£55 fine and three points for driver who left cyclist with broken leg, elbow & weeks in hospital

CTC slams lenient punishment for careless driving

by John Stevenson   June 20, 2013  

Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)

Cycle campaigning charity CTC has strongly criticised Preston magistrates after they handed down a £55 fine to motorist who caused a crash that left a cyclist with a broken leg, fractured elbow and soft tissue damage.

The driver, 49-year-old Thomas McAteer, from Grimsargh, near Preston, admitted a charge of careless driving, according to the Lancashire Evening Post. On November 14 last year, McAteer hit the cyclist – who is not named in the reports – on D’Urton Lane, Preston.

The court heard that McAteer had intended to turn left at the junction with Haighton Green Lane, but failed to give way. He hit the rider who was travelling ahead on the road.

Prosecutors said, “The cyclist was knocked off his bike and sustained a broken femur, a fractured elbow and soft tissue damage to his back.

“He also spent a number of weeks in hospital due to the seriousness of his injuries.”

The road was dry and the weather described as “fine”.

McAteer was ordered to pay a £55 fine, £43 costs and a victim surcharge of £20. He was also handed three penalty points.

Rhia Weston, of the CTC, said the decision was “ridiculous” and the rider could sue for compensation in a civil case.

“Unfortunately I’m not surprised,” she said. “This is extremely common and one of the reasons why we set up our Road Justice Campaign.

“Why was the guy charged with careless driving? It should be dangerous driving.

“He is putting another person’s life in danger.”

The average fine for careless driving in 2011 was £138. The maximum punishment magistrates can give is a £5,000 fine and nine penalty points.

Weston said, “When you compare what he got to what he could have got, it’s absolutely absurd. £55 is laughable. It is ridiculous for the amount of damage he has caused.”

The CTC’s Road Justice Campaign aims to fix the justice system by pressuring the police, the prosecution services, the courts and the law itself to improve the handling of bad driving and bad drivers.

Why are sentences lenient?

These cases are depressingly common. The CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen puts the problem down to a combination of factors including the fuzzy boundary between careless and dangerous driving; the reluctance of juries to convict for dangerous driving; and the resulting unwillingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to try and bring a charge of dangerous driving.

Writing about the Mary Bowers and Sam Harding cases last year, Geffen said, “In neither case can one simply blame the police or Crown Prosecution Service for the failed outcomes. In the Mary Bowers case, the CPS did bring a dangerous driving prosecution, only to have it rejected by a jury, i.e. by ordinary members of the public. Similarly in the Sam Harding case, the CPS didn’t really have the option of bringing a dangerous (or even a careless) driving prosecution, given that a jury would almost certainly have been persuaded that opening a car door doesn’t count as driving.”

Sam Harding was killed after Kenan Aydogdu opened his car door into the cyclist’s path, causing Sam to fall into the path of a following bus. Aydogdu’s car had tinted windows that reduced visibility to 17% of normal levels. He was acquitted of manslaughter.

“It’s true that [the CPS] could have prosecuted Aydogdu with offences relating to the tinted window or with opening a car door when it was unsafe to do so - but neither offence would have attracted more than a small penalty at most,” said Geffen.

“The Mary Bowers raises much wider issues. CTC has long been concerned that the law, and the CPS’s prosecution policies, fail to distinguish clearly between “dangerous” and “careless” driving. Faced with a fuzzy boundary between the two – and with the thought “there but for the grace of God” also in the back of their minds – it often seems that jurors opt for the more lenient offence, in order to spare the driver what they feel might be an unjustly harsh prison sentence.”

The CTC continues to campaign for more approriate sentences for drivers who kill and injure cyclists and pedestrians. The recent Audrey Fyfe case demonstrates that there is strong public feeling that sentences are often too light.

45 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Quite a few of us have been clobbered by cars turning left into our paths, it's not a nice feeling to be flying through the air over a bonnet with oncoming traffic in the corner of your eye. I've had it myself and was actually berated by a screaming driver who was concerned about his grill being scratched.

However, not every driver is the same. I suppose the fine / 3 points would sound normal if the driver had clipped a car instead of the poor cyclist - as was quoted above, its actually a simple case of not giving way, ie SMIDSY. He wasn't malicious, wasn't speeding, wasn't drunk, had insurance / tax / MOT... so it's treated as an accident.

