Stupid seat belt laws!!!!! grrrrr!!!

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
L

[email protected]

Guest
Well, my mate's gotta sell his disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear
seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the seats
due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere. He
has them all writing a ****ty letter to 10 downing street too!! On the other
hand, his missus is chuffed....no more screaming brats to take shopping.

Wolfie
 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, my mate's gotta sell his disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear
> seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the
> seats
> due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere. He
> has them all writing a ****ty letter to 10 downing street too!! On the
> other
> hand, his missus is chuffed....no more screaming brats to take shopping.
>
> Wolfie


I just had a look at the guidelines what a dogs breakfast per usual the
only get out clause for the rear sideways seats is for kids over 4'5 or 12
years old or if proper child restraints are fitted though I doubt that any
are approved for sideways fitting
as per
15. My vehicle has sideways facing seats in the rear. Does that make a
difference?

Yes! Some vehicles such as camper vans and four-wheel drive vehicles are
fitted with sideways facing rear seats. A child restraint in a sideways
facing seat does not meet the legal requirements. A child restraint has to
be fitted to an approved anchorage, which does not include a seat belt on a
sideways facing seat. Therefore a child restraint cannot be used on such a
seat.



which is contradicted by



19. What if there are no seat belts in the rear of a vehicle
(car/van/camper)?

Children under 3 must use the correct baby seat or child seat so they would
need to be travelling in the front in the correct child restraint. Children
3 and up to 135 cms in height must use child seats or boosters in the rear
where seat belts are fitted. The law is not going to make people fit
restraints in the rear of vehicles where the seats do not have seat belts;
but remember it is not safe for children to travel unrestrained. Cars dating
from April 1982 will have seat belt anchorage points if they don't have seat
belts - so fitting is easy. See also the FAQ above about sideways facing
rear seats.

about the only clear part in the shambles is this gem

Children are not small adults. They are proportioned differently and their
key organs are in different places

Yep the people who drew this up are either aliens or have b*ll*x where their
brains should be

Derek




 
Derek wrote:

> where their brains should be

Doesn't that suggest the existence of something that is obviously missing?
 

"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Derek wrote:
>
>> where their brains should be
>
> Doesn't that suggest the existence of something that is obviously missing?

Yea but think about it. A back handed way to try and force folks to change
their 4x4's maybe?


 
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:29:31 +0100, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, my mate's gotta sell his disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear
> seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the
> seats
> due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere.

Well - I guess that applies to my Disco too. No point in having it if the
kids cant use those rear seats. Little mileage to be gained from having
the adults sit in them - can't reach the steering wheel from back there :)

Those are the seats that are fited, those are the belts that are fitted -
by the factory in both cases. Guess the vehicle is not fit for the
purpose intended.

hrmm - I suppose the 110 would need re-purposing too - no belts for the
3-up bench seats.

I sometimes wonder at the sense of this stuff? Effectively criminalising
a significant percentage of ordinay folk. and for what purpose? The
conspiricist would suggest "divide & rule" - it's hard to argue against.

> He
> has them all writing a ****ty letter to 10 downing street too!!

Too late for that I reckon, but nonetheless a useful introduction to
politics and how it can screw with everyone even those that that keep
their heads down and mind their own business.

> On the other
> hand, his missus is chuffed....no more screaming brats to take shopping.

What's left - transit/sherpa type mini bus?
--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...

> I sometimes wonder at the sense of this stuff? Effectively criminalising
> a significant percentage of ordinay folk. and for what purpose? The
> conspiricist would suggest "divide & rule" - it's hard to argue against.

I expect it's yet another dictate from Europe trying to make everything
Euronorm, the politicians rarely say this though as they daren't let people
know that they have delegated most of our law making powers to Europe and in
effect we already have a Federal government.

Greg


 
Greg wrote:
> "William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
>
>
>>I sometimes wonder at the sense of this stuff? Effectively criminalising
>>a significant percentage of ordinay folk. and for what purpose? The
>>conspiricist would suggest "divide & rule" - it's hard to argue against.
>
>
> I expect it's yet another dictate from Europe trying to make everything
> Euronorm, the politicians rarely say this though as they daren't let people
> know that they have delegated most of our law making powers to Europe and in
> effect we already have a Federal government.
>
> Greg
>
>
Not really - for example, here in France no-one under the age of 10 can
travel in the front seat, but they do allow two children under ten to
sit in the same seatbelt! (lap belts are fine). As it said in the BBC
article, Europe sets the minimum standard, it's up to the member
countries to implement them and garnish as necessary. I rather think it
is more British anti-4x4 / anti-family stuff.

