News Wire: Canada recommends mandatory inward-facing cameras on locomotives

4755 views
98 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
Moderator
  • Member since
    January, 2011
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 548 posts
Posted by Brian Schmidt on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:04 PM

Transport minister files amendment to Railway Safety Act

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/05/17-canada-inward-camera

Brian Schmidt, Assistant Editor Trains magazine

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,739 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:39 PM

Nothing more than rope used to hang those who are deemed guilty by management.

Norm


  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:53 PM

According to the article only DOT people may view the recordings. No company managers. 

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,206 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:20 PM

Ulrich
According to the article only DOT people may view the recordings. No company managers.

and I have a bridge for sale

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    October, 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,163 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:21 PM

From the linked article: 

"Railroads also could randomly sample the data to identify safety issues, to determine the cause of non-reportable accidents, and to address safety threats. 

"Earlier this year, CP launched an awareness campaign that highlights the safety benefits of the proactive use of inward-facing cameras. CP uses inward-facing cameras in 50 of its locomotives in the U.S. The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled."

- PDN. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October, 2001
  • From: US
  • 513 posts
Posted by petitnj on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:26 PM

The largest fraction of train accidents/deaths are due to tresspassers about which the engineer can do nothing. This is attempting to solve a very small fraction of the accidents with technology that will tell them nothing more than -- yes the crew fell asleep. Won't affect the accident rate significantly.

 

  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 401 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:48 PM

There is a trend in the OTR industry for these also.  Where I work we refuse to mount them and our drivers love that we respect them as human beings.  There is another carrier that had a sizeable presence in my town at one point that runs Red Trucks out of WI and they have inward mounted cameras on their fleet.  We started getting their drivers based out of our area when the cameras were installed.  Why well it seemed their saftey Manger was not only watching their driving but critizing them on their paychecks and fining them on what they did.  

 

By having inward facing cameras on Locomotives the railroads are opening up another line of evidence that some lawyer can use against them in a case.  Why because they can and will supenoa that stuff faster than you can blink.  If that camera loop shows the engineer or conductor was distracted when his or her client was hit the jury is going to side with the lawyer and his client not the railroad at all.  Regardless of what happened all a jury is going to see is a crew not paying attention to what happened.  

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:31 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr
The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled."

Lord, I hate the 'studies have shown' business. 

Anone know the actual references or papers involved here?   I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras.

I repeat that the only form of inward-facing camera that is 'fair' is one that is administered the same as the time rules: the employee is responsible for his or her own camera, needs to demonstrate periodically (e.g. weekly) that it is in good order and working properly, and can't tamper with its inner workings.  Only when required by law can the data recorded by the device be accessed, and then only with strict permissions - no fishing expeditions, no looking for patterns, no clever extraction for 'statistics' that allows tracing of the data to particular sources.

  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:56 AM

The camera can also exonerate the crew of any wrongdoing. It cuts both ways.. Nobody is actually going to watch this intensely boring footage unless something goes wrong and there's an accident. In such case the camera may become your best friend. 

  • Member since
    January, 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,012 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:26 AM

Ulrich

The camera can also exonerate the crew of any wrongdoing. It cuts both ways.. Nobody is actually going to watch this intensely boring footage unless something goes wrong and there's an accident. In such case the camera may become your best friend. 

 

 

This is the funniest thing I have seen all week.

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    January, 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 5,767 posts
Posted by zardoz on Thursday, May 18, 2017 11:52 AM
Just hang your coat over the lens. These cameras will enhance safety as efficiently as those stupid reflector vests everyone is forced to wear.
  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:05 PM

I don't think obstructing the camera will be permitted.

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:20 PM

Ulrich
Nobody is actually going to watch this intensely boring footage unless something goes wrong and there's an accident.

That would be nice, except there are people, in companies and insurance and government agencies, who are likely paid to scan through it, using fast-forward as necessary, looking as hard as they can for something they can call a violation.  To be hung on the individual, or on the company, or ideally (for some government agencies) everyone involved.