It does seem a bit objectionable that, for instance, I received triple the fine for driving 86mph on a 50mph stretch of 3-lane motorway with light traffic at 2:25am in good night time conditions(M8 coming into Glasgow) without causing any accidents. (At least I wasn't in the middle lane eh?). But then I was deliberately breaking the law, rather than this guy who was just careless... you can see where it comes from.

posted by Whirlio [13 posts]
20th June 2013 - 17:09

like this
Like (12)

Just a message for the judge "What the FUCK were you thinking?" a bit blunt I know but just completely flabbergasted.

I love the smell of cleats (mexican accent, you do the jokes)

posted by paulfrank [79 posts]
20th June 2013 - 19:57

like this
Like (14)

"this guy who was just careless" - managed to break multiple bones in another human's body and hospitalise him for several weeks, and be off the bike and probably work for a lot longer.

The driver pulled out of a side road without stopping or looking. That's not careless, that is negligent pure and simple.

Would you say that if it was one of your close family that was seriously injured by someone being so negligent?

posted by gazza_d [183 posts]
20th June 2013 - 20:27

like this
Like (10)

giles wrote:
lets say 2 on the conservative side, would have cost the taxpayer £3640, why not fine the driver at least the cost of the hospital stay?

The driver may well be facing a hefty increase in his next renewal premium, even if he has protected NCD, if he is offered insurance at all. His insurer will certainly be facing a substantial (large five figures, very possibly low six figures) civil claim in respect of personal injury, loss of earnings, possible costs of adapting the claimant's home if the injuries are likely to be permanent or long standing, and so on.

The Newcastle office of the DWP (the Compensation Recovery Unit) would also be chasing up medical costs and social security benefits payable as a result of the accident from the insurer of the at fault driver (link).

So while the quantum of the judicial result is ridonkulous, the principle of fault has been clearly established and the claimant will eventually be put right, well, right-ish anyway. Even if we end up paying for the driver's carelessness (ahem) through higher premiums.

posted by Argos74 [261 posts]
20th June 2013 - 20:31

like this
Like (9)

Magistrate was probably a car dealer in his/her day job, about time this country started electing its judiciary rather than rewarding membership in the chamber of commerce.

DevonJohn

posted by solkanofastera [24 posts]
20th June 2013 - 20:50

like this
Like (10)

The law and its enforcement are clearly flawed - it's time to make drivers automatically liable when they cause injury to vulnerable road users. Only then will cyclists and pedestrians be treated properly.

JaseCD

posted by jasecd [141 posts]
20th June 2013 - 21:17

like this
Like (12)

Send the judge out on a bike in rush hour and see if his perspective changes. No confidence in the criminal just system. If the law won't protect us, who will?

kiwiglider's picture

posted by kiwiglider [22 posts]
20th June 2013 - 22:11

like this
Like (13)

Quote:
Cycle campaigning charity CTC has strongly criticised Preston magistrates after they handed down a £55 fine
Isn't the story really "No-one notices as Driver only gets £55 fine"? I'm just not sure we're achieving what we want to with the current campaigning. I mean, strong criticism isn't really strong if the only readers of it are cyclists. Sorry to sound defeatist.

posted by vbvb [220 posts]
20th June 2013 - 22:40

like this
Like (10)

As predicted above, the law isn't working for cyclist so given the opportunity I will resolve incidents on the spot.

Not ideal, but evidence and my personal experience suggests its the only way to get any kind of recourse.

posted by IanW1968 [134 posts]
20th June 2013 - 22:50

like this
Like (9)

Surprise What amazes me is that lenient sentences for such cases is a worldwide phenomenon!

I live in Canada and it is the same b....s...
Its also the same in USA.

The sentence should be proportional to the harm done and such that, it has a dissuasive effect on other drivers.

But, imagine if the victim had been someone with a high visibility profile, you can bet the outcome would have been totally different.

KFC

posted by Krazyfrenchkanuck [10 posts]
21st June 2013 - 2:07

like this
Like (7)

Whirlio wrote:
...its actually a simple case of not giving way, ie SMIDSY. He wasn't malicious, wasn't speeding, wasn't drunk, had insurance / tax / MOT... so it's treated as an accident ...this guy who was just careless... you can see where it comes from.

