Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

How to upset a dog owner

doog442doog442 Posts: 370
edited April 2009 in Commuting chat
Part of my commute is 3 miles along a disused railway, now converted to NCN 25. Its always been dog owner city and for the last year ive ducked and dived past the mutts that are always off the lead.

Yesterday I come across a dog walker who pulls the hound in after the usual bell ring..i mutter a 'thanks' (for making me go from 15 to zero) only she didnt hear me..... as I crawl past her holding her dog by the collar she shouts THANKYOU........ :evil:

No...sorry Ive had enough of saying thankyou for 12 months only to have evil bitter and twisted dog walkers look at me as if im scum.

Turned around and point to to NCN25 sign... ' excuse me, that means national cycling network 25,,not national dog walking network 25....and in a public place shouldnt your dog be on a lead'. (that is the law isnt it )

I thought she was going to batter me :shock:

Im a also a dog owner but some of these people have severe issues. I need some kind of device to fend off off errant dogs..chariot style

By the way i do have a bell and do slow down but i get more grief from dog owners on this stretch than motorists on the 6 miles that follows
«13

Posts

  • AndyMancAndyManc Posts: 1,393
    Report the issue to the council and your local councillor, if you want things to improve you will have to put in a bit of work.

    The same goes for all of us really, if we have got issues on our commute route then try and address the problem, not only will you be helping yourself, you'll be improving the situation for the hundreds/thousands of other bikers that use that route.

    It's probably worth contacting sustrans as well, the more people you get involved the quicker the resolution.



    .
    Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport
    URBAN_MANC.png
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    doog442 wrote:
    ...and in a public place shouldnt your dog be on a lead'. (that is the law isnt it )

    No it isn't the law.

    The RTA 1988 states that a dog must be on a lead when on a designated public road. So it is a legal requirement for public roads, but not other public access areas such as parks or cycle paths. It is a legal requirement that a dog in a public place must wear a collar attached to which is some sort of label giving the owner's name and address - it's amazing how many dog owners don't seem to know this.

    However since 2006 it has been possible for a local authority to introduce a Dog Control Order requiring that dogs be kept on a lead in a specified public place.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    The Highway Code says:
    Other animals
    56
    Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    alfablue wrote:
    The Highway Code says:
    Other animals
    56
    Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.

    To quote the relevant section of the RTA

    "27 Control of dogs on roads

    (1) A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence."

    No mention of cycle paths. Of course a cycle path would be included if it was part of a desingnated road. And bear in mind that the highway code applies to the public highway, which is generally accepted to mean a public road.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    Well, the highway code appears to include shared paths and pavements, though it is not necessarily representative of the law apart from sections which contain a "must/must not", I wonder if a "do not" counts as well - relates to RTA 27(1) which you cite, but what about the "keep on a short lead" part - sounds like that is advisory.
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    I could always fall back on:

    Failing to keep dogs under proper control
    dangerous dogs act 1991

    If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place etc

    been chased plenty of times, dogs leaping out in front of me..the law states it may injure someone doesnt mention biting :wink:
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    AndyManc wrote:
    Report the issue to the council and your local councillor, if you want things to improve you will have to put in a bit of work.

    The same goes for all of us really, if we have got issues on our commute route then try and address the problem, not only will you be helping yourself, you'll be improving the situation for the hundreds/thousands of other bikers that use that route.

    It's probably worth contacting sustrans as well, the more people you get involved the quicker the resolution.



