• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

82miles, 85mph, FREE, 18days & Faster w/ Videos [merged]

Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
538
Location
Texas
http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/local/x688464037/Hog-crashes-prompt-signage-along-130

New signs going up!

Was thinking about starting a hog thread; but I'll just add this bit here.

Have any of you seen a traffic warning sign about hogs?

There is one on the way out of Kingsbury, going south on 2438.

For those of you in Lamesa, Kingsbury is east of San Antonio, between Seguin and Luling.

Anyway, I know the wild hog problem is widespread, but that's the only sign I've seen.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Austin
First Name
Tj
Last Name
Dixon
Hogs are pretty smart critters though. I bet once they figure out that bright lights = bad they will avoid the road like the plague unless they absolutely have to.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Location
Coupland, TX
First Name
David
Last Name
Hogate
If you put up signs about hog crossing then the hogs will think it's OK to cross there.

http://www.allproudamericans.com/Please-Move-The-Deer-Crossing.html

There are so many variables to go into "safe" conditions or driving. Running on maypops is not ideal at 80-85mph. Daytime is much better than night for visibility in most cases. Not texting helps. Even some folks can't pull their head out of their cell phones while driving and carrying on a conversation and are oblivious to those around them. A majority of drivers on the toll doing 80 or 85 do it just fine and their vehicles are properly maintained to be able to sustain those speeds with relative safety.

Do I think folks are able to adjust to hazards in the road, your car or the car in front of you having a blowout, the idiot changing lanes into the space you currently occupy because the cell phone is taking 90% of their attention... too many "what ifs".

The people I have stopped on the 80mph section of SH 130 have all said the speed limit is 85mph. They've all been wrong. Most people think that doing 5-10 over the speed limit is acceptable. So there's a lot of folks doing 90-95mph out there regardless of what the limit is and passing numerous signs stating the limit is 80.

Texans believe it's their right to drive. You would flip if you knew how many vehicles on the road at any given time have unlicensed drivers (includes all illegal aliens and those citizens with suspended licenses), uninsured, unregistered, expired or not inspected vehicles, drunk, high or just plain schizophrenic (bi-polar) that will go off for no reason. Then there's those that are legally licensed and such that just have no regard whatsoever to others or the law. It's amazing there are so few incidences considering all of that.

I had to pull a deer off 130 last year after a minivan struck it. NB, just north of HWY 71 near the Harold Green exit. It isn't like this is uncommon. A vehicle struck a deer on 290 just east of Parmer Ln a few weeks ago in Manor. This is Texas. There's a lot of wild animals out there. Not to mention all the dogs and other pets that get hit on roadways but they're (thankfully) usually not on the toll. I go out on calls for loose livestock a lot, even on 130, for loose cows and horses. At 80-95 mph if you're eyes don't project beyond your front bumper you're likely going to hit it if it's in the lane. A lot of people don't look far enough ahead. Following too closely? You can't see through that truck in front of you so why are you 30 feet off their bumper?

Driving in Texas is hazardous to your health.
 

Meriden

Forum Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,851
Location
At the back of the pack and out of the dust
Ran 130 wit JMZ from I10 to Elroy today. Lots of "Right Lane for Passing Only" signs, one or two "Wildlife Crossing" signs and few people were going the speed limit. In fact there were few people using the road, period. Sorry no video. Better not post a photo of the Garmin trip log...
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
678
Location
Austin
First Name
Greg
Last Name
Hall
Only planned one pass today but ended up doing two. The first was going south at 7:30 on my way to Mustang Island and it was pretty foggy. Ran about 70mph safely behind a pilot fish cager for most of the way. The fog lifted two miles before I10 so got to open it up for a brief stint. My return from the coast was suppose to be via 304 north of Gonzales but heavy rains forced a detour west on I10. I decided to do another pass given the much improved weather. Was a bit sketchy on the overpasses due to the high southeast winds but sill managed to average slightly better than 85mph back to the Hwy183 exit.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,796
Location
Hangin' out at the "bars"
The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I have been educated! lol
will look it up to verify for my own curiousity
If it is as you say, then this could prove very useful if needed in the future.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,209
Location
Austin, Texas
The "speed limit" signs in Texas are described in the statutes as "Prima Facie Reasonable and Prudent Speed Limit Signs."

The law regarding speed in Texas is that a driver will maintain a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions. There is nothing in the statutes about exceeding the posted speeds, nor are there any punitive conditions associated with the signs or the speeds shown on them.

Basically, everyone is supposed to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed based on their own skill level, conditions, etc.

When a citation is issued, the posted speed referenced is prima facie evidence that the speed you were traveling wasn't reasonable and prudent.

When there is no injured party, people who appeal the case to a court of record and enter an affidavit into evidence for the case stating they were driving a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions have provided hard evidence that trumps prima facie evidence. This places the burden of proof back on the prosecutor. Without any hard evidence (an injured party) to counter the affidavit the case is usually dismissed.

Those who pay the fine in an administrative venue (J.P., Municipal, etc.) are essentially agreeing that they injured themselves by speeding. The case document is claiming an injury against "the peace and dignity of the state." The state is a "body politic" of which the driver is a member.

Just because the posted speed says 85 is no guarantee that any particular driver can safely travel at that speed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each driver to determine for themselves what is reasonable and prudent at any given moment.

And, as they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I take it that you can also be cited for speeding if you are going below posted speed limits under certain conditions, bad weather, unusually dense traffic that's going under the speed limit due to traffic density, etc., though you almost have to have an injured party to get such a ticket.
The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities. A speed limit, on the other hand, is easily definable and exeeding this speed is easily provable in court.
I understand that speeding is handled as a civil and not a criminal offense because civil cases have a "preponderence of evidence" standard of proof instead of a criminal case's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
you can also be cited for "impeding traffic" for those people who dont know where the gas pedal is.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,796
Location
Hangin' out at the "bars"
I take it that you can also be cited for speeding if you are going below posted speed limits under certain conditions, bad weather, unusually dense traffic that's going under the speed limit due to traffic density, etc., though you almost have to have an injured party to get such a ticket.
The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities. A speed limit, on the other hand, is easily definable and exeeding this speed is easily provable in court.
I understand that speeding is handled as a civil and not a criminal offense because civil cases have a "preponderence of evidence" standard of proof instead of a criminal case's "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
You can be cited for anything, really.

When you say, "The problem with "reasonable and prudent" is that it is sort of a nebulous standard that is not uniformly interpreted by different municipalities,"

This statement overlooks the fact that these different municipalities are "enforcing" rules against folks upon whom they actually have no legal leg to stand on.

Granted, people who drive fast through residential areas, school zones, etc. should be made aware how they should give more thought to the consequences and encouraged to make better driving decisions. I feel that the use of speed limit signs are a double-edged sword in accomplishing this. They usually offer an appropriate guideline for speed based upon observation of the traffic pattern, and the money extraction aspect of ticketing is a good deterrent. It just seems ever so slightly criminal in nature to blatantly deceive people when the process is painted as if based in law.

As for "preponderance of evidence," well, that part is accurate enough. When prima facie evidence is accepted as fact and actual evidence is never considered, then the preponderance of evidence convicts. Whether this is beyond a reasonable doubt is questionable, as you can argue and present evidence to your heart's content in an "administrative venue" like a J.P. or Municipal court and they have no obligation to consider it. In the end their decision stands.

The term "Kangaroo Court" seems appropriate.

If you are displeased with the outcome there you may appeal to a court of record for a "trial de novo" (new trial) where everything that happened in the admin court is forgotten, and things like arraignment, evidence and other factors will carry weight.

Every aspect of law in Texas is founded on the concept of "common law" where it is presumed that an injured party is seeking relief. Administrative venues are more like third-party arbitration as a way to resolve things before taking the matter to trial.

Only, these administrative justices usually favor the collection of money over things like ethics, morals, facts, etc. and have little working knowledge of the statutes themselves and are often confused by logical presentation of facts. Many seem to prefer to pass the matter on to the county attorney and court than to make a decision that does not favor money collection.

Where you indicate how "exceeding the speed is easily proven in court" it misses the key point of how there isn't any actual statute or law on the books being violated. If there is no injured party seeking relief from damages there is no matter to be decided by the court. They dress it up to look legit, making the State out to be the injured party when the "State" actually has no standing as a "person" in a court.

In many cases speed limit signs give some people the impression that it is safe to drive at these speeds. As if they are in an amusement park where the ride has been made safe for them. So, they drive the indicated speed without consideration for the conditions, or any reasonable assessment of their ability to manage things should the conditions change for the worse.

For these people the existing ticketing system probably works best. It is like the amusement park attendant taking them to time-out for breaking the rules and putting themselves or others in danger.

It seems unreasonable to me that those who are conscientious and practice good skills are punished along-side those who think the rest of the world is there to serve them and keep them safe without them having to think about it.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,209
Location
Austin, Texas
you can also be cited for "impeding traffic" for those people who dont know where the gas pedal is.
I had a conversation with a retired DPS officer about that and you have to do a little more than not quite go the speed limit to be cited for that. His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit and it only applies to "free flowing traffic" and conditions that are safe. You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply.

A case where you could be cited is if you drive 30 mph down a two lane FM road and when a passing zone comes along, you accelerate to 80 mph to prevent the car behind you from going around you, and when the passing zone is over, you slow back down to 30.
Or a large group of bicyclists go down the highway using both lanes preventing a long line of cars behind them from passing al la the Critical Mass jerks in Austin and even their case was hard to make stick.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
I had a conversation with a retired DPS officer about that and you have to do a little more than not quite go the speed limit to be cited for that. His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit and it only applies to "free flowing traffic" and conditions that are safe. You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply.

A case where you could be cited is if you drive 30 mph down a two lane FM road and when a passing zone comes along, you accelerate to 80 mph to prevent the car behind you from going around you, and when the passing zone is over, you slow back down to 30.
Or a large group of bicyclists go down the highway using both lanes preventing a long line of cars behind them from passing al la the Critical Mass jerks in Austin and even their case was hard to make stick.
I agree with the
"You won't get cited for going 20 mph on a highway covered with snow and ice, blanketed with pea soup fog, or if the traffic congestion is so bad that the traffic is only going 20 mph, in fact, if you drive unsafely in order to go "the speed limit" when the traffic is crawling, you could get cited for unsafe speed.
Also, if you are in a vehicle that has a special speed limit or is incapable of going the minimum, such as an 18 wheeler climbing a grade, this does not apply."
statement....

BUT,
I disagree with the
"His claim was that unless otherwise posted, the minumum speed was 15 under the speed limit" comment.

No where does it state that there is a 15 under the posted limit rule. The citation of "impeding traffic" as i mentioned, and as it has been explained to me, also by LEO friends of mine, is that it is up to the DISCRETION of the officer. Yes i agree that any officer who wrote such a citation for the extreme/abnormal conditions above would be crazy and the ticket would most likely be tossed out of court.
But i was referring more to people who, on a normal highway/road, lets say for example a speed limit posted of 70mph, are going 50 when there is no weather, or other abnormal condition to justify it, can and should be cited for "impeding traffic". In some states(i just spent 10 years in Washington state,(and a few places in TX) they actually have signs that state "Slower traffic keep right". Otherwise you will be cited if an officer sees it.)
IE: being old and scared to do the posted speed limit is no reason for someone to do 50 on a posted 70 road. and this is just ONE example, i see it all the time. I also on the age subject, since i mentioned it, think that once you reach a certain age, it should be mandatory for you to get a yearly exam to make sure you are still CAPABLE of driving safely. And i would gladly submit to such a requirement myself.
(a good example is Hwy 79. Much of it is 2 lanes and 70mph, alot of it has no passing zones too. So if you are going 50, with no justification, why shouldnt you be cited? At that point i am not legally allowed to pass you, and if you have no justification for going so slow, you are impeding my progress to reach my destination.)
FYI: i also agree with banning cell phone use while driving, except in emergency situations. I think that distracted drivers are a huge portion of the problems on the roads now days. Putting makeup on... eating... cell phones... beating your kids in the back seat....I think ALL of those should be banned, and punished.

