Archive for January, 2013

Cycling As a Symbol: Revisited

January 31, 2013

Previously, I have written about how cycling is not a symbol:

“I have seen a bicycle equated with liberalism, ecology, hipsterism, terrorism (no kidding), the United Nations, wealth, snobby elitism, theft of tax dollars, and even being white.”

While I do not see a bicycle as a negative symbol, in my old age, I have changed my ways a little.

Not only that but I have talked to a bunch of tourers for whom a bicycle is a symbol.

I met them while going into a coffee shop. They were unlocking their bicycles and I mentioned that “parking was tight”. Then I said that the only thing I like more than a bicycle is more bicycles. 🙂

They came to get a cup of coffee with me.

While we were talking, they mentioned that bicycles are potent symbols in their lives. Here are a few of their ideas.

For me a bicycle is a pile of money that I save in motoring, a great body, and lots of fun and friends. My social life revolves around cycling and cyclists. In fact, this has created an informal family for me. In fact, I’m going to explain this to the next comfort/away from personality type.

For Tiara, her bicycle means strength, power, and accomplishment. She especially likes to celebrate after climbing a hill. I found this to be inspiring.

For Derrick, a bicycle means escape, freedom, and karma. The latter meaning the good karma that one gets from having a lighter footprint.

Finally, for Derrik a bicycle is reality. This means of course that as a tourer, he wakes up each day and there’s his bicycle. There is no other life that he lives, day by day and nor does he want to live another life.

For me, this was the best answer of them all and it sums up cycling for me.

Bicycle equals reality.


Intermediate Pictures

January 30, 2013

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to advocacy is that there’s a confusion between having a clear picture of intermediate change and that of slow changes.

I have stated before that I do believe in rapid improvements in infrastructure for cycling. Everywhere I studied had changes in the matter of a few years and dealt with blowback mainly by ignoring their wishes.

Aside from more or wider roads and freeways, however, I have had serious problems conveying the kind of intermediate state that we will be in before we become Copenhagen with palm tress. How will our high speed roads look? What will happen with on ramps to the freeway? We can’t do it all at once.

Worse is that this has been a distinct character of modern America: that we don’t think of our neighborhoods as organic and subject to change:

“Only in the America of the Suburban Experiment do we culturally expect that, once a home is built, the neighborhood around it should remain ever static. The traditional development pattern and the success of prior human settlements were based on the notion that neighborhoods, particularly those near the core the community, would continue to gain value and mature over time. ”

Thus no matter what happens things will change, but we must think in terms of shaping and adapting to changing conditions rather than remaining static.

When I read planning documents, I get a similar feeling that the writers believe that their children’s lives are going to be very similar to their own with the same types of homes, desires, opportunities, and oil prices. Static existence is not the way of the modern world.

Still, as a society, we would really, really love to keep the status quo. Here’s an article which highlights some of the reasons for this desire:

“However, this article eloquently describes one source of uneasiness that has been growing in me for a while. I think I’d sum it up as follows, the status quo has grown too strong.

In today’s world, HSBC can launder money for drug dealers and illegally do business with Iran and avoids prosecution because it could upset our economy. Yet, we throw people in prison by the boatload for possessing marijuana. Or worse, we throw Bradley Manning in prison for years before giving him a trial and threaten Aaron with decades in prison for downloading documents that were available to anyone at MIT.”

I suggest that we shouldn’t limit our hopes and dreams to minor changes within the status quo. We should look to see where the world is headed then we can shape that world to that which benefits the most humans.

2030 San Diego RTP: An Illegal and Deceptive Proposal

January 29, 2013

“Transportation infrastructure and services must be coordinated with land use planning if we are to avoid increased traffic congestion, reduced mobility, and a deteriorating quality of life.”

I must love the above sentence because I have all ready quoted it once before, but here we go again!

One of the laws that the RTP got sued for was that it did not do enough to reduce greenhouse gases.

“SAN DIEGO – Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor ruled yesterday that the San Diego Association of Governments violated state law by failing to fully account for, and take steps to reduce, climate pollution in its environmental review of the region’s long-term transportation plan.”

In reality, it can only INCREASE traffic congestion; a focus on reducing congestion is the same as having a goal of increasing greenhouse gases.

