• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    New Study Reports Many New Technologies Aren't Being Used


    • With All Technology Being Added to Cars, You Would Think Owners Would Be Using It... Not So.


    Automakers are leveraging new technologies such as automatic parking systems, concierge services, and mobile internet to bring people into showrooms. But a new study done by J.D. Power reveals that a number of owners aren't using it.

     

    J.D. Power published today the 2015 Driver Interactive Vehicle Experience Report, a new study which looks at 33 tech features in vehicles and ask owners if they have ever used them. According to the report, at least 20 percent of owners have never used 16 out of the 33 features (about 48.4 percent).

     

    The top five features that owners said they never use includes,

    • In-Vehicle Concierge Services - 43%
    • Mobile Routers - 38%
    • Automatic Parking Systems - 35%
    • Heads-Up Display - 33%
    • Built-In Apps - 32%


    So why do owners not use these features? A key part comes down to dealers not explaining the features, which in turn causes an increase of an owner not using it. Also, the report says that if a feature isn't activated when a vehicle is delivered, it sometimes mean an owner doesn't know it exists.

     

    “The first 30 days are critical. That first-time experience with the technology is the make-it-or-break-it stage. Automakers need to get it right the first time, or owners will simply use their own mobile device instead of the in-vehicle technology,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), J.D. Power

     

    Press Release is on Page 2


     

    Automakers Spending Billions on Technologies That Many Consumers Don’t Use

    • Built-in Connectivity among Least Used Technologies, Creating Lost Value


    WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 25 August 2015 — Automakers are investing billions of dollars to put technologies in their cars and light trucks that are not being used by many of the owners of those vehicles, according to the J.D. Power 2015 Driver Interactive Vehicle Experience (DrIVE) Report.SM
    The 2015 DrIVE Report measures driver experiences with in-vehicle technology features during the first 90 days of ownership.
    The report finds that at least 20 percent of new-vehicle owners have never used 16 of the 33 technology features measured. The five features owners most commonly report that they “never use” are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); head-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%).
    There are 14 technology features that 20 percent or more of owners do not want in their next vehicle, including Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. Among Gen Y[1], the number of features unwanted by at least 20 percent of owners increases to 23, specifically technologies related to entertainment and connectivity systems.
    “In many cases, owners simply prefer to use their smartphone or tablet because it meets their needs; they’re familiar with the device and it’s accurate,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power. “In-vehicle connectivity technology that’s not used results in millions of dollars of lost value for both consumers and the manufacturers.”
    Among all owners, the most frequently cited reasons for not wanting a specific technology feature in their next vehicle are “did not find it useful” in their current vehicle and the technology “came as part of a package on my current vehicle and I did not want it.”
    In addition, owners who say their dealer did not explain the feature have a higher likelihood of never using the technology. Furthermore, features that are not activated when the vehicle is delivered often result in the owner not even knowing they have the technology in their new vehicle.
    Kolodge noted that the technologies owners most often want are those that enhance the driving experience and safety, which are only available as a built-in feature rather than via an external device. In-vehicle technologies that most owners do want include vehicle health diagnostics, blind-spot warning and detection, and adaptive cruise control.
    “The first 30 days are critical. That first-time experience with the technology is the make-it-or-break-it stage,” said Kolodge. “Automakers need to get it right the first time, or owners will simply use their own mobile device instead of the in-vehicle technology.”
    Because the first few weeks of ownership are so critical, dealerships play the most important role in helping owners get off to a good start with the technology in their vehicle, Kolodge noted.
    “While dealers are expected to play a key role in explaining the technology to consumers, the onus should be on automakers to design the technology to be intuitive for consumers,” said Kolodge. “Automakers also need to explain the technology to dealership staff and train them on how to demonstrate it to owners.”
    Safety and Repair Costs
    Use of in-vehicle technologies has implications beyond the auto industry. For example, the insurance industry is closely tracking automotive technology for safety and financial purposes. Insurers are concerned that difficult-to-use technology may distract drivers and cause an accident. Using smartphones instead of in-vehicle technology also creates safety issues. Additionally, in-vehicle technology can significantly increase claims costs for vehicles damaged in an accident.
    “While some technologies, such as lane-departure warning, are making vehicles safer, the insurance industry is very concerned about the driver-distraction hazards caused by some of the other technologies,” said Chip Lackey, senior director of the insurance practice at J.D. Power. “In addition, technology drives up the repair and replacement costs. A slight bumper scrape that would normally cost a few hundred dollars to repair can catapult a claim into thousands of dollars when a park assist camera or other sensors are damaged.”
    The 2015 Driver Interactive Vehicle Experience (DrIVE) Report is based on responses from more than 4,200 vehicle owners and lessees after 90 days of ownership. The report was fielded in April through June 2015.

