A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 22nd 19, 04:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,105
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?


So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?


Who cares?* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.* If only he
could be banned from the road as well.

It probably won't be long before she will get a Darwin award anyway.

Common sense is not one of her attributes.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ads
  #22  
Old June 22nd 19, 05:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,338
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 01.00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?



Given he was “a calm and reasonable road user” he would have been in
less aggro had he killed her. So ride like a cnut and you might not end
up bankrupt is what it is telling people.
  #23  
Old June 22nd 19, 05:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,338
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 12.47, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer

irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.


People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating
responsibility/compensation and costs.

The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other
such claims in the past.

"Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly
responsible for the accident.

He ruled [Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushett’s
compensation claim because “cyclists must be prepared at all times for
people to behave in unexpected ways”. While describing him as “a calm
and reasonable road user”, he went on to add: “Mr Hazeldean did fall
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in
that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”

After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years
he said: “The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally
responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.”

Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to
take into account her blameworthyness.

Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy
way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well
out of this decision.

The allocation of blame contains an element for “causative potency” ,
something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in
support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of
pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and
it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the
allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with
the greatest ability to cause harm.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Preview/1024483.aspx

The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed
to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court
without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be
awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he
could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs
from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his
own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for
costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the
cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be
far less than the costs demanded).

It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair
and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be
excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take
timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend
himself.

What is really rattling the cage of various cycling organisations is
their fear that cases such as this will fuel the existing public
antipathy towards cyclists and lead to more calls for compulsory
insurance for cyclists. Compulsory anything is unacceptable to
cyclists groups. "Presumption of blame" has long been promoted as a
pro-cycling measure by most cycling groups. They are now terrified
that it is coming back to bite them.

What may well happen is that cyclists perceiving that they are
possibly facing huge costs if they hurt a pedestrian (even if not
entirely their fault) will purchase insurance. This of course makes
them a much better target for solicitors bringing claims for damages
so more cases will come about which in turn puts pressure on the other
cyclists to get insurance and increases the perception of cycling as a
high risk activity.


Oh do shut up with your namby pamby nanny state facts and voice of
reason. This is URC, we do NOT NEED FACTS, we DO NOT need REASONED
ARGUMENTS, we need an ABSENCE of REASONED arguments, we need the DAILY
EXPRESS TO JUDGE, CONVICT AND EXECUTE in the name of the PUBLIC!

phew Did I get the tone correct?
  #24  
Old June 22nd 19, 05:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:38:26 +0100, Modesty
wrote:


So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.


His exposure to costs could almost certainly have been reduced
dramatically had his (had he had one) and the claimants solicitors
communicated with each other at an early stage.

Why he didn't seek (or possibly listen) to legal advice early on
isn't clear. This case has been kicking around for several years
which is in itself very unusual when the damages expected to be paid
would only have been in the low thousands of pounds. It also seems
that during his self representation in court he acted in some
undefined way which increased the costs by his ignorance of procedure.
This is unusual in itself as judges usually do all they can to help
litigants in person. Possibly more may come out in the costs hearing.
(Why a separate costs hearing is taking place for a low value claim is
itself a bit puzzling, normally it would take a few minutes at the end
of the main hearing).

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.


It isn't mentioned anywhere I can see that this was a conditional fee
case in which case the claimant has little risk but I would guess it
is. There is also no doubt she was injured and (at least) had to pay
for dental treatment and Hazeldean was partially responsible so the
claim was reasonable. This would probably have been the advice any
solicitor would have given him at the beginning. I doubt if anyone
took advantage of any possible naivety. Perhaps stubborn refusal to
believe it wasn't his fault at all caused him to continue long beyond
the point where it was sensible to do so. This isn't unusual with
litigants in person.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?


I'd guess this would have been what any solicitor would have said. The
very high costs are puzzling. The claimants solicitors would have
been entitled to an enhanced fee if it was a conditional fee case but
nowhere near the level now being claimed. It also isn't obvious how
the case went on for 3 or 4 years when it wasn't very complicated, the
main facts were not in dispute and it wasn't going to set any
precedent.

  #25  
Old June 22nd 19, 06:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,379
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 15:38, Modesty wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer
irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.

People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating
responsibility/compensation and costs.

The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other
such claims in the past.

"Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly
responsible for the accident.

He ruled...


(That should be 'She ruled' because Judge Shanti Mauger is a woman,
but that doesn't materially change the point you are making.)