Likewise after an accident you'd better understand that the 'review' will not be limited to the records around the accident, particularly if a lawsuit will be involved.  It goes without saying that having the inward-facing cameras 'loop' like older event recorders, with no more than about a half-hour 'window', would be an advantage ... but modern cameras are given immense cheap storage, and are probably 'streamed' to boot -- the latter representing another archive of useful fishing to be undertaken.

I would also note that obstruction with a coat is likely covered in the definition of 'tampering', just as putting a sock over an airline lav smoke detector is -- and the penalties for that may well be worse than if you actually did something wrong while they could 'see' you.

  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:40 PM

I'm not really sold on these inward facing cameras either.. but I think they're going to be implemented anyway. May as well make the most of it.. as stated earlier, they may also serve to exonerate you from any wrong doing. The downside of course is the privacy issue.. if you yawn or fidget before an accident, are you immediately implicated as having been unfit for duty? On the one hand your employer has the right to supervise you. And on the other, that right of supervision carried too far can undermine safety and productivity through increased anxiety in the workplace. Personally I wouldn't go with the cameras.. if it were up to me. At least not yet. There is something to be said for trusting the people you hire to do their jobs properly with minimal supervision. 

 

  • Member since
    January, 2007
  • 181 posts
Posted by azrail on Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:54 PM

What about a fake mustache?

  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Thursday, May 18, 2017 3:03 PM

azrail

What about a fake mustache?

 

 

Nope, I wouldn't make that mandatory either.. 

  • Member since
    April, 2016
  • 401 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Thursday, May 18, 2017 3:47 PM

There are carriers in the OTR industry that have them and a lot more that refuse to mount them.  Those that do have them have some of the highest turnover rates.  Why the drivers do not like the feeling of big brother watching them all the time.  Millis Transfer out of Black River Falls WI is one of the fleets that does have a inward facing camera.  The drivers that have left there to come to work for my carrier have reported that they have received satalite messages that are from their saftey manager saying at such and such time you where seen with only one hand on the wheel while you where doing such and such with your other hand.  One driver that we hired recently was a 10 year accident free driver of their's fired by them for drinking a bottle of water going down the road.  He was deemed a high risk driver by their saftey manager.  

 

So the BULL that no one will look at the camera footage except for in an accident.  Yeah right trainmasters and others in mangement will use it as a tool to punish anyone they want to get rid of regardless of what the contract states.  This driver I am talking about he brought the agreement Millis makes all their drivers sign about the cameras it states can only be looked at as the result of an accident.  Then why was he fired for drinking a bottle of water going down the road no accident at all.  

  • Member since
    March, 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 3,853 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:03 PM

I don't know about how the Canadians will set up their cameras.  In the US, It's my understanding that all carriers installing inward facing cameras are only using them for recording images.  No one is currently using them in "real time" viewing although most systems are capable of such operation.  They also are not recording in-cab conversation although I believe they are capable of that.  Yet.

It's my understanding that engines now being equipped with cameras are also being fitted with cell phone detectors.  When the detector senses phone usage of any kind, it marks the recording (for locating the precise time period for review) and sends a notification to a manager.  The recordings are reviewed not only because of accidents or incidents (such as possible phone use) but also randomly.  Reviews due to an accident/incident aren't limited to that particular action.  They can and do review the entire tape.  

Jeff    

  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,433 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:35 PM

But at the end of the day, so long as you're doing your job you're going to be ok. If you're not using your cell phone the cell phone detector isn't going to cause you any problems. Likewise with the camera.. if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing then there's really nothing more than the annoyance of having a camera on you at all times. Personally I wouldn't want a camera on me... but if it had to be I'd simply go about my business as best as possible and try to forget about it. 

  • Member since
    June, 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 5,832 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:11 PM

petitnj

The largest fraction of train accidents/deaths are due to tresspassers about which the engineer can do nothing. This is attempting to solve a very small fraction of the accidents with technology that will tell them nothing more than -- yes the crew fell asleep. Won't affect the accident rate significantly.

