Madison WI Bike Registration

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bikerider7, Jun 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bikerider7

    Bikerider7 Guest

    I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
    Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.

    The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were used
    as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike registration also
    had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least out here in
    California).

    Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced, and
    whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
    municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).
     
    Tags:


  2. Grl

    Grl Guest

    Madison is a college town, so my guess is this is an attempt to combat bike theft which is usually a
    big problem in college towns. As for hassling minorities, you have to be kidding as far as Madison
    is concerned. Like a lot of big-name university towns, it's a far-left PDR (People's Democratic
    Republic) kind of place and about the only ones who get hassled are the few Young Republicans and
    such if they dare open their mouths.

    - GRL

    "It's good to want things."

    Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer)
    "bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    > (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
    > Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.
    >
    > The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
    > used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
    > registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
    > out here in California).
    >
    > Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
    > and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
    > municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).
     
  3. Bikerider7

    Bikerider7 Guest

    "GRL" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > As for hassling minorities, you have to be kidding as far as Madison is concerned. Like a lot of
    > big-name university towns, it's a far-left PDR (People's Democratic Republic) kind of place and
    > about the only ones who get hassled are the few Young Republicans and such if they dare open
    > their mouths.

    Not to say you are wrong about Madison, but just because a place is PDR doesn't mean there cannot be
    police misconduct. Berkeley and Oakland (Calif.) are in most ways very PDR, but that has never
    stopped the police from firing rubber bullets at peace marchers, or deliberately destroying bicycle
    equipment belonging to people they don't like.

    >
    > - GRL
    >
    > "It's good to want things."
    >
    > Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer)
    > "bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    > > (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike
    > > registration. Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on
    > > city streets.
    > >
    > > The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
    > > used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
    > > registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
    > > out here in California).
    > >
    > > Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
    > > and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
    > > municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).
     
  4. Rick Warner

    Rick Warner Guest

    [email protected] (bikerider7) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...

    What's the beef? Bicycle registration is not necessarily bad. The League of American Bicyclists
    named Palo Alto, CA as one of the 'Gold-level award' winners as a bicycle friendly community last
    month. Guess what? Palo Alto has a mandatory bike registration. The police do not go around writing
    citations if your bike is not registered, but they do recommend you go to your local fire station to
    register if they stop you and you are a resident on an unregistered bike. The law is used to help
    track serial numbers in case of theft, and being a college town (like Madison) there is a fair
    amount of theft and an active second-hand bike market. I do not think that many, if any, in Palo
    Alto feels the law and registration is intrusive. I would think that the folks in Madison find the
    situation similar.

    - rick warner
     
  5. Dcb

    Dcb Guest

    The city makes an effort to promote registration, but AFAIK does not go out its way to enforce this.
    I have not heard of any hassles related to registration, ethnic-group related or otherwise.

    As others have responded, the goal is primarily to prevent theft. I don't think its stupid.

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    (bikerider7) wrote:

    > I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    > (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
    > Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.
    >
    > The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
    > used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
    > registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
    > out here in California).
    >
    > Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
    > and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
    > municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).
     
  6. Peter

    Peter Guest

    dcb wrote:
    > The city makes an effort to promote registration, but AFAIK does not go out its way to
    > enforce this.

    So why does the registration have to be "mandatory" with the authorization to impose $50 fines on
    those who do not comply? Surely a voluntary registration could be promoted just as easily and if it
    were shown to have significant benefits in recovering stolen bikes most residents would probably
    choose to participate - at least if it were conveniently available at the time of bike purchase or
    university registration.

    > I have not heard of any hassles related to registration, ethnic-group related or otherwise.

    But it allows hassling of bicyclists whenever someone in authority may deem it to be politically
    expedient in the future. Huntington Beach in California had a similar ordinance years ago and
    started enforcing it one summer with the confiscation of hundreds of bicycles, many of them
    belonging to non-resident visitors. What assurance is there that Madison won't someday start similar
    enforcement? Since I ride my bicycle through many different communities, I don't like the idea that
    I need to research the registration requirements or other unique laws of each one to avoid the
    possibility of having the police steal my bike or levy a fine against me.