...[Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushett’s
compensation claim because “cyclists must be prepared at all times for
people to behave in unexpected ways”. While describing him as “a calm
and reasonable road user”, he went on to add: “Mr Hazeldean did fall
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in
that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”

After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years
he said: “The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally
responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.”

Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to
take into account her blameworthyness.

Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy
way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well
out of this decision.

The allocation of blame contains an element for “causative potency” ,
something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in
support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of
pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and
it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the
allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with
the greatest ability to cause harm.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Preview/1024483.aspx

The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed
to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court
without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be
awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he
could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs
from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his
own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for
costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the
cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be
far less than the costs demanded).

It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair
and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be
excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take
timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend
himself.


So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?



Who cares? Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance. If only he
could be banned from the road as well.


So he can become a 'Cocky careless' pedestrian and wander into the path of a moving vehicle then blame the victim?


  #26  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,469
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 14:57, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 1:00:21 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london

QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?


Maybe the victim is unaware his home owners insurance covers him for a pedestrian's stupidity.


The victim is not in a position to even know whether the cyclist has
home owner's insurance - or even whether the cyclist is a home-owner.
  #27  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,469
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a
statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the
outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other
cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the
need for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800
pedestrians a year.


Who is "they"?


OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over
this one cyclist.

I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are
extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level.

This was a civil case, not a criminal one.


Full marks.

But had anyone said different?

It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement,
lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every
cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed.


The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an
air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous.
Braking hard does.


I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's
workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only
usefulness of noise to alert someone is when it is done with enough
separation in time and distance for them to look, realise the situation
and calmly make a course alteration.

Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top
of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again.
Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the
"lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone
else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view.

I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without
looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst
thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them
unpredictable.


As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns,
bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service
two-tones an obvious exception).

They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a
considerable source of noise nuisance.

Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst
indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver
behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too
close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to
fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the
need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive
by then).

Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward)


He did slow down.


I didn't see the report of that.

is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction
of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would
not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not
attempting to avoid her by simply stopping.


Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in
front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of
impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of
travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and
getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than
to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not
possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy.


Braking is always a part of the best strategy.
  #28  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,469
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 16:17, Bod wrote:

So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?


Who cares?* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.* If only he
could be banned from the road as well.


It probably won't be long before she will get a Darwin award anyway.
Common sense is not one of her attributes.


And clearly also not his.

One day, he'll try air-horning a lorry out of the way and it won't work.
  #29  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:43 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,469
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 18:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 15:38, Modesty wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer
irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.

People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating
responsibility/compensation and costs.

The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other
such claims in the past.

"Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly
responsible for the accident.

He ruled...

(That should be 'She ruled' because Judge Shanti Mauger is a woman,
but that doesn't materially change the point you are making.)

...[Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushett’s
compensation claim because “cyclists must be prepared at all times for
people to behave in unexpected ways”. While describing him as “a calm
and reasonable road user”, he went on to add: “Mr Hazeldean did fall
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in
that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”

After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years
he said: “The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally
responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.”

Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to
take into account her blameworthyness.

Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy
way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well
out of this decision.

The allocation of blame contains an element for “causative potency” ,
something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in
support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of
pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and
it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the
allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with
the greatest ability to cause harm.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Preview/1024483.aspx

The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed
to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court
without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be
awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he
could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs
from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his
own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for
costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the
cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be
far less than the costs demanded).

It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair
and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be
excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take
timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend
himself.

So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?



Who cares? Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance. If only he
could be banned from the road as well.


So he can become a 'Cocky careless' pedestrian and wander into the path of a moving vehicle then blame the victim?


Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you?

We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's
good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320.
  #30  
Old June 22nd 19, 10:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,379
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:43:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you?

We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's
good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320.


Pedestrians are the most important road users, followed by equestrians and cyclists. Motorists only get to use our roads under licence and need to learn their place.

This does not allow pedestrians to behave irresponsibly such as walking into the road without looking and giving a cyclist no chance to stop.

 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USEFULL HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS datakoll Techniques 1 February 19th 13 01:12 AM
Insurance - House, Contents & Bicycles? Craig Australia 2 July 26th 05 01:44 PM
Lance bottle contents...? Jaybee Racing 8 July 13th 05 09:35 PM
CTC Cyclecover vs Contents Insurance PhilO UK 3 July 10th 05 03:23 PM
Pink Bikes (contents may cause nausea) suzyj Australia 6 September 8th 04 09:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.