So it's ok to be insufficiently competent to operate a ton or so of machinery that can do 70mph or more, provided you're not actively trying to kill and injure people?

It's really damned simple to not hit people on bikes or on horseback or on foot. You just have to give them space and assume they might make a mistake (hey, like people on bikes need to do with HGVs). It's so easy it makes you want to scream. It just takes a little bit of patience and consideration for others, which some people just seem not to have.

Excusing it as "just careless" trivialises what is outright negligence and/or incompetence in operating a potentially lethal machine. The purpose of licensing the use of vehicle use is, in theory, to ensure that people are competent enough to do it without injuring and killing others, and - even though the licensing system falls pretty short there - the law really should back that up by at least forcing short bans and extended retests for anyone who causes injury.

Bez's picture

posted by Bez [364 posts]
21st June 2013 - 7:47

like this
Like (9)

Argos74 wrote:
giles wrote:
lets say 2 on the conservative side, would have cost the taxpayer £3640, why not fine the driver at least the cost of the hospital stay?

The driver may well be facing a hefty increase in his next renewal premium, even if he has protected NCD, if he is offered insurance at all. His insurer will certainly be facing a substantial (large five figures, very possibly low six figures) civil claim in respect of personal injury, loss of earnings, possible costs of adapting the claimant's home if the injuries are likely to be permanent or long standing, and so on.

The Newcastle office of the DWP (the Compensation Recovery Unit) would also be chasing up medical costs and social security benefits payable as a result of the accident from the insurer of the at fault driver (link).

So while the quantum of the judicial result is ridonkulous, the principle of fault has been clearly established and the claimant will eventually be put right, well, right-ish anyway. Even if we end up paying for the driver's carelessness (ahem) through higher premiums.

This is all well and good but it's punishment by proxy.
When people are 'careless' and cause injury to another person then they need to be held to account fully.

As a person (cyclist, motorist, etc..) you have a responsibility to the people around you. If you fail in that responsibility through carelessness, ignorance, vindictivness etc then you should be held to account, with sentencing factoring in the impact on the victim(s).

This type of sentencing is a joke. What do we need to do to force a change/review in the guidelines?

posted by kitkat [191 posts]
21st June 2013 - 8:53

like this
Like (6)

He turned left out of a junction and hit a cyclist riding ahead? So he crashed into the back of a cyclist? That is an interesting one....

But did he stop at the time? Did he provide assistance to the injured party? The potential mitigating factors have been missed. It says he pleaded guilty, this would normally mean a reduced sentence. OK so £55 is a piss take, but the effect of the injuries can be mitigated by compensation.
If he had driven off or denied the offence that could mean the rider could have died, not received compensation and as we have seen with the ridiculous 'blacked out windows incident' mentioned above he could have been found innocent!!

posted by SideBurn [764 posts]
21st June 2013 - 9:58

like this
Like (8)

I'm surprised that the driver even went to court. At the moment it looks like the guy who hit me will be offered a Driver Alertness Course: it's a police decision whether to prosecute or not.

Apparently the courts don't actually have the power to insist on driver training, all they can do is hand out (stupidly insignificant) fines and points.

Boardman CX Team '14 | Cannondale CAAD8 '12 (written off, SMIDSY) | Scott Sportster '08

Gizmo_'s picture

posted by Gizmo_ [750 posts]
21st June 2013 - 10:51

like this
Like (6)

“In neither case can one simply blame the police or Crown Prosecution Service for the failed outcomes. In the Mary Bowers case, the CPS did bring a dangerous driving prosecution, only to have it rejected by a jury, i.e. by ordinary members of the public. Similarly in the Sam Harding case, the CPS didn’t really have the option of bringing a dangerous (or even a careless) driving prosecution, given that a jury would almost certainly have been persuaded that opening a car door doesn’t count as driving.”

If we accept this rationale, doesn't it show the judges across the country to be the most committed anti-bike/pro-car campaigners? What else could explain handing out paltry £55 fines when maximum allowed even under careless driving convictions is £5000?

