View Full Version : Seatbelt laws
I was thinking about seat belt laws after being told of someone driving from Tesco car park to Tesco filling station and being stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt.
I know its "clunk click, even on the shortest trips!" but this seams a bit excessive.
Also what about people who persistently don't buckle up, do the police just keep fining them each time or do the "offences" mount up somehow?
macbreeza
19-May-10, 20:25
I don't think it's excessive the seatbelt law is there for drivers own safety. I doubt if persistant offenders actually get caught every time somehow! I never see the police about that often! If someone drives without a seatbelt then they are very silly indeed!
I was thinking about seat belt laws after being told of someone driving from Tesco car park to Tesco filling station and being stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt.
I know its "clunk click, even on the shortest trips!" but this seams a bit excessive.
Also what about people who persistently don't buckle up, do the police just keep fining them each time or do the "offences" mount up somehow?
3 points for each offence. Hypothetically, if you and your 3 passengers weren’t belted, you as the driver could be banned on totting up. :eek:
ShelleyCowie
19-May-10, 21:19
Personally i always wear a seat belt, no matter how short the journey! I know of too many accidents that has happened, some wearing seat belts saving their life, some not wearing seat belts.
I would never let my child off with not wearing a seat belt, so i should set and example and do the same! :D
3 points for each offence. Hypothetically, if you and your 3 passengers weren’t belted, you as the driver could be banned on totting up. :eek:
The driver is not responsible for adult passengers' wearing of belts.
Our car beeps at you if the seatbelts are not fastened.
It gets louder and more frequent until the offending person puts on their belt...
I know because the car mistook a large box for a person :lol:
It also beeps if a cardoor is open....
Whitewater
19-May-10, 22:06
What's the problem with wearing a seat belt? It's for your own safety, it could save your life.
What's the problem with wearing a seat belt? It's for your own safety, it could save your life.
I don't have a problem with wearing a seat belt at all.
But is that what laws are for? Surely we have laws to prevent one person from harming another person not to control every aspect of our lives. Eating five portions of food and veg a day is good for you but should it be made compulsory because it's for your own benefit?
The current system is:
If the driver or a passenger under 14 isnt wearing a seatbelt then £60 and 3 points or a court appearance if the police officer wants to!
If a passenger over 14 isnt wearing a seatbelt then its a £60 fine or court appearance regardless if they have a driving licence or not.
northener
19-May-10, 23:59
I was thinking about seat belt laws after being told of someone driving from Tesco car park to Tesco filling station and being stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt.
I know its "clunk click, even on the shortest trips!" but this seams a bit excessive.
Also what about people who persistently don't buckle up, do the police just keep fining them each time or do the "offences" mount up somehow?
Could be Tescos car park in Aberdeen and Tescos filling station in Brighton.......
northener
20-May-10, 00:14
I don't have a problem with wearing a seat belt at all.
But is that what laws are for? Surely we have laws to prevent one person from harming another person not to control every aspect of our lives. Eating five portions of food and veg a day is good for you but should it be made compulsory because it's for your own benefit?
Well, when some poor sod has had to scrape whats left of them off the road, wasted God knows how many hours in tying up A+E staff and all the associated emergency services before going round to the NOK and then telling them that their dearest has just been killed in an avoidable outcome or been maimed for life , then wearing a seatbelt should be a pretty feckin obvious thing to do.
The amount of numpties I get in the car who say "I'd better put my belt on in case the Police see me" beggars belief. They'd be suing me as quick as a flash if they went through the windscreen and I hadn't insisted they put it on.[evil]
'Kin invincible they think they are....legislation is there for the safety of idiots who are incapable of keeping themselves safe in this case. Nick 'em all, I say.
I know a few people who have had a fine for this offence and they were fined £30
Must admit I wasn't sure about the law in relation to adult backseat passengers. So is the driver responsible if they don't belt up? If so I'm going to have to be a bit more insistent in future. Some older people can be quite difficult about it.
Must admit I wasn't sure about the law in relation to adult backseat passengers. So is the driver responsible if they don't belt up? If so I'm going to have to be a bit more insistent in future. Some older people can be quite difficult about it.
Its only passengers under the age of 14 that the driver is responsible for.
