ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2013, 02:59 PM   #166
bwalsh
Beastly Adventurer
 
bwalsh's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Hell town
Oddometer: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post

... (deleted a bunch of my usual drivel) ...

Not enough...
__________________
2004 XR650L / 2001 R1150GS
NWVA TAG NWVA TAG MAP RTE THREAD & IN LIST



bwalsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 03:53 PM   #167
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwalsh View Post
Not enough...
I like making puns too, so this sort of feedback just inspires me.

Thanks!
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.

MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 04:36 PM   #168
xymotic
Beastly Adventurer
 
xymotic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Federal Way, WA
Oddometer: 8,366
You must live in Montana?



Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
A few decades back I was told by a friend who was a cop that their policy was to not write tickets unless the speed exceeded 10% plus 2 mph over the posted. This seems reasonable if the posted speed is appropriate for the road. I don't know if anything like this is a standard.

However, if traffic is light and conditions merit it, 47 in a posted 35 zone shouldn't be a problem. Especially if it is multi-lane.

The statute here states the speed MUST be reasonable and prudent for the conditions. There is no statute indicating any punishment for exceeding the posted speed.

The fines are not part of state law, just part of the local administrative court's proceedings. Most people find it more convenient to pay the fine than to take multiple days off from work as they jack you around the court of record in order to get it dismissed. The case can be won. It is never easy to do so.

While working on a radio in a police car I had an officer relate a story about him appearing in court for a contested ticket he had written. The defendant submitted a notarized affidavit stating that his car was in good repair, he was rested and alert, the road conditions were light traffic in clear weather in the daytime and he was traveling a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions.

The officer was amazed that the judge let him off. That story stuck in the back of my mind for years until other research turned up how this had played out that day for the driver.

In the statutes the signs are styled something like "Prima Facie posted Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit." What this means is that an engineer presumably determined what speed the worse case scenario would reasonably allow (semi, at night, in the rain?) and, in the absence of actual evidence the sign represents Prima Facie evidence of a reasonable and prudent speed. (prima facie essentially means "on the face" or something that "appears to be ...")

The driver's affidavit was submitted as actual signed evidence refuting the claim by the officer. Actual evidence trumps Prima Facie evidence. The burden then shifted to the prosecutor to produce his own evidence (other than Prima Facie) that the speed wasn't reasonable and prudent. Which, without an injured party seeking reparation for damages, is impossible.

The traffic court system is designed so the path of least resistance is paying the fine and going on with your life. This seems a dishonest method to separate the mark from his money and seems like a con job perpetrated upon a willing populace by those elected or hired in positions of public trust. For me, this behavior is a violation of that trust.

I'm not the only one out there who knows and applies these strategies. Is it a waste of time? Maybe. To me it is mostly about the principle of the thing.

These fellers in Canada are probably waaaaay behind the curve on learning how to approach this sort of thing there, if it would even work for them under Canadian legal process.

There needs to be a way to reign in drivers that create a hazard the way these guys and the stunters in NYC did. I don't think speeding tickets are the answer.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Sean
Oh for ***k's sake Aaron. Please link us to my fascist, racist or homophobic posts.
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein


Baja trip to the tip
6:10 to Yuma
trials and tribulations in the Mojave
Baja Blitz Yard sale
View Current Location via Spot Tracker
xymotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 08:20 PM   #169
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by xymotic View Post
You must live in Montana?
Must I?

That's disappointing. I hear they can't ride up there in the Winter.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.

MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 09:54 PM   #170
Tripped1
Likely Lost.
 
Tripped1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sandy Eggo
Oddometer: 7,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
Must I?

That's disappointing. I hear they can't ride up there in the Winter.

Oh you can......you'll freeze your balls off doing it but you can.

.....OR instead of the second bike, just buy a sled.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenScummyTroll View Post
Show folks something with a clutch and carburetor, and it's like teaching a baboon to use a Macbook.
Tripped1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 11:01 PM   #171
xymotic
Beastly Adventurer
 
xymotic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Federal Way, WA
Oddometer: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
Must I?

