8 Ball In The Wind

Monday, September 18, 2017

Does Washington State's Transportation Agenda Override Truth And Data ?

To push their own agenda, members of several Washington State governmental agencies have; misrepresented the facts, disregarded data, or exempted data that skewed their studies away from their desired result.  What may be most distressing is that this seems to only be a loosely coordinated agenda.  With different agencies using different numbers to discuss the same data. For example, the Washington State Patrol (who reports their data to NHTSA), Washington Dept. of Transportation, and the Washington Dept. of Licensing cannot even agree on the number of motorcycle fatalities each year.  Even though they are all parts of the same state government, their numbers are significantly different.  
As you can see, there is a consistent and significant difference in data between state agencies reporting motorcycle fatalities in Washington State.  As you can see, their numbers only came close to matching once in a ten year period.  How is that possible when they all claim to be reporting on the same factor, yet their data is so completely different as to insure error in reporting and forecasts that bring into question the voracity of the data being presented.

The Washington Traffic Safety Commission on its website repeatedly quotes data from 2012-2014.  However if one actually looks at the information being presented, in many cases it simply does not add up.  It claims that; "Only 8 percent of the riders involved in fatalities were not wearing helmets."  Those numbers don't add up.  During the period 2012-2014, 3.6% of riders involved in fatalities were not wearing helmets, not 8%.  In that period, that is a difference of ten (10) riders, a 4.4% error in their information on only that one point.  

The WTSC also proclaims that helmets are 37% effective in preventing motorcycle deaths.  Yet, their source for that piece of data, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also states that 81% of helmeted fatalities and 64% of non-helmeted fatalities are due to injuries other than the head.   So basically, in two out of three non-helmeted fatalities, and four out of five helmeted fatalities, the helmet was irrelevant.  This isn't to say they did not provide some measure of protection, but what other piece of motor vehicle equipment would you stand to be mandated to use when it is only effective in a questionable 37% of the time?  I also find it amusing that the concept of automobile occupants being mandated to wear helmets is considered laughable in the legislature.  Even though the Centers for Disease Control have found that an automobile occupant involved in a collision is ten times more likely to go to the ER with a head injury, six times more likely to be hospitalized for a head injury, and four and a half times more likely to die from a head injury than a motorcyclist involved in a collision.  Don't believe me?  Check the 2010 CDC report "Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States". and you'll find the info between pages 30 and 41.  See for yourself, it isn't difficult to find the information.

Perhaps this next excerpt from the WTSC's website is even more telling.  As it places the agencies desire to reach an unattainable goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries within the next 12 years above the wishes of members of the community who actually are affected by this law to the extent that they oppose any measure to amend the helmet bill by blindly disseminating the same incorrect data that I have just demonstrated.  "This is important because there are annual challenges to Washington's helmet laws by advocate wishing the law repealed.  To reach zero fatalities and serious injuries, it is important that this law stay in place."  This should demonstrate that the agencies agenda is being placed placed above the will of the people.

On another issue; that of lane-sharing (or lane-splitting), several agencies in Washington State are clinging tenaciously to 'Target Zero' claiming the practice is dangerous and will cost more lives.  They openly dismiss multiple studies demonstrating the polar opposite to be true.  All without showing any evidence to the contrary other than some deceptively edited video clips showing motorcyclists riding illegally and dangerously getting into collisions.  However the videos are edited to give the impression that both riders were killed.  Which the full clips show is certainly not the case.  In both un-cut clips being shown the riders are shown to get back up on their feet, and relatively unharmed.  Proving the very point that supporters of lane-sharing have been claiming to be true all along.

Another example of Washington State's Transportation Agenda being distorted is the 2011 Washington State Dept. of Transportation study on center line rumble strips.  In this study, the number of fatal motorcycle crashes on newly rumble stripped highway rose from 30% to 53%.  That is a 44% increase in fatalities after rumble stripping.  Yet instead of asking why the number of motorcycle fatalities rose, WADOT's researchers simply decided to 'exclude' motorcycles from the study.  This is the actually explanation from the study itself; "it is clear that they are skewing portions of the CLRS analysis. For that reason, these 35 motorcycle collisions were excluded from the dataset."

