Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 15:32

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 01:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
The Telegraph here
The Telegraph wrote:
Elderly driver who killed disabled woman walks free from court
7:30AM BST 18 Aug 2010

An elderly driver who crashed into and fatally injured a disabled woman riding on a motorised scooter has walked free from court.
Raymond Hampshire, of Eckington, near Sheffield admitted causing her death by careless driving on December 6, 2008
Raymond Hampshire, 87, had cataracts in both eyes and was unfit to be on the road even if he had been wearing glasses, according to an expert.

He was driving home in the evening from a casino when his Ford Sierra struck the scooter, throwing 43-year-old spina bifida sufferer Fiona Buckley to the ground.
His eye condition which gave him "foggy" sight would have rendered her almost invisible to him, Sheffield Crown Court heard.

Miss Buckley suffered a major head injury and broke her pelvis, spine and leg. She died in hospital six weeks later from multi-organ failure due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
Hampshire, of Eckington, near Sheffield admitted causing her death by careless driving on December 6, 2008.

But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.
After the hearing, Audrey Heeley, 74, the victim's auntie who spoke on behalf of the family said: "We are all upset over the sentence.
"I don't think the judge appreciated that the wheelchair was only on the road momentarily so Fiona could get onto the pavement. If she had fallen her carer could not have put her back into the wheelchair. We loved Fiona very much and will miss her."

Hampshire has already had his driving licence revoked by the DVLA due to medical reasons since the accident on Abbey Lane, Beauchief, Sheffield.
The victim was riding in the roadway at 10pm with her carer Kay Pilley, 46, walking just behind, heading in the same direction as the defendant.
Hampshire later told police he had just set off from some traffic lights and was doing about 20 mph uphill.
He said: "Suddenly I heard this bang at the front of the car and wondered what it was. I never saw them at all. That was it."
Prosecutor Rachael Harrison said the women had earlier been spotted on the carriageway by other motorists.
Driver Neil Tyrell, who was behind Hampshire's car, lost sight of the women and assumed they had moved onto the pavement.
He did not see the Sierra overtake or brake and then Miss Buckley "popped up" over the top of the Sierra. As everyone stopped, Hampshire was heard to say: "What were they doing in the road?"
Miss Buckley was left unconscious and Miss Pilley was lying in the road. She suffered head and knee injuries and was treated at hospital. She could not remember what happened.

Police officers later tested Hampshire's eyesight and found he could not read a car number plate from the required distance of 20.5 metres.
He was found to have cataracts in both eyes which had probably been there for 18 months. A doctor said it would give him "foggy or hazy" sight.
He also suffered from age-related macular degeneration which blurs the central vision.
With his right eye he could only see from six metres what a normal person could read from 24 metres.
When charged by police in August last year, Hampshire replied: "I do not see how it was my fault. It's not my fault, I'm devastated by this."
Fiona Buckley lived at the Henleigh Hall Care Home on Abbey Lane. Her aunt said in a statement she made the best of her disability and never let being tied to a wheelchair prevent her from living life to the full.

Tim Savage, for the pensioner, said he ran away to join the Army at 16 and had served with the Leicestershire regiment during the Second World War.
He had served in the Kenyan police force, been a Mountie and a lumberjack in Canada and then returned to Sheffield where he was a taxi driver for many years.
He had held a clean driving licence for 69 years and the situation which confronted him was not of his own making.
His cataracts had developed over time and he was unaware of any decline in his vision. ""He is morally almost without blame," said Mr Savage.
"There was nothing in his driving to criticise save for his failure to see."
Despite having the cataracts removed he had chosen not to reapply for his driving licence.
Judge Moore told Hampshire: "In an act of proper remorse you accept some responsibility for this sad death."
He said the level of culpability fell below sentencing guidelines and went on: "Punishment is not appropriate, the fact of the conviction is the real punishment."
He gave the pensioner an absolute discharge, found special reasons not to ban him from driving and just awarded three penalty points.
After the hearing Hampshire said: "I have nothing to say."

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 07:47 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
"There was nothing in his driving to criticise save for his failure to see." That beggars believe! How can one not be aware that ones eyesight is failing? So if I choose to drive around without wearing my +6 glasses I would not be culpable if I killed somebody?

This really does reinforce the need for regular medical checks on drivers, especially older ones.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 08:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I fail to see how the charge could not be seen to be correct, and if the court felt that the defendant's failure to recognise the loss of his sight was a mitigating factor, I would have expected that to be reflected in the sentencing.

