Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Video: Shocking moment driver rear-ends cyclist in Tennessee

Motorist arrested and faces multiple charges, cyclist "doing ok" in hospital...

Shocking footage from Tennessee that was posted to Facebook shows the moment the driver of an SUV rear-ended a cyclist, apparently on purpose.

The incident took place on Saturday on Natchez Trace Parkway in Franklin, Tennessee, a location administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and where there is signage highlighting that cyclists are entitled to use the entire width of the lane.

Writing on Facebook on Saturday, Greg Goodman said: "Three hours ago this person intentionally hit my friend Tyler Noe on Natchez Trace.

"We had a witness behind us who said he has seen this same Volvo try to hit someone else last week.

"Tyler is at the hospital and doing ok. He is one TOUGH DUDE!"

In a statement on Facebook, the NPS said that Marshall Grant Neely III, 58, from Franklin had been arrested on Saturday evening and charged with felony reckless endangerment, leaving the scene of an accident, failure to immediately notify of an accident and failure to render aid.

It added that NPS park rangers would be meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office to consider additional federal charges.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

42 comments

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 6 years ago
0 likes

I will never be able to take seriously the US practice of naming your kids as if they are a monarch or a movie sequel.

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

BBC reckons the motorist was a school principal. So presumably not some *total* moron... (Maybe his parents wouldn't buy him a bicycle when he was a child, and now he's just jealous...)

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

BBC reckons the motorist was a school principal. So presumably not some *total* moron... (Maybe his parents wouldn't buy him a bicycle when he was a child, and now he's just jealous...)

So he's got even less excuse going by your way of thinking as he should have above average (American) intelligence, in which case then it must be deliberate if he's not a moron/unintelligent/well respected?

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

brooksby wrote:

BBC reckons the motorist was a school principal. So presumably not some *total* moron... (Maybe his parents wouldn't buy him a bicycle when he was a child, and now he's just jealous...)

So he's got even less excuse going by your way of thinking as he should have above average (American) intelligence, in which case then it must be deliberate if he's not a moron/unintelligent/well respected?

Sorry, yes: that had been my point. This is someone who is supposedly educated, who lectures kids on their behaviour, but then does something like this.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

If Daily Mail comments get you wound up, prepare for American MMA fans. If this is indicative of American views of cycling it's no wonder they've got no decent cyclists at elite level. 

If you insist on being a faggot driving in the middle of the lane and slowing down traffic because you have "just as much a right to be there" then you deserve whatever happens to you. That video was awesome 

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/forums/OtherGround/Biking-for-transport-...

 

 

Avatar
davel replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
1 like

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

If Daily Mail comments get you wound up, prepare for American MMA fans. If this is indicative of American views of cycling it's no wonder they've got no decent cyclists at elite level. 

If you insist on being a faggot driving in the middle of the lane and slowing down traffic because you have "just as much a right to be there" then you deserve whatever happens to you. That video was awesome 

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/forums/OtherGround/Biking-for-transport-...

and why it's the fattest country on the planet.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes

Wiki says:

Quote:

Lane discipline and overtaking

Overtaking, usually called "passing", is legal on all four or more lane roads and on most two-lane roads with sufficient sight distance. On two-lane roads, one must pass to the left of the overtaken vehicle unless that vehicle is preparing to make a left turn, in which case the vehicle must be passed on the right. Passing on the left means that the overtaking vehicle must enter the oncoming lane. This should only be done in a legal passing zone, designated by either a dashed yellow centerline (indicating that passing is legal in both directions) or a solid line paired with a dashed line (indicating that passing is only legal for traffic adjacent to the broken line). A solid double yellow line indicated that passing is illegal in both directions. In some states, it is not against the law to overtake vehicles in the presence of solid yellow lines if it is safe to do so. For example, Vermont state law also allows passing across the double yellow line when no traffic is on the opposing side; however, one must pass quickly and return to the proper side.[2] However, this is unusual as most states have a ban on crossing a double yellow line except when turning, or when pedestrians, bicycles, or other obstructions in the road make it necessary. Overtaking another vehicle across a solid yellow line is usually considered a serious traffic violation in most states.[2]

Which does seem to make sense, I'll tend to take more seriously than forum randoms who've had a week's holiday over the pond.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
1 like

Can we stop with the helmet stuff?

That's a case of licence withdrawal, lengthy ban, retest and phsycological testing.