Of course, they say that reduced congestion is equal to reduced greenhouse gases (because people’s trips are faster) but LTRs know that based on Smeed’s Law, this is not true. Make a product (motoring) more attractive by reducing congestion and people will do more of it.

“Systems Development: More Travel Choices”

This sounds great. We’re going to get more networks, right? That is, the only complete network is for motoring. There is ample evidence to show that if we don’t have a complete network,we won’t have any choices. What are they doing to complete more networks?

I think that if they are serious about giving “choices” rather than just lying about them, they’ll stop building any more motorways because that network is done. What does the RTP give us:

“The 2030 RTP includes a flexible roadway system, which can be used by transit and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), and improves goods movement through the region.”

Wow more roads. Nice.

There’s no mention of trolley network nor a bicycle only network. Nor anything for pedestrian only network. The only “choice” they give us is pretty much the same network that’s all ready done.

I’m leaving out many quotes where they mention the words: transit, pedestrian, and cycling because they don’t talk about a network. No network, no choice.

Here’s some more nonsense:

“Implementing the 2030 RTP requires close cooperation and coordination among all transportation agencies, local jurisdictions, and the traveling public.”

Here’s one blogger who thinks that the plan sucks and will not cooperate. Of course, I don’t have a choice and as you know: THIS BLOG ALWAYS RECOMMENDS FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW–NO EXCEPTIONS.

No, sir. I won’t break the law, but if could legally not comply with this plan, I would do so.

The notion that the public has to agree to this plan is just another lie. They don’t care what we think.

Overall, this plan will do more to discourage transit use and cycling. Here’s one reason:

“As seen in these two figures, levels of service (LOS) A through D indicate free-flow conditions, while LOS E and F indicate growing congestion, unstable flow, and stop-and-go traffic.”

But as a cyclist, I WANT stop and go traffic because it’s much, much safer. Plus, having stop and go traffic makes cycling more attractive which I thought was one of their goals.

In conclusion, when they say that they want cycling, transit, and walking, they plan for ways to discourage these activities. Even putting a bit more money into each of these activities will yield no change at all if they reduce congestion.

I suggest that they take out any mention of congestion reduction as this one goal makes all their other goals null and void. But they won’t because safety of anyone but motorists as well as offering real choices through the creation of alternative networks is NOT on their agenda.

This plan is full of lies which are there to placate the cycling community. We are not stupid and won’t be tricked by their continual use of the words cyclist while they do their all to make cycling more dangerous and less attractive as a mode of transportation.

Do Cars Mean Business?

January 24, 2013

LTRs know that like a diseased tick, once I get ahold of vein of controversy, I don’t let go until I either get my fill of blood or squashed. 🙂

Going along with a previous post which questioned the brain damaged assertion that “Bikes Mean Business”, I’m asking yet another question. Do cars mean business?

Of course they do, but do they mean very much business?

According to CAR, a leading pro-automobile think tank, the answer is, “CARS DON’T REALLY CONTRIBUTE TOO MUCH TO THE US ECONOMY.” From their report:

“At the end of 2008, U.S. automotive output was 2.2% of GDP”,d.cGE

Two percent isn’t too much. Note that this isn’t counting the enormous economic output that such a powerhouse is creating by taking tax dollars to build roads, paying doctors to treat hundreds of thousands of motoring injuries, paying for the obesity epidemic, and the burgeoning parking meter industry. I don’t feel that we should think of extra misery and expense on American citizens to be “productive part of the GDP” and neither does CAR, apparently.

In fact, their report looks a bit desperate to act as if cars are actually really important rather than a part of our economy that continues to decline. Since 1995, we autos have gone from 3.7% to 2.2% of our entire GDP. I know that the economy was in the toilet, but this is a declining percentage of a smaller economy, a double decline. If auto manufacturing had stayed the same then it would have actually increased in percentage, but it went down.

Next, the CAR report tries a sad bait and switch as it tries to conflate auto manufacturing with manufacturing of everything else.

“A look at the entire production and supply chain provides a rich narrative of how a strong automotive industry historically supports the growth and stability of many other industries, such as basic materials suppliers of steel, plastic, rubber and glass, which are used for making bodies, interiors and trim, tires, gaskets and windows.”

