|
Well, I have a couple of highway questions, hoping they haven't been asked already. There's a pretty long stretch of the I-5 in San Diego County where the road surface is really... ripply. Like, up and down ripply. You can really feel it, even in a vehicle with good, smooth suspension, and it's downright painful in a car with harder suspension. It's concrete, so it's been there a while. Is this the sort of thing that happens to concrete roadways with age, or was this part of the highway just leveled really bad to begin with? Is there anything that can be done to repair it short of completely repaving? Here's the other one: Traveling north on I-15 in Nevada, as you're approaching Las Vegas, the road surface suddenly changes so that it has a ton of little lateral grooves. Grooves that make a lot of noise as you drive over them. Is there any reason for these, other than to drive people crazy? I heard once that it had something to do with improving drainage, but I haven't encountered them anywhere else so far. Thanks in advance!
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:Well, I have a couple of highway questions, hoping they haven't been asked already. It's something that often happens to roads that had a small bump or dip. As traffic flows over it for decades, the troughs get deeper, and as the car "bounces" back downstream, a new trough is gradually eroded away there. Eventually, you get a wavelike texture. Full-depth reconstruction is the only way to get rid of the problem. We have one project that had wavy pavement, and unfortunately elected just to do a mill and overlay, taking off the top couple inches of pavement. Of course, this kept the bumps and dips, which will only get worse with time. quote:Here's the other one: Traveling north on I-15 in Nevada, as you're approaching Las Vegas, the road surface suddenly changes so that it has a ton of little lateral grooves. Grooves that make a lot of noise as you drive over them. Is there any reason for these, other than to drive people crazy? I heard once that it had something to do with improving drainage, but I haven't encountered them anywhere else so far. Well, grooved pavement is common in construction sites, because it helps the next layer of pavement adhere to the last. If it's not in a construction zone, it might be to improve traction in rainy conditions, but it rains so infrequently there, I'm not sure whether the cost would be worth it. Maybe their pavement was too smooth and there was an accident problem, but that could've been more easily fixed by resurfacing. Grooved pavement really pisses off the neighbors, too, because cars driving over it at night make a lot of noise. On top of that, the process of milling the road creates a lot of debris that tends to fly around and crack windshields.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
Is there any actual benefit (or reason) for paving entire roads with that weird red asphalt thing? It is like this a few places around town here and I've never really quite understood why. Usually its only used for roundabouts and speedbumps. edit: also, yes that is a double-roundabout that cars can actually just drive over because they have to be flat enough for busses to go over them since they wouldn't be able to get around an actual roundabout in that tiny amount of space. MrBling fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Oct 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Grooved pavement really pisses off the neighbors, too, because cars driving over it at night make a lot of noise. I think there are no neighbors on that stretch of I-15, unless you count the tumbleweeds (have you ever hit a tumbleweed at 90 MPH? You're thinking 'this is going to be awesome, that thing is going to explode into beige confetti' and *bam* the whole car shakes and you're driving the rest of the way to Vegas with a loving bush growing out of your grille). All this talk about road surfaces reminds me that a friend of mine asked me to ask about the various pavement types used on roads and freeways, and why they're used in different situations. He just did a couple road trips and noticed some highways are grooved (as just mentioned), some are smooth as silk and incredibly silent (does that not cause issues with grip?) and then there's all sorts of textures and styles in between...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 09:48
|
|
|
I would imagine cost takes priority over grippiness on long stretches of straight, flat road through areas that rarely see precipitation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 09:55
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Is there any actual benefit (or reason) for paving entire roads with that weird red asphalt thing? It's mostly just a "It looks pretty!" thing. Colored pavement that's not reflectorized (doesn't have beads in it) isn't a traffic control device. Towns love to use it for crosswalks, painted islands, and everything in between, usually in conjunction with stamped concrete. When it's reflectorized, though, colored pavement means the same thing as if it were painted stripes. White and yellow pavement delineate the edges of the road (or a crosswalk / stop bar). Choadmaster posted:I think there are no neighbors on that stretch of I-15, unless you count the tumbleweeds (have you ever hit a tumbleweed at 90 MPH? You're thinking 'this is going to be awesome, that thing is going to explode into beige confetti' and *bam* the whole car shakes and you're driving the rest of the way to Vegas with a loving bush growing out of your grille). Part of it is just the age of the pavement. Most pavement begins smooth, but gets bumpier and rougher with age. Sometimes, different job mixes are used. More binder, smoother aggregate, adding crumb rubber, and things like that. Even getting your asphalt from a different batch can have an effect on the ride quality, which is why we have our contractors test every batch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 12:44