    .

    andymanc thanks for that, I really do think the public need educating along this stretch
  • lost_in_thoughtlost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    doog442 wrote:
    I could always fall back on:

    Failing to keep dogs under proper control
    dangerous dogs act 1991

    If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place etc

    been chased plenty of times, dogs leaping out in front of me..the law states it may injure someone doesnt mention biting :wink:

    You can get done under the dangerous dogs act just for your dog chasing someone, they don't have to touch you. I'd know, it nearly happened to me. Dangerously out of control seems to be deliberately non-specific - if you were feeling particularly malicious you could go down that route.
  • mooniomoonio Posts: 802
    You should get an Airzound horn...
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    doog442 wrote:
    I could always fall back on:

    Failing to keep dogs under proper control
    dangerous dogs act 1991

    If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place etc

    been chased plenty of times, dogs leaping out in front of me..the law states it may injure someone doesnt mention biting :wink:

    It goes further than that, IIRC section 3 states that for a dog to be considered dangerously out of control the fear of injury is enough. I don't recall that being on a lead is specifically mentioned in that case. However it is unlikely that a conviction would ever be secured in the case where there is no evicence other than anecdotal. Otherwise dog haters would be getting dogs put down all over the place.
  • lost_in_thoughtlost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    GarethPJ wrote:
    doog442 wrote:
    I could always fall back on:

    Failing to keep dogs under proper control
    dangerous dogs act 1991

    If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place etc

    been chased plenty of times, dogs leaping out in front of me..the law states it may injure someone doesnt mention biting :wink:

    It goes further than that, IIRC section 3 states that for a dog to be considered dangerously out of control the fear of injury is enough. I don't recall that being on a lead is specifically mentioned in that case. However it is unlikely that a conviction would ever be secured in the case where there is no evicence other than anecdotal. Otherwise dog haters would be getting dogs put down all over the place.

    It happens... or at least people try it. Amazing how far they get. Oh and if you didn't see whatever they say happened happen or not happen, your input is irrelevant. Innocent until proven what now?
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    not malicious..just looking at the options :wink:

    in this case ' dangerously out of control' would appear to fit a dog running loose on a cycle path

    gives me some ammunition
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    You can get done under the dangerous dogs act just for your dog chasing someone, they don't have to touch you. I'd know, it nearly happened to me. Dangerously out of control seems to be deliberately non-specific - if you were feeling particularly malicious you could go down that route.

    Which is, I suspect, one reason why the DDA has proved somewhat toothless in certain respects.
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    GarethPJ wrote:
    You can get done under the dangerous dogs act just for your dog chasing someone, they don't have to touch you. I'd know, it nearly happened to me. Dangerously out of control seems to be deliberately non-specific - if you were feeling particularly malicious you could go down that route.

    Which is, I suspect, one reason why the DDA has proved somewhat toothless in certain respects.

    well at least there is an act and section i can quote at these dog owning muppets, although education is propably the answer

    (and of course if they were on a lead they wouldnt be out of control :wink: )

    thanks for your views
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    It happens... or at least people try it. Amazing how far they get. Oh and if you didn't see whatever they say happened happen or not happen, your input is irrelevant. Innocent until proven what now?

    The concept of innocence until guilt is proved is not enshrined in our laws. Until you have been tried you aren't even considered not guilty.

    However in the context of your previous sentence what I was getting at is that the CPS are very unlikely to bring a case if somebody complains a dog was dangerously out of control and the owner says it wasn't. Insufficient evidence for there to be a reasonable chance of securing a conviction is the sort of phrase they usually use.
  • had two staffies chasing me through the woods before .to be fair i was going at a fair pace and the dogs must have thought i was fair game .
    recorded 42 mph on my cateye :shock:
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    The Dangerous Dogs Act was a terrible piece of legislation drafted very quickly aimed at removing dangerous fighting dog breeds not your average family mutt such as a Labrador. Very few prosecutions have been brought using it. From what I can remember the fatal flaw in it is how it classifies a specific dangerous dog within the designated dangerous breed as so many breeders now cross dogs of different breeds to get around section1. However all dogs are covered under section 3 - keeping dogs under proper control. So whilst section 1 sought to prohibit prescribed dangerous fighting dogs such as Pit Bulls due to poor drafting owners can still have them but can still be caught under the more general s.3 if the dogs go bananas. The whole point of the DDA was to ban fighting dogs which can cause so much more injury and damage compared to the average family dog, although these too can cause significant injury when they too go bad. Some handy links including the Act itself.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Uk ... 5_en_1.htm

    http://www.doglaw.co.uk/legal/dangerous.php

    http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/index/e ... og-law.htm

    BTW it is a criminal offence for a person under the age of 16 to be in control of a dangerous dog.