Its only passengers under the age of 14 that the driver is responsible for.
Regardless where they sit :)
Regardless where they sit :)
haha ;) :lol:
Must admit I wasn't sure about the law in relation to adult backseat passengers. So is the driver responsible if they don't belt up? If so I'm going to have to be a bit more insistent in future. Some older people can be quite difficult about it.
In an accident rear passengers can kill those in the front seats when they fly forward and hit them on the back of the head, so get them to belt up regardless of the law.
Surely we have laws to prevent one person from harming another person not to control every aspect of our lives.... ....but should it be made compulsory because it's for your own benefit?
In an accident rear passengers can kill those in the front seats when they fly forward and hit them on the back of the head,
Geo beat me to it...
Have you not seen the advert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
This one isn't too nice either
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kYqjTA_VEg
In an accident rear passengers can kill those in the front seats when they fly forward and hit them on the back of the head, so get them to belt up regardless of the law.
Yes, completely agree. I shall be firmer in future. Can never understand why buses don't make everyone wear the seat belts. Imagine the chaos in an accident with people all over the place. Some have a warning light so all the driver has to do is refuse to move when it's on. They don't even mention it with children despite all the little notices. Then again, town buses don't have belts so where's the logic in that?
Yes, completely agree. I shall be firmer in future. Can never understand why buses don't make everyone wear the seat belts. Imagine the chaos in an accident with people all over the place. Some have a warning light so all the driver has to do is refuse to move when it's on. They don't even mention it with children despite all the little notices. Then again, town buses don't have belts so where's the logic in that?
It is up to the passengers to put the seatbelts on,all the buses have them so if people don`t want to use them then that is their choice.The teachers at the high school check that all pupils wear their belts but no sooner is the teacher off the bus the belts are removed.Mik.
annthracks
20-May-10, 15:45
I think they should increase the fines! I was in an emergency waiting room when I was 10 and they wheeled through a woman on a stretcher with her face hanging off -she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and she'd gone through a car windscreen. That's stayed with me for 38 years! My father used to come home from work (fireman) having had to remove someone from a steering column... so I've always worn a belt, even before they made it compulsory.
I put that down to why I'm still here after I had a little accident up in Shetland... here's what was left of my car, 70mph, 3 rolls diagonally,nose to tail...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/53465428_6efe095923.jpg
I was thinking about seat belt laws after being told of someone driving from Tesco car park to Tesco filling station and being stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt.
I know its "clunk click, even on the shortest trips!" but this seams a bit excessive.
Also what about people who persistently don't buckle up, do the police just keep fining them each time or do the "offences" mount up somehow?
I can not see what the problem is, we all know it is the Law that Seat Belts Must be worn, even on the shortest drive. So if you decide not to wear a seat belt and you get caught then you can not complain as it was your decision.
I think they should increase the fines! I was in an emergency waiting room when I was 10 and they wheeled through a woman on a stretcher with her face hanging off -she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and she'd gone through a car windscreen. That's stayed with me for 38 years! My father used to come home from work (fireman) having had to remove someone from a steering column... so I've always worn a belt, even before they made it compulsory.
I put that down to why I'm still here after I had a little accident up in Shetland... here's what was left of my car, 70mph, 3 rolls diagonally,nose to tail...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/53465428_6efe095923.jpg
You should always wear your seatbelt, you're a bloody incompetent driver, that is the second classic triumph you have written off :lol:
BTW do you still have the Fuel Pump? ;)
I put that down to why I'm still here after I had a little accident up in Shetland... here's what was left of my car, 70mph, 3 rolls diagonally,nose to tail...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/53465428_6efe095923.jpg
70 mph in Shetland. :eek:
In all the many times I came in to Lerwick by boat or Sumburgh by helicopter never did I see a motorway.[lol]
Shame about a nice car though
It is up to the passengers to put the seatbelts on,all the buses have them so if people don`t want to use them then that is their choice.The teachers at the high school check that all pupils wear their belts but no sooner is the teacher off the bus the belts are removed.Mik.
Problem with that is, as someone said earlier about cars, being thrown from your seat you could kill someone else so it shouldn't be your choice.
I don't have a problem with wearing a seat belt at all.