Perhaps Fisherman will be along to guide us on policy here.

Sefton Council publishes a booklet encouraging elderly drivers to recognise their failing abilities, and to take to public transport.
25% of accidents in their area involve elderly drivers, and they are trying to address this.
It is no use saying that they rely on their car to get around - that is like saying a drink driver relies on his car to get to the pub, so it's OK.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 09:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
We are only seeing a small section of what I am sure is an involved case. The fact that he showed great remorse and so the Judge ruled with full knowledge of all the facts as presented to him.
I totally agree that all people need good eyesight for life and all of it's responsibilities not just when in or on, a vehicle.
This is a 'health & welfare' issue, than purely a 'driver' one. Many people in industry operate all sorts of machinery and equipment and they all too need good eyesight to do so.

Brake wish to penalise all drivers, specifically forgetting all other issues, but there is a wider case to answer. All drivers being checked every 10 years is unlikely to be required until most are over 60yrs or so, but by then many have taken and noticed eyesight failings and acted already. We need a better health care system that perhaps over a certain age helps ensure sight is being properly cared for. This will then resolve the problem and also ensure that people are aware at an early stage too than wait until such a tragic incident.

I would like to know why the pedestrians too were on the road ? If the crossing was not suitable for the mobility scooter then why did she not cross elsewhere. Why did she think not having lights on her vehicle was not suitable when it was dark or even where a reflective jacket ... and so on?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 09:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
You're all missing the point!

Article wrote:
... he had just set off from some traffic lights and was doing about 20 mph uphill....


He was within the speed limit - what's the problem?! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 17:24 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I would like to know why the pedestrians too were on the road ?

Why not? That statement seems to imply that you think pedestrians should only be allowed to use the road when it is convenient for the driver.

Quote:
If the crossing was not suitable for the mobility scooter then why did she not cross elsewhere. Why did she think not having lights on her vehicle was not suitable when it was dark or even where a reflective jacket ... and so on?

Blaming the victim is not helpful. The fact remains that she was behaving in a perfectly legal manner whilst the driver was breaking the law. She got killed and he got a pat on the head. The law is indeed an ass.

It is worth pointing out that our much maligned NHS does provide free eye tests for the over 60s. But many older drivers fail to avail themselves of the service for fear of being told that they are not fit to drive.,

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 17:36 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I would like to know why the pedestrians too were on the road ?

Why not? That statement seems to imply that you think pedestrians should only be allowed to use the road when it is convenient for the driver.

Quote:
If the crossing was not suitable for the mobility scooter then why did she not cross elsewhere. Why did she think not having lights on her vehicle was not suitable when it was dark or even where a reflective jacket ... and so on?

Blaming the victim is not helpful. The fact remains that she was behaving in a perfectly legal manner whilst the driver was breaking the law. She got killed and he got a pat on the head. The law is indeed an ass.

It is worth pointing out that our much maligned NHS does provide free eye tests for the over 60s. But many older drivers fail to avail themselves of the service for fear of being told that they are not fit to drive.,

The pedestrian left the pavement and chose to walk along the road. The carer of the victim is reported as having "learning difficulties".

The incident occurred at 10pm during December night, and was riding a mobility scooter without lights or reflectors. An independent witness (whose eyesight wasn't questioned) stated the pair were in a "pool of darkness".

Quote:
"But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.(with no lights or reflectors fitted.)"


Having the (reported) facts gives needed perspective.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 18:17 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
Quote:
"But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.(with no lights or reflectors fitted.)"


Having the (reported) facts gives needed perspective.


The reckless, but legal, behaviour of one individual cannot exonerate the illegal behaviour of another. Even if the accident had not happened the driver was, at the very least, driving without due care and consideration. If I drove around without wearing my glasses and had an accident do you think that I would go unpunished?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 19:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Quote:
"But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.(with no lights or reflectors fitted.)"


Having the (reported) facts gives needed perspective.


The reckless, but legal, behaviour of one individual cannot exonerate the illegal behaviour of another.

In our case, the driver was not exonerated! Has anyone here said or implied that he should have been?

The point that I raised you on was the reasonableness of the pedestrian's actions (walking in a road when a pavement is available, doing so in a pool of darkness, not having reflectors or lights, walking with traffic); they are not without some level of blame.

