SAFETY v MONEY
Discussion
In this age of the relentless Grandma state, thousands and thousands of cameras, obsession by all Police Forces to pursue drivers for the most feeble of offences, what are the actual figures for Speedingv Deaths. I have found a figure of 7.8% (2 years or so old now i believe. Thats to say 7.8% of all fatalities on UK roads could be contributed to Speeding and or where Speeding was the prime cause of the accident.
What about the other 92.2% ? It does strike me in this very very small country with 60Million driving over 28million vehicles that from time to time, people will end up losing their lifes in accidents/incidents....
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I constantly (almost) on a daily basis see a whole myriad of vehicles with no lights/brakes/tyres etc etc...WHERE IS THE POLICE EFFORT in getting these off the ROAD?
No doubt the Logic is if the drivers cannot afford, bulbs, tyres, mots etc, whats the point in pursuing them in the courts? NO REVENUE...IF SAFTEY WAS THE PRIME CONCERN THEN WE WOULD NOT ENCOUNTER THIS FAST FLEET OF ROAD WORTHY VEHICLES.....It really gets my goat to hear the SAFETY rhetoric drums banged all day long
What about the other 92.2% ? It does strike me in this very very small country with 60Million driving over 28million vehicles that from time to time, people will end up losing their lifes in accidents/incidents....
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I constantly (almost) on a daily basis see a whole myriad of vehicles with no lights/brakes/tyres etc etc...WHERE IS THE POLICE EFFORT in getting these off the ROAD?
No doubt the Logic is if the drivers cannot afford, bulbs, tyres, mots etc, whats the point in pursuing them in the courts? NO REVENUE...IF SAFTEY WAS THE PRIME CONCERN THEN WE WOULD NOT ENCOUNTER THIS FAST FLEET OF ROAD WORTHY VEHICLES.....It really gets my goat to hear the SAFETY rhetoric drums banged all day long
The actual statistic is: 5% of accidents* involve vehicles that happen to be exceeding the limit. There is no further information such as how many of those 5% were stolen / uninsured / drunk / etc.
Even then, the fact that 95% of accidents* occur within the speed limit shows that something is very wrong with this country's priorities about road safety.
Edited to add asterisk: *accidents involving a killed or seriously injured casualty.
Even then, the fact that 95% of accidents* occur within the speed limit shows that something is very wrong with this country's priorities about road safety.
Edited to add asterisk: *accidents involving a killed or seriously injured casualty.
Edited by jacobyte on Monday 5th March 16:06
alphadog said:
Athey997S said:
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
Edited by alphadog on Monday 5th March 19:27
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
In 14% of crashes, drivers made the error of operating a vehicle that was defective.
My point is all about increasing Safety!
For sure 66 mph in a 30 zone is not safe, but SPEED is not the Prime concern if you look at all the incidents..Lets sort out the top five issues first! The police (as a whole) are very blinkered when it comes to speed. The highway code was written for Model-T fords....and the whole subject should be updated for the 21st Century.
For sure 66 mph in a 30 zone is not safe, but SPEED is not the Prime concern if you look at all the incidents..Lets sort out the top five issues first! The police (as a whole) are very blinkered when it comes to speed. The highway code was written for Model-T fords....and the whole subject should be updated for the 21st Century.
TripleS said:
alphadog said:
Athey997S said:
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
Edited by alphadog on Monday 5th March 19:27
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sorry Dave,
but my workshop experience would actually determine that 24% is a conservative figure!
This is a very important issue.
Consider this; despite the latest MOT revisions, the benchmark to pass front brake pads is that they only need be the thickness of a fifty pence piece!!
On a heavy powerful, car like a Jaguar or Mercedes you could wear them to the metal only a week after the MOT test.
When you go out today pay specific attention to tyres, particularly on vans, and you will find that a huge percentage, and I mean huge, are running on grossly underinflated rubber.
To do so completely alters the handling characteristics of any vehicle to the point where it becomes a death trap; and this is especially true in emergency situations like braking or swerving to avoid an accident. In every handbook for any vehicle ever made it specifically instructs you to check your tyre pressures daily; do you know anyone that does; do you?
The minimum tyre wear limit in this country is grossly inadequate, particularly when the frequency of wet road driving is taken into account: it is almost 300% less than the German limit!
Any trip you take now after the hours of darkness will reveal oncoming vehicles with faulty or misaligned headlamps, dozens of them!
