NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
I want to trade In my clunker ford exploder for the most fuel efficient vehicle on the planet: a bicycle. $4500 would get me a nice one plus a transit pass.
THEIR attempt at locking you into some payments while stimulating the burdened auto industry. Interesting program. Read all you can before you sign is all.
I'd much rather invest money in that '74 K5 I've been wanting to get, at least those things will continue to run long after the ECU-equipped car takes a shit.
someone spraypainted CASH FOR CLUNKERS all over some suvs for sale at that dealership on hollywood near the sunset intersection. i saw it on monday night and laughed.
Hey yall. Call up Larry mantle at Kpcc and hound them to get a commet on air as to why this cash for clunkers is bs. We should be able to get cash for clunkerstoward the most fuel efficient vehicle including bicycle ad motorcycles!
1 866 893 5722
89.3 fm
Roadblock responding to a comment by spiraldemon
07.31.09 - 10:26 am
Though I think CFC is pretty lame because many dealers sell older used cars that are better to buy than new vehicles, I don't think it would make sense to give $3500-4500 for a vehicle if its going to a bike, with the left over money being pocketed.
In that case just sell it privately.
I think it should allow buyers to buy anything that is fuel efficient (as Roadblock noted), lets say by the gov own fuel rating standards. So maybe you can use the $4500 to cover most of the cost of a used Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, or something similar.
however with new cars being pretty inexpensive and rebates everywhere, the used car industry has some tough competition. Its up to the public's conscious, and we know how that goes.
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
07.31.09 - 12:27 pm
Cash for Clunkers is a program to get the auto industry jumpstarted again, and has very little to do with the environment, which is why you're not going to see much in the way of bicycle trade in offers.
It might be worth fixing your truck, rather than selling it. I've always thought it was silly how people view automobiles like shoes. Most vehicles should/can last a lifetime.
With all the after-market, junk-yard options, a few tools... you can get you vehicle in compliance pretty easily. but sometimes it doesnt make sense if you can just get a used car with better mpg, for close to what it cost to fix a beat up rig.
md2 responding to a comment by Roadblock
07.31.09 - 12:38 pm
With the way most cars that are post-1980 are built, it's a wonder any of them last as long as they do with all that complicated circuitry and parts-hard-to-reach.
I've been trying to find an old, '65-'75 pickup just for use as a long-distance vehicle, but since everyone's catching onto their reliability, they're becoming increasingly rare.
the program is just a subsidy for buying a new car. the nickname of "cash for clunkers" is just something catchy. it's more like a minimum trade in value for a car when you purchase a car which has improved its fuel efficiency 4-10mpg.
obviously this program is targeted at people driving cars valued under 3 to 4k. This may take some of the most polluting/fuel inefficient vehicles off the road, but it may also allow someone who couldn't afford the gas of the older vehicle to drive much more. This may result in about the same environmental impact (or worse if you take into account the production of the new vehicle), and increase automobile traffic.
The increase in traffic will encourage more people to get on bikes.
Just another attempt by the government to keep the game going on a little longer until October or so when the economy and the stock market are gonna ready to take another shit just like last fall.
Like others have said this has nothing to do with the environment since everything that goes into building a new car is very wasteful..just a continuation of our everything being disposable-system. Environment?!? More like advertisement
"The increase in traffic will encourage more people to get on bikes."
I think Los Angeles has proved otherwise. Plus, I dont imagine many people are turning in vehicles they had laying around because they couldnt afford gas, and now are able to afford a monthly payment. And I doubt there is really much of an increase in traffic, since it is problem a 1:1 ratio (old car for new) -- no increase nor decrease.
The increase in gas prices will encourage more people to get on bikes.
$10/gallon gas please
md2 responding to a comment by snowcone
07.31.09 - 1:51 pm
its funny because someone who chooses to drive the car will eat and consume those calories anyways even if it's to sit behind the wheel of a car. and then you factor in the additional gasoline...
i also think its funny how people take 45 minutes to drive in traffic to the gym that's less than 2 miles away to spend 2 hours burning off the same amount of calories that they would have if they just took 20 minutes biking to the gym and back.
