Why bikes shouldn’t have to follow the rules of the road

Bike salute at Buckingham PalaceWhen you cycle in London you have to do so using road and traffic infrastructure designed for the car. Traffic lights and lanes are designed for large, heavy, metal box’s to manoeuvre in. The laws too are designed for cars. It is currently presumed that cyclists in London should use the roads like cars and follow the same laws, like cars. In other words bikes should stop at red lights and stay off the pavements.  This is dangerous and disingenuous. It is time for cyclists to make the case for a totally different set of rules to apply for them… to make cycling easier, safer and more popular.

Cars are far heavier and bigger then a person. This means that when they hit a pedestrian things get messy; often involving broken bones and pools of blood. Many incidents are fatal. This is not the case with bikes. The reason why cars MUST stop at red lights is because a miscalculation on the driver’s part and people may die. If a cyclist comes to a red light and looking from side to side sees no traffic there is little risk to her continuing. Indeed if the cyclist has a blind spot and cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse. A sincere apology should make amends.

Waiting at a red light is very dangerous for a cyclist. Especially if the cyclist intends to turn left and a lorry comes up behind also wanting to turn left. When the lights change the lorry turns left crushing the cyclist against the metal grill ‘pedestrian protector’. The cyclist is slowly pushed through the grill like scarlet mash potato; a nasty walk to work for the passers by. More female cyclists then males are killed at red lights. The reason for this is that men are more likely to jump the reds.

Cyclists surround a taxi that just rode over a bike on Critical Mass

Cyclists are safer to carefully go ahead of traffic and jump reds because this makes them more visible to cars. Making this illegal endangers lives. If it is legal for pedestrians to cross a road anywhere irrespective of lights… why can’t cyclists? We are of comparable size and shape and weight. The cyclist and the pedestrian are actually interchangeable. Simply by jumping off the bike and pushing it you become a pedestrian. So having laws that insist that cyclists wait at red lights in front of a moaning heap of polluting metal which is itching to spill forward and break your bones seems sadistic at the state level.

Cars have so taken over London’s streets that there are some areas that it is almost impossible to cycle. The cars are backed up spilling out fumes at dangerous levels. The drivers are getting mad and start switching their cars from lane to lane in such a way that a cyclist can be slowly crushed to death at any moment. At times like these the logical and safe response for a cyclist who wants to one day be old is to get off the road and slowly and carefully cycle past the section of road in which death hovers above like a giant stale mist. When completing this action occasionally an anti-progress-pedestrian, probably obese and a proud car owner will block your way and rant in your face about obeying the law. Is this person serious? Are they seriously suggesting that following an inappropriate law is more sensible then staying alive? Who made these laws? Presumably the same people who thought it was a good idea to fill our most densely populated urban settlements with metal machines that kill and pollute.

Cycling culture in London

If pedestrians have issues about not having enough space, which is totally valid, take it up with the corpses riding around in their motorized coffins. They are the ones using up all the space. I might add:

Yo freakoid! I don’t want to ride on the pavement, I want to ride on the road, but if you haven’t noticed it’s full of maniacs who think they look ‘sporty’ sitting in traffic in an SUV. If you are allergic to the odd cyclist getting to work using the pavement, take it up with the people in cars. If we get 90% of private cars off the roads of London, think how much space there would be. We could have more markets, and play grounds and sports pitches. There would be more space for inner city kids to get some exercise. We could grow trees and food, cleaning the air, cooling the city and reducing the city’s eco-footprint. The benefits of taking the cars out of London goes way beyond improving health, reducing congestion and saving lives. It is an absolutely crucial step towards building a climate change resilient city which will still be habitable centuries from now.

Unfortunately by this point the anti-progress-pedestrian has shuffled off to the high street to buy more plastic tat to hoard in their cluttered little warrens before sending it off to landfill and buying more.

Cycling in a group is safer

People who want to ‘crack down’ on cyclists are failing to see that the fossil fuel and industrial era is over (almost). Human powered transport (walking, cycling, scooting, whatever) will become the main way of moving around cities (after mass public transport). Eventually, we will have the appropriate investment in this mode of transport to ensure there are bike lanes and bike traffic lights and suitable infrastructure for the most efficient mode of transport yet invented. Until this point let’s give the people trying to get around London in a clean and safe manor a little leeway. Building a safe and sustainable future for our children is hard enough without having to fight a constant rearguard action against post industrial-luddites who are desperate to cling to their internal combustion engines. Step aside… or go suck a tail pipe, human powered transport is taking over this city!


