|
Turns out a ban on driving while using a mobile phone does nothing because the kind of people who think it's ok to drive and use a phone were going to crash anyway: http://news.techeye.net/science/mobile-phone-driving-bans-do-not-workTechEye posted:Mobile phone driving bans do not work
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Crossposted from the Stupid/Small Questions Megathread: Embarrassingly, I have no idea how to properly use the intersection to get onto the street where I live. Here it is:  The four-lane divided road is very busy; my street and the subdivision across the way are less so, but during rush hour and the afternoon have a very steady stream of traffic (the southern most road has a school, and the turn lane (yellow car) to enter it goes back a quarter mile for parents picking kids up to get in). The issue I, and every other driver using it, seems to have is that no one knows which side to be on when they are turning left. Normally you drive on the right side of the road in the states, but intersection is also used buy the divided highway to make u-turns to go back and access driveways and roads that don't have an intersection; that normally means you hug the left side to go the other way.  For instance, if all of my mspaint cars want to turn left in relation to where they are, the instincts of the perpendicular drivers conflict considerably. The intersection's deceleration tapers are wide enough that this normally isn't dangerous, but people do end up getting angry when they block each other physically or just their line of sight. It's even worse because my side street isn't perfectly across from the subdivision, an effect that is exaggerated by the slight hill there you can't see from the satellite photo, so it even makes sense to stay left when turning left from these side streets, since then you just drive straight and turn, instead of going right to go left. Can you tell me where I'm supposed to be when making turns (always to the right or always left)? I know this won't help any other driver, but at least I won't be the one at fault out of ignorance if something does happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'd be just as inclined to ignore it as I would a normal stop sign. I ignored a stop sign or two in a railroad station's parking garage recently--do these have actual statutory authority?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:I ignored a stop sign or two in a railroad station's parking garage recently--do these have actual statutory authority? Around here, these are only enforceable if they have an enforcement contract with the local police and there's a posted notice of said enforcement contract at each property entrance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
The Aphasian posted:Crossposted from the Stupid/Small Questions Megathread: The median looks wide enough to accommodate stopped cars. Purple and blue cars should pull into the median when there is a gap in the two closest traffic lanes, then pull out when they get the chance. They should hug the nose of the median island. Ideally, this move wouldn't be an option (you should really cross the whole thing at once), but it's much safer this way. Red and yellow cars may not pull forward unless it's clear to go, They should follow that yellow painted area. This means pulling forward and around the blue/purple cars, if they're present. Red and yellow cars have right of way over blue and purple regardless of what point in the maneuver they're in. The whole situation is somewhat less than ideal, obviously. A big problem here is that the median break isn't centered; it's offset to the north. You'd need to reconstruct it or add a signal if you wanted things to work logically. Mandalay posted:I ignored a stop sign or two in a railroad station's parking garage recently--do these have actual statutory authority? Look closely at the sign. Legal stop signs (in Connecticut, at least) have a sticker at the bottom. I can't imagine you'd get a (defensible) ticket for running one without, but if you got into an accident because of it, it's definitely your fault. Additionally, parking lots/garages are almost never considered ticketable. You can drive without a license, or a registered car, or insurance on driveways + parking areas all you like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Can we talk about bike lanes? There's some controversy in my city over bike lanes and bike lane design. Some people are saying any sort of bike lanes are stupid, wasteful, and some how un-safe. other people are saying that the current system of having bike lanes as part of the road separated by a white line is the way to go. Others call for full separation by a curb or physical barriers. What are peoples thoughts on bike lane design?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Finally, I got to the end of this thread. Fantastic read so far. Question! Can you comment on this intersection? Specifically, the right turn from Frank Lloyd Wright (going westbound) onto Pima road (northbound), and then trying to merge way the hell over to get to the 101Northbound? It's such a pain in the rear end, and then, if you scroll a bit farther north, the lane you merge into is an exit lane, and the next exit is frighteningly close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