A few multi-thousand fine for careless driving against the cyclists, and even the worst sighted drivers will suddenly start seeing cyclists as big as a lorry!

middlering's picture

posted by middlering [37 posts]
21st June 2013 - 10:56

like this
Like (5)

Careless driving - is a momentary loss / lapse of concentration.

Dangerous driving - standard of driving which falls way below that of a safe and competent driver.

These come under the road traffic act so i wish people would stop saying its an assault when you use a car to hit someone, its not.

If you banjo someone or use an item to inflict an injury it comes under the offences against the person act 1861.

If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it. Gaius Julius Caesar.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2665 posts]
21st June 2013 - 11:46

like this
Like (8)

Gizmo_ wrote:
I'm surprised that the driver even went to court. At the moment it looks like the guy who hit me will be offered a Driver Alertness Course: it's a police decision whether to prosecute or not.

Apparently the courts don't actually have the power to insist on driver training, all they can do is hand out (stupidly insignificant) fines and points.

It is up to the Police to investigate and hand their case to the Crown Prosecution Service, they have to decide;
(a) if there is a reasonable chance of successful prosecution and if yes
(b) whether it is in the public interest to do so

The opinion of the investigating officer is relevant here but not decisive.

But this driver admitted the offence; so no court case, just sentencing which will take into account a prompt guilty plea

posted by SideBurn [764 posts]
21st June 2013 - 13:50

like this
Like (9)

stumps wrote:
Careless driving - is a momentary loss / lapse of concentration.

Dangerous driving - standard of driving which falls way below that of a safe and competent driver.

This may be a little pedantic, but careless is actually driving that "falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver", whilst dangerous is that which "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous." The definitions and the difference between them are obviously extremely vague and this is the root of much that is wrong with prosecution for road offences.

I wish the phrase "momentary lapse of concentration" would curl up and die. The truth is generally that it's a chronic bad habit that's just this once happened to kill or injure someone.

It's true to say that road collisions are very rarely assault, but I think "momentary lapse of concentration" excuses and trivialises what should really be described as negligence and which should really at the very least trigger an extended retest to (at least in spirit) ensure that the person in question is still considered capable of driving in a non-negligent manner.

Bez's picture

posted by Bez [364 posts]
21st June 2013 - 15:49

like this
Like (8)

Sorry but the Judge is a Twat. Sad

Davetillyer's picture

posted by Davetillyer [18 posts]
21st June 2013 - 19:34

like this
Like (11)

Are there any members of the Judiciary that ride a bike , would their colleagues allow this pitiful response to that colleague*s suffering ?

One law for the victims , another for the perpetrator ?

Oz currently is trying to decide on a " safe passing Law ", even possible they may follow European Law of 1 1|2M ?

Why have Police , when you can throw a Cyclist off their bike under a bus or send them to an Under resourced Hospital System for a few weeks , knowing that a "slap on the wrist " will be the penalty levied by a " Caring ( there but for the grace of God ) Jury "!

Skippy(advocate for "Disabled / Para Sport")@skippydetour. blogging as skippi-cyclist.blogspot & Parrabuddy.blogspot currently on the road with ProTour Grand Tour Events .

skippy's picture

posted by skippy [378 posts]
21st June 2013 - 20:23

like this
Like (7)

> The problem is, plenty of people in life are careless and society (as a whole) wont stand for normal people being put in prison for being a bit dim and useless.

It's quite true that `door`ing cyclists is impossible to eliminate ... as long as cyclist feel they have to ride close to doors. The only option is to educate the public via the tele and newspapers that bicyclists must ride at least 4 feet from parked cars, and drivers are obliged to give way. In addition a law to penalize threats and threatening driving towards cyclists will be required.

Charlie Horse

posted by ch [99 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 0:05

like this
Like (4)

Furthermore, drivers will never be prevented from carelessly turning left into bicycle .... unless cyclists are permitted to take the lane at junctions and whenever they see it is required for safety. Again, the only option is to educate the public via the tele and newspapers that this is necessary for bicyclists, and drivers are obliged to give way. In addition a law to penalize threats and threatening driving towards cyclists will be required to handle the yobbo backlash.