39 responses to “Why bikes shouldn’t have to follow the rules of the road

  1. I cycle to work everyday, and plan my route through parks, cycle paths, pavements and roads. I avoid bus lanes as they scare me. To be a cyclist these days you have to break some rules. In most cases this is done to increase my safty.

  2. I ride daily (unless the snow/ice is too bad, then I take the bus), and there are streets I WILL NOT ride! There is a complete and utter lack of any education of drivers regarding cyclists and their ‘rights’. Fortunately, only about 5% of the sidewalks in my town are off-limits, and few are used by anyone but the occasional school-aged child. I cannot get past the idea (reinforced by experience) that too many drivers don’t know, couldn’t care less, and aren’t the least bit interested in proper driving, around bikes or each other. When I see it every single day, I feel perfectly justified in keeping to side streets and sidewalks. When stupid isn’t the accepted standard anymore, I’ll re-think.

  3. While I agree that bikes should have *different* traffic laws than cars, I disagree that it should be lawless. Cyclists can and have killed pedestrians when crashing into them. I find it hard to believe the child was simply fine if you crashed into her going 30-40 kmh head on.

    For lights I would propose Idaho-style rules of treating lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs for bikes. If the cyclist doesn’t yield right-of-way at a red light, yes it is their own neck they are risking. But most people do not want to kill a cyclist, so will try to avert an accident, making it inconvenient for the driver at best, or the cause of a secondary accident.

    As well red lights are not so dangerous for cyclists if they take more space. If a cyclist stops in the middle of the lane at a red light, then it is not possible for the lorry to turn left hooking the cyclist.

  4. hgv lgv training

    By implimenting a new rule for cyclists surely you are only making the situation worse. It means other road user would have to be educated and comply with new rules and regs. Dont you think the real problem is a distinct lack of space and education. Space meaning too many road users using the public highway at anyone time. Eveyone is jostling for space. Education for cyclists and other road users. Most cyclists have never sat in an HGV so they have no perspective of what the HGV Driver can and cant see. The government (over 100 MPS’) have just signed an EDM (early day motion) to make cyclist awareness training mandatory for all HGV Drivers.

  5. How about changing the law so that if you injure a cyclist then you automatically lose your license and are locked up for a long time. I would argue that you should lock them up for longer if they kill a cyclist but if they only injure a cyclist and don’t kill them it’s probably just dumb luck.

  6. matthew howells

    Many of the points you make I have sympathy with, such as considerate red light jumping and occasional pavement riding, but you cannot pretend that the world that you live in is different to the world as it actually is. The behaviour of drivers aside, cyclist jumping red lights indiscriminately (as they do) is a real problem, not least because it does endanger pedestrians and adds to the antipathy towards cyclists generally. Cycling on pavements is also a real problem (as you concede) and seems to have become acceptable behaviour (even in the absence of any threat from traffic) to the detriment of pedestrians (who shouldn’t have to worry about being hit) . If you want to change things then you should of course try to do so, and I share your objectives, but I suspect that you will fail to achieve anything by dismissing outright the current “inappropriate” rules followed by many or by determining your own levels of acceptable compliance. You risk appearing aggressive and unreasonable. I am consumer (living in a warren), a driver (freakoid /corpse), a long-time cyclist (with gears?!?) and a (now “anti-progress”) pedestrian.

  7. The vast majority of this is utter drivel.

  8. I cycle to and from work every day in London covering just under 7,000 miles a year (and am a little disappointed that its not more) yet I manage to do so without cycling on pavements, jumping red lights or any of the other things you recommend. So far I’m yet to have a serious accident (my only issues have been with pedestrians crossing at lights when it’s actually my right of way). My biggest problem with my commute is generally with other cyclists either not reading the traffic, not correctly identifying hazards, not performing ‘lifesaver’ checks, not indicating and positioning themselves very badly indeed. I used to be quite the cycling evangelist, but the quality of cycling in London is generally pretty terrible. It is worse than the driving, but that’s probably only because most drivers know that the penalties for their infractions will be greater.