If your offside headlamp is out you significantly increase the likelihood of collision with an oncoming vehicle: if your nearside is out, you significantly increase the likelihood of striking a pedestrian or cyclist or even an animal that you didn't see until the last second.
But where is the deterrent or educational medium in all of this?
Well the fact is there isn't one, or at least it has been so minimalised by bad policy that there is no useful medium, i.e. traffic police, properly trained in vehicle construction and use.
I could take almost any vehicle off the street and find technical fault with it mainly due to driver ignorance and the utterly dreadful standard of servicing and maintenance, particularly amongst main dealerships!
The result of all this is the potential for accidents.
I attended an accident in Glasgow some years ago where a Renault had driven inexplicably straight onto a very busy main road through a crossroads. It was struck from the side by a Bedford van and pushed straight across the road and into a chemist shop window; it was actually sitting inside the shop with only the boot on the pavement!!
It is one of the most spectacular accidents I have ever attended.
Incredibly only the passenger in the Renault was hurt, caused by her head striking the seat belt mounting point on the B post, but a few stitches were all that was required.
A Chief Inspector was there who was an experienced traffic man and we were particularly struck by the absence of skid marks. When we examined the site it transpired that a small blind summit on the side road led to the illusion that the driver had right of way across the junction. There were absolutely no signs, no paint on the ground and no warnings of a main road.
The driver of the Renault was new to the area and had assumed that she had right of way. It transpired that there had been a catalogue of accidents at this same junction and because of this the police refused to charge her with any offence.
On examining the van, it was rated at 1.5 tons; it was actually carrying 3.2 tons!
It had three bald tyres, one through to the canvas and wire!
Only one front brake worked the other having the pads seized in the caliper and the rear cylinders completely seized.
Both rear shock absorbers were broken in two and dangling from their top mounts!
The steering was so badly worn that there was about three inches of free play at the wheel.
The van had a current MOT!!
The Council roads department were criminally negligent in failing to maintain the junction to anything approaching a safe standard, despite the reports from the police about the dangers.
The driver of the van was simply a thoughtless, dangerous fool who was charged with numerous construction and use offences, but it probably didn't change a thing.
The only person hurt, the passenger in the Renault was of course, totally innocent.
The individuals truly at fault, the roads department, walked away scot free as usual.
The safety standards set for both vehicles and road engineering fall desperately short of a satisfactory level, and it's getting worse.
At last, someone who knows what he is talking about!
Where have you been, thank you god ....
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sorry Dave,
but my workshop experience would actually determine that 24% is a conservative figure!
This is a very important issue.
Consider this; despite the latest MOT revisions, the benchmark to pass front brake pads is that they only need be the thickness of a fifty pence piece!!
On a heavy powerful, car like a Jaguar or Mercedes you could wear them to the metal only a week after the MOT test.
When you go out today pay specific attention to tyres, particularly on vans, and you will find that a huge percentage, and I mean huge, are running on grossly underinflated rubber.
To do so completely alters the handling characteristics of any vehicle to the point where it becomes a death trap; and this is especially true in emergency situations like braking or swerving to avoid an accident. In every handbook for any vehicle ever made it specifically instructs you to check your tyre pressures daily; do you know anyone that does; do you?
The minimum tyre wear limit in this country is grossly inadequate, particularly when the frequency of wet road driving is taken into account: it is almost 300% less than the German limit!
Any trip you take now after the hours of darkness will reveal oncoming vehicles with faulty or misaligned headlamps, dozens of them!
If your offside headlamp is out you significantly increase the likelihood of collision with an oncoming vehicle: if your nearside is out, you significantly increase the likelihood of striking a pedestrian or cyclist or even an animal that you didn't see until the last second.
But where is the deterrent or educational medium in all of this?
Well the fact is there isn't one, or at least it has been so minimalised by bad policy that there is no useful medium, i.e. traffic police, properly trained in vehicle construction and use.
I could take almost any vehicle off the street and find technical fault with it mainly due to driver ignorance and the utterly dreadful standard of servicing and maintenance, particularly amongst main dealerships!
The result of all this is the potential for accidents.
I attended an accident in Glasgow some years ago where a Renault had driven inexplicably straight onto a very busy main road through a crossroads. It was struck from the side by a Bedford van and pushed straight across the road and into a chemist shop window; it was actually sitting inside the shop with only the boot on the pavement!!
It is one of the most spectacular accidents I have ever attended.