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I think there are no neighbors on that stretch of I-15 Maybe not a while ago, but there's a ton of housing being built there now, actually. The kind where it's identical houses as far as you can see and every now and then a 7-Eleven. They may have dumped asphalt over it in the intervening years, at least in those areas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
I just made it to England for a month's work. I'm okay with driving on the wrong side of the road. I'm okay with roundabouts, although I've noticed that when used frequently they completely gently caress with your sense of direction. I'm even okay with the hosed-up toilets (American toilets: the best toilets) and the lovely hotel teevee (American teevee: the best teevee). But using a single white dashed line to separate a) lanes of traffic moving in the same direction which you can freely move between and b) lanes of traffic moving in opposite directions which you should NEVER EVER move between strikes me as a remarkably stupid idea. (Yes, I know the dashes are of different lengths; this is hardly an easily-distinguished difference and is horrible UI design; it's like using the same program icon for "Send email" and "format c:")
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I just made it to England for a month's work. There isn't much excuse for it, the main reason is there isn't that many 4 lane single carriageway roads in the UK (only really on major throughfairs in big cities, though most of the time it would be physically divided). 3 lane roads are more common, on hills and such, which pretty much always have a unbroken line to divide oncoming traffic. Here check this bit out: http://goo.gl/maps/3GmW Though you will notice that generally its fairly clear which side is which along the road. Edit: For anyone curious about what he saw exactly, its probably something like this: http://goo.gl/maps/Sj8A nozz fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 20:16
|
|
|
loving hell, that's horrible in either example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I just made it to England for a month's work. Wow, that is really horrible design. Why wouldn't you just use a solid line, or yellow lane skips instead of white between lanes going the same direction? I know England has a mash-up of different standards, but... don't the natives ever find it confusing? I know the human mind is excellent at picking up patterns and distinguishing between different ones, but this seems needlessly ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
You can actually technically cross the dashed lines, if you were outright not permitted to then yes, they would be solid (generally used on single-lane roads where the visibility is too bad for overtaking). I'd guess part of the reason they leave them dashed in urban areas to allow for people turning across them. It's not really confusing in my experience because as mentioned any road with more than two lanes (in each direction) is almost certainly going to have a solid barrier down the middle so generally all you need to keep track of is whether you have two lanes and if so, which one you're currently in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Polsy posted:You can actually technically cross the dashed lines, if you were outright not permitted to then yes, they would be solid (generally used on single-lane roads where the visibility is too bad for overtaking). I'd guess part of the reason they leave them dashed in urban areas to allow for people turning across them. Our system works pretty well: we put gaps in the double yellow centerline here for streets, but people are still allowed to cross a solid line to turn into a driveway or private road. It's only when you get a double double solid line (4 lines total) that it becomes a painted island and crossing is prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Polsy posted:You can actually technically cross the dashed lines, if you were outright not permitted to then yes, they would be solid (generally used on single-lane roads where the visibility is too bad for overtaking). I'd guess part of the reason they leave them dashed in urban areas to allow for people turning across them. There's still no reason to make them white like the other lines. Also, this seems like it would be terribly confusing (to anyone not very familiar) in the case of a road with a total of just two lanes. All you'd see is a single dashed white line with no others for comparison - do those lanes go in different directions or is this a two-lane, one-way street?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:There's still no reason to make them white like the other lines. Also, this seems like it would be terribly confusing (to anyone not very familiar) in the case of a road with a total of just two lanes. All you'd see is a single dashed white line with no others for comparison - do those lanes go in different directions or is this a two-lane, one-way street? At least in Denmark, yellow lines are reserved for temporary markings during construction work and the like, and always override any white lines on the same stretch of road. E: Also, after driving for some time (usually before you get old enough to take a driver's license  ) you'll learn to distinguish the different lengths of dashes even when they're isolated. It's the ratio of dash length to space length, as well as the absolute length of the dashes; it's not hard to tell whether the dashes or the spaces are the longer, or if they're approximately equal length.