    Hope this has yelped. :wink:
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    Today whilst cycling home through shall we say a down at heal estate of social housing where kids of 13 ride big trials bikes and their dads ride mini moto bikes, I spied ahead of me on the cycle path a gent walking this pit bull type dog going away from me. The owner, skinny male about 40 in a leather jacket, lots of finger rings, dirty jeans and trainers with a roll up poked out the side of his mouth, was on one side of the area where the cycle path runs slightly uphill and the dog was on the other bisecting the cycle path with one of those the very long leads between them both. Anyway a quick tinka-linka-linkily-tinkaly on the compass bell as I approached from behind and the owner looked around and reeled the grumpy looking mutt in. No drama no fuss no aggravation no air horn. New bells in particular compass bells are more than enough for alerting people. You don't need to blast them off their feet so they come chasing after you.

    Incidentally all the cars on the road today and yesterday were so considerate, waiting lots and giving ample space by going over to the opposite side of the road when passing :D .
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    God almighty people, this thread is like a bloody lynch mob. The dangerous dogs act? What the hell is wrong with you?

    For crying out loud - we spend enough time lamenting how we are disproportionally singled out as hate figures merely for being cyclists (see legal thread) but are completely happy to pass it on down the line.

    Get a bell, or use a different route, or show more patience. But live and let live and show some responsibility. Do you see other of the thousands of cyclists who use that cycling superhighway having near misses with dangerous dogs, or is it just one intolerant cyclist? What is the accepted safe speed that facility was designed for? Bet you its 12mph. You were speeding you moron. How does that feel? If you are in a rush, use the road.

    In my experience the vast majority of dog owners call their animal aside and wait for you to pass and say hello back if you can be bothered not to be adversarial. And it takes them about the same time as any other pedestrian. Its frustrating, but ALL pedestrians aren't idiots, so you must assume that bikes come up quickly and quietly and that patience is a necessity where you share a space with pedestrians (and even if there is a white line down the middle of a path, you are still sharing it).

    But stop behaving like Mirror reading VWM. The hypocrisy of this thread makes me angry.
  • tardingtontardington Posts: 1,379
    SUPPORT OUR CAMPAIGN TO SEND THESE DOGS HOME NOW
  • prj45prj45 Posts: 2,208
    God almighty people, this thread is like a bloody lynch mob. The dangerous dogs act? What the hell is wrong with you?

    For crying out loud - we spend enough time lamenting how we are disproportionally singled out as hate figures merely for being cyclists (see legal thread) but are completely happy to pass it on down the line.

    Get a bell, or use a different route, or show more patience. But live and let live and show some responsibility. Do you see other of the thousands of cyclists who use that cycling superhighway having near misses with dangerous dogs, or is it just one intolerant cyclist? What is the accepted safe speed that facility was designed for? Bet you its 12mph. You were speeding you moron. How does that feel? If you are in a rush, use the road.

    In my experience the vast majority of dog owners call their animal aside and wait for you to pass and say hello back if you can be bothered not to be adversarial. And it takes them about the same time as any other pedestrian. Its frustrating, but ALL pedestrians aren't idiots, so you must assume that bikes come up quickly and quietly and that patience is a necessity where you share a space with pedestrians (and even if there is a white line down the middle of a path, you are still sharing it).

    But stop behaving like Mirror reading VWM. The hypocrisy of this thread makes me angry.




    yves-saint-laurent-muse-two-bag.jpg

    :lol:
  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    Dogs are allowed off the lead - appreciate that some owners do nothing as a courtesy to move the dog from your path, but thats life......

    Personally, I do move my pup on, but I also ride a bike and know the hassle to the cyclist - particularly on some of the mountain bike areas where we walk (or I mountain bike with her).