But is that what laws are for? Surely we have laws to prevent one person from harming another person not to control every aspect of our lives. Eating five portions of food and veg a day is good for you but should it be made compulsory because it's for your own benefit?
Fred does have a point. in the media we are now getting told that obesity is costing millions not just in benefits but also costing the NHS, I suspect more than not wearing seat belts. So do you make it law what you have to eat, ban crisps and chocolate to save us from ourselves.
What about smoking why not ban that as it's costing tax payers millions, what about people who go mountain climbing and cost the taxpayer millions having to be rescued or the stress the rescuers have to go through taking their mangled bodies off the mountain, shall we ban that.
Although I agree seat belts do save lives and I wear mine all the time (when in a vehicle) I do think it should be up to the individual to decide. you usually find those who dont wear them are brain dead and will never learn.
wearing seat belts in one way does kill people. those of you who are old enough to remember when the wearing of seat belts was made compulsary within a year there was an outcry due to lack of donors for body parts as less people were being killed in accidents, and were still short as we now are living longer.
Anthracks you should be shot wrecking such a lovely motor, a Stag, absolute disgrace hang your head in shame.
What about smoking why not ban that as it's costing tax payers millions,
Suppose they did ban it I suppose you wouldnt moan when your income tax was raised to make up for the shortfall.
I don't have a problem with wearing a seat belt at all.
But is that what laws are for? Surely we have laws to prevent one person from harming another person not to control every aspect of our lives. Eating five portions of food and veg a day is good for you but should it be made compulsory because it's for your own benefit?
Accidents occur in which the person not wearing the seat belt is thrown into the back or to the side of another causing serious injury. Not wearing a seat belt can injure others. And of course loosing control in an accident through not having a seat belt on may well cause injury to pedestrians or other road users.
Anthracks you should be shot wrecking such a lovely motor, a Stag, absolute disgrace hang your head in shame.
Er 2.5 PI ? ;)
Suppose they did ban it I suppose you wouldnt moan when your income tax was raised to make up for the shortfall.
I didnt say I agreed to ban it. With all the publicity about smoking people cant complain about getting any smoking related diseases. and with the amount smokers pay in tax I think they should be allowed treatment.
All I'm getting at is it should be up to individuals to make their own decisions when it comes to their own welfare and not directly effecting others and not have more laws shoved down our throats when the police can't even enforce the ones we have.
A question.....
Does a person have to wear a seat belt in a motor vehicle on Private Property???
Er 2.5 PI ? ;)
ooops my apologies didnt have my reading glasses on or seat belt.
A question.....
Does a person have to wear a seat belt in a motor vehicle on Private Property???
No or riding a motor bike :lol:
Accidents occur in which the person not wearing the seat belt is thrown into the back or to the side of another causing serious injury. Not wearing a seat belt can injure others. And of course loosing control in an accident through not having a seat belt on may well cause injury to pedestrians or other road users.
I think that is all incidental. A person alone in a car still is legally obliged to wear a seat belt so harming another passenger can not be the reason for the law. As for harming another road user I would think the chances of that would be slight.
The trouble with cars is they are too safe. Sturdy metal boxes with ABS brakes, air bags, seat belts, the drivers feel safer so they drive faster. I think if they removed the driver's seat belt and instead fitted a steel spike out of the steering column stopping a couple of inches from the driver's heart there would be a lot less accidents.
Fred, anorexia nervosa is a deadly killer of young people, usually females. If you stop eating eventually your heart stops beating. On these grounds, there is a cause for medical treatment or for beavioural therapy. This might be the subject of another, slightly more responsible thread.
The trouble with cars is they are too safe. The Volvo effect! ?
Sturdy metal boxes with ABS brakes, air bags, seat belts, the drivers feel safer so they drive faster. I think if they removed the driver's seat belt and instead fitted a steel spike out of the steering column stopping a couple of inches from the driver's heart there would be a lot less accidents.Sorry, don't agree. It's the mentality and culture of drivers that is the issue.
I firmly believe that the driver training system needs major overhaul, training needs to be mandatory from an approved instructor and there also needs regular retesting of drivers.
The seat belt issue is quite a straightforward one. Wearing one really doesn't impose on my daily business or chosen religion for that day.