That's disappointing. I hear they can't ride up there in the Winter.
Seriously what other state is the speed limit a 'recommendation' like you described?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Sean
Oh for ***k's sake Aaron. Please link us to my fascist, racist or homophobic posts.
"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."
Albert Einstein


Baja trip to the tip
6:10 to Yuma
trials and tribulations in the Mojave
Baja Blitz Yard sale
View Current Location via Spot Tracker
xymotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 12:01 AM   #172
Pecha72
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Oddometer: 3,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
I guess that the difference between you and I is that I don't feel any need for belief in laws in order to know what is right to do in a given instance.

So everybody should be free to make up their own rules. Right?


I΄ve seen it in reality in many countries, that I΄ve been to. Outside of Europe, US, Australia, and a few other “western” countries, it works like that in practice. I guess you would like it, because you are free to do basically whatever you want. The cops might only stop you, because they see you are a tourist, and want to get bribes from you. Couldn΄t care less, what the locals do. What you might not like so much on a bike, is “might is right”, means that you always give way to heavier vehicles, and as the motorcycle is relatively lightweight, you give way to almost all other road users. except maybe pedestrians, and bicyclists. Can get tiring after a while.


And also the accident statistics in those countries are usually a chilling read. Traffic is always the most realistic threat, that I΄ve had in those countries as well – not conflicts, not extremist groups, just road traffic. So that΄s why I prefer to keep some sort of order, seems to work a whole lot better in that respect. Everybody having their own set of rules is a nice idea, but it does not work in practice. Or at least it does not make traffic any safer, it does the exact opposite.
__________________
Countries ridden • FIN • SWE • NOR • DK • EE • LV • LT • POL • SK • HU • RO • BG • GR • IT • AT • DE • CZ • CH • SMR • LIE • NL • BE • FR • AND • ES • GBR • LUX • SI • HR • BIH • SRB • MK • TR • IR • PAK • IND • TH • KH • LA • MY • ID • AUS • CR • USA • ZA • LS • SWZ • MZ • NA • BW • ZM • ZW
Pecha72 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 06:17 AM   #173
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
Pecha72, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. You seem to think I say people should disregard the law.

What I am saying is that the law is what is written in the statutes, and that is what should be followed.

Instead of pretending that there is a law that doesn't exist in the statutes at all. (or, is dressed up like a pig with lipstick to appear as if it is a law when there are clear contradictions which are inexplicable)

I totally agree that everyone sharing the highway should follow an agreed upon set of rules of the road. These work well and make it safer for everyone.

Just don't blow sunshine up people's butt making them think that there is a law supporting the enforcement and fines for speed limits when there isn't. Don't lead people to believe that licensing is required when it is not. Don't take a person's hard earned money for some arbitrary administrative infraction which is not supported in the statutes and which the court has no jurisdiction over.

In most cases these citations do nothing to increase safety. In many instances the mere act of pulling over a motorist creates a greater danger to traffic, to the motorist and for the LEO than would letting the driver continue at the slightly greater speed, if it was otherwise reasonable for the conditions.

I feel that this masquerade put on in the name of public safety, but actually used as a revenue generation tool, is a lie and a con. This in no way infers that I support reckless driving or traveling at a speed that is neither reasonable nor prudent for the conditions.

To find I'm being purposefully misled by those whom we are indoctrinated to hold above contempt has been a bit of a shocker for me. Along with the realization that many/most of those LEOs doing the field work may be as much in the dark about this as I. (several I've asked seem unaware and have been curious about the contradictions I've shown them, without being able to explain any other reason for the wording of the statutes)

Like I've said, it is a matter of principle. Without which the system intended to make things safer and promote the common good is tainted by how it is used for nefarious purposes under the guise of safety.