I'm sure you wouldn't commend drivers who wantonly drive too fast for the conditions even though they are within the speed limit.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 20:46 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
The point that I raised you on was the reasonableness of the pedestrian's actions (walking in a road when a pavement is available, doing so in a pool of darkness, not having reflectors or lights, walking with traffic); they are not without some level of blame.


Given the degree of visual impairment (5/20) it is unlikely that he would have seen her even if she had been illuminated. And for the Judge not to ban someone with that level of vision is inexcusable.

The Judge, with his opinion that it is the pedestrians duty to get out of the way of motor vehicles rather than for motorists to avoid pedestrians, would find his spiritual home on these forums.

Quote:
I'm sure you wouldn't commend drivers who wantonly drive too fast for the conditions even though they are within the speed limit.

No I wouldn't condone that example of driving illegally

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 20:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
The point that I raised you on was the reasonableness of the pedestrian's actions (walking in a road when a pavement is available, doing so in a pool of darkness, not having reflectors or lights, walking with traffic); they are not without some level of blame.


Given the degree of visual impairment (5/20) it is unlikely that he would have seen her even if she had been illuminated. And for the Judge not to ban someone with that level of vision is inexcusable.

The Judge, with his opinion that it is the pedestrians duty to get out of the way of motor vehicles rather than for motorists to avoid pedestrians, would find his spiritual home on these forums.

Quote:
I'm sure you wouldn't commend drivers who wantonly drive too fast for the conditions even though they are within the speed limit.

No I wouldn't condone that example of driving illegally


He was 87 and he didn't reapply for his driving license, what good would banning him have done?

He had just pulled away from lights, so why were pedestrians not using a crossing (most lights have ped crossing where there are pedestrians) and earing black at night and not using lights on the buggy?

Only today I saw a woman walking her (I assume) granddaughter (3-4ish) and another in a push chair down the access road to the tip on the farm. Utter, utter moron. It's a private road (signed) and the only traffic is heavy, bin lorries, tippers etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 21:08 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
adam.L wrote:
He was 87 and he didn't reapply for his driving license, what good would banning him have done?

There is nothing to prevent from reapplying for a licence

[/quote] Only today I saw a woman walking her (I assume) granddaughter (3-4ish) and another in a push chair down the access road to the tip on the farm. Utter, utter moron. It's a private road (signed) and the only traffic is heavy, bin lorries, tippers etc.[/quote]

What on earth has the action of a women trespasser to do with the topic under discussion? There are two distinct matters here. The foolishness of the deceased on assuming that drivers would look out for her safety, which I don't particularly care to discuss. And the the unpunished criminal irresponsibility of as man who drives when his vision is impaired to the point where he could, under some definitions, be classed as blind.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 21:19 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
And the unpunished criminal irresponsibility of as man who drives when his vision is impaired to the point where he could, under some definitions, be classed as blind.

What punishment do you feel would have been appropriate for an 87-year-old man who will never drive again and is no doubt consumed by remorse?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 21:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
The point that I raised you on was the reasonableness of the pedestrian's actions (walking in a road when a pavement is available, doing so in a pool of darkness, not having reflectors or lights, walking with traffic); they are not without some level of blame.


Given the degree of visual impairment (5/20) it is unlikely that he would have seen her even if she had been illuminated.

I suspect a person is a little bit bigger and more noticeable than objects that are 4 x 1/60 of a degree wide (23mm at 20m away) - wouldn't you agree?

Conversely, I think it would have been challenging for any driver to see folks wearing black attire in a "pool of darkness".

My point remains.

dcbwhaley wrote:
And for the Judge not to ban someone with that level of vision is inexcusable.

Rightly or wrongly, he apparently seems to have found that excuse: "the victim (w)as reckless"

dcbwhaley wrote:
The Judge, with his opinion that it is the pedestrians duty to get out of the way of motor vehicles rather than for motorists to avoid pedestrians, would find his spiritual home on these forums.

Strawman!
Again your prejudice betrays you, and again your misrepresentation is exposed.

No one has said or implied anything of the sort; no one has said that motorist was blameless - yet you seem to be repeating your error: "unpunished".

I repeat myself to you: "In our case, the driver was not exonerated! Has anyone here said or implied that he should have been?"