As I say, the cyclist was there so:

A: Either the driver saw and ignored, or

B: Driver didn't see.

Either way there has to be a dangerous or negligent driving offence in there, it's clear.

To then sit and blatantly lie should be added to the charges.

Anyone who commits an offence then says " I wouldn't do that, it's not the type of person I am" needs a severe beating with wet fish 'coz they're lying twats!

Avatar
reliablemeatloaf | 6 years ago
1 like

After watching the video, I know I've seen bigger lying sacks of shit, but I can't remember when.

Again, he proffers the "I didn't see him" "excuse" which is completely ludicrous. You didn't see a man bouncing off your front fender ? What the fcuk were you looking at?

You are NOT allowed to cross over double yellow lines for any reason, except to turn left.

 

Avatar
KevM | 6 years ago
1 like

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs...
http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to KevM | 6 years ago
1 like

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

he was standing in the road and threw his bike at me and then in his interview still stated that that's what he remebered as happening. Couldn't bring himself to say i was a lying cunt and got caught lying.

I hope this POS gets some decent jail time.

The sad thing is most people are attacking the cyclists (in the rags over there), using the 'tenessee state law' qhich says don't impede other road users, where the fuck is the impeding, what about in towns and cities when cars get in the way of people on bikes ao by definition would be impeding progress. s

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

Avatar
madcarew replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

...

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
0 likes

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

...

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

That bit of road is in a park (hence the report to the rangers), you are allowed to overtake slower vehicles on double yellows if safe to do so in such areas. it was clear and safe to do so at that juncture and otherwise wouldn't have being a problem, this is the same here in the UK in fact with solid white lines if the vehicle is doing about 10mph (or thereabouts)

To even partly blame the cyclists IS simply bullshit, they are entitled to be where they are, full stop. Go and learn something about road safety, learn something about your responsibility when wielding 2 tons of mass.

You would have to overtake in the opposite lane anyhow for one, or are you suggesting with your kiwi moton mentality they should have squeezed over into the gutter so that big utility vehicle could bomb past them in the same lane. Get away with yourself, only a moron moton thinks like that and is a selfish bastard who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else but themsleves, clearly YOU are a moton and I claim my leg of lamb.

Avatar
madcarew replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

[/quote]

That bit of road is in a park (hence the report to the rangers), you are allowed to overtake slower vehicles on double yellows if safe to do so in such areas. it was clear and safe to do so at that juncture and otherwise wouldn't have being a problem, this is the same here in the UK in fact with solid white lines if the vehicle is doing about 10mph (or thereabouts)

To even partly blame the cyclists IS simply bullshit, they are entitled to be where they are, full stop. Go and learn something about road safety, learn something about your responsibility when wielding 2 tons of mass.

You would have to overtake in the opposite lane anyhow for one, or are you suggesting with your kiwi moton mentality they should have squeezed over into the gutter so that big utility vehicle could bomb past them in the same lane. Get away with yourself, only a moron moton thinks like that and is a selfish bastard who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else but themsleves, clearly YOU are a moton and I claim my leg of lamb.

[/quote]

Let's be really absolutely clear. I didn't blame the cyclists at all. I said what they were doing was (i) illegal, and (ii) stupid. You can do that without apportioning blame for the motorist's actions, which I clearly stated "It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did"

So, you can enter a discussion if you like, or you can just spiel whatever comes off the top of your preconceptions . 

I know plenty about road safety (I have a traffic managment qualification... I'm one of the guys who arranges things people can ride bike races and events on public roads), and I know plenty about my responsibility when driving my 4WD (2.6 tons actually) and so I slow down when I'm overtaking cyclists, I indicate to move out even when the cyclists are on the hard shoulder so traffic behind me knows there's something there, I give cyclists at least as much room as I want when I'm riding a bike. 

However, when I'm riding a bike, I keep as far to the left as practical, I claim the lane when I need to (I think you need to know that about 50% of my riding is on our 2 busiest state highways. Imagine the A1M with no hard shoulder and only one lane each way, and an artic every 3 minutes. On a 4 hr ride I'm going to have about 100 close passes from a 40 ton truck.). I'm aware of what a PITA really slow moving traffic can be, and I want those people in their 2 ton boxes to look on me kindly, so I never ever give them the finger, I never ever shout at them, I never ever abuse them in any way, and every chance I get I thank them when they act courteously. For this I accept your accusation of moton-ship, and you are welcome to your leg of lamb, just pop over here and come for a 4 hour ride with me. 