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    I think a couple of those items aren't used because they're typically unenjoyable to operate. Car apps either lag, or their development significantly lags behind mobile platform peers. 

     

    Unless I'm mistaken, those mobile car routers require a subscription to use, and nearly every mobile phone has hotspot functionality. Why would anyone pay extra per month for a couple gigabytes of data that's only available in a vehicle, when they could just tack it on to an existing phone plan?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would agree with BUZZ, many of the new technologies are not really needed in cars and if they think by having them they will snag the young college level to late 20's crowd they are WRONG, as most are too in debt to afford a car.

     

    Anyone who has driven a HUD auto loves it and Cadillac has an amazing one in how you can customize it. This is as the story says, FAILURE of the Dealership more than the end user not using it or wanting it.

     

    The biggest final impression is the delivery by the sales person of the auto to the customer. This is where you win or lose long term customers. Dealers need to step up and deliver.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think a couple of those items aren't used because they're typically unenjoyable to operate. Car apps either lag, or their development significantly lags behind mobile platform peers. 

     

    Unless I'm mistaken, those mobile car routers require a subscription to use, and nearly every mobile phone has hotspot functionality. Why would anyone pay extra per month for a couple gigabytes of data that's only available in a vehicle, when they could just tack it on to an existing phone plan?

     

    They do. I know off the top of my head that OnStar 4G LTE costs $5.00 per month for 500 MB and climbs from there.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They do. I know off the top of my head that OnStar 4G LTE costs $5.00 per month for 500 MB and climbs from there.

    Yeah, while the pricing doesn't appear too terrible, it's strange that someone would choose to allot data strictly to their vehicle, instead of just adding it to their existing plan and using it wherever their phone goes. 

     

    I suppose if an automaker incorporated a WiFi Extender which boosted a smartphone's data signal throughout a larger area, that'd be a neat feature, worthwhile for people camping or events/festivals.  

     

    I would agree with BUZZ, many of the new technologies are not really needed in cars and if they think by having them they will snag the young college level to late 20's crowd they are WRONG, as most are too in debt to afford a car.

     

    That's a little presumptuous. It really has nothing to do with debt... It has more to do with the fact that a smartphone with a ten dollar mount from Amazon has more capability and slicker operation than an automaker's optional system boasting just one laggy music streaming option. 

     

    We want car tech. We just want modern tech instead of antique hardware, and half-baked Java apps written by interns.

    3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have realized I dont want car tech.  Other than certain safety features and nanny stuff, such as ABS brakes and traction control...all other stuff could go to HELL!!!

     

    Ill only keep a USB port or two...that is it!!!

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think a couple of those items aren't used because they're typically unenjoyable to operate. Car apps either lag, or their development significantly lags behind mobile platform peers. 

     

    Unless I'm mistaken, those mobile car routers require a subscription to use, and nearly every mobile phone has hotspot functionality. Why would anyone pay extra per month for a couple gigabytes of data that's only available in a vehicle, when they could just tack it on to an existing phone plan?

    That is exactly what I think of when I see those Chevy commercials. I was sitting watching tv with my dad the other week and we started talking about that and how it doesn't make sense for exactly the reason you brought up. Now if it were to be free to the original buyer and only the second, third, etc owners had to pay that would be another story and a great way to get people to buy your stuff new as well as opposed to people like me waiting two-four years and saving 15k off the original sticker.

    • 200 megabytes (enough to stream about six hours of music or use the Internet for 13 hours): $5 for OnStar subscribers; $10 for non-subscribers.

    • 1 GB: $15 for subscribers; $20 for non-subscribers.

    • 3 GB: $30 for subscribers and non-subscribers.