nielsm fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:people are still allowed to cross a solid line to turn into a driveway or private road. It's only when you get a double double solid line (4 lines total) that it becomes a painted island and crossing is prohibited. Yeah, being allowed to cross lines for turning into driveways does make perfect sense, really. I should probably have said 'double solid' up there, a single solid is usually the physical edge of the road. A double solid is 'nobody can cross this line' and one solid/one dashed is 'you can cross this line if you're on the dashed side' (again this is done where visibility requires it) Choadmaster posted:Also, this seems like it would be terribly confusing (to anyone not very familiar) in the case of a road with a total of just two lanes. All you'd see is a single dashed white line with no others for comparison - do those lanes go in different directions or is this a two-lane, one-way street? I want to say 'this rarely happens' and/or 'you would've seen the one-way sign' but that isn't the greatest excuse. Familiarity/see below, I guess. nielsm posted:E: Also, after driving for some time (usually before you get old enough to take a driver's license It is pretty obvious to me at a glance but I'm willing to believe I've been indoctrinated by years of exposure. As for yellow, it's been taken (along with red more rarely) for parking restrictions. Does the US have on-road paint markings for that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 11:04
|
|
|
nielsm posted:E: Also, after driving for some time (usually before you get old enough to take a driver's license That's as may be, and I know that there's a large degree of arbitrariness in line marking conventions, but it's pretty basic UI design that two entirely different functions should be easily distinguishable at first glance. Two differently-sized sorts of white dashes ain't it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 12:11
|
|
|
Polsy posted:
We generally mark the curbs, and supplement with signs. Signs which have words on them, not just some cryptic symbology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
nielsm posted:At least in Denmark, yellow lines are reserved for temporary markings during construction work and the like, and always override any white lines on the same stretch of road. Yeah, it is the same way in France. Drivers ed teaches all of these:  That's why I asked about familiarity. To someone from the US, they all look the same, but if you've been studying them... Phanatic posted:We generally mark the curbs, and supplement with signs. Signs which have words on them, not just some cryptic symbology. That's the price you pay for having international standard signs. We're moving toward symbol-only signs in the US, as well, though we have a very long way to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 12:35
|
|
|
Ine the UK, usually there are a liberal use of arrows on roads and other signing that indicate if is a 2 lane one way street. Due to the age of our streets, one way systems in town centres are VERY common. http://goo.gl/maps/ZAJs (The yellow lines mean no parking) http://goo.gl/maps/jc3E (The really thick line means its a Bus Lane) And here's another possible confusing situation: http://goo.gl/maps/M5EH (dual carriageway) Despite all this, I've never had a problem with determining what sort of road I am on. This is similar in most of Europe, only a few countries like Sweden I think use yellow to divide the direction. Also in the UK, a unbroken line in the middle of the road (http://goo.gl/maps/rOGn) only has prohibitions on overtaking. Taking a righthand turn here is perfectly legal. If they do not want you to turn, the signs will tell you you can't and the might have hatching (http://goo.gl/maps/g2Wo) BUT with an unbroken line instead. Which means you can never enter that area. Bonus typical 3 lane road http://goo.gl/maps/imgv http://www.direct.gov.uk/dr_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_070563.pdf Edit: However, the UK does use 4 different colours of reflective studs to indicate the left and right sides of the roads, entry/exits, and lane dividers. 
nozz fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
noblergt posted:Also in the UK, a unbroken line in the middle of the road (http://goo.gl/maps/rOGn) only has prohibitions on overtaking. Taking a righthand turn here is perfectly legal. That's interesting, I don't think I've ever seen that situation. Though I feel like the lines aren't entirely justified there, the visibility's pretty decent at the junction. Maybe they just didn't feel like switching to a single line for the relatively small distance it'd be valid for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:33
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's why I asked about familiarity. To someone from the US, they all look the same, but if you've been studying them... But honestly, you've got multiple characteristics that you are able to modify with your lane markings. Why not differentiate on as many levels as possible from the start, and just not require a familiarization period? "Length of the line" being the sole discriminant between several extremely important traffic distinctions seems to be a bit short-sighted. Regardless of the other gewgaws you throw onto the road, people pay attention to signage and lane markings and in your central vision color variance stands out. I guess I'm a Merkin and I'm used to our system. Just seems like there's a lot of potential danger if the variation between "Passing / Cruising Lane" and "Oh poo poo I'm Driving The Wrong Way" is the length of space between lines. Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:33
|
|
|