 

 

    Having driven OTR for over 20 years ( about 99 %) as a single driver... A Log Book was our 'ruler'.      Then DOTs (and  Insurance Carriers) found out about being able to use the engine cycle computers to record 'events' [LOGS OF STOPS,STARTS,ENGINE RPMS and The ability to time events,etc.] as part of their'cases' evidence.      So in the event of a bad accident, or any 'event' that might wind up with a court action of any kind; They ( Enforcement types) sieze the drivers's log book(s)(?), and pull the engine computer as evidence to be examined. 

 As to the inward facing cameras... Seems to be ( as Balt ACD has noted on other Threads here)  A Solution in search of a Problem !  Anyone that thinks that they are only for "accident investigations" is absolutely kidding themselves... As the camera footage gets archived, 'the curious' will get it out and just look at it..."Just being curious"...ROFL....Whistling  

At some point that footage will become part of an employees review process, and punitive responses of some disgruntled supervisor type...

Accident (Event) investigation ?   it is just the trunk of that elephant, sticking its nose under the tent.    Like Body Camers an cops... Cameras are a 'salesman's delight', and are just an apeasement to make some lawyer's life a little easier while building a case.My 2 Cents

Sam

 

 


 

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,206 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM

jeffhergert
I don't know about how the Canadians will set up their cameras.  In the US, It's my understanding that all carriers installing inward facing cameras are only using them for recording images.  No one is currently using them in "real time" viewing although most systems are capable of such operation.  They also are not recording in-cab conversation although I believe they are capable of that.  Yet.

It's my understanding that engines now being equipped with cameras are also being fitted with cell phone detectors.  When the detector senses phone usage of any kind, it marks the recording (for locating the precise time period for review) and sends a notification to a manager.  The recordings are reviewed not only because of accidents or incidents (such as possible phone use) but also randomly.  Reviews due to an accident/incident aren't limited to that particular action.  They can and do review the entire tape.  

Jeff   

I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data.  Crew was operating on a former Main track in yard limits.  As a Main track its speed was 25 MPH and had been for decades, by having it designated in Yard Limits its maximum speed became Restricted Speed (not to exceed 15 MPH etc.).  Download indicated the crew was operating at 24 MPH.  Note both members of the crew had in excees of 30 years service in this territory.

In the case of downloads and cameras, Miranda Rights have no application - you don't have to say anything to be convicted in the 'Railroad Justice System'.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    October, 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,163 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:51 PM

RME
 

Paul_D_North_Jr

The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled." 
 

Anone know the actual references or papers involved here?   I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras. . . . 

I should have made it clear that I was just quoting from the linked article for everyone's convenient reference, not endorsing or supporting that statement.  

I share RME's skepticism about the purported studies - the correlation may be just post hoc ergo promter hoc *  The only causation I can envision is that because the crews then know they're being recorded, they take extra pains to do everything by the book and make it look good, which they might not do if they knew the likelihood of being seen or caught was vanishingly small.  That's speculative at best, and I don't know how it could be rigorously measured and quantified without being subject to the Observer Effect** and/ or observer bias (to a pre-determined result). 

*See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc , especially the part about the rooster. 

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) 

- PDN. 

P.S. - As to the disdain for 'studies', listen to Paula Poundstone 'dis' them on almost any espisode of NPR's news quiz show, "Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me".  Link to "A compilation of Paula Poundstones' issues regarding studies mentioned on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.", about 6:02 long:  

https://soundcloud.com/tspoonproductions/paula-poundstone-research-rantings 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,206 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:02 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
RME

Paul_D_North_Jr

The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled." 
 

Anone know the actual references or papers involved here?   I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras. . . .

I should have made it clear that I was just quoting from the linked article for everyone's convenient reference, not endorsing or supporting that statement.  