    Anyway, you will be stronger if you have to start off in high gears every few minutes......May even learn to track stand!!!
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    God almighty people, this thread is like a bloody lynch mob. The dangerous dogs act? What the hell is wrong with you?

    For crying out loud - we spend enough time lamenting how we are disproportionally singled out as hate figures merely for being cyclists (see legal thread) but are completely happy to pass it on down the line.

    Get a bell, or use a different route, or show more patience. But live and let live and show some responsibility. Do you see other of the thousands of cyclists who use that cycling superhighway having near misses with dangerous dogs, or is it just one intolerant cyclist? What is the accepted safe speed that facility was designed for? Bet you its 12mph. You were speeding you moron. How does that feel? If you are in a rush, use the road.

    In my experience the vast majority of dog owners call their animal aside and wait for you to pass and say hello back if you can be bothered not to be adversarial. And it takes them about the same time as any other pedestrian. Its frustrating, but ALL pedestrians aren't idiots, so you must assume that bikes come up quickly and quietly and that patience is a necessity where you share a space with pedestrians (and even if there is a white line down the middle of a path, you are still sharing it).

    But stop behaving like Mirror reading VWM. The hypocrisy of this thread makes me angry.

    how can you comment when you have no idea of the route in question..this is a 3 mile route connecting two towns. Its a designated NCN ROUTE . I have either ran , dog walked or cycled this route for 20 years. I have commuted it for 12 months

    Do you have experience of negotiating about 20 dog owners in 3 miles...unlikley

    I have a bell..thankyou and I play by the rules .... i show courtesy and say thankyou...however there are a HARD CORE of dog walkers who will NEVER accept cyclists on this route

    thankyou for your post
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    doog442 wrote:
    God almighty people, this thread is like a bloody lynch mob. The dangerous dogs act? What the hell is wrong with you?

    For crying out loud - we spend enough time lamenting how we are disproportionally singled out as hate figures merely for being cyclists (see legal thread) but are completely happy to pass it on down the line.

    Get a bell, or use a different route, or show more patience. But live and let live and show some responsibility. Do you see other of the thousands of cyclists who use that cycling superhighway having near misses with dangerous dogs, or is it just one intolerant cyclist? What is the accepted safe speed that facility was designed for? Bet you its 12mph. You were speeding you moron. How does that feel? If you are in a rush, use the road.

    In my experience the vast majority of dog owners call their animal aside and wait for you to pass and say hello back if you can be bothered not to be adversarial. And it takes them about the same time as any other pedestrian. Its frustrating, but ALL pedestrians aren't idiots, so you must assume that bikes come up quickly and quietly and that patience is a necessity where you share a space with pedestrians (and even if there is a white line down the middle of a path, you are still sharing it).

    But stop behaving like Mirror reading VWM. The hypocrisy of this thread makes me angry.

    how can you comment when you have no idea of the route in question..this is a 3 mile route connecting two towns. Its a designated NCN ROUTE . I have either ran , dog walked or cycled this route for 20 years. I have commuted it for 12 months

    Do you have experience of negotiating about 20 dog owners in 3 miles...unlikley

    I have a bell..thankyou and I play by the rules .... i show courtesy and say thankyou...however there are a HARD CORE of dog walkers who will NEVER accept cyclists on this route

    thankyou for your ill informed irrational stroppy post..

    Was it some form of bicycle clearway? Is it some special part of the national cycle network that is different from the bits in the rest of the country? There are cars on bits near me. And dogs on other parts. And people. And horses. Cycle routes are suitable for cycles, not for the exclusive use, or even the prioritisation of cycles, necessarily.

    Next - you said yourself you mumbled thanks. Do you think you maybe came off just a tad sullen or supersilious? Are you 14 years old? Could the dog owner have merely heard some mutterance but somehow failed to recognise it as "thanks"?