Polsy posted:That's interesting, I don't think I've ever seen that situation. Though I feel like the lines aren't entirely justified there, the visibility's pretty decent at the junction. Maybe they just didn't feel like switching to a single line for the relatively small distance it'd be valid for. Yeah generally that wouldn't be like that, its because the A272 is generally pretty busy and bendy, meaning its quite dangerous, so they put on a blanket "no overtaking" along much of it. Many single carriage way A roads can be like that. Stew Man Chew posted:BI guess I'm a Merkin and I'm used to our system. Just seems like there's a lot of potential danger if the variation between "Passing / Cruising Lane" and "Oh poo poo I'm Driving The Wrong Way" is the length of space between lines. I guess there is, but it just doesn't seem to be a problem really. nozz fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:I guess I'm a Merkin and I'm used to our system. Just seems like there's a lot of potential danger if the variation between "Passing / Cruising Lane" and "Oh poo poo I'm Driving The Wrong Way" is the length of space between lines. If you have a four lane road with two lanes in each direction, the direction separator is usually a double unbroken line, i.e. "no crossing except for left turns". A two lane (one each direction) road will usually have long dashes, i.e. "crossing allowed when overtaking", I almost only see this outside cities. One-way streets are usually not wide enough to fit two full lanes and will often have cars parked on both sides of the street, all facing the same direction, and are short enough that you'll have plenty of chances to see the one-way sign (or "no entry" on the opposite end) before doing anything stupid. Two lane two-way streets in cities with no any lane markings at all are also common. It's seriously hard to gently caress this up, it's harder than loving up in a roundabout. Either lane markings are unambiguous, or you can tell what to do by looking at the parked cars. I don't think there's any three lane roads with free lane usage left in Denmark, but when there were some they were all outside cities (where you never have a one-way road), I'm not sure what kind of lane markers they used actually. The last few were being converted while I was taking my license and on the wrong land mass for taking a drive on them. Today, all three lane roads are alternating between 1+2 and 2+1 lanes in each direction, with a "no crossing" double line separating the two directions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
Now I'm just trying to find places to scare you Americans http://goo.gl/maps/fcXi
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
^^ pff, HIGHWAYS don't scare Americans, things like Toledo, Spain that I think I posted earlier in the thread do ^^ We're fuckin' kings and queens of wacky highways. nielsm posted:
This is something I hadn't considered, the fact that European roads simply don't take up as much space as US ones, and the vast majority of them are much smaller and thereby probably necessitate fewer markings in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
noblergt posted:Now I'm just trying to find places to scare you Americans http://goo.gl/maps/fcXi Milton Keynes was an interesting experiment in trying to introduce american-style road design into the UK. Too many traffic circles to work properly, though. grover fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
grover posted:That's terrifying! They're all driving on the wrong side of the road! Not just US style road system, but US style suburban city planning. Needless to say it was a failure. (I'd say much like most US suburban planning.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
less than three posted:Not just US style road system, but US style suburban city planning. grover fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
It doesn't really look like a city, more like a bunch of neighbourhoods connected by roads. Rotterdam had an excellent opportunity to do some proper city planning after its city centre was completely bombarded. Unfortunately we decided to return to the old plans, and now they're surprised everything is always locked up. There were some pretty cool plans, I'll see whether I can dig them up if anyone is interested (not really Traffic Engineering any more, more like Urban Planning. Oh well!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
jeoh-kun posted:
Rotterdam is quite a relaxed city to drive in, traffic isn't that bad except on a few roads like the s'gravendijksewal which should obviously be a tunnel along the entire length and the Coolsingel where cars should not be allowed period. Also city traffic engineers should probably stop making the green light cycles extra short to discourage car use (they actually admit they do this). Also i was under the impression that at least in the city center they didn't return to the old street plans which is why everything is on a much larger scale than other Dutch cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