A similar program was already in affect before the auto industry collapsed. I applied for it when I had a truck, but it was smog related.
Its probably more of a program based on getting people to buy new cars, and also more fuel efficient cars, and in this case the people they are targeting wouldn't consider any other alternative anyway.
The auto industry will change. But we live in a world where some what big stupid cars... and people want 10 bikes. I prefer the latter, but both exemplify the real problem.
md2 responding to a comment by hybrid rida
07.31.09 - 1:58 pm
Well those calories burned biking come from someplace. Sure you may eat those anyways, but that just means you're burning extra calories you've stored.
braydon responding to a comment by sciencefriction
07.31.09 - 2:04 pm
FYI... House Votes to Add $2 Billion To Cash-for-Clunkers Program
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32235069
Published: Friday, 31 Jul 2009 | 2:06 PM ET
Text Size
By: AP
The House approved on Friday a $2 billion extension of the "Cash-for-Clunkers" automobile sales incentive program.
Woman looks at new Toyota Camry on dealer lot
AP
Woman looks at new Toyota Camry on dealer lot
The Democratic proposal would run through Sept. 30, 2010, and tap funds from an Energy Department loan guarantee program included in the economic stimulus package enacted in February.
An initial $1 billion in funding approved this summer to boost stagnant industry sales has already been exhausted, officials said.
Consumers stormed dealers over the past month to take advantage of federally backed rebates of up to $4,500 on trade ins of gas guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles.
Unofficial government and industry estimates show that close to 250,000 vehicles were sold under the program.
* How to Use the Program
The Senate is expected to act on the House bill.
Already a key senator, Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, said he opposes using Energy Department funds for the auto program.
Another senator, auto industry ally Debbie Stabenow, said pushing the measure out of Congress would potentially take a lot of work compared to the extraordinarily swift action in the House.
The White House supports new funding for the program on grounds the initiative so far has provided a viable, national economic stimulus amid recession.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the additional money would come from funds Congress approved earlier in the year as part of a $787 billion economic stimulus bill.
Hoyer, D-Md., said that at the request of House Republicans — whose approval was required for swift passage — the bill would include provisions for government auditors to make sure the money was being spent as intended.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said it was unclear how many Republicans would support on the plan.
"There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program. If they can't handle something as simple as this, how would we handle health care?" the Ohio Republican told The Associated Press.
At the same time the Obama administration assessed its options amid concerns the $1 billion budget for rebates for new car sales may have been depleted. The program officially began last week and has been heavily publicized by automakers and dealers.
Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the program offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle, in exchange for scrapping their old vehicle. Congress last month approved the plan to boost auto sales and remove some inefficient cars and trucks from the roads.
The Senate was not scheduled to vote on Friday but lawmakers hoped to win approval for additional funding next week.
Senate action is likely next week, making sure the program would not be affected by the sudden shortage of cash.
RELATED LINKS
Current DateTime: 09:35:30 31 Jul 2009
LinksList Documentid: 32235058
"Consumers have spoken with their wallets and they've said they like this program," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.
House members acted within hours of learning from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that the program — designed to help the economy as well as the environment — was out of funds. Under the program, car owners can receive federal subsidies of as much as $4,500 if they trade in their old car for a new one that achieves significantly higher gas mileage.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the administration assured lawmakers that "deals will be honored until otherwise noted by the White House." But he suggested that "people ought to get in and buy their cars."
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to assure consumers that the program is still running and will be alive "this weekend. If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend, using this program, this program continues to run."
Gibbs would not commit to any timeframe beyond that.
It was unclear how many cars had been sold under the program.
John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said many dealers have been confused about whether the program will be extended and for how long. Many had stopped offering the deals Thursday after word came out that the funds available for the refunds had been exhausted.
The clunkers program was set up to boost U.S. auto sales and help struggling automakers through the worst sales slump in more than a quarter-century. Sales for the first half of the year were down 35 percent from the same period in 2008, and analysts are predicting only a modest recovery during the second half of the year.