Incredibly only the passenger in the Renault was hurt, caused by her head striking the seat belt mounting point on the B post, but a few stitches were all that was required.
A Chief Inspector was there who was an experienced traffic man and we were particularly struck by the absence of skid marks. When we examined the site it transpired that a small blind summit on the side road led to the illusion that the driver had right of way across the junction. There were absolutely no signs, no paint on the ground and no warnings of a main road.
The driver of the Renault was new to the area and had assumed that she had right of way. It transpired that there had been a catalogue of accidents at this same junction and because of this the police refused to charge her with any offence.
On examining the van, it was rated at 1.5 tons; it was actually carrying 3.2 tons!
It had three bald tyres, one through to the canvas and wire!
Only one front brake worked the other having the pads seized in the caliper and the rear cylinders completely seized.
Both rear shock absorbers were broken in two and dangling from their top mounts!
The steering was so badly worn that there was about three inches of free play at the wheel.
The van had a current MOT!!
The Council roads department were criminally negligent in failing to maintain the junction to anything approaching a safe standard, despite the reports from the police about the dangers.
The driver of the van was simply a thoughtless, dangerous fool who was charged with numerous construction and use offences, but it probably didn't change a thing.
The only person hurt, the passenger in the Renault was of course, totally innocent.
The individuals truly at fault, the roads department, walked away scot free as usual.
The safety standards set for both vehicles and road engineering fall desperately short of a satisfactory level, and it's getting worse.
Where have you been, thank you god ....
jith said:
TripleS said:
alphadog said:
Athey997S said:
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
Edited by alphadog on Monday 5th March 19:27
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sorry Dave,
but my workshop experience would actually determine that 24% is a conservative figure!
This is a very important issue.
Consider this; despite the latest MOT revisions, the benchmark to pass front brake pads is that they only need be the thickness of a fifty pence piece!!
On a heavy powerful, car like a Jaguar or Mercedes you could wear them to the metal only a week after the MOT test.
When you go out today pay specific attention to tyres, particularly on vans, and you will find that a huge percentage, and I mean huge, are running on grossly underinflated rubber.
To do so completely alters the handling characteristics of any vehicle to the point where it becomes a death trap; and this is especially true in emergency situations like braking or swerving to avoid an accident. In every handbook for any vehicle ever made it specifically instructs you to check your tyre pressures daily; do you know anyone that does; do you?
The minimum tyre wear limit in this country is grossly inadequate, particularly when the frequency of wet road driving is taken into account: it is almost 300% less than the German limit!
Any trip you take now after the hours of darkness will reveal oncoming vehicles with faulty or misaligned headlamps, dozens of them!
If your offside headlamp is out you significantly increase the likelihood of collision with an oncoming vehicle: if your nearside is out, you significantly increase the likelihood of striking a pedestrian or cyclist or even an animal that you didn't see until the last second.
But where is the deterrent or educational medium in all of this?
Well the fact is there isn't one, or at least it has been so minimalised by bad policy that there is no useful medium, i.e. traffic police, properly trained in vehicle construction and use.
I could take almost any vehicle off the street and find technical fault with it mainly due to driver ignorance and the utterly dreadful standard of servicing and maintenance, particularly amongst main dealerships!
The result of all this is the potential for accidents.
I attended an accident in Glasgow some years ago where a Renault had driven inexplicably straight onto a very busy main road through a crossroads. It was struck from the side by a Bedford van and pushed straight across the road and into a chemist shop window; it was actually sitting inside the shop with only the boot on the pavement!!
It is one of the most spectacular accidents I have ever attended.
Incredibly only the passenger in the Renault was hurt, caused by her head striking the seat belt mounting point on the B post, but a few stitches were all that was required.
A Chief Inspector was there who was an experienced traffic man and we were particularly struck by the absence of skid marks. When we examined the site it transpired that a small blind summit on the side road led to the illusion that the driver had right of way across the junction. There were absolutely no signs, no paint on the ground and no warnings of a main road.
The driver of the Renault was new to the area and had assumed that she had right of way. It transpired that there had been a catalogue of accidents at this same junction and because of this the police refused to charge her with any offence.
On examining the van, it was rated at 1.5 tons; it was actually carrying 3.2 tons!
It had three bald tyres, one through to the canvas and wire!
Only one front brake worked the other having the pads seized in the caliper and the rear cylinders completely seized.
Both rear shock absorbers were broken in two and dangling from their top mounts!
