeling next to his bike, so the police are considering him a pedestrian, that's where the three figure comes from. (I think that case was also not a hit and run.)

As for the critical condition cyclist, I think you mean Brian Lindquist. He's improving, but has a lot of healing left to do.

So far as I can tell from social conversation, the anti-bike bias runs around 80% or higher.

My odds seem a lot better than that. That said, I don't really care if somebody is anti-bike, as long as they still behave reasonably around them -- and fortunately, the vast majority of drivers do.

ggw · 2012-12-06 22:32:30

I am too wordy so this will come out in several posts (if it seems
germane).

Basically, motorists can freak out at their 1st close encounter with a
cyclist, andriline flowing (think fight and/or flight). Later, any (all?)
cycling infractions that might conceivably run the motorist's subconscious
by that palpable stress cause the subliminally thought, "They have the
nerve to put me through this pain over and over".

After I present my illustration + 2 "close encounters" from people I know,
maybe we can talk about ways that might address this.

George Wyche

dougmc · 2012-12-06 22:42:00

MichaelBluejay wrote:

Next time you look out over a sea of cars, realize that half of those drivers, if they hit you, are quite willing to leave you for dead.

This logic isn't quite right -- in reality, the majority of drivers would seem to be decent people who would stop.

The reason for the "50% hit and run after killing a cyclist or pedestrian" figure is that a significant percentage (over half?) of the motorists who hit cyclists/pedestrians hard enough to kill them are drunk, and 1) drunk people are far more more likely to cause fatal collisions (and collisions in general), 2) aren't known for making good decisions, and 3) are likely to be subject to severe penalties if caught -- encouraging them to attempt to flee the scene. If you're sober and not racing or fleeing from the police at the time, you aren't likely to get any penalty more than a possible moving violation even if the collision is totally your fault -- but if drunk, it gets much worse.

So perhaps 90% of the drivers out there would stop and aid a cyclist if they hit them -- but the problem is that that remaining 10% are much worse drivers than the 90% (either they're drunk, or they have a record of bad driving and are afraid of the penalties of further issues), so they're much more likely to cause such collisions.

I suspect that this reasoning also applies to motorists who strike other motorists as well, but there's far fewer hit and runs there because any collision serious enough to kill somebody in a car is usually serious enough to make it impossible for the car to leave the scene.

biker140 · 2013-05-04 12:23:27

Stupid cop, doesn't he know the rules don't apply to bikes????

Bicycle Austin forum

#51 2012-11-29 08:18:15

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#52 2012-11-29 10:04:03

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#53 2012-11-29 10:16:44

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#54 2012-11-29 14:30:09

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#55 2012-11-29 18:07:57

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#56 2012-11-29 18:26:20

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#57 2012-11-29 19:08:47

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#58 2012-11-29 22:18:40

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#59 2012-11-30 09:59:57

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#60 2012-11-30 21:45:19

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#61 2012-11-30 23:24:04

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#62 2012-12-02 22:41:43

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#63 2012-12-02 23:37:06

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#64 2012-12-03 12:44:50

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#65 2012-12-05 00:40:10

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#66 2012-12-05 01:50:41

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#67 2012-12-05 23:05:14

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#68 2012-12-05 23:26:52

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#69 2012-12-06 00:11:30

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#70 2012-12-06 19:45:16

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#71 2012-12-06 20:15:32

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#72 2012-12-06 22:03:18

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#73 2012-12-06 22:32:30

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#74 2012-12-06 22:42:00

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

#75 2013-05-04 12:23:27

Re: Tickets to ride: more citations

Board footer