The Aphasian posted:Crossposted from the Stupid/Small Questions Megathread: Around here (northern Maryland) what usually happens is something like this:  These type of intersections aren't all that common and yet oddly people seem to navigate them just fine most of the time. This also has the added benefit of not needing to stop in the middle of a travel lane in the event of multiple cars wanting to turn with a short or no turn lane, they just line up parallel in the median, then wait for a gap on the other side to pull through. U-turns are usually disallowed (but there will sometimes be specific U-turn signals at nearby lights) so that isn't too much of an issue. Not sure how this all works out legally but it seems to operate efficiently and most people understand it. Red/purple would just pull into similar parallel positions as their side of the main road clears.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can we talk about bike lanes? The only right answer is to hope you live in a city that's really accommodating to cyclists. Whether there is a bike lane or not, it's not going to be safe for cyclists unless drivers know how to share the road. Also, cyclists have to understand how they are supposed to act whether there is a bike lane or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can we talk about bike lanes? I prefer painted routes that run on a street parallel to major thoroughfares rather than near the traffic. When I ride in painted bike lanes that route me down major roads, I may be exposed to more opportunity to for a chance of a collision and more pollution. Paths that use barriers to separate different types of traffic are very nice, but I don't see them used often. Yield issues exist with inattentive drivers turning across parallel bike lanes. Some major routes for both types of traffic, like W. Parmer in this example, could benefit from curbs and barriers. Traffic on Parmer usually cruises around 55mph. Bike Route View Google Overhead View I honestly prefer completely separate paths that follow other infrastructure, like bayous, rail, or power lines. Those are far more enjoyable. I'll take either that or a neighborhood route any day over something like Parmer, but a substantial number of cyclist commuters use that route because there aren't many convenient alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Victoria is rated as the #1 city in Canada for cyclists and we apparently have the highest share of people riding to work/school so I guess what ever we're doing is working. Despite this there's still a vocal group that flips their poo poo at any bike infrastructure related project saying the money could be spent on increasing car capacity. People are very used to bikes sharing the roads here and most cyclists are very confident/aggressive in demanding their share of the road. The bike lanes are absolutely used so it's not like in some cities where they desperately try to toss down some bike lanes in a horrific sprawling disaster and hope people magically start riding bikes more. A lot of cyclists are against fully separated lanes as it prevents passing. Generally the lanes aren't quite wide enough for bikes to pass if there would be a physical barrier. Bike traffic gets busy enough on many of the key routes that you do see a lot of passing as the dude in the ridiculous skin-tight biking outfit and the $5000 racing bike and streamlined helmet zips past the hemletless hipsters on their fixies wobbling down the street as they try to write the caption for the instagram of the food they just ate. I don't like riding my bike in the city. The bikes lanes are ok but don't exist everywhere, sometimes you have to hog a whole lane and I can't handle the feeling of pressure from the cars I'm obviously enraging behind me. Totally separated paths are awesome though. We've converted some old railways into nice wide paths for people to walk, ride, skateboard on and they're a joy to ride on and they actually do get clogged with commuters at rush hour.    And it's common to have left-turn lanes for bikes in busier places 
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can we talk about bike lanes? My experiences with bike lanes, as a bicyclist: Painted onto the road is only rarely better than none at all. Grade-separated from the main driveway but same grade as the sidewalk is uncomfortable, since pedestrians will tend to cross into the bike lane without second thought. Fully grade-separated are great, but only as long as they are wide enough to accommodate around 2 ½ bike, if it's too small then overtaking others can be a pain, and even dangerous since otherwise you may have to drive so close to the curb that there's actually a risk you'll drop over it and fall. Then there is the concern with adding bike lanes to an existing road. If the existing road isn't sufficiently wide, then you'll get a smaller driveway, a small bike lane and possibly also a smaller sidewalk, all of which have a risk of having worse safety.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Speaking of bike lanes, New Haven has them and then they have arrows to the left that point in to them, and I have no idea what they mean. Not Sharrows, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Can we talk about bike lanes? I remember I did a biking trip and we crossed the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. It's kinda funny just how dramatically the bike lanes changed when you crossed a simple street: http://goo.gl/yIJSQ Looking north is Holland, looking south is Belgium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:My experiences with bike lanes, as a bicyclist: There's an additional factor of how grade separated lanes handle intersections. The grade-separated ones around me are integrated into the sidewalk for straightaways, but drop down into the road at intersections. This increases the risk, as (from a car's perspective) bikes just pop out of nowhere at the intersection, when there's the biggest risk for collision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