This is typical extortion like we see from the banks. Do our bidding or we will bring the whole system down with us.

Next, they stress research and development which is only funded 1% by the US government. Do you know why? Because research and development funded by our government is there for public interest like curing cancer. What are some of the auto industries research goals?

“In 2007, the U.S. automotive sector, responding to: 1) the need to improve safety in vehicles, 2) consumer demands for new model types with enhanced cosmetic and drive performance characteristics, and 3) regulation of emissions, invested $16 billion into R&D.”

If you banned cars, we wouldn’t have any of these problems. Thus the research done is mainly to get rid of the problems that cars cause in the first place.

Next they whine about the “economy”.

“Several contributing factors are responsible for the current anemic economic situation, yet the primary culprit tends to be the American housing market and the risky operations that lead to its growth.”

Guess where the housing bubble took place, primarily? The suburbs which were only possible by guess what? The automobile. So the auto industry is again whining about a problem that they were critical for its creation. Boy these guys are hilarious.

“This unprecedented sales activity was largely supported by: easy access to low interest credit (often through draws on home equity);
an ex-urban housing development movement necessitating increased vehicle ownership; a booming stock market; post- 9/11 manufacturer incentives; and an enhanced sense of personal wealth.”

Who saved them? Hard work? Intelligence? Genetic superiority?

“In addition to the bankruptcy and restructuring activity during the summer of 2009, the U.S. Federal government also intervened in the U.S. auto sales market by introducing the Car Allowance Rebate System, commonly referred to as the Cash for Clunkers program. Congress appropriated $3 billion for this program; the impact on new vehicle sales proved to be immediate and significant.”

Ah, so the US government made it possible to continue to sell cars to people who admitted above were only buying them because the only property they could afford was due to motoring which was caused by widespread motoring. My head is spinning.

Remember this next time we hear about “gold plated bike paths” or “cars are important to the economy.”

From their own report, it seems that CARs understands that the US government is important for the buying and selling of cars.

Thus, we should not be ashamed when we ask the government to spend some change building infrastructure to fix the problems that they spent billions creating.

Thanks CARs.

Silly Study States the Obvious But Still Manages to Mislead

January 23, 2013

Maybe they are equally to blame for the crashes, but if you have 2 cars crashing people will still get hurt.

If you have to bicycles crashing the cyclist will less likely be hurt.

If you have a car crash into a cyclist, the cyclist is hurt.

Thus, the addition of a car makes things dangerous and it’s misleading to say that they are “equal” when one party brings almost 100% of the damage into the mix.

This should be obvious.

Also, since most people drive and bicycle you would expect them to roughly make the same number of mistakes as in most cases, they are the same population. Duh! Thus it this finding is only insightful if we accept that cyclists are some kind of alien species.

From the article:

“It’s so great to know that our crashes are not all random … and there are things we can do to prevent crashes,” he said.

I 100% disagree. This is because we all make mistakes. Also, you can ALWAYS point the finger at a motorist or cyclist if you frame the discussion that way. You find what you measure. I can ALWAYS find many mistakes I made which wound up being safe due to luck. If you have a series of people continually making mistakes, which is reality, crashes are random.

This is silly:

“The previously reported drop in the city’s bike crash rate as the number of bikers has made drivers more aware of bikes has continued to hold.”

So what? We have to be out there getting run over before we are safe. Ug. Who are these assholes?

Why not make things safer BEFORE the drivers kill a bunch of us? I guess because they are too cheapass to do so.

“The study found bike-motor vehicle crashes clustered on arterial streets where traffic concentrates. But it found that streets with bike lanes, such as Hennepin Avenue downtown or University Av. SE tended to have lower crash rates than streets like Lowry Avenue or 28th Street with only partial or no such markings.”

Yes, this is true. I found this in all the data I looked at as well. Bike lanes save lives. Pretty obvious if you look at data.

“Cyclists are much more likely to ride in a predictable manner if they have a place to ride,” said bike activist Ethan Fawley, president of the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition.”

This is tautology. Most cyclist collisions in SD that I have heard about had the cyclist behaving in a “predictable” manner. By this, I mean they were well trained and riding like they were supposed to be: legally and sensibly. They still got hit.

But by “predictable” in this tautological context means not getting hit. So most of the cyclists who did not get hit also did not get hit.

“They give more assurance to those hesitant to bike on high-traffic routes like Portland and Park avenues, he said.”


No they don’t. These people who say this believe that they are some kind of super heros. They are really just lucky. Anyone can get hit by a car at any time on a high speed road. On such a road you are more likely to die. Cars literally “come out of nowhere” because the road camouflages those with black paint. Cars going at 50 MPH or more are only seconds away even if they are coming over the horizon. With roads which are 4 lanes are more and minimal intersections this gives you seconds to race across a dangerous road. This does not make me safe.

2030 San Diego RTP: Integration Code for Freeways

January 22, 2013

I really like integration when it means not discriminating against people.

It sounds nice and sensible. However, this nice word has been repurposed to nefarious purposes.

LTRs probably know that racist VC DBs have taken the phrase “integration” to mean “playing in high speed traffic on a bicycle.” Thus, they seek to give a dangerous and foolish activity to be equivalent to civil rights.

Now, the RTP is taking the same word as code to build more freeways:

“Integrating Transit and Roadways”

This phrase is used all over the RTP.

When I think of integrated public transportation, I see myself walking a block and not getting out of the Underground until I wind up in the middle of Balboa Park.

Since this entire document looks like it was written someone personality disorder. They want Smart Growth, but they build to encourage sprawl. They want more cycling, but they build to discourage it. And now they say they want “public transportation” but they steal the money for freeway motoring projects. Overall, I recommend that the authors be put in a mental hospital. 🙂

In the RTP, our friend “integration” means freeway projects:

“Competitive transit service must be able to operate in congestion-free lanes. The Plan includes an extensive network of Managed/HOV lanes on the highway system designed to accommodate transit services as well as carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons (similar to I-15 FasTrakTM where fees fund transit services in the I-15 corridor). On arterials, the
Plan includes funding for transit priority treatments, and regional funding to help complete regionally significant arterials. The Plan also includes major transit capital projects, such as transitways, double tracking, direct access ramps, and grade separations, and provides operational funding for the expanded regional transit system.”

Here’s some more doublespeak:

“Systems Management helps get the most efficiency out of our existing system, makes travel services more
reliable, convenient, and safe, and reduces traffic delays caused by accidents and incidents.”

Haha, more efficient? Motoring is the least efficient way to get around in terms of cost and least efficient in terms of space and least efficient in terms of dollars per mile. So it’s a little insane to spend billions on more motoring and to claim efficiency. I just don’t get it.

Also, reducing traffic delays will increase accidents not reduce them. You can’t have it both ways. High speed motoring is responsible for the lion’s share of transportation deaths. To make things safer, you want to increase congestion and reduce the travel speed of single occupancy vehicles. Also, faster cars burn more petrol. Finally, safe and reliable seeming transportation encourages people to live, work, and play in areas which are further away which increases exposure time to motoring which increases risk, encourages more petrol usage which is less efficient, and it encourages more motoring which equals more congestion.

2030 San Diego RTP: Big Promises Made And Broken

January 21, 2013

“At the heart of MOBILITY 2030 is the Regional Transit Vision, a 21st century strategy to develop a seamless public transportation system for the region –one that is integrated with our growing communities and that ultimately is competitive with driving your car during rush hours.”


“Finally, Demand Management focuses on reducing trips on the
transportation system during peak periods and encouraging alternatives
to driving alone (e.g., transit, carpooling, vanpooling, biking,
and walking).”

Wow, that sounds awesome! How are they going to do this?

“Several highway improvements are currently under construction, including the I-5/I-805 merge widening, completion of State Route (SR) 56 between Interstates 5 and 15, SR 125 between Fletcher Parkway and SR 94, various widening projects on Interstates 5 and 15, and freeway-to-freeway interchange connecting ramps at I-5/SR 78, I-15/SR 56, and SR
94/SR 125.”

So basically, they are going to make public transportation more appealing by attempting to reduce congestion via the means that in the previous post where they said that this won’t work?

Plus, why would I ride the bus if the roads were nicer?

Also, we know that these dangerous merges kill people. I rode on Fletcher before and I had to salmon back to avoid illegally riding on a freeway. And they want to widen it? You’d think that they were like a wild animal who, after a taste of bicyclist blood, wants more.