    >
    > As others have responded, the goal is primarily to prevent theft. I don't think its stupid.

    Not necessarily stupid, but a bad precedent to have each local community establish different laws
    that affect all who cycle there, including non-residents who are unlikely to be familiar with these
    laws and have no convenient way to comply even if they were.

    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > (bikerider7) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    >>(http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
    >>Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.
     
  7. Bikerider7

    Bikerider7 Guest

    [email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (bikerider7) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > What's the beef? Bicycle registration is not necessarily bad. The League of American Bicyclists
    > named Palo Alto, CA as one of the 'Gold-level award' winners as a bicycle friendly community last
    > month. Guess what? Palo Alto has a mandatory bike registration.

    Guess what? You're wrong.

    Palo Alto does not have mandatory bike registration, nor does any other municipality in the state of
    California. Thankfully, state law was changed several years ago to prohibit the practice.

    > The police do not go around writing citations if your bike is not registered, but they do
    > recommend you go to your local fire station to register if they stop you and you are a resident on
    > an unregistered bike.

    If the law isn't enforced, then of course that is no big deal (but then why have laws that are not
    enforced?). The problem is when it does get enforced. Imagine a cross-county bicycle tourist passing
    through a place where bike registration is mandatory and enforced -- either the cyclist risks having
    his bike confiscated, or he has to register his bike in dozens of municipalities across the country.
    And as the original post pointed out, mandatory bike registration laws have been abused by police to
    confiscate or arrest people that have not broken any laws.

    > The law is used to help track serial numbers in case of theft, and being a college town (like
    > Madison) there is a fair amount of theft and an active second-hand bike market.

    The city of Berkeley has probably more bicycle theft per capita than any other city in the US.
    Besides Manhattan, it is the only place where the Kryptonite lock guarantee did not apply. Mandatory
    bike registration rules were absolutely useless in reducing theft in Berkeley or in recovering
    stolen bikes.

    The best way to prevent theft is secure bicycle parking (i.e. bike lockers, gated facilities), and
    education on how to properly lock up a bike. Installation of secure bike facilities has helped
    reduce bike theft on the UC campus.
     
  8. bikerider7 wrote:
    > I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
    > (http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/transp/bicycle.html) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
    > Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.
    >
    > The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
    > used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
    > registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
    > out here in California).
    >
    > Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
    > and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
    > municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).

    I know no one who has received a ticket for un-registered bikes, and I've been here for <uh-oh>
    going on 20 years.

    As others have noted, the law is sold as a way to reduce bike thefts. It's only real value is that
    if a bike is recovered (a big IF), then it's easier to find the owner if it's registered.

    Still, recovering a stolen, non-registered bike isn't impossible. I recall a friend in the 80s had
    his bike stolen, and a few days later he saw a guy riding it on State Street. He gave chase on foot,
    caught the cyclist, arguing ensued, a policeman arrived, friend produced proof of ownership (I think
    he had written down the serial # somewhere and produced it), and he got his bike back there, and the
    rider was taken away.

    Scott
     
  9. DiabloScott

    DiabloScott New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    1
    About 10 years ago someone stole my bike from the roof of my car in Walnut Creek, CA (I had forgotten to take it off after coming home). I made the police report for insurance purposes, I don't think they asked me if it was registered (it wasn't) but they took down the serial number in the report.

    A few weeks later I get a call from an officer who recovered the bike. He said that he happened to be following this guy on a bike who just fell over and stopped to help him. The cop saw that the bike had electrical tape covering up the decals and recognized that as a common bike thief ploy but the guy hadn't done anything illegal so the cop had no justification to run the guy's ID or anything. Except that the bike wasn't registered - an infraction that opened the door for the cop to call in the serial number and voila - it turned up as stolen and the guy wound up paying me about $400 as part of his probation requirement.