I will hold off on joining the bike discussion for now, as my design experience is limited to rails-to-trails. I do attend regular webinars regarding the new AASHTO bicycle design manual, so I'll share any insight I find. So far, every answer is "it depends," and none of the experts seem ready to advocate or decry any particular design. The only unanimous opinion is that bikes MUST be provided for somehow. We can't design roads just for cars anymore.JPrime posted:Finally, I got to the end of this thread. Fantastic read so far. Be happy with what you've got; most parts of the country would have the same problems crammed into a space 1/4 as big. The right turn is at a signal, so if you're in the left right-turn lane, you should wait for the adjacent through movement to get the green. This means you have plenty of room to move left, and you shouldn't have to compete with those opposing lefts, either. Channelized right turns are a real bitch, which is why we're systematically eliminating them wherever possible. As for the weaving on the freeway, you've got a good quarter mile, which isn't comfortable, but compare that to a typical weave in Connecticut: http://goo.gl/maps/zoQzA That's 250 feet, and that's not even the shortest we have by a long shot. Weaving is an inevitability, but if 1/4 mile is the worst you run into, consider yourself lucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Channelized right turns are a real bitch, which is why we're systematically eliminating them wherever possible. Tell that to Wisconsin, which seems to love them, along with physically separating left-turn lanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Look closely at the sign. Legal stop signs (in Connecticut, at least) have a sticker at the bottom. I can't imagine you'd get a (defensible) ticket for running one without, but if you got into an accident because of it, it's definitely your fault. Additionally, parking lots/garages are almost never considered ticketable. You can drive without a license, or a registered car, or insurance on driveways + parking areas all you like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Where is this in CT law? I just read through 14-301 and there's nothing about it. Which part, specifically? Regulatory signs are not enforceable unless they're approved by the appropriate regulatory agency. On State roads, that's the State Traffic Commission (which recently has been re-named), hence the ubiquitous "STC" sticker. I can't just make my own stop sign, put it on the road, and ticket people who don't stop for it. For the "no tickets in driveways" bit, I found that out from reading police reports. In one situation, the cops raided a party, and a bunch of drunk people rushed out to their cars. One was stopped in the driveway, but the officer could not cite him, because he hadn't technically done anything illegal. I'm not sure exactly how it works with accidents that take place in parking areas. I'm sure there's a cop around who can answer more broadly. Edit: That last police report had some really interesting bits. One guy fled, smashed up a car and hit the building on the way out, and led the cops on a high-speed chase around the city. He eventually evaded them, at least until he was spotted returning to the party, where he hit another car. How stupid can you be? But yeah, plenty of stuff about minor accidents in driveways, someone calls the cops, offending driver has no license/insurance/registration, but it's a driveway, so they don't get ticketed for that. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I remember I did a biking trip and we crossed the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. It's kinda funny just how dramatically the bike lanes changed when you crossed a simple street: http://goo.gl/yIJSQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Which part, specifically?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
i barely GNU her! posted:Saw something interesting recently - a flashing stop sign. Can't see it in street view, but (at least at nighttime) the STOP text and outline pulse light. A cheap way to increase visibility without resorting to signaling the entire intersection, right? I was just in Tokyo and saw a lot of signs that were internally lit or flashing. Was pretty cool, definitely made them more visible. They tended to be in areas that didn't have a lot of other lighting, too, rather than just everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Speaking of lovely merging conditions, this was always my favorite one on the way to the airport. I don't remember what the speed limit is supposed to be since it's been a while, but it's at least 55 and since this is DC, everybody drives down it at 70. Have fun with that merge. I nearly killed myself (and probably the guy I would have rammed) one time there. I was trailing some random car there and expected him to merge like everybody else does, which is to say you come flying down the onramp at a million miles per second, trying to time a hole in the traffic as best you can. Since the merge area is so small, you have to keep most of your attention behind you on the traffic you are about to merge into. I got myself comfortably lined up and looked forward to see this idiot in front of me at a dead stop at the bottom of the ramp just in time to jerk my wheel to the side and swerve around him onto the highway. Scared me shitless, let me tell you. So, uh, yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your quarter mile merge area 
ZombieApostate fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Aug 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