The steering was so badly worn that there was about three inches of free play at the wheel.
The van had a current MOT!!
The Council roads department were criminally negligent in failing to maintain the junction to anything approaching a safe standard, despite the reports from the police about the dangers.
The driver of the van was simply a thoughtless, dangerous fool who was charged with numerous construction and use offences, but it probably didn't change a thing.
The only person hurt, the passenger in the Renault was of course, totally innocent.
The individuals truly at fault, the roads department, walked away scot free as usual.
The safety standards set for both vehicles and road engineering fall desperately short of a satisfactory level, and it's getting worse.
JITH
Absolutely the BEST POST concerning ROAD SAFETY i've seen on here (to date) fully agree with all yr points. I think more exposure, more driving, more miles under ones belt would draw similiar conclusions.
I know a number of people at various government agencies whom email me stuff....The figures (regarding safety) are quite alarming
Thanks
D
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sorry Dave,
but my workshop experience would actually determine that 24% is a conservative figure!
This is a very important issue.
Consider this; despite the latest MOT revisions, the benchmark to pass front brake pads is that they only need be the thickness of a fifty pence piece!!
On a heavy powerful, car like a Jaguar or Mercedes you could wear them to the metal only a week after the MOT test.
When you go out today pay specific attention to tyres, particularly on vans, and you will find that a huge percentage, and I mean huge, are running on grossly underinflated rubber.
To do so completely alters the handling characteristics of any vehicle to the point where it becomes a death trap; and this is especially true in emergency situations like braking or swerving to avoid an accident. In every handbook for any vehicle ever made it specifically instructs you to check your tyre pressures daily; do you know anyone that does; do you?
The minimum tyre wear limit in this country is grossly inadequate, particularly when the frequency of wet road driving is taken into account: it is almost 300% less than the German limit!
Any trip you take now after the hours of darkness will reveal oncoming vehicles with faulty or misaligned headlamps, dozens of them!
If your offside headlamp is out you significantly increase the likelihood of collision with an oncoming vehicle: if your nearside is out, you significantly increase the likelihood of striking a pedestrian or cyclist or even an animal that you didn't see until the last second.
But where is the deterrent or educational medium in all of this?
Well the fact is there isn't one, or at least it has been so minimalised by bad policy that there is no useful medium, i.e. traffic police, properly trained in vehicle construction and use.
I could take almost any vehicle off the street and find technical fault with it mainly due to driver ignorance and the utterly dreadful standard of servicing and maintenance, particularly amongst main dealerships!
The result of all this is the potential for accidents.
I attended an accident in Glasgow some years ago where a Renault had driven inexplicably straight onto a very busy main road through a crossroads. It was struck from the side by a Bedford van and pushed straight across the road and into a chemist shop window; it was actually sitting inside the shop with only the boot on the pavement!!
It is one of the most spectacular accidents I have ever attended.
Incredibly only the passenger in the Renault was hurt, caused by her head striking the seat belt mounting point on the B post, but a few stitches were all that was required.
A Chief Inspector was there who was an experienced traffic man and we were particularly struck by the absence of skid marks. When we examined the site it transpired that a small blind summit on the side road led to the illusion that the driver had right of way across the junction. There were absolutely no signs, no paint on the ground and no warnings of a main road.
The driver of the Renault was new to the area and had assumed that she had right of way. It transpired that there had been a catalogue of accidents at this same junction and because of this the police refused to charge her with any offence.
On examining the van, it was rated at 1.5 tons; it was actually carrying 3.2 tons!
It had three bald tyres, one through to the canvas and wire!
Only one front brake worked the other having the pads seized in the caliper and the rear cylinders completely seized.
Both rear shock absorbers were broken in two and dangling from their top mounts!
The steering was so badly worn that there was about three inches of free play at the wheel.
The van had a current MOT!!
The Council roads department were criminally negligent in failing to maintain the junction to anything approaching a safe standard, despite the reports from the police about the dangers.
The driver of the van was simply a thoughtless, dangerous fool who was charged with numerous construction and use offences, but it probably didn't change a thing.
The only person hurt, the passenger in the Renault was of course, totally innocent.
The individuals truly at fault, the roads department, walked away scot free as usual.
The safety standards set for both vehicles and road engineering fall desperately short of a satisfactory level, and it's getting worse.