I share RME's skepticism about the purported studies - the correlation may be just post hoc ergo promter hoc *  The only causation I can envision is that because the crews then know they're being recorded, they take extra pains to do everything by the book and make it look good, which they might not do if they knew the likelihood of being seen or caught was vanishingly small.  That's speculative at best, and I don't know how it could be rigorously measured and quantified without being subject to the Observer Effect** and/ or observer bias (to a pre-determined result). 

*See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc , especially the part about the rooster. 

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) 

- PDN. 

P.S. - As to the disdain for 'studies', listen to Paula Poundstone 'dis' them on almost any espisode of NPR's news quiz show, "Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me".

Over time one's awareness of the 'eye in the sky' diminishes and actions will return to their former 'normal'.  A short term study will show 'improvemet'; a longer term study won't.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 17,164 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:43 PM

BaltACD
I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data. 

AFAIK, checking the "tape" is a perfectly legal efficiency test - just like using a radar gun, only potentially days afterward.  

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    March, 2013
  • 581 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:12 PM

tree68
BaltACD
I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data. 

AFAIK, checking the "tape" is a perfectly legal efficiency test - just like using a radar gun, only potentially days afterward.  

Regardless of the type of test, this is still an example of 2 people losing a month's pay for a misunderstanding with no malicious intent.

To put it in perspective for non-railroaders, this is equivalent to a motorist being fined several thousand dollars for doing the old speed limit of 70 MPH on a stretch of highway where the speed limit was recently lowered to 50.  Seem fair?

Expect more of this with the cameras.  And conveniently those who are unpopular with management (union reps, health & safety reps, outspoken people who stand up for themselves) will be the most monitored. 

In Canada my Union (TCRC) had already agreed not to fight the installation of inward facing cameras as long as there would be no Company access to the footage, only the TSB would be allowed to access it, and they would only be allowed to access it after an accident.  The TSB was fine with these restrictions, but it seems the Company lobbyists have gotten to the politicians once again.

I am unsure of the Union's plans for future action on this front, but in conversation with our national legislative director several years ago (when the issue was first being raised) he indicated that we would fight Company access in the courts until we were down to our last red cent.  I sincerely hope that happens.

And while I usually try to stay away from politics on this forum at least I can sleep at night knowing that I did not vote for a party that supports this ridiculousness.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Rhododendron, OR
  • 1,439 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Friday, May 19, 2017 12:03 AM

Unfortunately ironic, timing of this for me, I just got the word this morning that my carrier is installing inward looking cameras in our tractors. Needless to say our small crew at the plant I work out of was not impressed, neither were the crew at the other plant in the next state when they recently got the word.

 And Yep, we were given the same Bridge sales pitch, that it would only be reviewed by a "Third Party" and information would only be shared with the company if there was "DEEMED A NEED" . I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too. Unfortunately, quitting would be the only way to do anything about it, and I fear that it is just a matter of time before the goverment takes the fall as the "Bad Guy" and makes them mandatory for everyone, then I quit, what once was a Good Job and am stuck with the damned things anyway.

 I seriously question the threat of driverless trucks during the next 15 years or so left in my career, but I doubt that it will even take 5 years for the cameras to be mandated.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    September, 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,035 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, May 19, 2017 7:03 AM

Just a thought:

A camera and control data recorder that only preserves the last hour.  It could be programed to preserve the data in the event of a collision or emergency brake application, but otherwise would be overwritten in an hour and therefor not available for anyone to review.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 17,164 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, May 19, 2017 7:50 AM

SD70M-2Dude
Regardless of the type of test, this is still an example of 2 people losing a month's pay for a misunderstanding with no malicious intent.

Wholeheartedly agree.  It's easy to abuse something like that.

SD70M-2Dude
And conveniently those who are unpopular with management (union reps, health & safety reps, outspoken people who stand up for themselves) will be the most monitored. 