I'm all for the LEOs stopping someone who is making the road more dangerous than it already is by acting in an imprudent manner. There should be actual statutes which could be applied to those persons.

I'm opposed to stopping and fining those for marginal infractions, simply because it is easier to take money from an otherwise honest, law-abiding person driving in a responsible manner than it might be to catch a scofflaw creating a dangerous situation.

The saying "spare the rod and spoil the child" comes to mind. The rod wasn't for beating the sheep, it was for guiding them. A touch on the flank to keep them on the safe path. Likewise, the purpose of law enforcement people on the road should be more about teaching than about revenue. Pull over those driving in the passing lane and let them know that their behavior creates an unsafe environment. Pull over drivers who are creating an unsafe environment by letting themselves be distracted with their phones. The mere act of inconveniencing them and explaining it to them would go a long way toward making the roads safer.

I'd like to see better use of the LEO's time, focused more on making the roads a safer place and less emphasis on administrative money-making tactics which have no basis in law.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 06:22 AM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 07:47 AM   #174
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by xymotic View Post
Seriously what other state is the speed limit a 'recommendation' like you described?
You would have to check the statutes for each state, but I know that Texas statutes for speed only show "reasonable and prudent" and there is no punishment clause for exceeding the posted speed. As far as I can see, this is due to constitutional restrictions on the state's lawmaking powers.

The fines are not based on law.

The cop cites you claiming prima facie evidence exists (radar, laser, etc.) that the speed wasn't reasonable and prudent. Just doing what they were trained to do.

The administrative kangaroo kourt has a schedule of fines, provided for your convenience. Should appealing to a superior court and presenting your own case be too much trouble they will be happy to accommodate you by making your wallet lighter. Despite the fact that no jurisdiction exists for their claims against the driver.

The administrative venues (city, J.P., magistrate) are for arbitration to avoid clogging up the docket in a "real" courtroom. When you appeal from an administrative venue to a court of record there is a "new" trial (trial de novo) where nothing that transpired in the kangaroo court has any bearing on the case.

In the court of record (usually County court) evidence can be presented to trump the prima facie evidence. Once made a part of the record, evidence must be refuted by the prosecution for them to win. This is not so in an administrative venue where the magistrate acts in the role of arbitrator for the prosecution and evidence is accepted or denied at the whim of the magistrate. There is no clerk and there is no public record of evidence in this venue. (why don't they teach this stuff in grade school?)

Based upon my understanding, the states cannot tell a citizen how fast to drive, with the exception of commercial use of the road. So, it is a pretty good bet that no state will have a speed statute with a punishment clause. Though they may have contrived an assembly of weasel words to appear as if there is. Something in the chapter will exist to exempt all but commercial users from application. A careful read should reveal such foolishness.

Montana is just honest enough with their citizens to avoid the con job for revenue, and I applaud them for this. Theirs' is a model for the other states to follow. No con-jobs, no illusions, just the facts ma'am.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 08:05 AM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 10:24 AM   #175
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
Texas statutes for speed only show "reasonable and prudent" and there is no punishment clause for exceeding the posted speed.



Quote:
Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
(b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;
(2) except as provided by Subdivision (4), 70 miles per hour on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;
(3) except as provided by Subdivision (4), 60 miles per hour on a highway that is outside an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;
(4) outside an urban district:
(A) 60 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that has passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201 and is on a highway numbered by the United States or this state, including a farm-to-market road; or
(B) 50 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that:
(i) has not passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201; or
(ii) is traveling on a highway not numbered by the United States or this state;
(5) on a beach, 15 miles per hour; or
(6) on a county road adjacent to a public beach, 15 miles per hour, if declared by the commissioners court of the county.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:12 AM   #176
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
SgtDuster, the term "prima facie" is used in the title of that chapter and again is repeated in the first section. But, you don't think this is important, so you bluster right over it. Duh! (Hint: It is a Weasel Word)

If you are still unable to grasp how it is used in law in reference to evidence look up "Prima Facie" in a law dictionary (a LAW dictionary, not Websters, or Oxford English, or Funk and Wagnel). Don't take my word for it. It is a Latin term and has been around for a few years. You should be able to find adequate reference material. In several languages. (Law dictionaries are full of words that have been specifically defined in court cases. "Shall" can mean "may," and the term "United States" has no less than three distinct meanings in law. These reference books can be very illuminating.)