    Speaking of cause and effect, it has been mentioned that cyclists jumping red lights are only putting themselves at risk, but this is a very selfish view in my opinion; my wife has prviously run over an RLJing cyclist several years ago and (probably a bonus in the environmentalists opinion) had to give up driving for some time. We were travalling within the 40mph speed limit when the cyclist pulled out from stationary traffic; it’s not something I would want to experiance again or have anyone else go though. The chap in question got away pretty lightly considering, but I hate to think of the psychologial consequences of killing someone in a completely avoidable accident.

  9. I commute on bike smack bang into the center of London everyday.

    There’s no excuse for jumping lights. There’s not a single set of lights that would be safer for me to ‘jump’ than wait.

    How about trying some of these steps.

    Stop in the ASL in front of all traffic.

    “Oh but wait, there’s a car in the ASL”

    Well, if there’s enough room for them to see you, either a) go in front of them and leave a big gap (and glare at them for parking their vehicle there), or b) wait behind them – cycle as if you were a car.

    The problem with jumping red lights is that every other thing on the road is not expecting you to, it’s easy for someone to walk out, or a car / motorbike to pull out in your path.

    I’ve seen quite a few close calls from cyclists jumping red lights. I’ve seen zero incidents from cyclists waiting for them… go figure.

  10. I agree with Asprilla. Yo Freakoid – you’re an idiot.

  11. HI All,

    Thanks for all the comments today. Glad to have stimulated some conversation!

    Law is a tool created by humans to regulate our behaviour. We can make smart laws that protect people and we can make dumb laws.

    One problem with the world today is that there are a great many laws restricting individual freedoms such as how we cycle and what we can smoke whereas there are very few laws protecting the biological integrity of the planet or limiting the actions of multinational corporations who are committing a crime so great it requires a new term: Ecocide. I encourage all new readers of the site to check out some other posts before having a knee jerk reaction.

    The point of this post is to emphasize that we are allowing our cities to be filled with dangerous polluting machines that regularly kill people. This is legal. If this wasn’t the case cyclists wouldn’t need to jump lights or ride on the pavement.

    We urgently need to look at all laws across the board and evaluate how effective they are at protecting life. The world is changing rapidly and laws must too.

  12. ‘If this wasn’t the case cyclists wouldn’t need to jump lights or ride on the pavement. ‘
    We don’t NEED to. Some CHOOSE to. Many of us choose not to. I ride every day and think the only rule I break on my bike is the speed limit on some of the Pennine descents.

  13. You’re an idiot. All users of the highways need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions and learn to respect the laws as they are. Don’t like the laws? We live in a democracy, where change takes place through persuasion, not force.

    I speak as a cyclist (15 mile commute daily) and I agree with Asprilla (and porgy!) above. The most dangerous behaviour that I witness on a daily basis is not from cars or buses but from pedestrians and cyclists not paying attention or not obeying the rules.

  14. So… You ride on the pavement and jump red lights to save the planet? I ride into Soho most days and frankly I think it’s the people jumping lights that are most at risk. Why ride into a junction where the traffic doesn’t expect you to be? If some idiot’s sitting in the ASL then I either place myself directly in front of him (complete with glare) or sit behind him, car-style. I estimate that this slows me down by all of what, 5 seconds per light? Something I’m willing to put up with for the privilege of not dying.

  15. ‘The point of this post is to emphasize that we are allowing our cities to be filled with dangerous polluting machines that regularly kill people. This is legal. If this wasn’t the case cyclists wouldn’t need to jump lights or ride on the pavement. ‘

    Sorry, this is still drivel. There is no ‘need’ to do this, cyclist choose to do this. You must understand the distinction.

  16. It is not true that more people are injured crossing roads at red lights as opposed to waiting in traffic. The vast majority of cycling deaths are not caused by dangerous cycling but by dangerous driving. A huge US study found that 90 percent of cyclist deaths were caused by clumsy or inattentive driving: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/who-causes-cyclists-deaths/

    In London most cycling deaths are cause by crushing at lights when Lorries turn

    Check out:

    Here is a recent tragic case:

    Here is the evidence that more women die at lights because they are more likely to obey the law and wait (The Times) :

    Therefore you increase your chance of living if you take responsibility for yourself and get out of the major congestion around lights and cycle ahead into space where you are more visible.