Charlie Horse

posted by ch [99 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 0:08

like this
Like (8)

Why the lack of consistency? The legal system has to address this one.

The idiot who knocked me off last year was fined £240 and got eight points on his licence and I was "only" in hospital overnight.

It has to be a lengthy ban for this type of case.

Andy M

posted by balbardie [9 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 8:51

like this
Like (8)

It's the same ol' story...

Cyclist gets knocked off.
Driver walks, scott free.
Lots of cyclists go on cycling forums and have a moan.
Laws don't change.

Another cyclist gets knocked off.
Driver walks, scott free.
Lots of cyclists go on cycling forums and have a moan.
Laws don't change.

Cyclist gets knocked off... etc. etc.

If you lot on here actually got off your arse and contacted your MP and kicked up a storm about the lenient sentences dished out by so called British Justice, then things may change?

I recently contacted MP Robert Halfon and he said it was the first letter he had ever received from a cyclist about road safety! Surprise

More cyclists will be killed, more maimed and seriously injured until the law is changed.

So don't F*****G MOAN on here and do something about it! Waiting

SustranSoftie

posted by Sustransoftie [8 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 11:42

like this
Like (10)

Krazyfrenchkanuck wrote:

But, imagine if the victim had been someone with a high visibility profile, you can bet the outcome would have been totally different.

Er, no.

Sir Wiggo got knocked off and the driver received a slap on the wrist.

If feck all happened to the irresponsible driver whom did this to our national treasure, then what chance has Joe Soap on a bike got?

Write to your MP or whomever is the force behind change in your country.

Cyclists are there own worst enemy because they won't stick together as one voice.

SustranSoftie

posted by Sustransoftie [8 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 11:48

like this
Like (7)

1) Is it right that the costs of staying in hospital and other necessary NHS treatment can be recovered from guilty drivers? I sure hope so. But why haven't we heard of this being done?
2) If David Cameron or any other senior political or establishment figures or a member of their families were injured like this rider there would be the most unholy stink.
Are their limbs and wellbeing any more valuable than mine, or yours? Do they have more right to the protection of the law than you or I?
3) There should be the legal assumption that the driver is at fault when killing or injuring cyclists or pedestrians, unless it can be proved otherwise. I understand this is common in continental Europe. Is the UK still part of the European Community? Go figure.
4) I repeat my suggestion for the need of a cyclists militia to 'pay a visit' to those who thumb their noses at killing/injuring vulnerable road users.

K Stand Ken

posted by K Stand Ken [41 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 14:08

like this
Like (10)

Bez is correct. There is nothing in the statutory definition of 'careless' driving to suggest that it means a "momentary lapse of attention".

Until 1991, the difference between the (now abolished) offence of 'reckless' and 'dangerous' driving was all about the state of mind of the driver. Moreover, one can understand in principle why the law might want to distinguish between the seriousness of offences that arose from a momentary lapse and those involving a greater degree of conscious risk-taking. However there were obvious difficulties in proving a 'reckless' mindset 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the courts. So a lot of drivers were able to argue that they had merely been 'careless', resulting in derisory sentences.

The 1991 Road Traffic Act was a genuinely well-intentioned attempt to correct this (even though it too has clearly failed). The aim was to completely remove the concept of 'mens rea' (i.e. the state of mind of the driver) from the definitions of bad driving offences. Instead, the distinction between the new offences of 'dangerous' driving and 'driving without due care and attention' (to give it its correct name) was supposed to be purely about the degree of danger caused that would/should have been foreseen by 'a competent and careful driver'.

As Bex says, the definitions of 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving are driving which respectively falls "below" and "far below" what would be expected of a "competent and careful driver" (which is obviously a very imprecise and subjective distinction), but the latter also includes the requirement that "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous". And in this last sentence, "dangerous" is then defined as "danger of injury or serious property damage".

Hence the distinction under the present law is supposed to be an objective one, and should rest on whether the way in which the vehicle was driven caused "danger" that would have been "obvious to a careful and competent driver". It has nothing to do with the driver's state of mind.

Yet the legal system persists in calling the lesser offence "careless" driving, thereby perpetuating the belief (among police, prosecutors, judges, magistrates and the general public) that momentary lapses of attention can be excused as mere 'carelessness' even when they have caused obviously foreseeable 'danger' Hence the derisory sentences continue.