Seriously, the 2 cyclists were being dicks. It doesn't excuse what happened, but they weren't helping the rest of us either. 

 

Avatar
Metaphor | 6 years ago
3 likes

The vast majority of SUVs / 4x4s have utterly no place on our roads. Drivers should be demonised. How about a remake of the 'Hit me at 40 ... Hit me at 30', with the caption 'Hit me with a 4x4 and there's a x% chance that I'll die ... Hit me with a normal car and there's a y% chance that I'll die'.

Avatar
WillRod | 6 years ago
0 likes

Many close passes, especially on dual carriageways, are simply because the driver is too lazy to change lanes.

Cyclists often ride 2 abreast or in the primary to force drivers to change lanes, but every once in a while you get a dumbass that decided to just ram you or clip you. Thankfully it is rare, but this is why we need computers to take the choice away from the driver. The human element (I.e. Regressive caveman) is the biggest issue, and we need to eliminate that, and I say that as a petrolhead and BMW driver!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

I reckon a deterrant for men at least could be that we ban you from ever driving anything more powerful than a sit on lawnmower and if we catch you driving we immediately nip off a bollock. do it again, we nip the other one off, third time we just euthanase you as it'll likely save at least one life and removes an extreme hazard from society.

3 strikes and you're out as it were, enforced strictly and I reckon it could save the planet, no more food shortages, no more worries about population explosion ...

Avatar
burtthebike replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I reckon a deterrant for men at least could be that we ban you from ever driving anything more powerful than a sit on lawnmower and if we catch you driving we immediately nip off a bollock. do it again, we nip the other one off, third time we just euthanase you as it'll likely save at least one life and removes an extreme hazard from society.

3 strikes and you're out as it were, enforced strictly and I reckon it could save the planet, no more food shortages, no more worries about population explosion ...

While some might consider that to be rather draconian, I have to say I rather like it.

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

The most severe punishments are irrelevant if they don't change behaviour, they are just revenge, and while I'm not entirely opposed to a bit of good old fashioned corporal or capital punishment, I'd rather that behaviour was changed and the person is no longer a threat.  It is clear that prison doesn't reform a lot of people, so what punishment would reform dangerous drivers?  Being forced to wear a placard saying "I'm a knob driver" perhaps?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
2 likes

burtthebike wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I reckon a deterrant for men at least could be that we ban you from ever driving anything more powerful than a sit on lawnmower and if we catch you driving we immediately nip off a bollock. do it again, we nip the other one off, third time we just euthanase you as it'll likely save at least one life and removes an extreme hazard from society.

3 strikes and you're out as it were, enforced strictly and I reckon it could save the planet, no more food shortages, no more worries about population explosion ...

While some might consider that to be rather draconian, I have to say I rather like it.

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

The most severe punishments are irrelevant if they don't change behaviour, they are just revenge, and while I'm not entirely opposed to a bit of good old fashioned corporal or capital punishment, I'd rather that behaviour was changed and the person is no longer a threat.  It is clear that prison doesn't reform a lot of people, so what punishment would reform dangerous drivers?  Being forced to wear a placard saying "I'm a knob driver" perhaps?

I just think the harshest penalty as being the most effective, IF strictly adhered too. It immediately removes the threat (by one) and so that person cannot ever then be a threat to society after proving they were unable to follow the rules. It may seem harsh but society is surely safer/enhanced by removal of such individuals that do massive damage globally both in financial terms and the obvious human cost.

Given that we know how motorists are going to break their bond to not drive after driving like the above it shouldn't take much more than a year to have at least 10 million reckless/dangerous drivers removed from the planet. maybe not a deterrent to all but it removes the most dangerous from society completely and with a bit of luck the eunuch's will be on best behaviour.

You could also have a quota system linked to learners, if we haven't had someone euthanased for a while for bad driving/getting behind the wheel after being banned they have to wait to get their full license/be allowed on the road, one out one in.

Frankly I think it's quite a fair way to go about things, don't act like a cunt to other human beings and you'll be just fine.

The sad thing is in the US you can be snuffed out by the old bill for a lot, lot less than the driving seen here!!

Avatar
burtthebike replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

I just think the harshest penalty as being the most effective, IF strictly adhered too.