    • 5 GB: $50 for subscribers and non-subscribers

     

    GM also will offer one-time purchases of $5 a day (for subscribers) and $10 (non-subscribers) for 250 MB of use and $150 (subscribers) and $200 (non-subscribers) for a month of up to 10 GB.

     

    http://www.autonews.com/article/20140512/OEM06/140519987/gm-says-new-4g-lte-services-will-cost-$5-to-$50-a-month

    Edited by ccap41
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.
    • By William Maley
      Back in June, we learned that Skoda (a Czech brand under the Volkswagen group) was investigating possibly entering new markets. One of those new markets was North America, a place where 20 percent of global car sales take place. At the time our original report, Skoda hasn't set a timeframe for a decision. Also as we noted, Skoda would need to get more crossovers and SUVs ready if they want to try and make inroads in the U.S.
       
      Speaking of SUVs and the U.S., a recent article done by Autocar piqued our interest. Skoda CEO Bernhard Maier said if they were to launch the brand in the U.S. in the near future, they would have their upcoming seven-seat Kodiaq leading the charge.
       
      “If we do decide to compete in the US, we will have one chance to make a good first impression. We feel that if we were there now, the Kodiaq would be a home-run car,” said Maier.
       
      Maier did stress that the U.S. isn't on Skoda's immediate radar. At the moment, the brand is looking closely at Iran, Singapore, and South Korea as possible new markets. But Maier isn't saying the U.S. isn't on their radar at all.
       
      “America is the one that we don't currently compete in with the biggest potential.”
       
      Skoda appears to have taken a page out of PSA Peugeot Citroën's playbook. Autocar says the automaker has begun a feasibility study as to whether or not it makes sense to enter the U.S.
       
      Source: Autocar
    • By William Maley
      The good news is that consumers are visiting the gas station less. The bad news is that consumers are spending more at the pump. Wait, those two sentences contradict each other. Which one is true? According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), both of these sentences are correct.
       
      Let us explain. As new fuel economy and emission regulations come into effect, automakers are trying to figure out ways to make that gallon of gas go farther. One method that a number of automakers are using is turbochargers. They allow automakers to use smaller displacement engines to improve fuel economy and retain the power of larger engines. The EIA says the market share of turbo engines has climbed from 3.3 percent in 2009 to 17.6 percent in 2014.
       
      But the problem is that many turbo engines require premium fuel to operate at their full potential, which costs more than regular and midgrade fuel. Yes, you can fill them with regular and not have the issue of knock - premature fuel detonation due to increased cylinder pressure. But you lose some of the power that the turbo is providing.
       
      The EIA says that only 12.5 percent of vehicles recommended premium fuel in 2010. This increased to 14.2 percent in 2013.
       
      With turbo engines projected to be in 83.3 percent of new vehicles by 2025, expect to pay more at the pump despite going there less.
       
      Source: Energy Information Administration
    • By William Maley
      With the rise of services of car and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft, a number of people have said this would begin the downfall of buying and owning a new vehicle in the U.S. But a new study commissioned by Kelly Blue Book says that isn't happening for the majority of the country.
       
      The study revealed many Americans consider vehicle ownership to be more convenient, reliable, safer than car- and ride-sharing services. It also revealed that 76 percent of respondents that use these services are planning to buy or lease a vehicle within the next two years.
       
      "While there are numerous benefits to ride sharing and car sharing, our data reveals that owning a car still reigns supreme, with reliability, safety and convenience all being major factors," said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.
       
      Other findings of KBB's study include,
      73 percent of respondents said they have heard of these ride-sharing services, but only 16 percent have used them. This is similar to car sharing services as 43 percent said they have heard of them, but only 7 percent have taken advantage.Most of the respondents using these services are young people living in urban environments. This makes sense as owning a vehicle in this environment is more of a pain. Car and Ride sharing services are seen more as substitutes for taxis and rental cars. Affordability was the top reason given respondents who don't own a car.Only 5 percent said using a ride-sharing service was the reason they don't own a car. 3 percent said gave the same reason for why they use car sharing services.  
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Kelly Blue Book
       
      Press Release is on Page 2



      Page 1 of 2 1 2 → Last »



      Click here to view the article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online