* Slideshow: The 10 US Cities With the Worst Road Rage
With so much uncertainty surrounding the program, North Palm Beach, Fla., dealer Earl Stewart said he planned to continue to sell cars under the program but would delay delivering the new vehicles and scrapping the trade-ins.
of course.
but at least you're attempting some sort of equilibrium.
im just trying to highlight the fact that we're generally on the path of unnecessary overconsumption and not enough exercise. hence our current biggest health problem- obesity.
Just another attempt by the government to keep the game going on a little longer until October or so when the economy and the stock market are gonna ready to take another shit just like last fall.
Well, if the country don't get its collective shit together soon, I fear this movie will become reality.
Im not sure what the analysis is supposed to highlight.
I initially thought you we're making a pro-commuting by bike statement, but after reading (why did I, I dont know) your blog, I dont even understand what your conclusion really amounts to.
1. Travel by bike: Positives: Exercise, better mood. Easy parking Flexible routes. Increased interactions with environment
2. Travel by car: Positives: Faster. Less expensive.
Not only is the study highly subjective in regard to some of the positives, but I dont understand how the car was less expensive.
a. your commute by bike didnt seem to cost anything.
b. 2 might be faster, but it may also be rider dependent. Maybe you're just slow(er)--(i.e. 10mph average)
c. the long(er) term affect of usage on your car will be more expensive than a bike.
argument revisited: bike: postives: less expensive, makes YOU faster, better, hotter, lovelier, funner, sexier, more interactive with the pavement
md2 responding to a comment by braydon
07.31.09 - 2:27 pm
bent you need to seriously change your attitude about vehicles. 73-87 was probably the worst period in automotive history. emission standards were forced upon automakers starting 72/73 so everyone freaked out and did a bunch of bullshit that they had no idea about to meet the standards. this severely lowering hp, mpg, and reliability. i say this period ends around 87 because thats the years car universally became fuel injected which solved so so many problems. pre 73 cars are no way in HELL more reliable than cars today, they were just a whole lot simpler. ive owned and seen cars from the 90s last several hundred thousand before having to even pull the heads. including a 92 bmw i had with over 330k. sure i could run a vehicle from 1970 300k but id be on my third motor/engine overhaul. its just unfortunate even though engines today are vastly more efficient due to safety regulations they are super heavy and many smaller cars of yesterday get better mpg.
larsenf responding to a comment by bentstrider
07.31.09 - 2:59 pm
Yeah, after going back and looking at my post.... It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, I think I left an important detail out, which is exactly how many calories where burned during the trip....
braydon responding to a comment by md2
07.31.09 - 3:22 pm
Speaking of interactive with pavement, I just hit it on the way back from the store..... hahaha... no harm done, but fuck.... Downtown traffic at 3:10pm really tests your cycling instincts.
braydon responding to a comment by md2
07.31.09 - 3:25 pm
Unless you dont have power steering <--- that sucks!!
I still dont get your point.
Initially I thought you were saying this (you can keep it if you want):
You dont burn too many calories riding a bike
In fact you burn more gas driving a route, than you burn calories on the same route.
Thus, a car is more efficient at burning something (i.e. gas).
But then I was like... no, I think he is saying a car burns gas better, in that less gas is burned, whereas a cyclist burns more calories during a commute than a car burns gas.
But then I thought... I have no idea what this person is claiming.
All things point to -- ride your bike.
md2 responding to a comment by braydon
07.31.09 - 3:29 pm
post '75t.. no smog. less wires and shit. i prefer pre 73-4 go classic. less work on the motors. more reliable. and if anything does go out its not gonna be 1000 worth of labor because theyre so damn simpl. and if you want economics. find a car with a 6 cyl. you can get 30 mpg if its running right. and if you can find a 6 cyl stick your seeet.
You can work on more fuel efficient cars, that hold to better smog standards... it might take a little more effort and know how, but then again, you get some of the best downhill the higher you ride up (unless you're just a freerider, downhiller).
md2 responding to a comment by north_valley_critical_mass
07.31.09 - 3:36 pm
Your car is fine. All it need is a Hustle sticker on the back window and it will be as good as new. That is until Chuck Norris see the sticker and kicks out your window.
placing stickers on any car or bike makes it faster.
it also works on your computer.
i wish it would work on the clock here at work between the hours of 8-5.