The on-ramps in Pittsburgh are exactly like that in many places. Some of them just have a stop sign. This one isn't the best example, but it has a different problem. The lane you merge into (after the stop sign) is an exit only lane that's pretty close to the actual exit. You have to stop, wait until two lanes are clear, and then gun it. http://goo.gl/maps/ScRU9 edit: Also, for fun, kill the street view window and find Beechwood Blvd just south of the on-ramp. Follow it east, and keep following it. Good luck finding something on Beechwood Blvd in real life. SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:The sticker part. I know the sticker you're talking about, but I went around my neighborhood in Street View and it looks like several signs don't have it. State roads need the STC sticker. Towns have their own authorities; for example, I believe West Hartford's regulatory signs have a WHPD sticker on them. The sticker is very small; an inch tall, or thereabouts. This doesn't mean that signs without stickers aren't legal. Sometimes, the sticker falls off, and different states do business differently. It also doesn't mean signs with stickers are always legal! While some signs (STOP signs among them) have blanket STC approval, others (like lane use) need an STC report to be legally valid, and we traffic engineers often forget to submit those. You would have to fight it in court, but if that NTOR sign you blew doesn't have an STC report filed, you cannot be charged for violating it. ZombieApostate posted:Speaking of lovely merging conditions, this was always my favorite one on the way to the airport. I don't remember what the speed limit is supposed to be since it's been a while, but it's at least 55 and since this is DC, everybody drives down it at 70. Have fun with that merge. I wish I could strangle everyone who does this. Almost as bad is when the vehicle in the travel lane slows down to let you in. That happened once when I was trying to merge behind a tractor-trailer: he decided to be polite and slow down, and ended up running me off the road. SLOSifl posted:edit: Also, for fun, kill the street view window and find Beechwood Blvd just south of the on-ramp. Follow it east, and keep following it. Good luck finding something on Beechwood Blvd in real life. Haha, what the gently caress? How did that get designed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
JPrime posted:Finally, I got to the end of this thread. Fantastic read so far. Sack up and stand on it.  Also, they finally finished the reconfiguration of the east end of Sky Harbor.  Most maps still show the old version, but now there's no weave and there's FINALLY direct freeway-only access from Sky Harbor to I10 - Sky Harbor Blvd to AZ143S to 10E/W. Before, you had to take 44th Street (formerly AZ153) to University, hang a left at the light, and hang a right onto an onramp to AZ143S, which dumped you into the mass of traffic already on AZ143S trying to get to 10E/W. Drove through the finished version last weekend and it's sooooo much nicer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Sack up and stand on it. Thank goodness; that was a pain in the rear end last time I went through, and I end up in Phoenix way too often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Haha, what the gently caress? How did that get designed? Basically half the places I go, I either need to get on at that terrible onramp or take Beechwood Blvd. Plus, two of the three major roads into town go through tunnels, and everyone slows to a crawl like the tunnel's going to eat them. I love Pittsburgh, but drat man, the roads. If you go a little farther west on 376, you can only get on eastbound and off westbound. I hate that so much. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
What would you do to fix the West Parmer bike route?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
grillster posted:What would you do to fix the West Parmer bike route? All I can find about that online is people complaining about it. Honestly, it's Texas. There's plenty of land to build a bikeway. Property values are rock-bottom (typically 1/3 to 1/4 what they would be in CT), so buy up some houses around large intersections and offset the crossings. Don't make bikes use high-speed rural arterials like that, because they'll invariably get in some gruesome accidents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
grillster posted:What would you do to fix the West Parmer bike route? Are you talking about Parmer Lane in Austin? (if we are, land down here isn't that cheap, it's not like we're Sugarland or Garland) Problem with bike routes on smaller streets in Austin is that many of the smaller streets don't go though because of Town Lake/railroad tracks/creeks/highways so the only good route is often on a major arterial. And we've been shrinking a lot of them down to 10' lanes to try to fit bike lanes but there's only so much capacity you can squeeze outta a roadway before you need to spend real $$ for widening. Which there isn't much ROW available in most of central Austin. Cichlidae posted:All I can find about that online is people complaining about it. Honestly, it's Texas. There's plenty of land to build a bikeway. Property values are rock-bottom (typically 1/3 to 1/4 what they would be in CT), so buy up some houses around large intersections and offset the crossings. Don't make bikes use high-speed rural arterials like that, because they'll invariably get in some gruesome accidents. You gonna come down here and help convince the citizens to vote for a multimillion dollar infrastructure bond that will require an increase to property taxes and benefit <1% of the roadway users?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Yep, Austin. What we really need is a profound rail system, like yesterday. This place has way too much beauty to cover in car pollution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
grillster posted:Yep, Austin. What we really need is a profound rail system, like yesterday. This place has way too much beauty to cover in car pollution. Lobby Leffingwell and council for light rail, sooner rather than later. Get all your friends, neighbors, co-workers, social clubs, etc. on board too. It's going to take a huge infrastructure investment for even the initial phase and it will need mucho public support. Leffingwell didn't want to add it to the November bond but there's a possibility for 2013.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