    Of course, it is an individual choice whether to stand in between cars in the dead zone of high pollution and impact risk or to work our way to the front and carefully cross at the lights to cycle away from the cars in the fresh air. Many of us make this choice, understanding that it contravenes laws because we believe our human rights for safety and freedom of movement are superior to out-of-date traffic laws which have led to our shared urban spaces becoming dangerous and polluted.

    We make this choice in recognition of the fact that we value our own independence of thought above a system of laws made by law makers who are presiding over the destruction of the natural world. It is not taken lightly. It is a firm commitment to doing what we believe is right. Remember:

    “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
    J Krishnamurti

    For all the people who write ‘idiot’ in these comments there are many others who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. Hundreds of these people come together on the last Friday of every month in a show of solidarity by taking control of the roads away from the car. Check it out:

    This month we are putting on a free party after Critical Mass. So if you believe in freedom of expression and believe in making our cities safe, fun and sustainable… get down and shake your booty. Send an email to ecohustler@ecohustler.co.uk for more info.

  17. If the cyclist…cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse

    Er, no. For a tiny number of collisions, yes, the bike could have slowed to walking pace. But often they would be at a far higher velocity.

    Waiting at a red light is very dangerous for a cyclist. Especially if the cyclist intends to turn left and a lorry comes up behind also wanting to turn left

    So use correct positioning and block the lane so the lorry can’t undertake

    Cyclists are safer to carefully go ahead of traffic and jump reds because this makes them more visible to cars. Making this illegal endangers lives.

    This might be true in some limited special circumstances. But usually not.

    the logical and safe response for a cyclist … is to get off the road and slowly and carefully cycle past the section of road

    Or to dismount and push their cycle along the footway. Unless they are 10 years old or less.

    People who want to ‘crack down’ on cyclists are

    reading this blog and using it as an excuse

  18. Yes, most fatalities in London are caused by lorries turning left but there is absolutely no research I’m aware of that shows the root cause of those terrible incidents or the general sequence of events that leads to the cyclist being on the inside of the left turning truck. Without this information you can’t possibly say whether jumping the lights helps in these situations or not.

    On a daily basis I see cyclists taking terrible risks going up the left hand side of large vehicles in locations where there are pavement barriers. It’s madness, but people still do it, despite all the warnings to the contrary and their lack of knowledge about what a driver can and can’t see in their mirrors. In order to get to the front and jump the red light you may have to filter though traffic, and for most cyclists that will mean going up the left to get to the front without thinking of the risks. I prefer to assess the situation and filter on the left or right, or even just wait in traffic, taking a primary position.

    By doing this, I take responsibility for my own safety, but also try to minimise any negative impact I have on other road users, such as putting them though the trauma of killing me.

    I should point out that I’m not a bimbling biker either and that I’ve been known to average over 20mph during my 20 mile daily commute from the sticks into central London. You can easily be safe, quick and within the law, they are not mutually exclusive.

  19. I agree with Asprilla again. I cycle 30 miles a day – more than happy to confront bad drivers. Have been a cycle campaigner over many years. even attended Critical Mass in the 1990s and started my own south London version which went on for about 2 years.
    Critical Mass is now counter-productive, only serving to alienate other road users from cyclists.
    You are the sort of smug eco-warrior type of cyclist we could do without. Your little petty vendetta against pedestrians is misguided at best – don;t you realise that walking is the most sustainable and greenest form of transport.
    Stop sneering at everyone esle and look at yourself!

  20. Porgy,

    I am vaguely tempted to getting drawn into exchanging insults but I will rise above it.

    Did you read the post? There is no vendetta against pedestrians petty or otherwise. My point is that cyclists and pedestrians are much the same thing: humans under their own steam. They should be allowed to move freely and not be restricted by laws that apply to big, heavy machines.

    Stop agreeing with everyone else and start having some ideas of your own.