Despite all the verbiage you have quoted, the fact remains that a simple affidavit stating your opinion that you were traveling a reasonable and prudent speed placed in the record of a REAL court is "hard" evidence.

Hard evidence will beat prima facie evidence.

This will place the burden of proof on the prosecution to show additional hard evidence, other than the prima facie evidence defined in the statutes, that the affidavit is in some way false. It is unlikely that they will be able to do this, unless there was actually an injured party.

I've explained how the system seems to work in practice, what the terms mean, and have proven that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case on two occasions in two different county courts.

Yet, you continue to argue for your right to pay fines when no injury occurred.

It is your right to do this. The constitution protects your right to do this. I will even fight for your right to do this. That is what is so wonderful about this country. Under no circumstances should you let facts and knowledge deter you in any way in your pursuit of happiness.

This in no way changes the structure of the statutes, the absence of jurisdiction for the state in this matter, nor the fact that if there is no injured party, and you CHOOSE to pay, it is only because you have volunteered to pay damages for injuring yourself by your own tacit admission. (look up "tacit" in a law dictionary if that term also throws you a curve.)

May you continue to have a blissful experience with this. You know what they say about bliss, right?
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 01:15 PM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 02:43 PM   #177
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
SgtDuster, the term "prima facie" is used in the title of that chapter and again is repeated in the first section. But, you don't think this is important, so you bluster right over it. Duh! (Hint: It is a Weasel Word)
And you know what it means, right?

Quote:
In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
I.E. if a radar reading said you were going at 80mph in a 60mph zone, you are de facto guilty. Unless rebuted. Unlike a murdering (or whatever) charge where a court must declare you guilty.


It has nothing to do with your position about "the nonexistent speed limits".
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 08:13 PM   #178
jfman
Studly Adventurer
 
jfman's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Oddometer: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montague View Post
Canadian law is based on English Common Law but many of these infractions are provincial summary offences, although some may be criminal.

But the reality is this was a big safety PR stunt (the amount of fines and media release) to make a point.

These lads as we called them in the Ottawa Valley slang, will likely see much lower amounts of fines once a decent lawyer gets involved but may have license suspensions and impossible insurance rates if not outright cancellation.

Like the rest of the world, Canadian jails are overflowing and expensive to run, judges will do just about anything to avoid handing out jail sentences for non-violent crimes.

So at the end of the day, La Belle Province has made a PR statement, the courts will haul in some money and our two hapless heroes will likely not be riding for quite some time.

And since they are a pair of f'ning retards, it looks good on 'em!
Quebec law is derived from civil law not common law (le droit civil)Its the system the french used and carried over here. Lawhyers have to learn both in because the rest of the country is based on common law. . And yes this whole thing is a PR stunt to make headlines. Just like they boast that motorcycle deaths are way down. The reason: the number of plated bikes are way down since they raised the motorcycle plate fees. Personaly I dont mind paying 550$ a year for a plate because it comes with disability and health expense coverage even when abroad. If I crash and break a leg my salary is covered while I recover no matter how it happened and who is at fault.
__________________
Tent space is where you make it

2012 Versys 1000
Tour of the American West 2013
Alaska 2014: Hotel Budget Zero

jfman screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 08:25 PM
jfman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 08:23 PM   #179
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,588
Secret decoder ring inside box

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster
And you know what it means, right?
Quote:
In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

I.E. if a radar reading said you were going at 80mph in a 60mph zone, you are de facto guilty. Unless rebuted. Unlike a murdering (or whatever) charge where a court must declare you guilty.