Stuart
 
Derek <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
about:

> 19. What if there are no seat belts in the rear of a vehicle
> (car/van/camper)?
>
> Children under 3 must use the correct baby seat or child seat so they
> would need to be travelling in the front in the correct child
> restraint. Children 3 and up to 135 cms in height must use child
> seats or boosters in the rear where seat belts are fitted. The law is
> not going to make people fit restraints in the rear of vehicles where
> the seats do not have seat belts; but remember it is not safe for
> children to travel unrestrained. Cars dating from April 1982 will
> have seat belt anchorage points if they don't have seat belts - so
> fitting is easy. See also the FAQ above about sideways facing rear
> seats.

I read that as if you have three kiddie seats in the rear of your Disco
today then under the new legistlation you can have two in the back and one
in the front (aged under 3... after which your stuffed) with Mum .... or Dad
(if it's on the way back from the pub say) sat in the rear middle lap belt
such is a Discos arrangement.... any more than three though and your
knackered.

Of course sticking an adult in the middle of two full on kiddy seats will be
real feasible.

This legistlation should have been applied on NEW cars... that way at least
peeps wouldn't suddenly have to sell motors and buy the likes of an Espace
to comply.

Hopefully Landrover will come up with a cunning three point centre seat belt
system for those without.... but I shan't hold my breath.

Perhaphs it's a new government incentive to limit the size of a family....
mind before long we'll all be riding on a horse and cart so it won't make
alot of difference. Bring back the cobbles I say. Though animal rights may
have a field day if I park my horse up in the city for 9 to 10 hours before
trotting home.

Lee D


 
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:57:02 +0100, Lee_D
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Derek <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
> about:
>
>> 19. What if there are no seat belts in the rear of a vehicle
>> (car/van/camper)?
>>
>> Children under 3 must use the correct baby seat or child seat so they
>> would need to be travelling in the front in the correct child
>> restraint. Children 3 and up to 135 cms in height must use child
>> seats or boosters in the rear where seat belts are fitted. The law is
>> not going to make people fit restraints in the rear of vehicles where
>> the seats do not have seat belts; but remember it is not safe for
>> children to travel unrestrained. Cars dating from April 1982 will
>> have seat belt anchorage points if they don't have seat belts - so
>> fitting is easy. See also the FAQ above about sideways facing rear
>> seats.
>
> I read that as if you have three kiddie seats in the rear of your Disco
> today then under the new legistlation you can have two in the back and
> one
> in the front (aged under 3... after which your stuffed) with Mum .... or
> Dad
> (if it's on the way back from the pub say) sat in the rear middle lap
> belt
> such is a Discos arrangement.... any more than three though and your
> knackered.

Sounds like we'll all be fitting 'limosine black' before long.

> Of course sticking an adult in the middle of two full on kiddy seats
> will be
> real feasible.
>
> This legistlation should have been applied on NEW cars...

agreed - this type of retrospective action is tantamount to bullying of
the worst possible kind. I suspect the dailys are busy trying to find an
angle that doesn't make them appear to be supporting the dirty, smelly 4x4
brigade.

> that way at least
> peeps wouldn't suddenly have to sell motors and buy the likes of an
> Espace
> to comply.

Not gonna happen here - I have no other use for an espace. I've only ever
see one put to work, the inside collapsed within weeks, rendering it
useless as family transport.

> Hopefully Landrover will come up with a cunning three point centre seat
> belt
> system for those without.... but I shan't hold my breath.

Frankly, I'd be more interested in forward facing 'back-row' seats with a
3-point.

As you say, the middle seat in the middle row is about as much use as a
chocolate tea-pot when the flanking seats have the child paraphernalia
fitted. I'd be happy to remove it and use it as stowage - if it weren't
for the stupid 60/40 split seat arrangement.

So that would make two in the back, two in the middle and two in the front
- works for me, but unfortunately not much help to the o/p.

> Perhaphs it's a new government incentive to limit the size of a
> family....

aye - home grown breeding interferes with the imigration 'policy'.