It is the responsibility of motorists, no - all road users to try to avoid other road users, it is also the responsibility of other road users to ensure they don't place themselves in that danger. Isn't that reasonable?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:00 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
PeterE wrote:
What punishment do you feel would have been appropriate for an 87-year-old man who will never drive again and is no doubt consumed by remorse?


A conviction for causing death by dangerous driving with a suspended sentence and a lifetime ban from driving.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
dcbwhaley wrote:
What on earth has the action of a women trespasser to do with the topic under discussion? There are two distinct matters here. The foolishness of the deceased on assuming that drivers would look out for her safety, which I don't particularly care to discuss.


people on foot tend to assume that there safety will be taken care of by the people driving. Disabled woman assumed that because cars have lights someone will see her. Stupid mare on pit road assumed that the bin lorries will see her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:09 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
I suspect a person is a little bit bigger and more noticeable than objects that are 4 x 1/60 of a degree wide (23mm at 20m away) - wouldn't you agree?

But not visible to that driver

Quote:
Conversely, I think it would have been challenging for any driver to see folks wearing black attire in a "pool of darkness".

Challenging indeed. But a challenge that, if you drive in the dark, you have to be capable of meeting.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Rightly or wrongly, he apparently seems to have found that excuse: "the victim (w)as reckless"

Wrongly!. That is that thinking that exonerates rapists because the victim was wearing sexy clothing.

Quote:
It is the responsibility of motorists to try to avoid other road users, it is also the responsibility of other road users to ensure they don't place themselves in that danger. Isn't that reasonable?

The first is a legal obligation. The second is a pragmatic response to motorists ignoring that first obligation.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:11 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
adam.L wrote:
Stupid mare on pit road assumed that the bin lorries will see her.

It is not an unreasonable expectation that someone driving a motor vehicle will look where he is going.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
dcbwhaley wrote:
adam.L wrote:
Stupid mare on pit road assumed that the bin lorries will see her.

It is not an unreasonable expectation that someone driving a motor vehicle will look where he is going.


On that road you are not looking for pedestrians, 7 years olds on go carts, 12 year olds on motocross bikes, you are looking for bin lorries :wink: . Last summer a bin lorry was in collision with a cyclist on a crossing, not sure of what happened so won;t comment on that. But a traffic car was sent to the scene and went down the pit road instead of down the public roads. Big mistake. He met a bin lorry on a blind corner. We have the contract to cut the hedges, and you can see a bin lorry no bother. It seems a BMW E90 is a little more difficult to spot :lol:. But it is still a private road for heavy traffic. If you want to trespass down there on foot, or on a go cart that your dad bought for you but you have nowhere to play on it, or on a motorcross bike that again so idiot bought for you and you have no where to ride it, then fine, but you may well get killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 22:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
I suspect a person is a little bit bigger and more noticeable than objects that are 4 x 1/60 of a degree wide (23mm at 20m away) - wouldn't you agree?

But not visible to that driver

You said "5/20", and I quantatively showed what that means.
So how do you know that driver would not have been able to see something much larger than that when "illuminated"? This was your conclusion and criteria, so please explain it.

Even if you are correct, your argument case is perfect for rejecting wanton use of the Primary Position </off topic>

dcbwhaley wrote:
Challenging indeed. But a challenge that, if you drive in the dark, you have to be capable of meeting.

I agree in principle, but can you expect everyone to do that with absolutely 100% reliability? (accounting for distractions). You can't limit the argument to legitimate drivers.
Isn't this why the "pragmatic" approach is also used?

dcbwhaley wrote:
... exonerates ...

There you go again Dave, misrepresenting the outcome of the case.

dcbwhaley wrote:
That is that thinking that exonerates rapists because the victim was wearing sexy clothing.

Not in our culture, Dave. Your desperation is clearly showing!
If I can turn your own previous tactic against you: "What on earth has the sexual appearance of women to do with the topic under discussion? "

dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
It is the responsibility of motorists to try to avoid other road users, it is also the responsibility of other road users to ensure they don't place themselves in that danger. Isn't that reasonable?

The first is a legal obligation. The second is a pragmatic response to motorists ignoring that first obligation.

Who said it was 'ignored'? Do you conclude that driver didn't care about that risk?
Would road safety be furthered by making the latter a legal obligation too?

My point remains: your perception of the forum is wrong, again
Again, again: "In our case, the driver was not exonerated! Has anyone here said or implied that he should have been?"

If the victim was not reckless, the incident would have been avoided, even with these shortcomings of drivers.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.267s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]