Actually, I was about to put a sticker on the company clock... but the big boss man said if I did, then I can pack up my things and go home, so I think your idea might work.
md2 responding to a comment by sciencefriction
07.31.09 - 4:19 pm
well. you cant even change your spark plugs in most new cars with out taking half the engine apart. hell. they want you to take the stupid car to the dealer for that. i mean i can change the spark plugs on my old 65 ranchero in like 15 mins.
I owned a '71 GMC, 3/4 ton pickup from '03 to '05.
Bought that thing for $300 all because the carburetor needed to be rebuilt.
Drove that thing when needed and it never failed me until the wiring harness shorted and burned up.
At the time, I was really wanting to get a new wiring harness, but since I was taking care of everyone in the house to the point I was steaming, I had to get rid of it.
Got $800 out of it and then I tried to buy it back from the guy when I was rig-driving back in '07.
I offered the guy $2500 and he promptly told me to fuck off.
All that baby required for healthy running was a 150 pc Craftsman toolset and that was it.
All of these new cars may run for awhile, but I'd sure hate to be the unfortunate fool who somehow ends up with it near the end of its usable lifespan.
As for the guy who refused $2500, lets just say we stay on opposite ends of town now.
The increase in traffic is not because there are more cars, but because it is cheaper to drive the car because it consumes less gas per mile.
Old Car: 20 mpg
New Car: 35 mpg
so now you could drive 15 mpg more at the same price
Yes, now there are monthly payments, but with this program you can get a kia for $5500 (not including tax). Finance that over 5 years and you have a very low payment.
One of the biggest reasons I ride my bike everywhere is traffic. If there was no traffic, I would only be riding my bike for enjoyment and not for transportation. Right now, it's actually faster and WAY less stressful to ride my bike when I want to go somewhere. Once I get a rack on my bike, I will be able to do most of my shopping on my bike as well.
Actually my exlporer is in pretty decent shape. I keep it running good. I'm not gonna trade it in because I don't care to have monthly payments and such. Just pointing out that it's unfair for tax dollars to go into supporting a failed automotive industry.
"Well those calories burned biking come from someplace. Sure you may eat those anyways, but that just means you're burning extra calories you've stored."
And therefore you will not become a fat ass!
but more strong and fit.
I'd like to see any able guy in a car get on a bike and try and keep up.
However my point was that just because bikes don't use gasoline doesn't automatically make them the most efficient vehicle. To make that point you would need a comparison between the cost of calories you consume to cycle one mile to the cost of gasoline to take a car one mile.
braydon responding to a comment by bicycle-druggie
08.1.09 - 12:49 pm
This study is terribly flawed. It doesn't take into account such thinks as the cost of maintaining the car, cost of producing the car, insurance, registration, overall repairs per mile, and the biggest, the cost to the environment. Just doing a simple search for bicycle vs 30 mpg car calculator shows that the bicycle is about 40% more efficient when the biker has a typical American diet. More than 50% if she's a vegetarian. Personally I think this is rather a conservative figure.
Bike vs. Walk vs. Drive calculator
And a car does burn calories. Not sure how no one pick that up in this thread.
A calorie is a unit of energy. We tend to associate calories with food, but they apply to anything containing energy. For example, a gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories.
Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy, or heat, it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). One calorie is equal to 4.184 joules, a common unit of energy used in the physical sciences. How Calories Work
It wasn't a study, more of some notes. I also wasn't looking at total cost of ownership, or any other factors besides the "fuel" efficiency.
"If you look at a page like this calorie chart, you will find that a person riding a bicycle at 15 miles per hour (24 km per hour) burns 0.049 calories per pound per minute. So a 175-pound (77-kg) person burns 515 calories in an hour, or about 34 calories per mile (about 21 calories per km)."http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question527.htm
To travel 100 miles would equal about 3,400 calories. A loaf of bread has about 1,760 calories. It would take 1.93 loafs to travel 100 miles. A loaf of bread costs about $3.75, so it would cost about $7.24 to go 100 miles by bike.