It has nothing to do with your position about "the nonexistent speed limits".


I'll talk real slow ...

The affidavit IS the rebuttal.

Let's say a person were to plead no contest in the J.P. office and then appeal to the County court. Once the case is assigned a number, they place the affidavit in the record for the case as per the rules of court. This rebuttal places the burden of proof back upon the prosecution.

Look up "de facto,"
"You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

You may find this to be ... inconceivable.
Never mind, I'll do it for you.
De facto (English pronunciation: /d ˈfζkt/, /d/,[1] Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established."

If someone were to pose as a judge, but not have taken the oath or met the requirements and was allowed to work, they would be a de facto judge.

If someone wants to say you were driving at an imprudent speed and use a prima facie speed limit they establish a claim based on a de facto reasonable and prudent speed.
For contrast here is de jure:
De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.
In a legal context, de jure is also translated as "concerning law". A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete de jure laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.
Let's make believe this is a Badminton game. When you are served de facto evidence you rebutt by returning a volley of a sworn first hand account back over the net. They must return that volley for the game to continue. The shuttlecock that was the de facto evidence is now out of play and hard evidence must be produced to rebut the sworn account.

In case you missed it, every chapter in the statutes regarding the speed limit signs on the road call it the "Prima Facie Speed Limit."

They don't just call it the "Speed Limit" instead. There is a reason why this is so. The federal constitution prevents the state from regulating a right reserved by the people.

The Prima Facie Speed Limit designation is only the vaguest of reference points. At best. I wouldn't call it nonexistent, but it is one speed of many which could be considered reasonable and prudent at any given moment regarding any given driver/vehicle/weather/surface/etc.

Compare the sign's vague information to someone successfully driving the marked stretch of road at a higher than posted speed. Accomplishing this without injuring anyone or otherwise making a hazard of themselves. This observed factual account is proof beyond any shadow of doubt that the speed they traveled was reasonable and prudent in that moment in time. This cannot be easily rebutted. It is fact. It is sworn testimony.

It is a double-dog-dare to the prosecution to prove otherwise, effectively banishing the cute little pup Prima Facie to cower under the porch.

The Prima Facie Speed Limit is an engineer's best guess. It is understood from a scientific perspective to be a number that is a close approximation based on static data. While acknowledging that a myriad number of variables can affect what is reasonable and prudent in any given moment.

Perhaps this helps clarify what it has to do with "the nonexistent Speed Limit" as you call it. Or, the "de facto Speed Limit," if you prefer this new buzz word you found.

Call it what you will, neither is de jure and the statutes clearly say so, once you have learned how to decrypt the language.

MotoTex screwed with this post 10-22-2013 at 08:54 PM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 08:56 PM   #180
ttpete
Rectum Non Bustibus
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Dearborn, MI
Oddometer: 5,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
Quebec law is derived from civil law not common law (le droit civil)Its the system the french used and carried over here. Lawhyers have to learn both in because the rest of the country is based on common law. . And yes this whole thing is a PR stunt to make headlines. Just like they boast that motorcycle deaths are way down. The reason: the number of plated bikes are way down since they raised the motorcycle plate fees. Personaly I dont mind paying 550$ a year for a plate because it comes with disability and health expense coverage even when abroad. If I crash and break a leg my salary is covered while I recover no matter how it happened and who is at fault.
I didn't know that Quebec used the Napoleonic code. That's equivalent to having to prove that you're innocent instead of having the state try to prove you're guilty. No wonder the rest of the country hates the frogs. They all resent the fuck out of having to learn patois "french" in school.
__________________
10 Ducati 1098 Streetfighter S - "Sleipnir"
09 Kaw Versys
67 Triumph Bonneville TT Special
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" _____ Margaret Thatcher
ttpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014