> mind before long we'll all be riding on a horse and cart so it won't make
> alot of difference. Bring back the cobbles I say. Though animal rights
> may
> have a field day if I park my horse up in the city for 9 to 10 hours
> before
> trotting home.

np - just bring back the stables at the rear of every pub. oh wait a
minute, they were all flattened for carparks and have now been sold off
for urban rabbit hutches/ studio lifestyle living units.

planning? what's that all about then?
--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:53:42 +0100, Derek
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ...
>> disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear
>> seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the
>> seats
>> due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere.
>
> I just had a look at the guidelines what a dogs breakfast per usual ...

where are the guidelines? just been looking at the gossip (newspaper)
sites - exemptions are for taxi trips, “unexpected necessities,” or if
three children need to share the back seat but there is only room for two
child seats.

Now that lot leaves huge holes - no mention of four (or five) children
though.

One thought springs to mind - I do hope the police that have to enforce
this mess are extremely well briefed.... and the follow on thought, if
they can be well briefed, then surely the rest of us could be? too
simple? yeah well - I have this major problem with 'complex' :)

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 

"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: William Tasso <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
: about:
:
: > where are the guidelines?
:
: <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
:
: Lee D

Now assuming this is the way that plod are going to be interpreting the law,
then this suggests that Disco's with kids in the back, providing they are in
an appropriate booster are still ok, ie plod wont care because a belt is
being worn...

"now m'lud, interpretation of the law no 152......"

where do i apply for my breathing permit, y'know, the one that tells you how
many breaths per second is legal?

Si


 
In message <[email protected]>
"Derek" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Well, my mate's gotta sell his disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear
> > seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the
> > seats
> > due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere. He
> > has them all writing a ****ty letter to 10 downing street too!! On the
> > other
> > hand, his missus is chuffed....no more screaming brats to take shopping.
> >
> > Wolfie
>
>
> I just had a look at the guidelines what a dogs breakfast per usual the
> only get out clause for the rear sideways seats is for kids over 4'5 or 12
> years old or if proper child restraints are fitted though I doubt that any
> are approved for sideways fitting
> as per
> 15. My vehicle has sideways facing seats in the rear. Does that make a
> difference?
>
> Yes! Some vehicles such as camper vans and four-wheel drive vehicles are
> fitted with sideways facing rear seats. A child restraint in a sideways
> facing seat does not meet the legal requirements. A child restraint has to
> be fitted to an approved anchorage, which does not include a seat belt on a
> sideways facing seat. Therefore a child restraint cannot be used on such a
> seat.
>
>
>
> which is contradicted by
>
>
>
> 19. What if there are no seat belts in the rear of a vehicle
> (car/van/camper)?
>
> Children under 3 must use the correct baby seat or child seat so they would
> need to be travelling in the front in the correct child restraint. Children
> 3 and up to 135 cms in height must use child seats or boosters in the rear
> where seat belts are fitted. The law is not going to make people fit
> restraints in the rear of vehicles where the seats do not have seat belts;
> but remember it is not safe for children to travel unrestrained. Cars dating
> from April 1982 will have seat belt anchorage points if they don't have seat
> belts - so fitting is easy. See also the FAQ above about sideways facing
> rear seats.
>
> about the only clear part in the shambles is this gem
>
> Children are not small adults. They are proportioned differently and their
> key organs are in different places
>
> Yep the people who drew this up are either aliens or have b*ll*x where their
> brains should be
>
> Derek
>
>
>
>
...... and they are bloody Civil Servants, trying to justify their own
non-jobs, who have a new car every 2 years, think chips and a wiff of
fag smoke will kill quicker than arsenic, are probably Ramblers, think
a good day out is going to the garden centre, think Centre Parcs
are a true representation of the typical British countryside,
wear cycle helmets at all times, think everything they don't
enjoy should be banned, think ironed jeans on dress-down-Fridays
don't look ridiculous, think dress-down-Fridays are "cool",
got a degree in Complete Bollocks from the University of Degree's
Please Take One, wash their car every Sunaday at exactly 2pm,
think they are contributing to society by being a Civil Servant,
think electricty and running water cease north of Watford Gap
Serivces, moan about commuting and only seeing the kids for an
hour in the evening but are too stupid/boring to change their
jobs, think beer is poison (unless the boss likes it, or this
weeks Guardian On Sunday says it's "cool"), read magazines to
tell then how to "enjoy life" and are always in front of me at
the chekout at Focus dithering about how many screws to have
so they don't risk wasting one, etc etc etc.