Absolutely the BEST POST concerning ROAD SAFETY i've seen on here (to date) fully agree with all yr points. I think more exposure, more driving, more miles under ones belt would draw similiar conclusions.
I know a number of people at various government agencies whom email me stuff....The figures (regarding safety) are quite alarming
Thanks
D
jith said:
TripleS said:
alphadog said:
Athey997S said:
Apparently defective vehicles are a hefty 24% plus...
I wonder how many of the defective vehicles' critical faults were caused or worsened by speed ramps that cause damage at a large margin under the speed limit?
Edited by alphadog on Monday 5th March 19:27
What are we saying here? Are we saying that 24% of crashes involving fatalities have vehicle defects as the primary cause? I find that hard to believe - it sounds very high to me. In any case it is not compatible with the claim that at least 90% of crashes are caused by driver error!
With regard to speed humps, I imagine these do appreciably increase the rate of wear and tear on vehicles, even if they do not cause immediate failure of components; and this is another reason why speed humps should be removed. When everything is taken into account it seems quite likely that the damned things are doing more harm than good.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sorry Dave,
but my workshop experience would actually determine that 24% is a conservative figure!
This is a very important issue.
Consider this; despite the latest MOT revisions, the benchmark to pass front brake pads is that they only need be the thickness of a fifty pence piece!!
On a heavy powerful, car like a Jaguar or Mercedes you could wear them to the metal only a week after the MOT test.
When you go out today pay specific attention to tyres, particularly on vans, and you will find that a huge percentage, and I mean huge, are running on grossly underinflated rubber.
To do so completely alters the handling characteristics of any vehicle to the point where it becomes a death trap; and this is especially true in emergency situations like braking or swerving to avoid an accident. In every handbook for any vehicle ever made it specifically instructs you to check your tyre pressures daily; do you know anyone that does; do you?
The minimum tyre wear limit in this country is grossly inadequate, particularly when the frequency of wet road driving is taken into account: it is almost 300% less than the German limit!
Any trip you take now after the hours of darkness will reveal oncoming vehicles with faulty or misaligned headlamps, dozens of them!
If your offside headlamp is out you significantly increase the likelihood of collision with an oncoming vehicle: if your nearside is out, you significantly increase the likelihood of striking a pedestrian or cyclist or even an animal that you didn't see until the last second.
But where is the deterrent or educational medium in all of this?
Well the fact is there isn't one, or at least it has been so minimalised by bad policy that there is no useful medium, i.e. traffic police, properly trained in vehicle construction and use.
I could take almost any vehicle off the street and find technical fault with it mainly due to driver ignorance and the utterly dreadful standard of servicing and maintenance, particularly amongst main dealerships!
The result of all this is the potential for accidents.
I attended an accident in Glasgow some years ago where a Renault had driven inexplicably straight onto a very busy main road through a crossroads. It was struck from the side by a Bedford van and pushed straight across the road and into a chemist shop window; it was actually sitting inside the shop with only the boot on the pavement!!
It is one of the most spectacular accidents I have ever attended.
Incredibly only the passenger in the Renault was hurt, caused by her head striking the seat belt mounting point on the B post, but a few stitches were all that was required.
A Chief Inspector was there who was an experienced traffic man and we were particularly struck by the absence of skid marks. When we examined the site it transpired that a small blind summit on the side road led to the illusion that the driver had right of way across the junction. There were absolutely no signs, no paint on the ground and no warnings of a main road.
The driver of the Renault was new to the area and had assumed that she had right of way. It transpired that there had been a catalogue of accidents at this same junction and because of this the police refused to charge her with any offence.
On examining the van, it was rated at 1.5 tons; it was actually carrying 3.2 tons!
It had three bald tyres, one through to the canvas and wire!
Only one front brake worked the other having the pads seized in the caliper and the rear cylinders completely seized.
Both rear shock absorbers were broken in two and dangling from their top mounts!
The steering was so badly worn that there was about three inches of free play at the wheel.
The van had a current MOT!!
The Council roads department were criminally negligent in failing to maintain the junction to anything approaching a safe standard, despite the reports from the police about the dangers.
The driver of the van was simply a thoughtless, dangerous fool who was charged with numerous construction and use offences, but it probably didn't change a thing.
The only person hurt, the passenger in the Renault was of course, totally innocent.
The individuals truly at fault, the roads department, walked away scot free as usual.
The safety standards set for both vehicles and road engineering fall desperately short of a satisfactory level, and it's getting worse.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff