As taken from the New York-centric Gawker Media's Jalopnik: http://jalopnik.com/5964247/the-most-terrifying-roads-in-the-world?utm_source=io9.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation
Having been on only one of the ten, I can't say much about the accuracy of the list. Though the Pike's Peak Road always seemed intense to me. On the other hand, three of the ten are in the NY area? Seriously? A surface road and two expressways? Where's the justice?
Here are my picks to replace them:
1. Ontario's 401 from about Mississauga to the Quebec line. But not really so much scary as intense.
2. The 405 in California. Likewise intense.
3. Any busyish surface street in London looks like it could take Queens Boulevard out back and show it who's boss.
What are yours?
To be fair, the Pulaski Skyway has always seemed pretty terrifying... high up, narrow lanes, substandard design, lots of traffic.
Queens Blvd though is just an old urban arterial that could use some reconfiguration, hardly terrifying.
And the Merritt Parkway? Give me a break. That road's actually a pleastant drive, about the farthest thing from terrifying.
Also, it seems kinda silly to specify individual roads in the US, but then include "Russian Roads" and "Chinese Roads" as one thing. Pick specific examples!
Quote from: sipes23 on November 29, 2012, 11:42:51 AM
As taken from the New York-centric Gawker Media's Jalopnik: http://jalopnik.com/5964247/the-most-terrifying-roads-in-the-world?utm_source=io9.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation
Having been on only one of the ten, I can't say much about the accuracy of the list. Though the Pike's Peak Road always seemed intense to me. On the other hand, three of the ten are in the NY area? Seriously? A surface road and two expressways? Where's the justice?
Here are my picks to replace them:
1. Ontario's 401 from about Mississauga to the Quebec line. But not really so much scary as intense.
2. The 405 in California. Likewise intense.
3. Any busyish surface street in London looks like it could take Queens Boulevard out back and show it who's boss.
What are yours?
OK, your picks aren't much more imaginative than those of Gawker Media. The 401? The 405? Come on - neither is terrifying in the least. Annoying at times to be sure, but hardly scary,
Truly "terrifying" roads are found in places where you have heavy traffic on inadequately designed roadways that feature unsafe curves, lane alignments and/or grades. Yes, the Yungas Road in Bolivia qualifies. But, so do a lot of roads. The Pan American Highway between San Jose, Costa Rica and the Pacific Ocean beach areas is certainly more "terrifying" than anything in the New York area. And, statistically a lot more deadly too. Some of which has to do with other traffic as much as it does with a scary road.
My closest brush with death occurred on a highway in Uganda when a full-sized bus (coming from the opposite direction) flew around a corner doing at least 75 m.p.h. and went up on 2 wheels. God only knows why it came down on 2 wheels and didn't crush our car instead. But it was as terrifying as anything I've experienced on a roadway. Sadly, such experiences can be had throughout much of the third world.
Gawker gave this a decent try, but they are insufficiently versed in geography to do a decent job of it. "Chinese Roads" - really? That literally includes freeways that would put anything that we have here in the US to shame. So, a big fail on that one.
I agree with "deathtopumpkins" about the Merritt Parkway–when we're headed to or from New England, I look forward to that road as a respite from the craziness on I-95. Yes, you have to be careful with the exit and entrance ramps because of the stop signs, but I usually find it to be a much more relaxing part of the trip. To me the Belt Parkway–a road I've travelled hundreds or thousands of times between Bay Ridge and the Flatbush Avenue exit–is a much scarier drive than the Merritt Parkway. So is the FDR Drive.
I find the Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing to be extremely nerve-wracking drives that become scary if there are large trucks or buses crossing, simply because the lanes are so damn narrow (I believe 10 feet wide, and of course there are no shoulders). The only time recently I can remember not feeling nervous on there was riding as a passenger in my brother's old 1996 Civic back in 2001....but that trip was miserable because it literally stank....he refused to put on the AC and then we got stuck in stopped traffic on the bridge and the refineries were smelling particularly bad that day..... I'd probably rate those as two of the scariest roads I encounter regularly. I should hasten to note that I've never used the Pulaski Skyway.
If driver behavior alone were to be the standard for a scary road, then almost anything could be included. One of the scariest moments I've ever had while driving was an encounter with a wrong-way driver (elderly couple) who were heading the wrong way up an exit ramp from I-75 near Venice, Florida, as I was exiting the road last summer (they came to their senses at the last second). But I wouldn't rate I-75 as "terrifying" because of that because it's the drivers and not anything to do with the road itself. I guess I could say the same for the gravel road west of Cochrane, Ontario, that runs from the Trans-Canada Highway into Greenwater Provincial Park. I was riding in the backseat of our family's 1982 Accord when I was 13 years old and a huge moose ran across the road in front of us late at night. Scared the shit out of all of us, but it doesn't make the road itself scary because a moose has nothing to do with the road. That was probably my closest brush with death in a car, though.
Once you start getting into things like other drivers, wildlife, etc., you open it up to including any road through a bad neighborhood or the like, and that's not really the right way to assess a "terrifying road."
The Surekill Expressway
I sometimes freak out if I'm on CT Route 15, a.k.a. the Merritt Parkway (Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line). The tight curves, especially in Greenwich, are asking for somebody to speed and cause an accident. It looks like it's prone to deer strikes, since some of the road is in the woods, close to some people's back yards.
If this was a true list, there shouldn't be a single US road on this list. Comparing US 1/9 because an accident causes congestion to mountainside roads in Bolivia that kill 300 a year is a bit of a stretch. The canned pictures are funny as well...like they're shouting "SEE THIS UNCONGESTED PIECE OF ROADWAY? IT'S THE 9TH MOST DANGEROUS ROAD IN THE WORLD!"
Arroyo Seco Parkway in Los Angeles(CA 110). Too many drivers going 75mph on tight turns designed for cars 60 years ago. Add no shoulders, missing acceleration and auxilary lanes, and you got a scarey freeway. I always grip the handle tightly whenever I'm riding in the car. Thank goodness trucks aren't allowed on it. Sheesh.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 29, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Too many drivers going 75mph on tight turns designed for cars 60 years ago.
I've never understood the "cars 60 years ago" argument. If cars 60 years ago weren't capable of today's speeds, why were speed limits higher 60 years ago than they are today? Many states didn't have daytime rural speed limits, and some, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were posted at 70 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Pennsylvania_Turnpike_70_mph_1942.jpg) while they're 55-65 today.
The issue isn't that the road was designed for cars 60 years ago, it's that the road was designed for speeds lower than 75.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 29, 2012, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 29, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Too many drivers going 75mph on tight turns designed for cars 60 years ago.
I've never understood the "cars 60 years ago" argument. If cars 60 years ago weren't capable of today's speeds, why were speed limits higher 60 years ago than they are today? Many states didn't have daytime rural speed limits, and some, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were posted at 70 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Pennsylvania_Turnpike_70_mph_1942.jpg) while they're 55-65 today.
The issue isn't that the road was designed for cars 60 years ago, it's that the road was designed for speeds lower than 75.
Because there is an order of magnitude more traffic today.
Quote from: Beltway on November 29, 2012, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 29, 2012, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 29, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Too many drivers going 75mph on tight turns designed for cars 60 years ago.
I've never understood the "cars 60 years ago" argument. If cars 60 years ago weren't capable of today's speeds, why were speed limits higher 60 years ago than they are today? Many states didn't have daytime rural speed limits, and some, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were posted at 70 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Pennsylvania_Turnpike_70_mph_1942.jpg) while they're 55-65 today.
The issue isn't that the road was designed for cars 60 years ago, it's that the road was designed for speeds lower than 75.
Because there is an order of magnitude more traffic today.
Nobody's questioning that.
Oh gee. Another list with North Yungas, which was bypassed in 2006.
It is a piece of cake by absolute standards, especially since it's recently reconstructed, but the most intense driving experience I've personally driven has to be the Kingery and Borman Expressways in Chicago/NW Indiana (I-80/94). Lots of traffic, with a high percentage of trucks, moving at a pretty fast clip. I had a blast, but it scared the shit out of my girlfriend, who gets a little bit antsy in Oklahoma City traffic.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 29, 2012, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on November 29, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Too many drivers going 75mph on tight turns designed for cars 60 years ago.
I've never understood the "cars 60 years ago" argument. If cars 60 years ago weren't capable of today's speeds, why were speed limits higher 60 years ago than they are today? Many states didn't have daytime rural speed limits, and some, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were posted at 70 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Pennsylvania_Turnpike_70_mph_1942.jpg) while they're 55-65 today.
Keep in mind the highway fatality rate was like 5x higher than currently. Not only were the cars completely unsafe (by modern standards), so were many of the roads, including the Penn Turnpike.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 29, 2012, 02:11:37 PMI've never understood the "cars 60 years ago" argument. If cars 60 years ago weren't capable of today's speeds, why were speed limits higher 60 years ago than they are today? Many states didn't have daytime rural speed limits, and some, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were posted at 70 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Pennsylvania_Turnpike_70_mph_1942.jpg) while they're 55-65 today.
Speed limits weren't always higher--rural speed limits of 45 MPH were common. I think the biggest difference between the 1940's and the present is not that speed limits were higher in some places than they are now, but rather that there was much more variation among states in the policies governing speed limits.
Partly this was because the research literature on setting appropriate speed limits was virtually nonexistent compared to the present. Solomon's
Proceedings of the Highway Research Board paper, which established the accident frequency U-curve showing that accident frequency rises sharply at speeds 15 MPH below and 15 MPH above the average speed, was not published until the mid-1950's. (I believe it was also this paper that blessed the 85th-percentile rule for setting speed limits--isn't average speed plus 15 MPH usually the 85th percentile?)
Another reason is that it was not until 1936 (I think) that Joseph Barnett (one of the BPR's research scientists) suggested defining design speed as the highest speed that the ordinary driver chooses when conditions are so favorable that the geometric characteristics of the road govern speed choice. Curve tables relating superelevation to curvature for various design speeds, defined on the basis suggested by Barnett, were thus not widely available until the late 1930's. This definition still guides the choice of speed limits on newly located roads where it has not been possible to measure an 85th-percentile speed.
Kansas is a case in point. When the Kansas Turnpike opened in 1956, it had no speed limit, as was also true for rural state highways in Kansas. However, motorists were advised that the curve design speed was generally 70 to 75 MPH. In other words, they were reminded that they had the
discretion to choose their preferred cruising speeds, not that they could choose any speed they damn well pleased (this is what "reasonable and proper" meant in Kansas at the time). The expectation, based on Barnett's design speed definition, was that motorists would generally not choose speeds much greater than 70-75 MPH. When numerical speed limits were introduced statewide in 1957, the Turnpike initially had an 80 MPH speed limit, dropped to 75 MPH several years later, and with the exception of the NMSL years (1973-1996) the Turnpike speed limit has always been either 70 or 75 MPH.
In the case of the Arroyo Seco Parkway, I believe it was initially posted at its design speed of 45 MPH, which even now is a more comfortable cruising speed than the current limit of 55 MPH.
QuoteThe issue isn't that the road was designed for cars 60 years ago, it's that the road was designed for speeds lower than 75.
The Arroyo Seco is a special case. First, it had been planned since the 1920's in what was already recognized as a very confined corridor, so the engineers were prepared to accept a lower design speed for that reason alone. The decision to build three lanes in each direction instead of the initially planned two came quite late in the design process, and led to a reduction in the unit lane width and the omission of shoulders and recovery areas. In spite of these limitations the Arroyo Seco had a more favorable accident record than a surface boulevard of comparable lane count, so it "proved" the freeway concept.
It is, however, not built to the standards that were contemplated in 1940 for California freeways. A better idea of what Caltrans' predecessor agency at the time thought of as a "standard" freeway is given by the original construction plans for the Aliso Street Viaduct (now part of the I-10/US 101 wye northeast of downtown Los Angeles), the Cahuenga Freeway (now part of US 101, from Lankershim Blvd. south to Highland Ave.), and the Four Level Interchange itself (despite its 1954 completion date, the basic design was developed in the early 1940's during World War II).
To put it in simpler terms, the Arroyo Seco was not the baseline design; it was the result of designing
down from the baseline. Caltrans' predecessor agency was already sold on the freeway concept, and planned to build more of them, regardless of what happened with the Arroyo Seco. The fact that it was a success just made it easier to sell the general idea of more freeways. There was no intention to copy the Arroyo Seco design, with all its limitations, anywhere else.
There were some design refinements when the other early freeways were built, but these were comparatively minor and dealt with the relationship between speeds on ramps and speeds on the mainline.
I see the present 55 MPH limit on the Arroyo Seco as the product of an uneasy compromise. Speed adaptation means that traffic entering the Arroyo Seco from other freeways will float up to a 55 MPH speed even though the Arroyo Seco is a far different animal and 45 is better for comfort on the curves. But, realistically, very few people will sacrifice ability to maneuver in fast heavy traffic for comfortable lateral acceleration values.
I honestly have no clue what people's problem with Queens Boulevard is. It is not in the least bit freaky to drive on nor to cross as a pedestrian.
It is also not the only road in the city with such a configuration. See: Grand Concourse, Eastern Parkway, Linden Boulevard, Kings Highway, and Ocean Parkway. So what's so special about it?
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2012, 11:45:32 PMI honestly have no clue what people's problem with Queens Boulevard is.
It just hasn't been the same since they closed the McDowell's at 8507.
(I'll show myself out...)
Any road in Tulsa. I drove around today and nearly got hit 12 or 13 times. Had I not been paying close attention I would have gotten into several wrecks. This one woman pulled out in front of me in a parking lot and I had to lock up the brakes to keep from hitting her. Of course, it was a large crossover SUV. I flipped her off and she waved at me like she hadn't done anything wrong.
Quote from: kinupanda on November 30, 2012, 02:15:59 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2012, 11:45:32 PMI honestly have no clue what people's problem with Queens Boulevard is.
It just hasn't been the same since they closed the McDowell's at 8507.
(I'll show myself out...)
Now you've got me craving a Big Mick - served up by Arsenio Hall. :-D
The roads on IRT Deadliest roads
Quote from: bugo on November 30, 2012, 03:49:16 AM
Any road in Tulsa. I drove around today and nearly got hit 12 or 13 times. Had I not been paying close attention I would have gotten into several wrecks. This one woman pulled out in front of me in a parking lot and I had to lock up the brakes to keep from hitting her. Of course, it was a large crossover SUV. I flipped her off and she waved at me like she hadn't done anything wrong.
Having worked full-time in a parking lot before, I can tell you that (in general) middle-aged ladies driving SUVs are the worst and pushiest out there–worse than any young male driver.
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2012, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 30, 2012, 03:49:16 AM
Any road in Tulsa. I drove around today and nearly got hit 12 or 13 times. Had I not been paying close attention I would have gotten into several wrecks. This one woman pulled out in front of me in a parking lot and I had to lock up the brakes to keep from hitting her. Of course, it was a large crossover SUV. I flipped her off and she waved at me like she hadn't done anything wrong.
Having worked full-time in a parking lot before, I can tell you that (in general) middle-aged ladies driving SUVs are the worst and pushiest out there–worse than any young male driver.
I second that! And, the larger and more expensive the SUV is, the pushier and more reckless the woman behind the wheel becomes. Take that and multiply it by 10 when she is yammering away on her cell phone!
Truly terrifying. :-o
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 30, 2012, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2012, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 30, 2012, 03:49:16 AM
Any road in Tulsa. I drove around today and nearly got hit 12 or 13 times. Had I not been paying close attention I would have gotten into several wrecks. This one woman pulled out in front of me in a parking lot and I had to lock up the brakes to keep from hitting her. Of course, it was a large crossover SUV. I flipped her off and she waved at me like she hadn't done anything wrong.
Having worked full-time in a parking lot before, I can tell you that (in general) middle-aged ladies driving SUVs are the worst and pushiest out there–worse than any young male driver.
I second that! And, the larger and more expensive the SUV is, the pushier and more reckless the woman behind the wheel becomes. Take that and multiply it by 10 when she is yammering away on her cell phone!
Truly terrifying. :-o
Yep. And usually, they're blonde. The biggest offenders are drivers of Lexus SUVs. I'd like to burn every Lexus ever made.
I've noticed that Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade drivers are the most obnoxious. also the ugliest car on the road. the Ford Expedition comes pretty close, as does the Suburban.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 29, 2012, 01:07:09 PM
I sometimes freak out if I'm on CT Route 15, a.k.a. the Merritt Parkway (Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line). The tight curves, especially in Greenwich, are asking for somebody to speed and cause an accident. It looks like it's prone to deer strikes, since some of the road is in the woods, close to some people's back yards.
That's what freaks you out about the Parkway? How about the ramps? On-ramps with stop signs at the end of them. Off-ramps 100-200 ft long. I think that is scarier than the tight curves. If entering the parkway from a dead stop with traffic bearing down on you at 60-70 mph or slamming on your breaks as you exit to decelerate from 65 to zero in 200 ft doesn't get the blood going, nothing will.
...and the Merritt Parkway is far from the worst in the NYC area. Try driving the Bronx River Parkway sometime. No, not in The Bronx, the part north of the split with the Sprain. Y'know, the part that's so bad they built the Sprain to bypass it rather than upgrade it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2012, 04:42:43 PM
I've noticed that Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade drivers are the most obnoxious. also the ugliest car on the road.
Now that the Pontiac Aztec has been dead for a while...
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Now that the Pontiac Aztec has been dead for a while...
that was a special breed of creatively ugly. the Tahoe just looks like it was built by a committee of playground bullies.
It was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PM
It was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
Same reason as the Mazda Millenia.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 09:01:21 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PMIt was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
Same reason as the Mazda Millenia.
If you mean that the marketing people didn't want to remind clueless customers of their own inability to spell, then I can certainly believe that, but do you have a source?
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 09:01:21 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PMIt was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
Same reason as the Mazda Millenia.
If you mean that the marketing people didn't want to remind clueless customers of their own inability to spell, then I can certainly believe that, but do you have a source?
I'm more referring to "slightly altered spellings are somehow considered to be popular." Just look at baby name trends lately.
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 10:08:50 PM
I'm more referring to "slightly altered spellings are somehow considered to be popular." Just look at baby name trends lately.
combined with random vampire names. we've probably got kids being named Robyrt Patynsyn now.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2012, 10:14:41 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 10:08:50 PM
I'm more referring to "slightly altered spellings are somehow considered to be popular." Just look at baby name trends lately.
combined with random vampire names. we've probably got kids being named Robyrt Patynsyn now.
i will gladly give out my address to anyone who is willing to kill me before i meet anyone by that name
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 10:08:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 09:01:21 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PMIt was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
Same reason as the Mazda Millenia.
If you mean that the marketing people didn't want to remind clueless customers of their own inability to spell, then I can certainly believe that, but do you have a source?
I'm more referring to "slightly altered spellings are somehow considered to be popular." Just look at baby name trends lately.
It's for trademarking purposes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PM
It was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
It was already iconic because it killed the Pontiac brand.
I love how we've gone from roads where people actually fear death on a regular basis to (1) various urban expressways in the US and (2) car model name spellings.
Quote from: kphoger on December 01, 2012, 12:20:46 PM
I love how we've gone from roads where people actually fear death on a regular basis to (1) various urban expressways in the US and (2) car model name spellings.
The Aztek is the most terrifying car in the world; therefore, any road on which it appears is the most terrifying.
Thank you for the illumination. I have edited my post.
Quote from: InterstateNG on December 01, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PM
It was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
It was already iconic because it killed the Pontiac marque.
No, it didn't. The Obama administration did. GM wanted to keep Pontiac around, but they rejected GM's plan that kept Pontiac around. One of Obama's boondoggles.
Quote from: InterstateNG on December 01, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 08:48:12 PM
It was actually the Pontiac Aztek (with a k--Google is not helpful as to why) and Breaking Bad has made it iconic again.
It was already iconic because it killed the Pontiac brand.
Pontiac was a dead brand walking long before that. Many, many missteps killed the brand long before it was finally axed. I'm actually a bit surprised Buick survived in the US and Canada.
Pontiac was doing fine as a marque (not a brand. Cars are either makes or marques. Toilet paper, bread, and TVs are "brands".) It outsold Buick by a large margin. The only reason they killed off Pontiac and kept Buick is because for some reason, the Buick marque has a lot of prestige in China. I'm still angry for the losses of Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth, and Mercury. Hell, I miss DeSoto, Edsel, Packard, Studebaker, and AMC, even though all of those were before my time besides AMC. I don't really miss Saturn, and good riddance to Hummer.
back on topic... the only thing keeping "any arterial in Mexico City" off this list is the sheer volume of traffic. driving 7-abreast on a road designed for three lanes (but just not striped, of course) is not quite as harrowing when you're averaging 3.5mph.
Really hate commercial that use cool roads without identifying them. Maybe that could be an AA roads post someday.
I'm surprised we made it this far and didn't even mention "[The Tail of] The Dragon," a portion of U.S. 129 on both Tennessee and North Carolina. Hundreds of sharp (and blind) curves where any mistake could be one's last. They even had a 55 mph speed limit before dropping to 30 in 2005.
Twenty-four lives have been lost since 2000 due to accidents on this nasty stretch. It was recently profiled on the documentary "Hell Roads," which aired on the Discovery Channel. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16YnmJN0fc) is the clip.
So, basically, it's just like any lettered highway in the Missouri Ozarks. :)
Quote from: texaskdog on February 04, 2013, 02:16:02 PM
Really hate commercial that use cool roads without identifying them. Maybe that could be an AA roads post someday.
There was that one Super Bowl commercial that kept showing this truss bridge that made me want to drive it. But not the car, just the bridge.