In other words, boring, no-life idiots who think they are
better then everyone else and simply have to interfere in
eveyone else's life. Whatever happened to parents making
their own descisions?

And, of course, now that you can't get three children
in the back of the family saloon, everyone will need physically
bigger cars.......... absolutely brillaint! Good one guys.

Jeez - I really wish leaving this stupid country was viable....

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 

Srtgray wrote:

> Not really - for example, here in France no-one under the age of 10 can
> travel in the front seat, but they do allow two children under ten to
> sit in the same seatbelt! (lap belts are fine). As it said in the BBC
> article, Europe sets the minimum standard, it's up to the member
> countries to implement them and garnish as necessary. I rather think it
> is more British anti-4x4 / anti-family stuff.

We're notorious for implementing these European directives to the
letter and enforcing them without any common sense, France is notorious
for ignoring them :cool:, even when they do enact laws they have a culture
of ignoring the ones they don't like!.
Greg

 
well poor old mate of mine's been to the LR dealer this morning who isn't
interested in a trade-in but and read this! - guess what he was told by the
salesman.... "there actually isn't anything in the current lineup of Land
Rover that will allow him and his large family to drive legally and safely"
so he has been shown the way to the Jap crap corner which has an abundance
of people carriers.....Also, according to the salesman, there have been
numerous calls and visits of the last week with many customers concerned
about this seat belt law. Hmmm, what next.....a 4x4 LR people carrier?? I
can see a slump in the price of 2h LR's which i'm sure will please some but
upset many.

Wolfie
 
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:42:32 +0100, Lee_D
<[email protected]> wrote:

> William Tasso <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
> about:
>
>> where are the guidelines?
>
> <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>

Thanks - seems a little lightweight in terms of content, but taking it at
face value it would appear that there's little need for alarm.

<q>
Children up to 3 years old

Front seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
</q>

Makes perfect sense - can't see there will be many problems with that.

<q>
Children from 3 years up to 135cm (approx 4'5") OR 12th birthday

Front sear - correct child restraint MUST be worn
Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn

Exceptions: Adult belt can be worn ONLY if
[...]
there are 2 occupied child restraints fitted which prevent the fitting of
a third

NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel
unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle.
</q>

So - I read that as you must use properly fitted child seats until all
available slots are filled, after that kids may be seated wherever/however.

<q>
Children over 135cm ( approx 4'5") or 12 or 13 years old
[also: over 14 and adults]
Front seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
Rear seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
</q>

No change there I think.

Could be completely mistaken, but reading that page doesn't indicate to me
that current practice (in our household anyway) needs any modification.

Unless the o/p is blessed with more than three children under three, I
can't see any problems there either.

With three under three a second adult would be required to use one of the
dickie seats or squeeze into the middle of the second row. Not ideal but
do-able if needs must.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
Lee_D wrote:
> William Tasso <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
> about:
>
>> where are the guidelines?
>
> <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>
> Lee D

Questions?
1. How do you deactivate a rear facing child seat?

2. Not a question but...

NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel unrestrained
in the rear of a vehicle

What a load of testes!
--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!


 
In message <[email protected]>
"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:42:32 +0100, Lee_D
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > William Tasso <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
> > about:
> >
> >> where are the guidelines?
> >
> > <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>
> Thanks - seems a little lightweight in terms of content, but taking it at
> face value it would appear that there's little need for alarm.
>
> <q>
> Children up to 3 years old
>
> Front seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
> Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
> </q>
>
> Makes perfect sense - can't see there will be many problems with that.
>
> <q>
> Children from 3 years up to 135cm (approx 4'5") OR 12th birthday
>
> Front sear - correct child restraint MUST be worn
> Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
>
> Exceptions: Adult belt can be worn ONLY if
> [...]
> there are 2 occupied child restraints fitted which prevent the fitting of
> a third
>
> NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel
> unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle.
> </q>
>
> So - I read that as you must use properly fitted child seats until all
> available slots are filled, after that kids may be seated wherever/however.
>
> <q>
> Children over 135cm ( approx 4'5") or 12 or 13 years old
> [also: over 14 and adults]
> Front seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
> Rear seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
> </q>
>
> No change there I think.
>
> Could be completely mistaken, but reading that page doesn't indicate to me
> that current practice (in our household anyway) needs any modification.
>
> Unless the o/p is blessed with more than three children under three, I
> can't see any problems there either.
>
> With three under three a second adult would be required to use one of the
> dickie seats or squeeze into the middle of the second row. Not ideal but
> do-able if needs must.
>