The mass of evidence seems to suggest that should anything untoward happen it will be of a benefit.
Fred's point is valid. Any sensible person would wear a seat belt but should you be forced to? The same argument raged about Motorcycle helmets. And that law certainly hasn't saved any money because all the people who were killed now have serious head injuries. (its much cheaper to be killed).
BTW cars are not safe (try driving into a tree at speed) it's just that people think they are.
No or riding a motor bike :lol:
So............Isn't Tesco's property private?
.........but should you be forced to?
I am forced to pay road tax which as far as I can see does not contribute to the roads, less still to me and my passengers safety.
But I can see the benefits of wearing a seatbelt.
Bear in mind this is on a public road. We are forced to drive vehicles built to a certain standard, we are forced to have those vehicles checked at certain intervals and we are forced to drive to a certain standard and in a certain manner. On the Public Roads.
So why an issue for all of us to apply a standard (i.e. wearing seatbelts) when utilising public services & utilities.
When we purchase something for private use we expect the manufacturers & retailers to comply with uniform and international standards, why is there an issue with us complying with a simple local standard of wearing seatbelts?
Cars must be safe as we are constantly being told that it is killer roads like the A9 which cause accidents and kill people,
Roads do not kill people. People kill themselves by bad driving methods and failing to drive to the prevailing conditions of the road.
I, and millions of other road users have successfully driven up and down the A9, and gone up and down the Berridale Braes countless times without having an accident.
As to the guy in the Triumph, as far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, there are no Motorways on Shetland, and as the national speed limit is 60mph, does he not think he may have contributed to his cars demise
No or riding a motor bike :lol:
[quote=barmar62;709046]I was thinking about seat belt laws after being told of someone driving from Tesco car park to Tesco filling station and being stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt.
If Tescos is private property, and one doesn't need seat belts on private property????? Am I simplifying things? s
All those who say people should have the choice to wear belts as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. What about the trauma to the poor person who has to scrape them off the road/windscreen :(
All those who say people should have the choice to wear belts as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. What about the trauma to the poor person who has to scrape them off the road/windscreen :(
And to family and friends
All those who say people should have the choice to wear belts as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. What about the trauma to the poor person who has to scrape them off the road/windscreen :(
I think it's a matter of principle, not if it is right or wrong to wear a seat belt but if it is right or wrong for the law to dictate in the matter.
I see you have a horse as your avatar, equine sports are the most dangerous in Britain, kill more people than any of the others. Banning horse riding would save the lives of 10 to 20 people a year and prevent a lot more very serious injuries such as spinal injuries. Someone riding a horse is 20 times as likely to have a serious accident as someone riding a motorcycle.
Do you think the government would be justified in making horse riding illegal? I mean what about the poor people who are going to have to look after these horse riders who fall off and break their backs?
I see you have a horse as your avatar, equine sports are the most dangerous in Britain, kill more people than any of the others. Banning horse riding would save the lives of 10 to 20 people a year and prevent a lot more very serious injuries such as spinal injuries. Someone riding a horse is 20 times as likely to have a serious accident as someone riding a motorcycle.
That's a nonsense statement to make :roll: Horseriders wear helmets, hi-vis and body protectors to minimise the chance of injury. I take more safety measures riding a horse than riding a bike. Yes I might be more likely to fall off a horse but I am yet to die doing so. A lot more bike accidents are fatal than horse ones.
We are talking about use of safety measures (or rather lack of use) not the likelihood of an accident happening. I feel this thread turning due to your contribution. I have stood up for you in the past but some of the statements you make are rather self indulgent rather than contributing anything of value. If you want people to lay off you - start contributing something of value. Or even just relevant...
northener
21-May-10, 17:09
I think it's a matter of principle, not if it is right or wrong to wear a seat belt but if it is right or wrong for the law to dictate in the matter.
I see you have a horse as your avatar, equine sports are the most dangerous in Britain, kill more people than any of the others. Banning horse riding would save the lives of 10 to 20 people a year and prevent a lot more very serious injuries such as spinal injuries. Someone riding a horse is 20 times as likely to have a serious accident as someone riding a motorcycle.
Do you think the government would be justified in making horse riding illegal? I mean what about the poor people who are going to have to look after these horse riders who fall off and break their backs?