Not railroad, but certainly a case in point:  A friend who drives semi's for a living discovered that through some SNAFU, he didn't have a current CDL.  He had to quit driving until the problem was dealt with, but once it was, he was back on the road, with the same employer.

Another fellow, working for a municipality, found himself in a similar situation.  They let him go.  While I don't know the facts in that case, it could be interpreted that in the first case, they valued the employee and worked with him to resolve the issue; and in the second, they merely now had a reason to let him go...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    June, 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 5,832 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, May 19, 2017 8:12 AM

challenger3980

Unfortunately ironic, timing of this for me, I just got the word this morning that my carrier is installing inward looking cameras in our tractors. Needless to say our small crew at the plant I work out of was not impressed, neither were the crew at the other plant in the next state when they recently got the word.

 And Yep, we were given the same Bridge sales pitch, that it would only be reviewed by a "Third Party" and information would only be shared with the company if there was "DEEMED A NEED" . I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too. Unfortunately, quitting would be the only way to do anything about it, and I fear that it is just a matter of time before the goverment takes the fall as the "Bad Guy" and makes them mandatory for everyone, then I quit, what once was a Good Job and am stuck with the damned things anyway.

 "I seriously question the threat of driverless trucks during the next 15 years or so left in my career, but I doubt that it will even take 5 years for the cameras to be mandated."

Doug

 

Doug (Challenger3980); Could not agree more with your positions...I feel pretty strongly, that even the best intentions, in the case of Inward cameras, it will eventually lead to punitive measures against the subject the camera is aimed at. And that is not only just OTR Drivers and others, but railroad engine crews and any others who might be faced with on the job camera recording, as well.  it will be a process of escalation of the presence of these devices. IMHO. Sigh 

 [Previously posted!]  "...Having driven OTR for over 20 years ( about 99 %) as a single driver... A Log Book was our 'ruler'.      Then DOTs (and  Insurance Carriers) found out about being able to use the engine cycle computers to record 'events' [LOGS OF STOPS,STARTS,ENGINE RPMS and The ability to time events,etc.] as part of their'cases' evidence.      So in the event of a bad accident, or any 'event' that might wind up with a court action of any kind; They ( Enforcement types) sieze the drivers's log book(s)(?), and pull the engine computer as evidence to be examined. 

 As to the inward facing cameras... Seems to be ( as Balt ACD has noted on other Threads here)  A Solution in search of a Problem !  Anyone that thinks that they are only for "accident investigations" is absolutely kidding themselves... As the camera footage gets archived, 'the curious' will get it out and just look at it..."Just being curious"...ROFL....Whistling  

At some point that footage will become part of an employees review process, and punitive responses of some disgruntled supervisor type..."

Accident (Event) investigation ?   it is just the trunk of that elephant, sticking its nose under the tent.    Like Body Camers an cops... Cameras are a 'salesman's delight', and are just an apeasement to make some lawyer's life a little easier while building a case.My 2 Cents

Sam

 

 


 

  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 20,820 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, May 19, 2017 1:32 PM

RME

 

 
...

 

That would be nice, except there are people, in companies and insurance and government agencies, who are likely paid to scan through it, using fast-forward as necessary, looking as hard as they can for something they can call a violation.  To be hung on the individual, or on the company, or ideally (for some government agencies) everyone involved.

...

 

I can't see it.  Such people would be earning more than minimum wage, and you'd need dozens of them on a shift most days a week to scan the recordings.  I could see error rates in the 40-60% range due to the nature of that type of work.  Ever hear of highway hypnosis?  Now imagine yourself sitting at a screen for eight hours, with a couple of breaks, trying to watch for that one infraction passing ephemerally through the raster, but 99.9999% of the time only seeing slight jerky movements of an engineer seated at his station.  Mostly eye movement.

Instead, this is the widening wedge toward eliminating the human entirely where possible, and the sooner the better.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Trains free email newsletter
NEWS » PHOTOS » VIDEOS » HOT TOPICS & MORE
GET OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Connect with us
ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

Search the Community