CTC argues that this is wrong in law. So a key aim of CTC's Road Justice campaign (www.roadjustice.org.uk) is to either change prosecution policy on this point, or else to get the law itself changed.

CTC's briefing on prosecutors and the courts explains how things could be made to work better within the current legal framework, while our briefing on the legal framework and sentencing explains how the statutory framework itself could be strengthened.

CTC's Road Justice campaign is also calling for much greater priority and resourcing given to roads policing, and substantially increased use of driving bans as a sentencing option. And generally for the legal system to function much more efficiently and transparently in all sorts of respects.

Other CTC campaigns briefings on road safety and legal issues can be accessed here.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, the national cycling charity

posted by Roger Geffen [31 posts]
22nd June 2013 - 15:54

like this
Like (10)

I hope the victim sues in the civil courts at least. There needs to be some compulsory driving course attached attached to cases like these, as it stands the penalty isn't much more significant than one for speeding, using a mobile or the new middle-lane hogging thing yet this person has actually hit someone and caused them significant injury. Where it's a genuine accident and there's no aggravating circumstances (drink, road rage, no MOT, no insurance, no licence etc.) I don't think driver's should be jailed or even banned (1st offence) but the total cost of just over £100 and 3 points is meaningless and just gives the message they weren't really doing anything wrong.

posted by fuzzywuzzy [59 posts]
24th June 2013 - 9:15

like this
Like (7)

jasecd wrote:
The law and its enforcement are clearly flawed - it's time to make drivers automatically liable when they cause injury to vulnerable road users. Only then will cyclists and pedestrians be treated properly.

Liability isn't the same as a fine.
Assumed liability would mean that the driver has to prove he was not to blame when/if the victim sues him for damages.
It doesn't mean you would automatically get fined.
(Just in case there was any confusion in anyone's mind following your post Wink )

posted by arowland [79 posts]
24th June 2013 - 15:51

like this
Like (8)

We can bleat all we want ... but no one ever listens. We can campaign all we like ... but nothing will ever change. We can bang on all we want on sites just like this ... talking only to ourselves.

BBC Berkshire radio tried to do a programme last week about cycle safety in Berkshire. They were so ill-informed it was excruciating! No one had done the research necessary to provide a "balanced and informative view". Who did they call and contact to get relevant a information on rider and accident statistics? No one, as fas as I could hear!!

There was a sad story about a guy on his way to work one morning who was "driven through" by white van man. He spent a week of his life in a coma and, after an 8 hour operation, he also lost his leg. The driver was "sorry". It's not about anger, revenge and retribution. The point surely is that it should not have happened. How can you not "see" a cyclist? How dare you presume to take liberties with his/her safety?

Yet practically every damned motorist does.

They think they can squeeze through every gap. They happily overtake you on blind corners. They often fail to signal their intentions when turning right across the road in front of a cyclist.

Believe me, all the fines in all the world won't change a thing. They simply don't pay 'em. Heard a statistic last week that something like 40% of people living in the Thames Valley - a fairly affluent part of the country - do not pay their water rates!!!! Yet you can't turn off their water to make 'em pay up. They simply don't care. And that's the point - they simply don't care. Not about you, me, or anyone else at all ... except themselves.

Same with motorists - "Fine me all you want - I simply don't care." Can pay - won't pay - that's today's modern mantra.

So how do you "educate" these imbeciles? You can only really do it at the time they take their tests and reinforce the messaging with constant public awareness TV, press and poster advertising. You may even get to BMW drivers!!! (Though I doubt it. BMW should adopt a new slogan: Arrogance As Standard - or perhaps - Wanker At The Wheel!!!)

I don't ever want to be another cycling statistic - wrong place, wrong time, buddy. But i fear for the future and the safety of all cyclists because, without a concerted and consistent Government effort to "educate" drivers - like that slapper from Norfolk - the statistics will go on rising inexorably ... and we'll still be shaking our heads and moaning - still without a voice - in 10, 20 and 50 years' time.

posted by comm88 [72 posts]
3rd July 2013 - 9:38

like this
Like (7)