So because a sharp rise in motorcycle fatalities "skewed" the dataset, instead of trying to understand why, the motorcycle fatalities were simply 'excluded' from the information that formed the data for the study.  Since the rumble strips were being introduced to have an effect on drowsy and fatigued drivers, the fact that they may have an unintended effect on motorcycle safety seems to have been considered irrelevant.  In the follow-up 2013 study, there is no mention of motorcycles at all.  So it would seem that WADOT is not truly concerned with 'Target Zero' if it applies to motorcyclists.

There is more, but I will let you have fun finding it.  Their actions certainly don't fit the words they provide the legislators.  They don't appear to really consider motorcycles a worthy vehicle to use their roadways.  They just haven't been able to get completely rid of us yet.  

Too many of the legislators still see us as the stereotypical bum on  some cheap death trap of a motorcycle.  I recently had the pleasure of discussing some of the issues we will be working for during the next legislative session with a legislator who wished t get a better 'feel' for motorcyclists.  He had asked to arrange our meeting at a Harley-Davidson dealership.  It was humorous to see the look on his face when he realized the prices on the packed showroom floor.  Most were more expensive then the vintage BMW he drove to the dealership.  It was definitely an eye opener for him.  That is what we need more of, to open the eyes of legislators to who motorcyclists truly are,

Catch you on the road sometime...

Sunday, September 3, 2017

Governmental Prejudice Towards Motorcyclists?

There has long been a line of thought that suggested there is an institutional bias against motorcycles by the government.  I have seen evidence of it while researching and investigating reports and studies over the past few years, and was curious if would be easily found by randomly pulling any one report and carefully looking at it.  What I found when I opened a random report; it happened to be from the Washington State Dept of Health, was disturbing.  There appear to be definite prejudicial comments and statements, that aren't necessarily reinforced by the actual information in the report.  Some of this could be a reliance on a limited number of sources for a wide range of information.  Or it could simply be the bureaucratic mentality in effect.  The mentality that finds it so difficult to understand  why this motorcycle, and the automobile behind it are not simply motor vehicles, equal to each other in all ways.

Look at these two vehicles, and see if you can understand why according to the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission (WSTC), lane departure (aka leaving the roadway) contributed to 49% of motorcycle fatalities between 2011 and 2015.  Meanwhile the bureaucratic response to prevent motorcycle fatalities is a mandatory helmet law.  Which personally I find rather odd, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data clearly shows that 81% of fatal injuries to helmeted motorcyclists, and 64% of fatal injuries to un-helmeted motorcyclists are to bodily locations other than the head.  So wouldn't a reasonable person agree that a helmet was irrelevant in a majority of all motorcycle fatalities?

Catch you on the road sometime...

Motorcycles As An Integral Mode Of Transportation

Motorcycling is a diverse and adaptable mode of transportation which should play an integral part of the State’s transportation planning, but has largely been ignored by transportation policy planners.  This benign neglect by those agencies and bureaus whose purpose is to plan and maintain an integrated and comprehensive transportation system has left motorcyclists in a vulnerable position, and exposed to various hazards due to the view of those planning transportation policy that motorcycles are merely a dangerous and risky vehicle that must be dealt with only in the sphere of safety policy.  This view does not even consider motorcycles as a viable option in virtually any major transportation policy.  An example of this is the 2014, I-5 JBLM Vicinity Congestion Relief Study done for the Washington State Dept. of Transportation.  In the entire 135 page study, the word motorcycle is not even mentioned once.  In WADOT’s 2015 Corridor Congestion Report, motorcycles are only mentioned once in the 50 pages of the report.  Even then it is simply as part of a list of ‘alternate commute’ methods of drivers over 16. 

 Motorcycles have been so completely relegated to only being a safety concern, that they are virtually non-existent when it comes to being part of a comprehensive transportation plan.  This is not the case everywhere.  In the UK, the National Council of Police Chiefs, Highway England, and the Motorcycle Industry Council have formed a partnership and created a ‘Motorcycle Framework’  (www.motorcycleframework.co.uk)  to help motorcycles become a fully integrated mode of transportation.  It would appear to be making strides in both reduction of congestion, decreasing overall greenhouse gas emissions, and a reduction in highway fatalities.  This ongoing effort is aimed at changing the attitudes of transportation policy planners, decrease the vulnerability of motorcyclists, while reducing motorcycle casualties as well.

The Northamptonshire County Council is a prime example of how motorcycles can be integrated into a comprehensive transportation policy.  On their website, regarding motorcycles they state; “As part of our modal shift strategy Northamptonshire County Council embraces motorcycles and scooters as a sustainable transport mode within the countywide transport programme.  Greater use of motorcycles can bring environmental, congestion and accessibility benefits particularly on journeys made for commuting to places of employment or education."

The inclusion of motorcycles; along with public transportation, light rail, bicycles, and even pedestrian commuting, open up a wide and varied array of options currently apparently not even ‘on the radar’of transportation planners.  Currently one of the key concerns in many urban centers is one of parking.  One of the benefits of publicly promoting the use of motorcycles in commuting is that multiple motorcycles can safely park in the space generally taken up by one car.  By promoting the use of motorcycles for commuting, parking space in urban areas can effectively be increased many fold for little or no cost for parking infrastructure.

By integrating motorcycles more comprehensibly into transportation policy would allow the development of the motorcycle as a viable alternative to the automobile to single occupant commuters.  This would also provide an alternate avenue for users of crowded public transport to vacate seats which could then in turn be filled by drivers unwilling to ride a motorcycle.  This opportunity to set motorcycle safety into a proper context which would unleash the benefits to the public of more comprehensively integrated Transportation Dept./Dept. of Licensing  proposals that would lead the way for the effort to reduce the number of traffic incidents, and reduce rider vulnerability. 

 Think about it.

Catch you on the road sometime…

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Did The Data Really Say That?

Sometimes a person has to really think about the information that is being published in the name of motorcycle "safety".  I am not necessarily disputing the findings, I am concerned about how it is being presented and what is being left out.  If you should just scan over the information as you read it, you may not have noticed certain discrepancies in information released by NHTSA in its annual "motorcycle traffic safety facts" report.  The data is published in a manner to elicit shock and concern in the reader.  However, if you really pay attention, you may realize things aren't as they would first appear.

For example; "In two-vehicle crashes 73 percent of the motorcycles involved in motor vehicle traffic crashes were frontal collisions. Only 7 percent were struck in the rear."  Notice anything about that quotation from the 2014 "motorcycle traffic safety facts" report?  It is incomplete, and in more than one way.  What type of collisions made up the unmentioned 20% of collisions?  Notice how the report states that while 73 percent were "frontal collisions", and only "7 percent were struck in the rear."  The only thing it is clear about is that the front of the motorcycle was the contact point in 73 percent of the collisions.  Although the implication is that 73 percent of motorcycles struck another vehicle in the rear.  But is that what the quote actually shows?

Think about it; if someone pulls a left hand turn in front of you, or suddenly slows or stops in front of you, aren't you going to hit them with the front of your motorcycle?

Here's another quote from that same report; "Motorcycles are more frequently involved in fatal collisions with fixed objects than other vehicles. In 2014 about 25 percent of the motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with fixed objects, compared to 19 percent for passenger cars, 14 percent for light trucks, and 4 percent for large trucks."

The  key phrase here is 'fatal collisions'.  These stats compare collisions with fixed objects (guardrails, trees, street lamps, bridges, etc.) by various types of enclosed vehicles and motorcycles.  Then seemingly can't understand why motorcyclists would suffer a higher fatality rate than occupants of passenger cars, light trucks or large trucks.  The fact that a motorcyclist doesn't have the benefit of; being inside a metal enclosure, passenger restraints, and air bags is seemingly irrelevant in having a higher fatality rate due to collisions with fixed objects.  impacts that would not result in a fatality in one of those other classes of motor vehicle, could easily be severe enough to be fatal for a motorcyclist.  Like the saying goes; "we don't have crumple zones, we have leathers."

At times it is almost as if the data is just being punched into a pre-formatted document (which in finished form it is), but without someone double checking the figures.  For example, in one paragraph the report states that; "...2,469 (53%) of the 4,694 motorcycles involved in fatal crashes were collisions with
motor vehicles in transport."  Then, just three paragraphs later it states; "In 2014 there were 2,172 two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle."  That's a difference of 297 fatal crashes, in only three paragraphs.  Yet there is no explanation, or even apparent realization that these figures don't match.  One is left to assume that those 297 fatalities were involved in collisions involving multiple vehicles.  But then in the Navy they taught me 'never to assume'.

So when you look at data, don't just skim it.  Stop fairly regularly and go over what you just read.  Does it make sense?  Does it really say what you thought it said?  Do the figures even add up?  Sometimes using authoritative sounding figures can be convincing, but you better make sure they are complete as possible and accurate.  Or someone might just use them to beat you over the head with them.

Catch you on the road sometime..

Wednesday, July 19, 2017


There has been a great deal of debate regarding motorcycles moving forward between lanes of slow or stationary traffic on the freeways of Washington State.  While this is a basic motorcycle maneuver in virtually all the rest of the world, the concept seems quite alien to many drivers and law enforcement in the state.  I am hoping the explanations and information here will help rectify the issue of perceptions that seems to be at the core of this issue.

Imagine for a moment you are riding a motorcycle in slow moving freeway traffic.  There is a vehicle in front of you with space in front of it.  On either side of this vehicle is space enough for you to pass the vehicle in front of you.  Making certain that you are in a low enough gear to provide adequate acceleration if an emergency requires, you make your move and pass the vehicle riding along the dividing white line between the lanes.  After safely passing the vehicle you pull into the open available space.  You have just split the lanes.  Albeit while only passing one vehicle, but you have done it.  By simply keeping yourself alert and ready to respond with either brake or throttle as necessary in an emergency, you can successfully proceed safely through the congested traffic.

At about this point in the conversation, usually one of a two questions are brought up.  Both are related closely enough to simply be a variation of the same question.  What happens if a car should suddenly change lanes in front of a lane sharing motorcyclist, and who is liable for the collision.  This is one of those ‘perceptions’ I had mentioned earlier.  The perception here is; that a motorcyclist who is safely and properly lane sharing is much more likely to be hit by a vehicle changing lanes than one maintaining their position in the flow of traffic.  However, the facts don’t support this perception.  One of the conclusions in Dr. James V. Ouellet’s 2011 study Lane Splitting on California Freeways was that; “Maintaining a normal lane position does nothing to eliminate sudden path encroachment by cars. Motorcyclists are vulnerable to incautious car drivers making sudden, unsignaled lane changes regardless of the motorcycle position in the lane.”  As to liability; while I am not an attorney, I would expect it to depend on the cause of that collision, not a blanket liability placed on one party or the other.  While collisions do happen while lane sharing, nearly thirty years of research and study from around the world show that those collisions are much less frequent than those involving motorcyclist who are not lane sharing.  Even the famous ‘Hurt Report’ (considered by many to be the most in-depth and complete motorcycle accident study of the 20th Century) found that lane sharing was involved in less than 1% of the 900 accidents in the study.  It may help the reader’s understanding to know that Dr. J.V. Ouellet was the co-author of the “Hurt Report”, and has more than forty years in the field of traffic safety research.

This perception of lane sharing being a dangerous activity performed by thrill seekers is totally out of touch with the reality.  While there are those who do perform the technique at high speed differentials to traffic flow, they are by far in the minority.  However, they are also the ones who are the focus of YouTube videos and television news reports.  Meanwhile, as was found in the ‘Hurt Report’, as well as other studies since, nearly 66% of motorcyclists on the California freeways partake in lane splitting, and account for less than 1% of the motorcycle fatalities.  The two studies done by Dr. Rice, of UC Berkeley in 2014 and 2015 continue to support the previous findings.  As do the findings of the 2009 MAIDS (Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study) from Europe. 

Yet the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, some in law enforcement, and others continue to disregard and denigrate these studies in lieu of (and actually perpetuating) the perceptions created by these YouTube videos.  The perception this creates is that of an conscious effort to focus on motorcycles as only a safety related concern and not as a full and integrated facet of transportation policy.  A project manager at the WTSC stated to me that since motorcycles accounted for only 4% of registered vehicles in Washington, they don’t have much of an effect on traffic.  That is the perception shared throughout the state agencies.  Yet, if only one in four motorcycles lane shared, that would take over 70,000 motorcycles out of the states traffic stream.  That wouldn’t have an effect on traffic?

Catch you on the road sometime…

Friday, June 2, 2017

Seattle's Traffic Woes Overlook A Safe, Cost-Effective Option

Seattle has the 23rd (out of 1,064 cities) worst traffic on the planet, 10th worst in the USA (according to Kirkland-based traffic data firm INRIX ).  This is even more staggering when one realizes that the Seattle metro area doesn't even crack the top 90 metropolitan areas in the world for population.  The current focus on congestion relief for the metro Seattle area are the tunnel on the north side of downtown, and the Sound Transit Light Rail.  Both are multi-billion dollar projects than will have little or no flexibility to respond to area traffic needs.  With traffic this severe, and bound to increase as the regional population increases, congestion will also increase.  Surely there is a more cost-effective measure than can be taken to aid in the reduction of this dire problem.  I believe there is.

The transportation policy planning in Washington State has been primarily focused on a two pronged approach; infrastructure, and public transit.  Once the capacity for additional freeway lanes was reached in Seattle, the policy began to shift to promote the use of public transit.  Which is not a negative policy.  However, there are further options which the transportation policy planners have come to look at merely as vehicles that represent safety concerns to be dealt with.  

Outside of the United States, in some of the most congested traffic in the world, those options are being seriously looked at as part of a comprehensive transportation policy.  Not only looked at, but actively supported and promoted by the government.  What are these options?  Powered Two-Wheelers (motorcycles and scooters).  In the US, and especially evident here in Washington State, the powered two-wheelers are looked at by transportation planners only in relation to safety of the rider.  Motorcycles and scooters are left out of the equation virtually completely when it comes to efforts to reduce traffic congestion.  This is a counterproductive way of thinking.

In the UK for example, it has been realized that this mindset created a perceived lack of motorized transportation to replace the single occupant car in traffic.  So for a long time, no few actually "thought outside the box" until about the late 1990's.  In a policy framework, Highways England stated; "Failure to consider all modes of transport, including motorcycling, denies the opportunity to create fully rounded transport policies, which are relevant to all who need to use transport for differing purposes and in widely varying circumstances.  This narrow approach to transport policy also fails to maximize the opportunities that exist to reduce urban traffic congestion and pollution-an area where motorcycles can play a significant role."

I specifically mention the UK and it's effort to support a comprehensive planning policy that includes powered motorcycles and scooters for a few reasons.  One, is that environmentally speaking, the UK is not too different from Washington State, with a similar annual precipitation spread out throughout the year.  It is also slightly cooler on average than Washington State.  Another reason is that London is even further up the congestion ranking than Seattle.  London is ranked 7th in the world for it's congestion.  Lastly; the UK, as well as most of the rest of the world, uses lane-sharing on the main freeways ad lane-filtering on the city streets to help ease congestion.  

Imagine if you will, if all the motorcycles in Washington State were given the opportunity to help ease congestion by lane-sharing as described in ESB5378.  A program manager in the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission informed me they do not believe there would be any congestion relief because only 4% of registered vehicles in Washington are motorcycles.  That is over a quarter of a million motorcycles.  Yet the WTSC doesn't believe they would have any effect on congestion.  That is a perfect example of the mindset I have spoken of.  Instead of placing motorcycles in the same category as; public transit, pedestrians, and bicycles for promotion of their use, the state doesn't even consider them as an option.  If motorcycles as an option can be of effect in the UK, as wet and rainy as it can be, imagine what removing a quarter of a million vehicles from the traffic stream would do.

As for safety, European and American studies have shown that less than 1% of motorcycle collisions involve lane-sharing motorcyclists.  Even though more than 60% of motorcyclists observed were lane sharing.  This is a safe, flexible option for easing traffic congestion.  Instead of tens of billions for infrastructure that cannot be adapted easily to changing population needs, lane-sharing would only require an initial public awareness program to educate drivers on the technique.  A public promotion campaign showing the benefits of motorcycling to work, and/or taking the light rail versus sitting in traffic in a single occupant vehicle could bring positive effects to the congestion relief effort.  Again from Highways England; "It has been contended that it would be a bad thing if people chose motorcycles over the bus or train.  Industry contends the contrary.  In many urban areas, buses and trains are already beyond sensible or comfortable passenger carrying capacity, which reduces their attractiveness to both existing and potential new users.  If a proportion of bus and train users were to switch to motorcycles, valuable capacity would be opened which would then be more attractive ti those current car users who would never consider riding a motorcycle or bicycle.  Transport usage and choices would start to balance better than at present."

Motorcycles make for a safe and cost-effective option for congestion relief if taken advantage of.  Ignoring them as a vehicle laden with risk to its rider is an outdated, and myopic point of view.

Catch ya on the road sometime...

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Does Banning Lane-Sharing Cost Lives?

During discussions with legislators on Washington State's legislative bill ESB5378, there seems to be three main positions of opposition:  
1) The likelihood of some motorcyclists to violate the law and lane-split at high speeds on the freeway.
2) That allowing lane-sharing will drastically increase the motorcycle fatality rate in Washington State.
3) That motor vehicle drivers will not see a lane-sharing motorcyclists, and move into the highway space that the motorcycle is in, causing a collision.

The 2011 Study by Dr. J.V. Ouellet answers these and other concerns quite eloquently and succinctly; “The principal findings of this study are: 1) the likelihood of motorcycle lane splitting decreases as freeway speeds go up and the decline appears to be especially marked at speeds above 40 mph (66 km/hr). 2) The conditions under which splitting occurs and the frequency of lane splitting appear to be roughly the same in 2011 compared to the late 1970's. 3) lane splitting crashes appear to be a tiny portion (less than 1%) of the motorcycle accident population. 4) In the 1970's, lane splitting riders were under-represented in crashes compared to their frequency in traffic and the difference was statistically significant.”  

Let's look at those findings a bit more closely, and if they are relevant to the concerns of legislators:

1) Even though as Dr. Ouellet's study suggests, lane-sharing decreases significantly at speeds above 40 mph, isn't banning lane-sharing because a small minority may violate the law by doing so at a higher speed similar to banning speed limits because some may violate the limit?
2) In both the 1970's and 2011, lane splitting was confined primarily to heavily congested traffic, during commute hours during the work weekdays.
3) As Dr. Ouelett's study shows, both in California (in the 1970's and 2011), as well as in the European Union in 2009 lane-sharing motorcycle accidents appear to be less than 1% of all the motorcycle collision population.
4) In the 1970's 63% of motorcycles were observed lane-sharing, yet made up less than 1% motorcycle collisions.

Dr. Ouellet was a co-author of the seminal 1981 motorcycle safety study "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures".  Or more commonly referred to as 'The Hurt Report', after it's lead author and team leader.  With over thirty years experience as a researcher in the field of traffic safety, Dr. Ouellet has been lead researcher on multiple studies during his career.  Lane Splitting On California Freeways actually builds upon the data from the 1981 Hurt report, and compares it to findings from 2011, as well as the 2009 Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study from ACEM in Europe.

Comparing the findings from the 1981 Hurt Report and the 2009 MAIDS; “The simple fact that only five of 900 crashes (0.6%) involved a motorcycle splitting lanes suggests that lane splitting is simply not a great problem in the overall population of motorcycle crashes.  Perhaps it is simply coincidence, but more than 25 years later, nearly identical results were reported in Europe for the Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study of 923 motorcycle accidents: only 4 crashes (0.4%) occurred when the motorcycle was splitting lanes. That is, lane splitting made a trivial contribution to the motorcycle accident population in both Los Angeles (late 1970s) and Europe (1999-2000). In Los Angeles, more than three times as many crashes were caused by roadway defects (n = 18) or pedestrians and animals (n = 16) than the five lane-splitting collisions.”   (Lane Splitting On California Freeways Page 11 Lines 358-365)

One would expect information like this coming from such an experienced traffic safety researcher would reduce the concerns of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, and the Washington State Patrol.  As well as the concerns of some legislators.

In Dr. Ouellet's words; "If this finding is valid..."(Which the 2014 & 2015 USC Berkeley studies would seem to confirm)"...then laws that effectively ban motorcycle lane splitting may have the unintended effect of increasing motorcycle crashes."

Kind of hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?

Catch you on the road sometime...