If they know that widening roads does not work, why do it? And when are they going to repave the roads that they all ready built?

“When implemented, the improvements in MOBILITY 2030 will complete the region’s highway and roads network, and transform it into a robust system with more lanes dedicated to carpools and buses integrated with more than a dozen new high-quality regional transit services. The Plan includes a flexible roadway system which can be used by transit and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), and improves goods movement through the region.”

The mask is slipping. Note how they are starting to play bait and switch with words? More freeways is not compatible with public transportation and cycling. Sure you could drive a bus on a freeway, but this is not the same as building a decent public transportation network.

I think that they have no commitement to public transportation at all. Even when they are forced to create public transportation, they are able to siphon most of the money off for motoring.

The way we’ll know if they are actually committed to public transportation is when they remove their parking lot and replace it with a park and they take all their trips to work on the trolley and bicycle.

But they won’t because these things don’t go everywhere, are too slow and are not reliable. If they were then congestion should not be such a problem.

But deep down that’s all they care about. Despite the promising beginning where they discover Smeed’s Law, the RTP is sprinkled with this nonsense:

“Transportation infrastructure and services must be coordinated with land use planning if we are to avoid increased traffic congestion, reduced mobility, and a deteriorating quality of life.”

As a cyclist, my mobility and quality goes way, way up with increased congestion. I guess they don’t ride bicycles so they don’t know this.
We could have great public transportation as it’s the only way that 100% of people can get around: handicapped, elderly, the young, and the poor.

Rather than building subways everywhere and roads and parking later or not at all, they prioritize the most expensive, inefficient, and elite form of transportation.

To rub salt in our wounds, they tell us that they actually care about cycling and public transportation.

I plan to read the entire plan.

Prepare to be underwhelmed by their plans for the next SEVENTEEN YEARS.

2030 San Diego RTP: A Super Bad Start

January 18, 2013

After reading the first two lines of this the RTP, I’m all ready angry.

“Ask anyone what’s the biggest problem in San Diego, and you’ll probably hear “traffic.” ”

I don’t know anyone who would say this. But it just shows, that right out of the gate, they are 100% can centric and thus, this organization is fundamentally incapable of giving us a livable city.

In fact, many of the brightest and most product citizens of San Diego leave because it’s so motor centric which makes it spread out. This is due to bad design. Their total inability to grasp this is telling.

“However, if we have learned anything in the last decade, it’s that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion.”

Um, I had posted earlier, but five minutes of google has shown that we have known this for decades.’s_law

“He predicted that any intervention intended to speed traffic would only lead to more people driving at this ‘tolerable’ speed unless there were any other disincentives against doing so.”

This law came out in 1949 and seems that–though the formula does not work 100% of the time, the general idea is blindingly obvious.

Yet, it took them decades to figure this out?

Finally, I do applaud the notion that “we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion, but I’m skeptical that this is actually the case.

Do Bikes Mean Business?

January 17, 2013

Sometimes, it gets lonely being a contrarian, but mostly it’s just plain fun.

Still I don’t wish to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. When I say something it’s because I strongly believe in it.

In this case, I feel that Bikes Mean Business, while true in many ways, is lazy and a self-destructive slogan.

Let’s put some bread on a happy sandwich.

Riding a bicycle, to me, has provided numerous financial benefits. Thus, for me, bikes me very good business indeed.

Now the nitty gritty.

From the site:

“What truly drives economic activity? People are attracted to vibrant, lively public spaces. Study after study concludes that safe, walkable and bikable places are a high priority in attracting and retaining the desirable young professional class. Communities accessible to children, the elderly, families, pedestrians, cyclist, and automobiles are proven to be the kinds of places that attract more people. They have a bustling and welcoming street life and attract more visitors.”

While I agree with everything here, I don’t think that the paragraph really answers the question that it raised in the first sentence. People are indeed attracted to public spaces, but the cities were hollowed out and people drove to the malls even if this meant that their hometown’s business would die and it would start to suck. This is because free parking also drives business.

See the problems is that while bikes can help with business, once we frame the discussion with “whatever helps business the most” then if it turns out, as it sometimes may, that cycling does not create the biggest economic activities.