Polsy posted:As for yellow, it's been taken (along with red more rarely) for parking restrictions. Does the US have on-road paint markings for that? We paint the curb: red means 'no parking', green means 'short term' (usually 15 to 30 minutes, it is on a sign or painted directly on the curb too), yellow means 'commercial loading/unloading' (5 to 15 minutes, used by delivery trucks or taxis), blue means 'handicapped only', white means 'passenger loading/unloading' (usually 3 minutes max, they'll put these at airports or in front of busy theaters etc.). Unpainted means feel free to park there (unless there are sign dictating otherwise or you're gonna block the road or whatever). That said, it is impossible to mistake a curb marking for a lane divider, so reusing those colors isn't an issue. And even if it were, there are plenty of colors in the spectrum - purple center lines for everyone! There is actually one time I can think of where the specific spacing of the lines means anything in the US, but functionally they're still the same and it it is more just 'useful info' rather than a safety issue: if a lane on the freeway is (or becomes) an 'exit only' lane (meaning the whole lane turns off the freeway onto an offramp) the lane markings get much shorter and about twice as thick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:That said, it is impossible to mistake a curb marking for a lane divider, so reusing those colors isn't an issue. And even if it were, there are plenty of colors in the spectrum - purple center lines for everyone! We use purple lines now for ETC, so expect to see much more colorful roads where there are tolls. Choadmaster posted:There is actually one time I can think of where the specific spacing of the lines means anything in the US, but functionally they're still the same and it it is more just 'useful info' rather than a safety issue: if a lane on the freeway is (or becomes) an 'exit only' lane (meaning the whole lane turns off the freeway onto an offramp) the lane markings get much shorter and about twice as thick. This is only a new standard, though obviously some places have been doing it a long time. It will be done on normal roads where turn lanes begin, not just on freeways. Connecticut dwellers! Driving on I-84 through Hartford is going to suck for the next couple weekends. We need to reduce the highway to 1 lane wide to replace some joints downtown. Think of this as a dress rehearsal for when we replace the Aetna Viaduct in 10 years... except that will take a few years to do. A couple years ago, I was thinking of some possible ways to mitigate congestion when that happens. The best way would be to build a freeway bypass, but where? Well, here's one that's never been planned before: connecting the 10-lane section of Route 9 in New Britain with the Route 15 freeway in Wethersfield.   Looking back, I'd make it go through the woods/field instead of the golf course. Other than that, it'd be rather feasible, assuming NIMBY's not too strong (fat chance). The road would be 2 lanes in each direction and have a 100-foot cross section. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
cichlidae posted:A couple years ago, I was thinking of some possible ways to mitigate congestion when that happens. The best way would be to build a freeway bypass, but where? Well, here's one that's never been planned before: connecting the 10-lane section of Route 9 in New Britain with the Route 15 freeway in Wethersfield. Is this something that would actually be considered? Or were you just thinking of a fantasy best possible congestion solution? e: spelling porkfriedrice fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Based on my knowledge of old CT highway projects, that Newington bypass was supposed to have been built years ago. Different alignment, but same point. Notice all the suspicious no-house areas right at that bend of route 9? Back when that part was Route 72, there was to be a short spur connecting over to what would have been I-291, and I'm sure there would have been an exit for the Wilbur Cross. If it didn't happen then, it sure as hell isn't happening now. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Is this something that would actually be considered? Or were you just thinking of a fantasy best possible congestion solution? It's not best possible by a long shot. Two lanes in each direction wouldn't handle a half of the traffic needed to bypass I-84. But it's not too expensive, and it's low-impact, and it could be done. Will it be considered? I highly doubt it. Maybe 1% chance. I think we'll just end up closing I-84 and eventually half of us will get laid off in the backlash. kefkafloyd posted:Based on my knowledge of old CT highway projects, that Newington bypass was supposed to have been built years ago. Different alignment, but same point. Notice all the suspicious no-house areas right at that bend of route 9? Back when that part was Route 72, there was to be a short spur connecting over to what would have been I-291, and I'm sure there would have been an exit for the Wilbur Cross. That would've gone through to the stub ramps on 91 in Rocky Hill, with a volleyball interchange on 15 right where the DOT HQ is now. My alternative uses the same land near Route 9, but a completely different route otherwise. There was a freeway planned to go from the end of the Wilbur Cross northwest to 84, but that's another story altogether and I don't see how they would have tied it in with the existing road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Driving on I-84 through Hartford is going to suck for the next couple weekends. I thought it pretty much always sucked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Nibble posted:I thought it pretty much always sucked. That doesn't even come close to describing it. We're trying to push 6000 cars an hour through one lane. A lane that will usually carry 1500 in a construction zone. Guess what happens if someone breaks down in the ensuing hour-long delay? Oops!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
grover posted:Similarly designed US suburbs (without traffic circles) are quite successful in the US and extremely popular places to live. Suburbs are terrible. Just because they're popular doesn't make them not suck. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
less than three posted:Suburbs are terrible. Just because they're popular doesn't make them not suck. I'm pretty sure grover also meant roundabouts, not traffic circles. Neither of which suck, they are actually kick-rear end replacements for stoplights sometimes. Basically grover is just chock full of wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 08:38
|
|