    The thing is, if the bike HAD been registered I wouldn't have gotten it back. And the last time I went to a police bike auction there were a LOT of bikes that DID have the registration stickers on them.
     
  10. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    >[email protected] (bikerider7

    wrote in part:

    >The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known.

    ---snip---

    Maybe they are well known to you in which case you could enlighten everyone. Conforming with
    reasonable laws often causes minor inconveniences and expenses. Beyond that, what are the
    "well-known problems" with bike registration laws?

    >In Oakland, CA the laws were used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were
    >repealed).

    I assume you mean harassment by the police. If so, that's hardly a "problem with mandatory bike
    registration" as *any* law can be used to harass minorities or even majorities if the individual
    police officer is willing to abuse his/her authority. That doesn't mean the laws are bad, just that
    sometimes authority is abused.

    >Bike registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at
    >least out here in California).

    ---snip---

    Registration of any object doesn't deter theft. If it did auto theft wouldn't be a major industry.
    Likewise it doesn't facilitate the recovery of stolen property. It only enhances the likelihood of
    *identifying* stolen property and on that score mandatory bicycle registration has no downside.
    Whether or not it's worth the time and trouble to set up a registration system in Madison is another
    issue. I'm not a Madison resident so I don't know.

    Regards, Bob Hunt
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On 24 Jun 2003 02:54:44 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >what are the "well-known problems" with bike registration laws?

    Some that I know of are:

    - the cost of collection almost always makes up most of the fee
    - enforcement is difficult (is that bike out of service? or only used on private land?)
    - it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)
    - many bikes are rarely used
    - bikes are an accessible form of transport for those on very low incomes, and raising the cost
    risks restricting their mobility

    Some have suggested a one-off fee at the time of purchase, but of course that would not affect the
    bikes already out there, and would really only amount to a sales tax. Tracking changes of ownership
    would likely be prohibitively expensive.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  12. Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >- it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)

    IMO, there are a lot of people who would balk at cycling if they thought they were likely to get
    pulled over to have their reg checked, or if they had to hand over a form to the authorities to
    register. Illegal immigrants are an obvious case, but there are others. Not to mention, lots of
    people would forget to mail in the form, and then be discouraged from taking out their bikes.

    > None of the above means that I *support* mandatory bike registration- I don't think it serves any
    > particularly critical public interest- just that many of the arguments against such programs are
    > baseless.

    Here's the biggie. Car registration only works because all of the states have it. If Illinois
    demanded registration and licensing of drivers but Indiana didn't, when you pulled someone over what
    is to stop them from claiming Indiana residency? (Sure, there are ways to check this, but it would
    be an enormous mess.) There would have to be signs at the Illinois-Indiana border checkpoints (!)
    warning people of the registration requirements. This is one reason why an active bicycle
    confiscation program like the one Huntington Beach was running is so offensive - it violates what a
    normal person expects when crossing a municipal boundary.
     
  13. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]<snip>
    > First, how many cyclists actually spend that much time riding outside of their own municipality?
    > I'm not talking about touring cyclists
    or
    > even the members of this NG. I'm talking about *all* people that ride
    bikes.
    > I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority of cyclists never leave
    the
    > city limits of the town where they live.

    If you include the people that take their bikes with them to state and national parks, as well as
    those who carry them along on their RV or boat, I'd say the number is higher than you suspect. But
    I'd also say that the total number of cyclists of all ages is so small in the U.S. that registration
    is just silly.

    > Second, using the example you described and assuming that non-registration was the only
    > reason for the
    stop
    > once the driver of that non-registered car produced ID that showed he
    lived in
    > Indiana he'd be free to leave. The same would apply to cyclists. What's so terrible about that?

    The only way an officer can legally stop someone to check their registration is if a visible tag is
    required on a specific location on the bike and said tag is not in place. Having a tag which is
    visible on every type of bike at any reasonable distance is just a fallacy. Now stopping because of
    illegal behavior and checking registration is a different matter.