    And the rest of the thread - if you can help me understand how its different from the "you slow me down, get off the road" attitude we all face, I'd be very grateful. You see from the dog owners' perspective, they are considerately calling the animal close, stepping aside and waiting. All you have to do is stop pedaling for a second or two, but all the cyclists seem to want to do is run them down and hurl abuse simply for being there.

    Sound familiar? Well, I guess so, or you'd use the road rather than undergo the torment of being slowed down on a 3 mile stretch of traffic free NCN.
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    so as a dog owner (which you clearly are)do you expect a big THANKS.. and a bunch of flowers everytime a down trodden cyclist happens to grace your path and asks permission to pass you...

    a big fat thankyou perhaps for pulling in your mutt, which you think has the god forgiven right to roam all over a cycle path.

    Im a dog owner but i dont let my dog obstruct or chase cyclists or runners. You obviously get some thrill out of it.

    There is a difference between stopping pedaling for a second or two and coming to a complete standstill for someone who thinks cyclists are a menace to society and often choses to obstruct cyclists by refusing to pull their dog in.

    Lets be honest by pulling her dog in should I thank her..? .perhaps she should thank me for not cycling straight over it?
  • Cats are the ones you have to watch out for http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 ... y86038.asp
    Volition & freedom is within the remit of a democratic society.

    Not everybody agrees with your point of view though.
  • RockbuddyRockbuddy Posts: 243
    doog442 wrote:
    so as a dog owner (which you clearly are)do you expect a big THANKS.. and a bunch of flowers everytime a down trodden cyclist happens to grace your path and asks permission to pass you...

    a big fat thankyou perhaps for pulling in your mutt, which you think has the god forgiven right to roam all over a cycle path.

    Im a dog owner but i dont let my dog obstruct or chase cyclists or runners. You obviously get some thrill out of it.

    There is a difference between stopping pedaling for a second or two and coming to a complete standstill for someone who thinks cyclists are a menace to society and often choses to obstruct cyclists by refusing to pull their dog in.

    Lets be honest by pulling her dog in should I thank her..? .perhaps she should thank me for not cycling straight over it?

    I have to say I've not had much of a problem on the cycle paths round Cardiff, where I've come across many dog walkers. I find that if you are courteous and make sure they know you are there (communicate) most dog owners make an effort. After all the cycle paths are actually open paths for all, aren't they? Contempt breeds contempt and if you project the same attitude as you have on this forum, I’m not surprised some dog owners don’t help you out. No I don’t have a dog but I do cycle everyday.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    doog442 wrote:
    so as a dog owner (which you clearly are)
    Nope - not a dog owner. I merely empathise with people seeking recreation and catharsis in a crowded country that is increasingly intolerant of their chosen passtime. I own cats. Mine's the one that sh!ts on your lawn.
    doog442 wrote:
    Im a dog owner but i dont let my dog obstruct or chase cyclists or runners.
    Often, when an ignorant motorist has just come close to killing me and I have a go at them, they respond with, "Well I'm a cyclist as well and...." Usually, these people are pale, podgy Xbox playing non cyclists who might, if pushed, be able to stay upright on one.

    Who walks the dog in your household?
    doog442 wrote:
    There is a difference between stopping pedaling for a second or two and coming to a complete standstill
    Well, you see this is precisely the point - there's hardly any difference at all, just a second or two of reaction.
    doog442 wrote:
    for someone who thinks cyclists are a menace to society and often choses to obstruct cyclists by refusing to pull their dog in.
    But the owner DID pull their dog in, and you were rude to them. What on earth do you expect? You are the one going around with a misplaced sense of entitlement.
    doog442 wrote:
    Lets be honest by pulling her dog in should I thank her..?
    YES! Owners have an obligatin to keep their dogs under control. IF it comes, sits and waits while you pass, its under control.
    doog442 wrote:
    .perhaps she should thank me for not cycling straight over it?
    NO because it was not a road. The traffic free parts of the NCN are old pedestrian r.o.w.'s / bridleways. Those rights haven't been recinded.