Another example was the very nice chart that we showed congress people about how much people spend on bicycles. Guess what? They spend waaaay more on their cars. So it looks as if the most inefficient method is the best as far as being “good for business.”

Here’s another look at this concept:

“In pure economic terms, bicycling pours billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, creating jobs and boosting community development from coast to coast.”

But so do automobiles! In fact, we’d have more money for roads if we scrapped the “hobby cycling paths” and widened the freeways.

I don’t think that we should do this, but this is the conclusion that many will reach if we start with this broken premise.

Also, the notion of bringing intelligent people to a city is a sound one, but overall, any kind of economic development of this kind, if done in many places will be a zero sum game. That is, there are only so many bright people and only so much extra money. So this kind of thinking will not ultimately help out.

I can hear it now.

“OK, Mr. Smarty Pants,” you say. “It’s easy to tear things down. What is your alternative.”

First of all, cycling development must be seen in two ways. First of all, is HARM MITIGATION. It’s a common belief in even the most libertarian circles that “your rights end where mine begin.” Killing someone is a huge curtailment of one’s rights. Since motoring brings the danger, it must bring the solution to that danger. OWNING AND OPERATING DANGEROUS MACHINERY IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE DANGERS BROUGHT BY DANGEROUS MACHINERY!

This should be obvious, but it’s not.

Thus, I see the case for the government building cycle tracks to mitigate the harm that they created, where there was none, by their initial road projects.

Second, is that roads and bicycles can not be seen as distinct from decent urban design. Overall, cycling infrastructure, when done right, fosters more efficient use of land which means cost savings. It also encourages keeping savings in a community instead of exporting money. Finally, it gives one a choice which means that cycle tracks expands our liberties by making cycling an option. Adding freedom is a good thing especially when it does not have to cost anything at all. The money for cycling is all ready allocated by the federal and state governments and it’s up to the regions which want better development to spend it.

Let’s spend a bit more time thinking of all the possible ways that we can promote bicycles instead of picking the easiest and laziest of choices. Otherwise, we might find our slogans being used against us.

Why I Favor Revoking the Gas Tax

January 16, 2013

Recently in VA, the government proposed to eliminate the gas tax.

This blog is in favor of it.


1. Contrary to popular belief, road users do NOT pay their own way. They pay part of it, but not all of it. The gas tax is one of the most confusing things when it comes to transportation funding.

Take away the gas tax and this belief should go away that “I paid a gas tax so I own the road.”

2. The gas tax does not take into account the size of vehicles and thus it does not address wear and tear on the roads. I can have a fleet of small motorbikes on a road or a few trucks. The fleet, over time, will use more gas, but create less wear and tear on the roads. Add pedestrians and cyclists who pay the gas tax indirectly in the price of their good as it’s passed along by shipping companies versus their almost non-existent wear and tear and you see that the picture is an even worse mess.

You don’t charge those who use it for how much they use.

3. If the roads are good and motoring are good why do we want to penalize people who use them? There’s the notion that the gas tax makes people drive less. Since gas is one of the lowest costs in a car, the total cost per mile goes DOWN THE MORE YOUR DRIVE. The gas tax does not change this equation and thus we lose nothing when changing this.

4. As per above, now all the costs of transporation come from the general fund. Since there’s no ownership on the stupid “road tax” in people’s minds, car owners and non-car owners are now on a level playing field when it comes to negotiations. Since so much money was all ready squandered on roads, we can justify spending more, in the future on cycling and public transportation.

If the money isn’t there for roads, tough.

5. Since the “economy” hums along the cheaper that transportation is, we should make public transportation free, too. After all, motorists are not paying their way anymore so why should anyone else?

Through the years, VA over reached itself and will have huge problems when all the roads start to rot and it does the ability, anymore, to raise enough revenue to pay for it, due to it’s bizarre fixed belief on taxes.

For cyclists this is OK because the system will slowly break down and we can all get back to walking around safely and mountain bicycling everywhere.

By the time that the bills get bad, we’ll be in full triage mode and it will make sense to implement the final stages of Agenda 21 and to implement UN control over the fine state of VA. 🙂

Eliminating local revenue sources to pay for gold plated motorways is step one in our plan to dominate the world thus creating people who live longer, are happier, and don’t have to listen to loud noises around dangerous machinery. 🙂