    The only way registration would be a viable system is if registration was required at the state
    level so it is applied equally in all municipalities, a tag is required that is visible at a
    reasonable distance, and all states agree to implement registration and honor each other's
    registration. This is what is necessary for vehicle registration to work. And all of these just
    don't work well for bicycles because of prohibitive cost as well as the need for a tag. Just imagine
    us all being required to have a license plate hanging from our seat....

    -Buck
     
  14. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On 26 Jun 2003 04:14:13 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >>- the cost of collection almost always makes up most of the fee

    >The same argument could be applied to passenger car registration.

    Only if the amounts are similar. If the bike fee is anything like rational - proportional to the
    damage the bike does to the road, say - the bike fee would be several orders of magnitude less than
    the car fee.

    >Any bets on what percentage of that money goes to pay for the otherwise unnecessary licensing
    >agency's overhead? ;-)

    It should be accessible from public records, I guess.

    >>- enforcement is difficult (is that bike out of service? or only used on private land?

    >If the law is written properly- "All bicycles upon a public roadway must be registered."
    >enforcement is a no-brainer....

    Except that most bikes spend most of their time off a public roadway. Do you include trails? What
    about crossing the road while moving between trails? How about riding 100 yards of public road to
    the start of the trail?

    >You don't have to register your car until or unless you actually drive it on a public road.

    Or park it there, yes. The proportion of cars (other then Oldsmobile Hencoops) never used on a
    public road is small, though.

    >>- it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)

    >There are entrance fees charged at US National Parks. Those fees haven't discouraged park usage. On
    >what do you base your assumption that nominal bike registration fees would discourage cycling?

    Simple: I have a bike. If I want to ride it, I get thje bike out and ride. Now there's a
    registration fee. Before I can ride the bike I have to pay the fee and register the bike. It's a
    nice sunny day but it was raining yesterday so I didn't think to go out and pay the fee. So the bike
    stays in the garage. Last year I didn't ride it because I never got round to getting the
    registration sorted out. Perhaps I should get rid of the bike, I never use it.

    It places a barrier between the owner and the activity.

    >>- many bikes are rarely used

    >I own a 12' jonboat that I use maybe three times a year. I still pay the $18 registration fee so I
    >don't see your point.

    What proportion of the cost of the boat does that $18 represent?

    How about if you had a $100 bike? Would you still pay $18 to ride it three times a year?

    >>- bikes are an accessible form of transport for those on very low incomes, and raising the cost
    >> risks restricting their mobility

    >The municipal bike registration fees I've seen have all been in the $2 to $6 range. That's about
    >the price of a Big Mac, large fries, and large drink at McDonald's. That's hardly a "restrictive"
    >dollar amount.

    It may be a spit in the bucket to you and me, but if there was a choice to make netween eating the
    Big Mac and evading the tax or going hungry so you could ride your bike legally I wonder what
    someone genuinely poor would choose?

    >The municipality keeps all three registration records. The most current registration is Zoot's
    >proof of ownership. Where's the "prohibitive expense" involved?

    What if Zoot lives in the next jurisdiction?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  15. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >"Buck" ju n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m wrote: If you include the people that take
    > >their bikes with them to state and national parks, as well as those who carry them along on
    > >their RV or
    boat,
    > >I'd say the number is higher than you suspect. But I'd also say that the total number of cyclists
    > >of all ages is so small in the U.S. that registration is just silly.
    >
    Hunrobe wrote:
    > You're going off on a tangent Buck. No one is suggesting that cyclists be registered so if they
    > are found wandering lost they can be returned home safely. The discussion is about registering
    > bicycles, not their operators.
    I
    > don't have the figures in front of me but would you agree that there are
    more
    > bicycles in the US than there are boats? Don't we still register boats?

    Upon inspection, I can see where my ambiguous pronouns and lack of clarity has confused you. I was
    not suggesting the registration of cyclists, but I was pointing out that registration of the
    bicycles that cyclists ride is silly.

    Buck wrote:
    > >for a tag. Just imagine us all being required to have a license plate hanging from our seat....