  21. Cyclists are not the same as pedestrians. Cyclists are relatively large heavy lumps of metal and / or carbon (though I’m hoping to have bamboo next summer) that are capable of moving very quickly indeed. The problem with allowing bicycles on the pavement is that being an idiot isn’t restricted to people in motor vehicles, it’s a general trait of humans; be it that they are distracted and make mistakes for one reason (cyclists listen to and shout at the radio too for example) or another or they are just generally selfish. The percentage of people being idiots, in my opinion, remains relatively constant and evenly distributed regardless of whether you are walking riding or driving. Since pedestrians are the most numerous and are the most vulnerable I think that allowing bikes to use footpaths is absolutely the last think you would want to do if you have any care for those around you.

    Just saying, like.

  22. Whoah! All these sharp reactions and name calling on a 2009 post, what happenned guys did you get stuck in traffic?!
    I as a non driing non cycling resident of this city have a few things to add if I may:
    Cycling on a pavement is annoying when done recklessly. I can’t imagine too many of you insisting kids pedal on the road and are prob quite happy to stand aside when they toddle past. So should you be for an occassional cyclist.

    Furthermore, an idea running through the blog is about subjecting cycling to rules designed for cars. Whether or not you agree with the particular renegade steps being advocated what you cannot deny is that the road already has differnt rules and by-laws for motorcyclists, lorries, buses and taxis on everything from parking to access, so one for an ever growing cycling population (especially since Boris (Ken!!) bikes) is not entirely nonsensical. Maybe a light between amber and green which is for cyclistys only, giving a 5-10 second headstart? Absurd? Well we live in a world where despite an apparent debt crisis we will still spend more money on weapons designed to kill us year on year, so I guess it’s all relative. Now chill….

  23. It’s missing a V….. 🙂

  24. Hold on 1 second. If there is nobody on the pavement then there is zero risk to anyone if you cycle on it.

    My ex-girlfriend got a £30 fine for cycling onto a pavement to lock her bike to a lamp post when there was no one near her. This is idiotic. We don’t need a nanny state and police powers for people to deal with each other with respect.

    I wouldn’t cycle into anyone and I wouldn’t walk into anyone either.

  25. You wouldn’t cycle into someone on purpose and I’m sure that no-one else would either. However, some people take more risks than others and are less considerate, as can generally be seen every day in our fair city. If your ex-girlfriend was ticketed for riding on an empty pavement on her way to lock her bike, then surely you should be advocating common sense policing rather than a change to the law; as the adage goes ‘give them an inch and they will take a mile’, in a similar way to wich CM circumvent anti-protest laws by not haing a route or a leader.

    You’re partially right, we don’t need a police state or a nanny state for people to treat each other with respect, but we do need a set of commonly agreed, simple rules that protect the most vulnerable first. I don’t know if you’ve ever read Lord of the Flies but contrary to popular opinion most people are only in it for themselves and their own goals.

    I simply don’t see a need to cycle on the pavement, especially since those who say the do it also say they do it slowly; if you are going slowly then you may as well get off and walk.

  26. If you learn to ride your bike properly, there is no need to jump red lights or cycle on the pavement.

    Read Cyclecraft by John Franklin and learn to use the road infrastructure

    Promoting the avoidance of LGVs by not going up the inside or staying behind them would have been a greater benefit to the cycling community.

    Instead, you encourage people to go to the front of a queue and jump red lights. Great! I hope when someone you have encouraged to do this is tragically crushed to death, you take some responsibility.

    There are millions of cyclist on the road who observe the laws, you believe are so daft, yet we survive. What makes you think you’re so special?

  27. Asprilla,
    I cannot help but notice you have consistenly ignored the point ec0hustler makes about RJJing being a great to avoid the high pollution zones.
    Can we assume you are quite happy to stand behind the red light breathing loads of toxic crap while your own vehicle doesn’t even have a tailpipe?!?

    • There is nothing to stop you from filtering to the front and not jumping the red light, that’s what ASLs are for (although I would dearly love the rules for these to be enforced, particularly for motocycles and scooters).

      TBH, if you are cycling in London, it doesn’t really matter where you stand you are breathing high levels of pollution. Show me the evidence which shows that jumping red lights reduces your intake of harmful pollutants over waiting behind vehicles. If you can’t then it’s a non-issue. Cycling has significant health benefits regardless of the increased intake of pollution, so in my opinion it’s just another excuse for ‘I must be at the front and rules don’t apply to me’ selfishness.