I agree with your sentiments here, Fred. I believe that we are in danger of being swamped with regulations 'for our own good', but I think that the seatbelt laws (and the helmet laws) are a proportional response to a very real problem.
Do we need further legislation for our own safety on the road? No.
More effort and focus upon driver education, training and asessment is what we really need. But that's a nettle too stingey for many politicians to grasp, alas.
annthracks
21-May-10, 17:15
You should always wear your seatbelt, you're a bloody incompetent driver, that is the second classic triumph you have written off :lol:
BTW do you still have the Fuel Pump? ;)
And you're an incompetent poster !! ;)
I would have only written the one off if you'd have edited the quote a bit!
No, sorry, I sold the whole thing complete in 1982 ish (would have been a bit rusty by now)
That's a nonsense statement to make :roll: Horseriders wear helmets, hi-vis and body protectors to minimise the chance of injury. I take more safety measures riding a horse than riding a bike. Yes I might be more likely to fall off a horse but I am yet to die doing so. A lot more bike accidents are fatal than horse ones.
We are talking about use of safety measures (or rather lack of use) not the likelihood of an accident happening. I feel this thread turning due to your contribution. I have stood up for you in the past but some of the statements you make are rather self indulgent rather than contributing anything of value. If you want people to lay off you - start contributing something of value. Or even just relevant...
I just used the same logic you used to justify the law making seatbelts compulsory to justify a law banning the riding of horses. The same criteria apply, someone falling off a horse could land on someone else and injure them, the riderless horse could go on to cause an accident. Someone injured falling off a horse takes looking after just the same as someone injured in a car accident. The ambulance men have to come out and extract them from a five barred gate.
And of course let's not forget the poor horse, they tend to get injured because people ride them too, often fatally.
Yet someone alone in a car not wearing a seatbelt is breaking the law.
annthracks
21-May-10, 17:28
I think people who believe helmet and seatbelt laws are "for our own safety" have believed the government hype.
It's first and foremost to cut costs in rescue services, hospitals and morgues :)
It's purely coincidental that these laws save lives.
Cost is what it's all about, that's why you see so many idiots driving around with their mobile phone stuck to their ear - too much work for plod to enforce it up here. Why you see a taxi demolishing a road closed sign and skidding to a halt on the roadworks just before Bowermadden the other week...but that's for another day :)
annthracks
21-May-10, 17:31
More effort and focus upon driver education, training and asessment is what we really need. But that's a nettle too stingey for many politicians to grasp, alas.
Aye, too stingy and perhaps too costly?
northener
21-May-10, 17:38
Aye, too stingy and perhaps too costly?
Not too costly, really. It's the political implications for anyone drafting in legislation that requires compulsory re-testing after 'X' years and ruthlessly cracking down upon younger post-test drivers that will lose the authors too many votes.
That's why politicians are overly cautious, they can't stand not being popular. They'd sooner cop out and save their own skins than move the country forward.
Boozeburglar
21-May-10, 17:58
Yet someone alone in a car not wearing a seatbelt is breaking the law.
I agree with your analogy, but it is also the case that the belt sometimes restrains you in a manner that allows you to retain control of a situation you might not otherwise.
On balance, I prefer to belt up.
My uncle is a paramedic, and has told me some very sad stories from both perspectives.
I have to agree with fred. My car, my windscreen, my head, MY DECISION (by the way I do wear a seatbelt before you ask)
By the same token I don't speed past schools at "peak" times just because the flashing light tells me, or not murder my naighbor because of the threat of jail.
I will decide which, if any, laws/rules I will abide by and don't believe this makes me a bad person.
I have to agree with fred. My car, my windscreen, my head, MY DECISION (by the way I do wear a seatbelt before you ask)
By the same token I don't speed past schools at "peak" times just because the flashing light tells me, or not murder my naighbor because of the threat of jail.
I will decide which, if any, laws/rules I will abide by and don't believe this makes me a bad person.
If you decide which rules/laws you abide by, it makes you an anarchist, and ultimately, the accused followed by the inmate :eek:
northener
21-May-10, 21:19
......I will decide which, if any, laws/rules I will abide by and don't believe this makes me a bad person.