    Bob wrote:
    > As I've said, I'm not necessarily in favor of mandatory bicycle
    registration.
    > I'm just unconvinced by most of the arguments used to oppose it. Your last sentence implies the
    > only argument I've heard against registration that I
    agree
    > with completely. I don't *want* a registration tag dangling where my seat
    pack
    > should be. That doesn't make registration evil or expensive. No one is
    talking
    > about confiscation of unregistered bikes and you can still buy a license
    plate
    > similiar to what you describe for your kid's bike for just a couple of
    bucks.
    > IMO, the best argument against *any* new law is simply, "Is it necessary
    and
    > will it accomplish it's goal?". Unless both questions are answered with a
    "yes"
    > further discussion is not needed.

    Nowhere in my post did I state or suggest anything about confiscation of bikes. I only discussed
    registration. We are in agreement on this. I think registration is unnecessary, prohibitively
    expensive, and just plain stupid. It is a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

    -Buck
     
  16. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

    > What if he does live in the next jurisdiction? That doesn't change the
    expense
    > involved. If he rides that bike in Madison he has to register it there
    unless
    > he registers it elsewhere. In either case, the most recent registration
    serves
    > the same purpose.

    But that isn't the way things are set up. Every town wants a piece of the action. "Register your
    bike in our town whether you live here or not or else!" That's why if registration were to work, it
    would have to be at a greater scale than the municipality. I think you would find fewer arguments
    over a statewide registration program, especially if every state were required to have one.

    -Buck
     
  17. On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:35:06 +0000, Benjamin Weiner wrote:

    > IMO, there are a lot of people who would balk at cycling if they thought they were likely to get
    > pulled over to have their reg checked, or if they had to hand over a form to the authorities to
    > register.

    Since that has stopped _so_ many people from registering cars.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but _`\(,_ | what canst thou say?
    -- George Fox. (_)/ (_) |
     
  18. Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I didn't intend to imply that you had. Others had and my "confiscation" comment was really
    > directed at them.

    I brought that up (wrt Huntington Beach's actual actions, not Madison), but only as an extreme
    example of a misguided cosequence of zealous enforcement of registration rules. Not to tar your
    argument with guilt by association. Sorry it looked that way.

    I accept your point that many people drive w/o being registered, I do still think that the
    requirement would deter some people from riding - but they'd be the law-abiding types, probably.

    As for theft deterrent, if people can't bother to write down the S/N of their bike, are they going
    to register it? I still think registration has to be universal for this to work, otherwise a thief
    can scrape off the sticker and export the bike to the next town.

    BTW, California has bicycle registration, and it is technically mandatory on the University of
    California campus where I work. A professor in my department who does things by the book went to the
    place that is supposed to issue licenses and of course, nobody there had a clue what he was talking
    about. After getting a huge runaround, I think he eventually managed to get a license from the
    university police, who were also somewhat mystified.

    Ben
     
  19. Bikerider7

    Bikerider7 Guest

    [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > BTW, a four year bike registration costs $8 US in that town. I wouldn't call $2 a year all that
    > expensive.
    >

    I own 7 bikes -- nice road bike, old road bike, mountain bike, folding bike, tandem, beater bike,
    and a touring bike. Even though I could afford it, I would not be happy about having to shell out
    $56 every few years for no damn good reason.
     
  20. I have vague memories of some midwestern state, about 20 years ago, introducing a state wide
    registration system, and announcing with great pride that at last there was a system that was
    a success.

    Their sole criterion for success was that the scheme did take in more money in fees than it cost to
    administer.

    I thought the state was Wisconsin, but maybe I am mistaken. If it wasn't Wisconsin, maybe it was
    Minnesota.

    Registration is always a popular idea when politicians are asked to "do something" about bikes.
    That's how Takoma Park, Maryland, ended up with three schemes, city, county and state, until
    Maryland abolished the state scheme, on the grounds that it was useless. I think the metropolitan
    Washington DC area was covered by thirteen registration schemes at that time, although some of them
    might have had reciprocity, in case you cycled across a border, as people sometimes do.

    Jeremy Parker
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...