  28. Evidence!! Its obvious isn’t it? especially as in an earlier post you advise to wait in line as if you were a car.
    I don’t think you need a scientific study to prove that being in line behind accelerating vehicles is going to get you the biggest dose of filth.
    By remianing in motion it is possible to manage your filth intake, for example shallow breathing until you are past the most minging diesels (London taxis?).
    My justification for treating red lights as ‘give way’ signs, is always that ‘bicycles don’t have exhaust pipes’.
    When you point this out to a ranting cager, it almost always stops the rant and leaves then looking confused and quizzical!

  29. What’s a cager?

    A lot of things that people think are obvious are nothing of the sort. If I tried to manage my intake I’d be shallow breathing all the way across London!

    I’ve said that, if safe I’ll filter to the front and wait without jumping the lights. Surely this saves me from the polution without jumping the lights, does it not?

    I also said that if it wasn’t safe then I’d wait, since it’s generally when filtering or not taking a primary position that cyclists are put in danger. By not safe I mean, amongst other things, that I would have to filter past a large vehicle or though a very tight gap without actually knowing how long I have to perform the manouver.

    Can you tell me how these approaches are inherently less safe than filtering regardless and jumping the red light?

  30. “I’ve said that, if safe I’ll filter to the front and wait without jumping the lights. Surely this saves me from the polution without jumping the lights, does it not?”

    Well it depends; if the lights are in front of an open road then you will have everything accelerating past you until the next set of lights, where you will again filter to the front only to be overtaken again seconds later. Result: maximum pollution intake!
    Or you could mitigate against this toxic assault by treating the red light as a give way and staying in front of the oxygen theives.

    I have theory that those who disagree over whether cyclists should obey traffic signals can generally be characterised thus:

    Those who think think the interests of cycling are best served by earning the respect of motorists and the public in general by being seen to obey the law. (your position?)


    Those who believe that using internal combustion engines in cities around people is antisocial on a fundamental level and should be kept to a minimum. Therefore we do not feel obliged to obey laws designed to control the congestion and danger caused by motor vehicles.

    I also think that your average motorist would be annoyed by bicycles regardless of whether they stop at red, possibly even more so as they would have the hassle of having to overtake them.

  31. I get the impression it’s not going to be long before we have a Godwin.

    I think the difference between us is; I just want to get to work without putting myself and others at risk whereas you are telling yourself that jumping red lights is actually as statement about climate change and pollution in order to excuse the fact that you just don’t want to stop. A protest is a bit of s rubbish excuse if no-one knows it’s a protest.

  32. Clearly this is a very divisive issue. On one hand, we have cyclists who want to fit in and obey the rule of law believing this keeps the peace and increases safety and on the other cyclists who believe the law as it stands is not fit for purpose; that the roads are dangerous and that we must take responsibility for our own safety by, when necessary, breaking the rules.

    Whilst this is clearly going to be an ongoing (heated) debate hopefully we can be united by our shared love of the bicycle and human powered transport. Presumably we all agree that the proportion of road space set aside for the car should be gradually decreased; that we should examine how we bring freight into cities and explore alternative options and that investment in cycling infrastructure should be increased. Perhaps we can also agree that people will choose to cycle in different ways and that we should be tolerant of this so long as they are not putting anyone at risk. (Before the uproar: I (we) simply do not accept that safely crossing a road at a red light when no cars are coming endangers anyone, if you can do it safely on foot why can’t you do it safely on a bike?)

    Happy riding.

  33. Also:

    what is a Godwin? and what is a Cager?


  34. “Cager” one who prefers to travel inside a cage

    Have no idea what is a “Godwin” 🙂

  35. From the Urban Dictionary.


    There was no entry for Godwin, so perhaps this is a rural term:-)

  36. Got it!


    This is very funny Asprila, thanks for this! See, debate is good, we can learn things!

  37. Why don’t the laws of the road cater for cyclists?
    I don’t know if you know what a bicycle is. They’re the ones without a steel box and without great bone-crushing bars on the front, and no furnace of controlled explosions under the bonnet to make it go.
    Cyclists have a perfect right to survive however they have to. When the laws are written in their interest, and of all road users, they will be able to obey them to the letter. Until then, a few drivers obeying them would be a start. After all the laws are written for them.

  38. “furnace of controlled explosions”

    🙂 🙂 love it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s