Paul Dobbin Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) Dumb Car LawsRecently while on the AACA Sentimental Tour in New Hampshire in our stock 1934 Ford, we had a flat tire on one of my 16” Kelsey Hayes wheels. (Tube were the only choice 80 years ago) I took my flat to two automotive shops, Pep Boys and a local tire dealer. Both told me it was illegal to put a tube in a tire in New Hampshire, “it's the law.” They wouldn't help me. I found a sympathetic guy driving a1961 Harley Davidson and followed him to a friendly antique car guys house in Maine and we patched my tube. A couple days later I had the same tube split wide open while in Wolfsboro NH. They told me the same story about the law.I 'm happy to report that for a fee I was able to bribe a station to put my spare tube in my tire. Graft and corruption and blatant violation of the law is still possible for a price.When I told my story to the other Sentimental Tourists, they related other dumb laws enforced against us around the country. What's your story about dumb car laws? Edited September 20, 2014 by Paul Dobbin spilling (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 If you read the text of the law, as opposed to going by what someone says, I suspect that you will find that it only applies to tubeless tires. Unfortunately, I doubt any of these tire store employees have ever seen a tube-type tire and have no clue about the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vermontboy Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I would say that is correct. Interstate Tire in West Lebanon, NH advertises:"Interstate Tire since 1942 has been a Locally Owned and Operated Tire Dealer in West Lebanon NH. We offer tires, wheels, tubes and retreads for Cars, Trucks, Farm Equipt, Motorcycles and Industrial equipt. Our Services include Tire Mounting, Dynamic Balancing, Tire Repairs, Truck Retreading and Computerized Alignment. We carry Bridgestone, Firestone, Dayton, Nokian and Hercules."Best bet in a lot of cases when on the road is to try and find a small independent shop that has actual general purpose mechanics around. Yes, they are getting harder to find but at least at present there are a lot around if you ask.Another good option is heavy truck repair centers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60FlatTop Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 [quote=A couple days later I had the same tube split wide open while in Wolfsboro NH. How old is the tube from the spare?B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) My research uncovered no laws declaring it to be illegal to install a tube in a tire in the State of Florida. A local tire shop installed new Cokers and tubes on my 1938 Chevrolet with no problem. It is, however, illegal to repair a tire that has sidewall damage.Just when you thought the roadways of Florida to be clear of unreasonable laws, beware: If you attach your elephant to a parking meter in the State of Florida, said elephant is subject to the same parking fees as an automobile.In Destin, Florida, if your cat viciously chases passers-by, your cat will be declared a "bad cat", and you, the owner, will be subject to fines.Cheers,Grog Edited September 20, 2014 by R W Burgess (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JACK M Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 In Oregon it is required the a car has windshield wipers. However there is no requirement for a windshield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Walling Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 In MA. you are not required to have fenders on a pre 48 auto. However all autos and trucks require flaps to prevent water spray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 It is, however, illegal to repair a tire that has sidewall damage.Which is a pretty SMART law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I understand in California under certain snow conditions in the mountains it is mandatory to have snow chains on the rear wheels. The police will pull you over and prevent you from proceeding, unless you have chains on the rear wheels, even if you have a front wheel drive car.Maybe our California readers can tell us if this law was ever changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Maybe our California readers can tell us if this law was ever changed.A far better approach would be going directly to the Caltrans website, where it says: Front wheel drive vehicles must have traction devices on front (drive) axle.Their complete chain law fact sheet is posted here.Keep in mind that when the Toronado first came out, a lot of owners put the snow tires on the rear only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Dobbin Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 [quote name=A couple days later I had the same tube split wide open while in Wolfsboro NH. How old is the tube from the spare?BThe tire that went flat was brand new (2 months old) and so was the tube (same tube, both flats). The spare was 10 years old and I wanted newer rubber on the road than that old spare and didn't want to drive without a spare. I only used it to search for a place to get repairs (both chain and local stores) That's when I found unwillingness to do it. My intent was to get the flat fixed, not become a New Hampshire legal expert.We also had confirmation from the tour hosts and others that it was a problem in NH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ply33 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 . . . Both told me it was illegal to put a tube in a tire in New Hampshire, “it's the law.” . . .A couple days later I had the same tube split wide open while in Wolfsboro NH. They told me the same story