t_violet posted:Are you talking about Parmer Lane in Austin? (if we are, land down here isn't that cheap, it's not like we're Sugarland or Garland) I'm not sure if I was looking at the right area (no maps link), but you've got those nice crinkly noise fences taking up so much space. You can switch to a lower-profile version and save a few feet. People are lucky to have a noise wall along a non-freeway, anyway. t_violet posted:You gonna come down here and help convince the citizens to vote for a multimillion dollar infrastructure bond that will require an increase to property taxes and benefit <1% of the roadway users? Admittedly, I am very authoritarian with regard to roads, like Haussmann or Robert Moses. It's something that's caused me an awful lot of frustration lately, specifically, how badly the public understands user cost, benefit:cost ratios, and the need for a multimodal system. It's not a good move, politically, to say "we're doing this for your own good," but the alternative is that everyone suffers. There are two general situations we run into all the time. The first is a proactive road safety initiative, like centerline rumble strips. CLRS have a proven 50:1 B:C ratio. That is AMAZING. With a lifetime of 10 years, that means they pay for themselves 5 times over every year. Problem is, the State never sees that monetary savings directly, so the answer is "we can't afford to install them." That, and a small minority of people complain about the noise, so we elect not to stir the waters. Meanwhile, dozens of people die every year because of the lack of CLRS. The second situation is maintaining or replacing existing infrastructure. Imagine you own a bridge, and you need to keep it in working order. It's an old bridge, and costs $5/week to maintain. On the other hand, you can replace it entirely for $100, and it won't need maintenance for a year. A little math shows that, if you replace it, you'll save $160 over that first year. But the State says "we don't have $100 lying around," so we just end up paying that 5 bucks over and over. This metaphor isn't far-fetched; on the I-84/CT 8 interchange, the B:C ratio for no build is somewhere around 0.5, and full replacement is the only option above 1. The price tag is $3B, though, so we'd rather just sit on our hands and let maintenance eat up our budget. I'm not sure if you can appreciate how truly frustrating this is. We need someone at the top who's not afraid to fight for the right thing, to spend a bit more now to save a lot later, someone who understands that the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm not sure if you can appreciate how truly frustrating this is. We need someone at the top who's not afraid to fight for the right thing, to spend a bit more now to save a lot later, someone who understands that the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few. I'm not sure if I'm the "you" in this sentence but I work for a large municipality (three guesses as to which one) and face this every single day despite being in a very progressive city (especially for Texas). We spend a lot of bikes (actually, I almost think a disproportionate amount, pedestrians tend to get overlooked as they're not as organized/educated and don't lobby) and have a strong bike/alternate modes of transportation advocate on city council. But this is the type of thinking what we have to counteract. BTW, Parmer Lane is actually in TxDOT's jurisdiction and they have been really, really slow to coming around to bike (and ped) issues. They're getting better but it's still a struggle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
t_violet posted:But this is the type of thinking what we have to counteract.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:Is it wrong that I hope that guy gets his wish and in an ironic twist of fate gets run over while riding a bike? Unless I missed something, I'd guess the writer has never ridden a bike in his adult life. The "real necessities such as highway construction" bit at the end is a giveaway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Unless I missed something, I'd guess the writer has never ridden a bike in his adult life. The "real necessities such as highway construction" bit at the end is a giveaway. Obviously if you really need to get somewhere, you should be doing it in a gasoline-powered car, as God intended. Edit: On the flip side, bike and transit activists who decry any and all highway construction can be just as frustrating, especially when that construction is being done to fix extremely substandard design (by modern standards) and preserve existing infrastructure. At least people advocating for underserved modes are more likely to appreciate the need for a regional, multimodal transportation system. It's better than the shortsighted "why should we in the suburbs pay slightly higher taxes toward a city transit system that will have no benefit to us" attitude that's kept the area I'm in now with a horribly fractured public transit system that's constantly fighting budget cuts and has glaring gaps in serving major employment centers that happen to not be in a county that cares about transit. Dominus Vobiscum fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
It'd be really nice to have protected bike paths following major freeways, especially since freeways generally must have gentle slopes and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It'd be really nice to have protected bike paths following major freeways, especially since freeways generally must have gentle slopes and all. Florida kind of did this with the Suncoast Trail, but the Suncoast Parkway isn't exactly a major urban freeway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 05:15
|
|