Say we have a car that goes 35 miles per gallon on average. We travel 100 miles and filled up with gas at $2.90 per gallon. The cost would be $8.28
Bike: $7.24 or about 7 cents of fuel per mile. Car: $8.28 or about 8 cents of fuel per mile.
Too close to call.
braydon responding to a comment by User1
08.1.09 - 3:00 pm
If read the paragraph right below the paragraph you quoted, it states.....
A gallon of gasoline (about 4 liters) contains about 31,000 calories. If a person could drink gasoline, then a person could ride about 912 miles on a gallon of gas (about 360 km per liter). Considering that a normal car gets about 30 miles per gallon, that's pretty impressive!
912 mpg vs 30 mpg, it's not even close. Even given your idea of the person being powered by something edible, like vegetable oil for example. Vegetable oil is less than $5 / gallon and is about the same calorie content as gas. So it would be roughly 600 mpg vs 30 mpg. Still, not very close.
BTW, is why our nation has the highest carbon footprint per capita than any other nation in the world. We nearly double the rate of number two in the world! Everything is dependent on fossil fuels to move our economy. That comes at a price.
User1 responding to a comment by braydon
08.1.09 - 3:32 pm
However, a car becomes more cost efficient than bike when you put 4 people in it, as that added weight isn't much for the car, but 4 people biking instead of 1 is four times the energy.
braydon responding to a comment by profoscurity
08.1.09 - 3:34 pm
I'm not sure how you figure that. If you did have four people in the car, then that's four times as efficient. So instead of 30 mpg, it's 120 mpg. So now it's 912 mpg vs 120 mpg, or 600 mpg vs 120 mpg in favor of the bike.
BTW, fat chance of seeing 4 people in a car with our vehicle occupancy rate of about 1.1 persons / vehicle. Moving a two ton vehicle comes at price. There's no freebies. OK, I take that back. There's one I can think of, there's no cost in spewing CO2.
User1 responding to a comment by braydon
08.1.09 - 5:10 pm
Let us not forget the measly distances driven by most single drivers.
Everyday I see some knucklehead peeling out of the driveway at high speed just to go 1/4 mile down the street to grab a case.
I've actually taken a notice today to see how many people are in each car, and I was surprised to see cars full of people. Probably just a fluke though.
braydon responding to a comment by bentstrider
08.1.09 - 10:33 pm
By the way I read in the paper today that the House passed a bill for 2 billion dollars more funding for "Cash for Clunkers" program, as it was very popular it seems. It still needs to pass the Senate, which seemed like it didn't have a good chance. However we might want to voice our opinion with our State Senators?
A car using a modern internal combustion engine could never be as efficient as a person because they are terribly inefficient. I'm not sure of an exact number, but I believe an internal combustion engine only uses less than 5% of the total energy stored in gasoline to move the passengers of a vehicle. Only about 15-20% is extracted from the gasoline and most of what is extracted is used to move the weight of the vehicle, power engine accessories, frictional losses (including drag), etc. A human body does a much better job of extracting energy from food.
snowcone responding to a comment by User1
08.2.09 - 10:19 am
actually the internal gas combustion engine is about 25% efficient. Diesel engines are about 40%. Interestingly the human is that energy efficient either. I think it's something like 30 - 40% efficient, I forget :-). Most of the energy is used in dissipating heat energy.
User1 responding to a comment by snowcone
08.2.09 - 1:19 pm
"Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning."
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml
"most vehicles on the highways now have engines which have around 21% overall efficiency"
http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html
"More recent research has suggested that a maximal short-term efficiency for a human is probably around 25%"
"The Physics results therefore give efficiency figures that are lower, in the 13% to 17% range."
http://mb-soft.com/public2/humaneff.html
average weight of car: 4000 lbs
average weight of person: ~175lbs
= 4.3% of the weight of the car and driver is the driver
20% * 4.2% = 0.8%
so about 1% of the energy contained in gasoline is used to move the driver
average weight of bike: ~25lbs
average weight of person: ~175lbs
= 88% of the weight of the bike and cyclist is the cyclist
15% * 88% = 13% (doesn't take into account drag)
so probably around 10% of the energy contained in the food you eat is used to move you on a bike
I like how this is pointed out in the car vs bike debate. The only thing I was pointing out was that in a 35 mile trip, the bike is far more efficient than the car. If we had a decent light rail system, this could be a reality for quite a number of people. I don't really see too many people doing 35 mile trips daily just by riding.