Oooh...this has just turned very juicy.;)
So if I decide that I have no way of supporting my family and avoiding being thrown out on the streets, it will be accepted by you that me breaking into your house and nicking your prized posessions - or even smacking your partner around the head with an iron bar to get money off them - is acceptable because I believe I am justified in my actions because I believe that I have the right to only follow laws that I find acceptable?
I'm destitute - you've got more than me - so therefore I believe I am morally justified in relieving the richer to feed the poorer....wouldn't you agree?
All those who say people should have the choice to wear belts as they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. What about the trauma to the poor person who has to scrape them off the road/windscreen :(
police officers, hospital staff, ambulance staff, and fire brigade know that one day they will have to deal with bodies wether its car accidents, fires, street fighting ect or just a natural causes, if they they cant handle it then they wouldn't take the job on.
if you are afraid of heights would you become a steeple jack, if you didn't like people hating you would you become a traffic warden.
My own moral code would not allow me to inflict pain/suffering on anyone else, ruin their property etc,.
If no one challenges authority the result would be tyranny!
northener
21-May-10, 21:43
My own moral code would not allow me to inflict pain/suffering on anyone else, ruin their property etc,.
If no one challenges authority the result would be tyranny!
But my moral code makes it acceptable.
So if everyone challenged authority, then the result would be anarchy........
So where do we draw the line?
ok fred. do you wear a seat belt in a car? yes or no? dont care about all the bluster that been blowing just want a simple answer.
In my family, the car does not move until everyone is buckled in. and if i am carrying passengers other than my family.. yup they have to buckle up as well, didnt matter if it was a law or not its common sence to buckle up.
long before it was made law my mom made me buckle up, its just a saftey precaution.
as for horse riding, my children ride, and i know its dangerous.. but so is crossing the road. but sam is at pony club and lessons every week.. wearing his riding hat even if they are not riding, as its just safer being being protected around the horses.
i love how people can quote stats out the wazoo but still have no understanding of the actual meaning of things.
makes me think of something i learned about autistic chlidren. they are highly inteligent little people and often can read and write at a very early age.. and know many big words... yet have no understanding of the wrords and things that they are speaking about..
sound familiar?
yup
Its clunk clip every trip...
I have actually stopped the car on occasions on the way to Wick and refused to move until Lauren has put her arms back in her carseat straps...
and if she refuses she gets the 1....2.....3 (wild mum) hand/bum swiped at and arms put back in the straps... like it or lump it ... you are made to wear them.... she is too little to be removed from the car and made to walk home though:lol:
Shame you wern't bought up to value other people and their things then!
Do you honestly believe that people don't break into your house etc, just because there is a law that says they shouldn't.
Everytime you do something you have the freedom to choose, you make a desision, good or bad. If a law was bought in banning drink ( assuming your not a tea total) would you just accept this.
think they tried that...it was called prohabition(sp)
it wasnt popular and there was a lot of bootleg and home brew booze:lol::lol:
northener
21-May-10, 22:26
Shame you wern't bought up to value other people and their things then!
Do you honestly believe that people don't break into your house etc, just because there is a law that says they shouldn't.
Everytime you do something you have the freedom to choose, you make a desision, good or bad. If a law was bought in banning drink ( assuming your not a tea total) would you just accept this.
So therefore laws and punishment are not a deterrent?
The obvious follow-on from that is to banish all laws.
Would you say that this is acceptable?
I don't think punishment is enough in itself to put someone off commiting a crime.
My point is that we always have a CHOICE
Have you ever driven over the speed limit, parked where you shouldn't or done some dodgey overtaking etc
if you have you made a decission not to abide by that particular law, and therfore obviously the punishment was not enough to deter you.
northener
21-May-10, 22:50
I don't think punishment is enough in itself to put someone off commiting a crime.
My point is that we always have a CHOICE
Have you ever driven over the speed limit, parked where you shouldn't or done some dodgey overtaking etc
if you have you made a decission not to abide by that particular law, and therfore obviously the punishment was not enough to deter you.
Fair comment.
But does that make the law redundant and unnecessary in those cases? We choose to do what we want -does that mean that we should be allowed complete free will?
I think not.
We already have free will.
Well I would love to argue ( I mean debate) this all night but its curfew time.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.