about the law. . . New Hampshire, like many states has their vehicle code posted on the web. I found no mention of tubes or tubeless on it. All mentions of "tire" I found did not cover that. So, while I can't say they are wrong about tubes being illegal, I suspect they just didn't want to do the job.I understand in California under certain snow conditions in the mountains it is mandatory to have snow chains on the rear wheels. The police will pull you over and prevent you from proceeding, unless you have chains on the rear wheels, even if you have a front wheel drive car.Maybe our California readers can tell us if this law was ever changed.Joe Padavano beat me to it.Chain control laws in California are only dimly understood by most. I do volunteer work with the US Forest Service in the winter and have seen things I'd never thought possible regarding people, cars and snow. One of the sheriff's deputies that covered that same area once mentioned that there must be a sign at the bottom of the mountain that says "leave brains here" because so many people driving up to the snow obviously do just that. I've seen chains on the front of rear drive vehicles. I've seen chains on the rear of front drive vehicles. I've helped stranded drivers of 4x4 vehicles that did not know how to put their vehicle in four wheel drive (and did not have chains on because they had a 4x4). And most drivers of 4x4 vehicles don't seem to realize that stopping is a big issue so excessive speed it a big problem. And I fondly recall one time when our Forest Service supervisor decided the road was too icy for his normal setup of rear chains only on his 4x4 truck and was putting chains on all 4 wheels. . . a Honda driver walked over to him and asked if he needed to put chains on his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_OToole Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I was told there was a law on the books in our local town (Cobourg Ontario) allowing a driver to stop and relieve himself in the middle of the street, provided he keeps hold of the reins.This law dated back to the early 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleach Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I was told there was a law on the books in our local town (Cobourg Ontario) allowing a driver to stop and relieve himself in the middle of the street, provided he keeps hold of the reins.This law dated back to the early 19th century.I guess it would be to cold in the winter to really hold on to anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldcarfudd Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I guess it would be to cold in the winter to really hold on to anything else. The Southern Ontario Regional Group of HCCA had a week-long tour in Cobourg for brass-era cars a few years ago. I think we should have been told about this law and issued a pair of reins for our cars. We probably would have made the local paper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Roth Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Paul,Did your new tire have paper tags inside of the tire?These tags will chafe against the tube, and will cause the tube to fail in very short order.A few years ago I had three new tires with tubes cause the new tubes to fail from internal abrasion within 100 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiftyfour Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 MARTY, the paper in one of the tires in my wire wheels just did that.tube was in there 6 years. now I have to worry about the other three. capt den Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Schramm Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 New Hampshire, like many states has their vehicle code posted on the web. I found no mention of tubes or tubeless on it. All mentions of "tire" I found did not cover that. So, while I can't say they are wrong about tubes being illegal, I suspect they just didn't want to do the job.Joe Padavano beat me to it.Chain control laws in California are only dimly understood by most. I do volunteer work with the US Forest Service in the winter and have seen things I'd never thought possible regarding people, cars and snow. One of the sheriff's deputies that covered that same area once mentioned that there must be a sign at the bottom of the mountain that says "leave brains here" because so many people driving up to the snow obviously do just that. I've seen chains on the front of rear drive vehicles. I've seen chains on the rear of front drive vehicles. I've helped stranded drivers of 4x4 vehicles that did not know how to put their vehicle in four wheel drive (and did not have chains on because they had a 4x4). And most drivers of 4x4 vehicles don't seem to realize that stopping is a big issue so excessive speed it a big problem. And I fondly recall one time when our Forest Service supervisor decided the road was too icy for his normal setup of rear chains only on his 4x4 truck and was putting chains on all 4 wheels. . . a Honda driver walked over to him and asked if he needed to put chains on his car.As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Martinez Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I understand in California under certain snow conditions in the mountains it is mandatory to have snow chains on the rear wheels. The police will pull you over and prevent you from proceeding, unless you have chains on the rear wheels, even if you have a front wheel drive car.Maybe our California readers can tell us if this law was ever changed.Yes this is the law. The reason it is useful in California is because the proximity of snow covered mountains to very large populations of drivers who are inexperienced with mountainous winter conditions. You can drive from 60 degree valley temps to freezing snowy conditions in 20 minutes, I do it almost every day during the winter. Chain control check points are common in the winter on the bigger highways but if you have a 4 wheel drive they rarely make you put chains on unless the conditions are extreme. I've been forced to put my chains on maybe 3 times in 20 years and frankly I needed them. Usually only the mountain commuters like me are stupid enough to drive in these conditions.But oh Lord! look out for the flatlanders in Ski season...