The above doesn't seem to mention the booster seats for short
children inder 12 explicitly - that's the bit that's causing
the problems, as booster seats have not been mentioned in the
law before - rightly of wrongly everyone just used a seat belt
"when the kids are big enough", but now they *must* have seat
rather than use the belt - that's a radical change even if the
wording above doesn't make the point clear.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 

[email protected] wrote:
> well poor old mate of mine's been to the LR dealer this morning who isn't
> interested in a trade-in but and read this! - guess what he was told by the
> salesman.... "there actually isn't anything in the current lineup of Land
> Rover that will allow him and his large family to drive legally and safely"
> so he has been shown the way to the Jap crap corner which has an abundance
> of people carriers.....Also, according to the salesman, there have been
> numerous calls and visits of the last week with many customers concerned
> about this seat belt law. Hmmm, what next.....a 4x4 LR people carrier?? I
> can see a slump in the price of 2h LR's which i'm sure will please some but
> upset many.

Well if the current Land Rover lineup hasn't adressed this issue but
the Japs have then there should be some heads rolling in the Land Rover
forward planning department as it'll cost them very dearly. What should
have been a load of customers begrudgingly trading up to the latest
models becomes a load of customers abandoning the brand probably never
to return.

Greg

 
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:22:43 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>
> "William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:42:32 +0100, Lee_D
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > William Tasso <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
>> > about:
>> >
>> >> where are the guidelines?
>> >
>> > <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>>
>> Thanks - seems a little lightweight in terms of content, but taking it
>> at
>> face value it would appear that there's little need for alarm.
>>
>> <q>
>> Children up to 3 years old
>>
>> Front seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
>> Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
>> </q>
>>
>> Makes perfect sense - can't see there will be many problems with that.
>>
>> <q>
>> Children from 3 years up to 135cm (approx 4'5") OR 12th birthday
>>
>> Front sear - correct child restraint MUST be worn
>> Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
>>
>> Exceptions: Adult belt can be worn ONLY if
>> [..]
>> there are 2 occupied child restraints fitted which prevent the fitting
>> of
>> a third
>>
>> NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel
>> unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle.
>> </q>
>>
>> So - I read that as you must use properly fitted child seats until all
>> available slots are filled, after that kids may be seated
>> wherever/however.
>>
>> <q>
>> Children over 135cm ( approx 4'5") or 12 or 13 years old
>> [also: over 14 and adults]
>> Front seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
>> Rear seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
>> </q>
>>
>> No change there I think.
>>
>> Could be completely mistaken, but reading that page doesn't indicate to
>> me
>> that current practice (in our household anyway) needs any modification.
>>
>> Unless the o/p is blessed with more than three children under three, I
>> can't see any problems there either.
>>
>> With three under three a second adult would be required to use one of
>> the
>> dickie seats or squeeze into the middle of the second row. Not ideal
>> but
>> do-able if needs must.
>
> The above doesn't seem to mention the booster seats for short
> children inder 12 explicitly - that's the bit that's causing
> the problems, as booster seats have not been mentioned in the
> law before

rather worryingly, I have yet to come accross a legal definition for
"booster seat" - wondering ... would an old cushion suffice if it raised
the child to a sensible height? Then there's the definition of "sensible
height" to consider.

> rightly of wrongly everyone just used a seat belt
> "when the kids are big enough", but now they *must* have seat
> rather than use the belt - that's a radical change even if the
> wording above doesn't make the point clear.

it may be a radical change but the wording "... occupied child restraints
fitted which prevent the fitting ..." seems quite clear.

Yes - children must use proper (varies with age/height) restraints, but
only where they can be safely fitted.

IANALNDIPOOTV - I must say I do look farward to seeing the subtleties of
the above tested in court - although I wouldn't wish the experience on
anyone.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Land Rover Destroy my dream: well sell it if you have a problem
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
jdandcoke
jdandcoke
Booger
Morocco 2010 - Booger's Report
2
Replies
34
Views
14K
onelife
O
Back
Top