If harsh penalties worked there would be no murder in countries with the death penalty, we would still be transporting people for stealing a loaf of bread and crime in the USA would be non-existent.

The severity of the penalty has no influence on the criminal, what does is the likelihood of being caught.

Locking people up is very tempting, but it doesn't reduce crime, as they've shown in this country and the USA, both with burgeoning prison populations, but criminals are not deterred from committing crimes.

Avatar
PaulBox | 6 years ago
4 likes

How the fcuk can a person do that to another human on purpose?

 

Avatar
Sub4 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Volvo. Safest car in the world. Until a scumbag gets behind the wheel to flaunt their safety conscious superiority  at other road users

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Sub4 | 6 years ago
4 likes

Sub4 wrote:

Volvo. Safest car in the world. Until a scumbag gets behind the wheel to flaunt their safety conscious superiority  at other road users

There appears to be a direct relationship between how safe a car is for the driver and how many injuries and deaths it inflicts on other people.  I think it was in "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis where he analysed this, but Volvo wouldn't co-operate and were the only car manufacturer to refuse.

It's been said many times, but the safest car for other road users would have a large, rusty bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel and no seat belt or any other safety devices for the driver.  The trouble with modern cars is that they are very safe for the occupants, so the driver takes more risks.  As one policeman said in a meeting I was at some time ago, the number of collisions isn't falling, but because of better design and emergency services, fewer people are dying.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and we should be targetting bad driving, not making sure that drivers survive it.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

Sub4 wrote:

Volvo. Safest car in the world. Until a scumbag gets behind the wheel to flaunt their safety conscious superiority  at other road users

There appears to be a direct relationship between how safe a car is for the driver and how many injuries and deaths it inflicts on other people.  I think it was in "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis where he analysed this, but Volvo wouldn't co-operate and were the only car manufacturer to refuse.

It's been said many times, but the safest car for other road users would have a large, rusty bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel and no seat belt or any other safety devices for the driver.  The trouble with modern cars is that they are very safe for the occupants, so the driver takes more risks.  As one policeman said in a meeting I was at some time ago, the number of collisions isn't falling, but because of better design and emergency services, fewer people are dying.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and we should be targeting bad driving, not making sure that drivers survive it.

Side Impact protection Systems (SIPS) I'm pretty sure have become the bane of many a Motorbike rider and cyclist... they particularly encourage dangerous moves with the driver remaining safe in their cage from the consequences... similar to the rise in pedestrian deaths with the introduction of seatbelts...

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
5 likes

Road.cc - where bad things happen to good people!

 

Well that was a bit more immediate than 'close pass of the day'. Hopefully the Volvo driver will drop the soap in showers once convicted.

 

Avatar
MandaiMetric | 6 years ago
2 likes

Tennessee law;

In legal terms, the word “reckless” means that a person was “aware of, but consciously disregarded, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct would place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.”

Reckless endangerment can be a Class A misdemeanor OR a Class E felony if the endangerment was committed with a deadly weapon. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravating the charge to a felony.

  • Class A misdemeanor carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 if convicted.
  • Class E felony carries a possible prison term of up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
Avatar
burtthebike replied to MandaiMetric | 6 years ago
1 like

MandaiMetric wrote:

Reckless endangerment can be a Class A misdemeanor OR a Class E felony if the endangerment was committed with a deadly weapon. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravating the charge to a felony.

  • Class A misdemeanor carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 if convicted.
  • Class E felony carries a possible prison term of up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Any chance we could get to vote on which one he's charged with?

Avatar
MandaiMetric replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

MandaiMetric wrote:

Reckless endangerment can be a Class A misdemeanor OR a Class E felony if the endangerment was committed with a deadly weapon. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravating the charge to a felony.

  • Class A misdemeanor carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 if convicted.
  • Class E felony carries a possible prison term of up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Any chance we could get to vote on which one he's charged with?

The report says he's been charged with a felony... No doubt his attorney will try to plea down to misdemeanor. But there are multiple charges, so it may depend on his prior record whether that's a viable avenue. As I understand it, If you have prior conviction of misdemeanor, then a subsequent similar offence may be charged as a felony.

In terms of voting, I guess if  you consider that trial judges are elected (for 8 year terms I think) in Tennessee, then you could say "yes, people do get a vote", albeit indirectly. Having judges stand for popular election is somewhat controversial, I think.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
2 likes

Thank god he was wearing a helmet.

Pages

Latest Comments