User1 responding to a comment by snowcone
08.3.09 - 4:20 pm
I don't see anyone drinking supplemental vegetable oil to save money either unless they are doing upwards of 100 miles a day, and they have very little body fat. In that case, they're definitely going to want to be eating more fatty foods. Vegetable oil may not be the healthiest choice, but it would certainly be the cheapest.
braydon responding to a comment by User1
08.3.09 - 7:26 pm
Lets just face it, cars exist only as timesaver for people who don't want to use mass-transit or don't have access to it for some unfortunate reason.
Yeah, humans are efficient at burning calories, but you'll never see one maintaining 70-80mph over a 100 mile distance.
Don't knock me, I'm just setting the 800 lb Gorilla free.
And I'll stand by the fact that many who choose to own cars in urban areas with other transport options available will most likely never exceed the speed of 30 mph in most areas.
With all the congestion, they never will, short bursts to look like an ass maybe, but that's about it.
Well the next full moon is this Wednesday, however I haven't planned anything..... I'd like to give Root Run a try, but it's all the way on the westside.
braydon responding to a comment by User1
08.4.09 - 2:20 am
"Yeah, humans are efficient at burning calories, but you'll never see one maintaining 70-80mph over a 100 mile distance.
Don't knock me, I'm just setting the 800 lb Gorilla free. "
1. Why would humans "need" to do so?
2. If in case of emergency, then we would see a drastic/huge decrease in automobile reliance.
3. There could be other options to get someone so fast.
They overall question I think the bicycle community, and even the single speed tradition is asking is: Why do I "need" that?
md2 responding to a comment by bentstrider
08.4.09 - 1:55 pm
Heard on the radio today that conservatives are protesting at car dealerships over this program. This is one of those times where I hare the same sentiments as republicans. Eff the bailouts!
Face it, an innovation came along and someone decided to squeeze as much as possible out of it.
Yeah, they could've at least thought of all the infinite number of consequences that would've resulted, but the mounds of cash looked more appealing to them at the end of the 19th century.
HOW IS THROWING AWAY PERFECTLY GOOD CARS IN EXCHANGE FOR A NEWLY PRODUCED CAR GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?
STUPID!!!!
There was a program in california to buy cars that fail their smog test for $1000. That program was actually good for the environment because any car that can't pass the smog test is probably a real clunker.
Are they finding enough buyers for the excess scrap that's being generated from this turn-in?
We've still got horrendous waste problems that I think pale in comparison to dirty air.
It's counterproductive to trade one form of pollution for another.
This is one of, I think the only time, that I agree with the Republicans. I think this is turning into such a waste of tax payers money. They could have done something much better like accepting the worst of the gas guzzlers on the road, and give the breaks to the most thrifty. But the way the program is worded, a person can trade in their 15 mpg car and get a 16 mpg car. They should have made it very strict and loosen up restrictions if and when needed.
I have yet to see any good articles opposing this by any environmental groups, but I did find a couple by some the right wing.
Now through September 30th, Simi Cycling Center is proud to present our own
Cash for Clunkers program.
How it works is simple: Bring in any bike (No broken frames/forks please) and we'll give you credit toward a new bike - it's a simple as that. This works for ANY bike in the store!
How much credit you ask??? Up to $600+
Additionally - all traded in bikes will be donated to the Simi Valley Samaritan Center where Ventura County Believers on Mountain Bikes members repair or use them for parts to donate to the homeless.
If you've been looking to upgrade now is the time!
Call or email with questions - 805 522 0565 / SimiCyclingCenter@sbcglobal.net
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
do it. my car free anniversary was Saturday. best thing I've ever had happen to me.
Oh Roadblock.