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Mellor NJ Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 That reminds me of Dynamometers. Years ago the State of New Jersey installed them at great expense in all the inspection stations and private garages were made to pay about $45K to have them installed. The idea was to check emissions under load. If you had front wheel drive you put the front wheels on the rollers and accelerated up to 30 mph while the probe was up your pipe. Rear wheel drive had the rear wheels on the rollers but they had a few accidents when All wheel drive cars were put on. They eventually exempted AWD cars but they hire people more for cheapness than smarts and I think they were even having accidents with FWD and RWD having the wrong wheels on the rollers. They ripped them all out after probably not even a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Green Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 The Citicar has no heat but a windshield defroster on / off switch in the dash however as per the owner’s manual there is no blower connected to it. The manual states only the switch was mandated for vehicle production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan at larescorp Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Two weeks ago my sister took her truck to a tire store chain (PM me for details). She has a 2007 Chevy Trailblazer. Anyways, she had them put new tires on. When they were removing the valve stems they cracked the tire pressure monitoring valve stem on 2 of the tires. Then they proceeded to tell her that she would "By Federal Law" have to pay them $100 each to replace them (I can get them replaced for $25 each), or she couldn't have her truck back. She asked if they could put a standard snap in rubber valve stem and they told her "No, it's against the law." Which was a lie.I had to get a copy of the law and send it to her, so she could show them that in the case that one of the tire pressure monitoring valve stems is bad that the shop can replace it with the rubber valve as a temporary fix. The only time they can't let a vehicle leave with it is if it has a brand new rim and tire package and one of the sensors were faulty. They then insisted that they wouldn't let the truck leave without replacing them. After I spoke with them about what the law specifically said, and explained to them that holding someones truck hostage claiming it's against the law to let them leave with it, when its not against the law, is extortion. It ended up coming out that they had already put the pressure monitoring valves in, and didn't want to have to change them again. I told them what they're doing is illegal, and showed them the law to back my accusations. After pointing that out they were willing to price match my cost for changing the pressure monitoring valve ($25). Needless to say I wouldn't recommend that shop to my enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Traffic laws can also be dumb. In PA a yellow painted curb, which most assume means NO PARKING, is actually meaningless without accompanying NO PARKING signs at specified intervals. I am an elected Councilman in a small PA town and we deal with such idiocy all the time. Many STOP signs in small towns are unenforceable since every sign must be OKed by PennDot and requires an expensive traffic study before they can be enforced. We just put 'em up and depend on citizens obeying them without asking questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyJetstar1 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I've never really been a fan of laws that are implemented to protect me from myself, because frankly, they feel I'm just not smart enough. Ohio's seat belt law comes to mind. I could be sitting in my giant SUV, with 12 airbags, getting a seat belt ticket....and a guy on a Harley can ride by and wave at me, sporting rainbow flip-flops and no helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 In PA ambulance attendants must use seat belts when they respond to a motorcycle accident, yet the mc operator does not need to wear a helmet. It doesn't get much more stupid than that in my opinion. In PA we call helmetless motorcycle riders organ donors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVE A Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 In PA ambulance attendants must use seat belts when they respond to a motorcycle accident, yet the mc operator does not need to wear a helmet. It doesn't get much more stupid than that in my opinion. In PA we call helmetless motorcycle riders organ donors. I have been in EMS for over 30 years. The law is about as stupid as it gets in Pa. regarding motorcycles...which I refer to as "donorcycles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dictator27 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I wonder if my fellow Canadian posters here have seen a reality program called Highway Through Hell? It mainly features the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Kamloops BC. It is 148 kilometres (90 miles) of very steep up and downhill gradients. The first starts just outside Hope and is 17 kilometres of 10 % upgrade. Truckers call it Smash Hill. There is a snowshed on a curve right at the bottom of the hill. The police and transportation people stop everyone in the snowshed and check for snow tires and chains. New snow tires on cars are ok, worn ones not so much. Truckers must put their chains on before they go any farther. Not having chains is a $500 fine and a $600 tow, because that is a far as they go under their own power. Both fines are payable in cash only, on the spot. They get the message. Just north of the town of Merrit there is another 10% upgrade that is 19 kilometres long. Truckers don't like the Coq, but many of them are doing just in time shipping and travel time on the Coq is shorter than both the Fraser Canyon (Trans Canada Highway) or the Hope Princeton, so they have to use it. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60FlatTop Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Us flatlanders on the Great Lakes don't have much for hills to climb. There is one about 30 miles to the south and you can see the whole 30 miles back when you get to the top!A little lake effect snow, maybe next week, always brings to mind the cheerful Yoopers: Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amphicar BUYER Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I have been in EMS for over 30 years. The law is about as stupid as it gets in Pa. regarding motorcycles...which I refer to as "donorcycles"People get hurt and die in car/bicycle/truck/airplane wrecks every minute of every day and yet they keep driving their vehicles but never complaining about how dangerous they really are. To single out motorcycles as only being dangerous is an ignorant comment most often spoken by non-riders. The stats certainly don't support this myopic comment.Chain laws here is Colo are to protect the idiots who think a 4wd will never slide off the road only to find out they do. This costs emergency services to go rescue them and keep traffic flowing for the rest of us.They CAN NOT enforce a law that was enacted after your car was built. They can't make you add seatbelts, 3rd brake lights etc. to a car that did not require them when new. You are also foolish to install tubeless tires on a tube type wheel. Yes they may hold air, but the difference is in the bead. The bead for a tubeless wheel is designed to lock the tire onto the rim. If you install a tubeless tire on a tube type rim you take a chance on rolling the tire off the rim in a turn. DANGEROUS and foolish. I don't want to hear the idiotic comments "nothing has happed so far so it must be safe" Because it hasn't happen to you yet does NOT preclude it from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 People get hurt and die in car/bicycle/truck/airplane wrecks every minute of every day and yet they keep driving their vehicles but never complaining about how dangerous they really are. To single out motorcycles as only being dangerous is an ignorant comment most often spoken by non-riders. The stats certainly don't support this myopic comment.HEAR HEAR!!! While I understand that motorcycles are not for everyone, I do not understand the abject animosity that some people feel towards them. I have been riding for over 50 years and still have all of my organs. Yes, I split lanes on the freeway, So what? Does that, somehow ruin your day? Yes, my bike is loud. So what? I don't live next door to you. I pay registration, license fees, road tax on gasoline and insurance. I deserve to be on the same roads as everyone else. I wear a helmet. I have health insurance, so your precious "tax dollars" won't be spent keeping me on life support. Lighten up on the bikers. We're having just as much fun, maybe more, than you are in your antique. For me, I cannot understand the mindset of people who spend hours, glued to the TV, watching big, dumb guys smashing into one another over an elliptical ball and then screaming, "We won, we won!!!" You didn't win, they did. You watched and ate potato chips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyJetstar1 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I probably should have just kept my seat belt vs. helmet law opinion to myself. My intention wasn't to slam motorcycle riders, but to just point out that "they" need to protect myself from "me" in a 5000 lb. SUV, but not on a motorcycle. I've ridden for many years, but no longer do. The area I am in is just to dangerous in my opinion, to risk. My wife's friend was just killed on the back of a bike a month ago, at the hands of a careless hit and run pick-up truck driver. In reality, dumb laws are for dumb people, of which there is an alarming amount of. Take care and be safe!Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 For me, I cannot understand the mindset of people who spend hours, glued to the TV, watching big, dumb guys smashing into one another over an elliptical ball and then screaming, "We won, we won!!!" You didn't win, they did. You watched and ate potato chipsWhile I understand that football is not for everyone, I do not understand the abject animosity that some people feel towards the game. Football, like motorcycling, is now under the gun of the politically-correct, no tolerance for injuries (no tolerance for life's real lessons) folks who would like to ban the sport along with motorcycling and all other risk-taking sports/hobbies. Although I don't ride, most of my friends are bikers. Some wear helmets and some do not. I think that it is wise to wear a helmet when riding, but I also understand the feeling of freedom in not wearing one. Adults should be free to make unwise or dangerous decisions if such decisions do not put others at risk. Over the years, I've had many friends who were EMTs and understand their frustration at watching a life fade away that may have been saved by the wearing of a helmet. Having spent 28 years as a first responder of another sort, I was usually not the first on the scene, but I've observed and/or assisted EMTs in their efforts and have a great deal of respect for what they do. The ones I was privileged to work with were the best: highly motivated and highly skilled.Just sayin',Grog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60FlatTop Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I can't imagine not having a spare bilge pump in some cars. Imagine being in the middle of a lake and having the bilge pump fail!Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlLaFong Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 But you must live near someone and someone with a loud motorcycle lives near me. Loud exhaust and arrogant attitudes to the rest of the world IS what puts people off about motorcyclist to the point that I am almost ashamed to admit that I have two motorcycles.I do live near people. We have a large property (2 1/2 acres), so the sound of my bike starting up is not bothering the guy next door with the big block 55 Chevy with a loud exhaust or his yapping dog. Nor does it bother the guy on the other side with his stock car and his braying jackasses. I do not have an arrogant attitude towards anyone regarding my bike nor do I feel entitled. For the record, it has the factory, stock exhaust and is registered and ridden in California. It is legal and I haven't had a ticket or been pulled over in close to 30 years. I'm just saying that if my bike, or anyone else's bike bothers you, the problem might be yours, because I'm doing everything right, as far as I am able. I had a few occasions, when I was driving my Model T where people got stuck behind me and had to wait, sometimes an agonizing 30 to 60 seconds, before they could pass me. I was rewarded with a bird flip. You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself (Thanks, Rick) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan at larescorp Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 My bike is loud because I got sick of idiots trying to change lanes into me every time I get on the freeway. It has nothing to do with attitude. It's a safety issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_padavano Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Since this thread has devolved into a seat-belt-law-vs.-helmet-law tirade, I'll add some thoughts before all these posts get deleted...First, I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. Adults should be able to make their own choices ASSUMING they accept the responsibility for their actions. I'll come back to this.Second, I'm sure the fact that PA has a seatbelt law and not a helmet law has far more to do with the number of people who drive cars vs. those who ride bikes, and the resulting number of people exposed to injury from each. We can debate the merits of each, but it APPEARS that a politician actually had the brains to evaluate cost vs. benefit of a law. Again, this is NOT an argument for or against helmets or seatbelts, simply an argument that it would be nice if our lawmakers did a cost/benefit trade before simply implementing yet another law.My opinion of people who don't wear belts or helmets is that this is simply evolution in action. Let nature take it's course.Now, back to the point of accepting responsibility for one's actions. I would have no problem with an adult making his or her own decision on whether or not to wear belts or helmet IF the consequence of that decision didn't affect the money in my pocket in the form of higher insurance premiums. At least the cost of health and life insurance takes into account one's personal choices for high-risk activities like smoking. I give this post about half an hour before it's deleted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capngrog Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 My opinion of people who don't wear belts or helmets is that this is simply evolution in action. Let nature take it's course.Joe, I agree almost totally with your post and don't understand why anyone would want to delete it. Well said.I would say that a debate about helmet and seatbelt laws fits with the Original Poster's intent for this thread. While I can understand why a biker may not want to wear a helmet, for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would get into a motor vehicle without buckling up. Do I think seat belt laws are dumb? Eerrrr, well not really, but sorta, kinda; however, it irritates me that buckling up has become yet another governmental mandate. Seatbelt/child seat laws for minors, on the other hand, are right on the money.Just sayin',Grog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 PA had a helmet law for many years until mc organizations lobbied for and eventually got the current no helmet law passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 It's insurance companies that do the cost/benefit analysis. It's much cheaper to pay a one time death benefit than it is to keep a brain damaged person on life support for years and years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
critterpainter Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I won't call this a dumb law, but it can be confusing. In Calif a historical vehicle does NOT need a brake light if it did not come with one. However EVERY vehicle operated on the road Must have an outside rear view mirror. The rear view mirror law was put into effect in 1963. My 14T does not have a brake light but it does sport a period correct outside rear view mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now