    What is your attitude to horses, by the way? Do you just hammer on past, and assume that if the horse is startled and unseats the rider, its their own silly fault for being there?

    Why not set off for work 15 seconds earlier? What you have to appreciate is that you, as a cyclist, are generally in a highly alert state, often with an active adrenal gland. You are coming across people in a relaxed state, preparing themselves for the day. That is why you are so punchy, agressive and rude. Setting up up to a quarter of a minute earlier will enable you to be more relaxed and polite.

    You know how we all wish that drivers would give cycling a go? Why don't you walk YOUR dog on that path in the morning. It may be the only chance that the people there get each day, and the only practicably available open space. Be careful, though, because you only have a second or two to comply with cyclists' requirements.
  • RockbuddyRockbuddy Posts: 243
    Mmm, you do realise if you are travelling 15mph you are actually covering 6.7metres/second that's quite a distance isn't it :wink:
  • doog442doog442 Posts: 370
    lets do the quoting thing shall we and see how much we can change a post to suit your argument. You could argue with yourself in an empty room
    merely empathise with people seeking recreation and catharsis in a crowded country that is increasingly intolerant of their chosen passtime

    I dont live in a crowded part of the country-your opinion as such in this thread is worthless
    Often, when an ignorant motorist has just come close to killing me and I have a go at them, they respond with, "Well I'm a cyclist as well and...." Usually, these people are pale, podgy Xbox playing non cyclists who might, if pushed, be able to stay upright on one.

    You often nearly get killed by motorists :?: - perhaps that says something about the manner in which you as a cyclist use the road - ive yet to be nearly killed thank god but how can you compare motorists with dog owners :shock:
    Who walks the dog in your household?

    I do- down the same cycle path / trailway that Im talking about. Never had Issues because I control my animal and respect other users.
    Well, you see this is precisely the point - there's hardly any difference at all, just a second or two of reaction.

    Possibly but when the beligerant dog walker sees you coming from 300 yards away and chooses to do nothing - which is my original point
    But the owner DID pull their dog in, and you were rude to them. What on earth do you expect? You are the one going around with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

    Who was being rude? perhaps she should have thanked me for slowing, sounding my bell and giving her the opportunity to pull the dog in... never happens like that
    YES! Owners have an obligatin to keep their dogs under control. IF it comes, sits and waits while you pass, its under control.

    read my original post
    NO because it was not a road. The traffic free parts of the NCN are old pedestrian r.o.w.'s / bridleways. Those rights haven't been recinded.

    Whats that got do with me thanking her :?:
    What is your attitude to horses, by the way? Do you just hammer on past, and assume that if the horse is startled and unseats the rider, its their own silly fault for being there?

    You sound as if you come from the big city..there are more horses here than a john wayne movie but dont let that get in the way of you bigging up your reply...what do horses have to do with my post.....try and find a bigger animal to throw in the equation
    Why not set off for work 15 seconds earlier?

    Why dont some dog owners control their dogs?
    What you have to appreciate is that you, as a cyclist, are generally in a highly alert state, often with an active adrenal gland. You are coming across people in a relaxed state, preparing themselves for the day. That is why you are so punchy, agressive and rude. Setting up up to a quarter of a minute earlier will enable you to be more relaxed and polite.

    speak for yourself :? What do you mean? I have a very relaxing commute, as stated I got more grief avoiding dogs than traffic
    You know how we all wish that drivers would give cycling a go
    Never once thought that
    Why don't you walk YOUR dog on that path in the morning. It may be the only chance that the people there get each day, and the only practicably available open space

    being doint it for 20 years without incident- why? because i keep my dog under control. You havent read my posts have you
    Be careful, though, because you only have a second or two to comply with cyclists' requirements.

    rubbish- as stated the people im talking about are the people who see you approach from 300 yards away and do nothing but treat you with derision because you are a cyclist. These people have alot more than a second or two to decide to control rover or let him run havoc but again dont let that dramatic made up time sequence spoil the conclusion to your post
Sign In or Register to comment.