All of my comments above are considering one were to stay within the confines of the law.

Now let the flames commence. :giveup::rider:
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,209
Location
Austin, Texas
That 15 under rule might have been an informal standard used by the cops.

On another topic.
What constitutes an affirmative defense for running a red light in Texas? Is it spelled out?
I was in the right lane at a red light and an emergency vehicle pulled up behind me with its sirens on. I checked to see if it was safe and then drove through the red thus unblocking the emergency vehicle. This obviously is an affirmative defense for running a red light but how about a signal that doesn't detect a motorcycle?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
I looked up the TX Transportation code:

Sec. 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.(b) When the Texas Transportation Commission, the Texas Turnpike Authority, the commissioners court of a county, or the governing body of a municipality, within the jurisdiction of each, as applicable, as specified in Sections 545.353 to 545.357, determines from the results of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on a part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the commission, authority, county commissioners court, or governing body may determine and declare a minimum speed limit on the highway.(c) If appropriate signs are erected giving notice of a minimum speed limit adopted under this section, an operator may not drive a vehicle more slowly than that limit except as necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
2,290
Location
Coupland, TX
First Name
David
Last Name
Hogate
I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to not follow the rules or laws, to find loopholes, to justify their behavior, etc. Doesn't matter if it's traffic related or otherwise.

Yes, it will definitely kill you to be held under 85 mph if that's the posted speed. You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK.

The reason why the limit is what it is on the 85 portion of SH 130 is because of money. The access roads were reduced to 55 in a combined effort to get more folks to drive the toll. And the state got a bigger kickback by making it higher. It costs something like $20+ to get from IH 10 to IH 35 just north of Georgetown. And you get crappier gas mileage at higher speeds so add that to the cost of taking the toll. The state receives more tax revenue from more gas being sold. That's planning.

Of course if you're purposely riding on the edge of the road past the toll booths to avoid paying the toll then you're OK with dishonesty too.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
1,209
Location
Austin, Texas
The reason why the limit is what it is on the 85 portion of SH 130 is because of money. The access roads were reduced to 55 in a combined effort to get more folks to drive the toll. And the state got a bigger kickback by making it higher. It costs something like $20+ to get from IH 10 to IH 35 just north of Georgetown. And you get crappier gas mileage at higher speeds so add that to the cost of taking the toll. The state receives more tax revenue from more gas being sold. That's planning.

Of course if you're purposely riding on the edge of the road past the toll booths to avoid paying the toll then you're OK with dishonesty too.
It's not the lowering of the speed limit on the older route that gets to me so much as it is timing the lights so you have to stop and wait at each and every one of them, which also causes crappy gas mileage.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,796
Location
Hangin' out at the "bars"
As for the "Slower traffic keep right" signs, they are being phased out and replaced with "Left lane for passing only."

My guess is this is a psychological gambit, as nobody would think of themselves as "slower" so are less likely to change lanes. The new signage paints it in a way that gets to the point without labeling the slow driver.

Now the issue is getting folks to stop texting long enough to read and understand the sign.

I am so looking forward to automated cars, like the google experiment, so the drivers who really don't want to make safe operation of their car a priority over more mundane activities will have the option to not be the driver at all.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to not follow the rules or laws, to find loopholes, to justify their behavior, etc. Doesn't matter if it's traffic related or otherwise.

Yes, it will definitely kill you to be held under 85 mph if that's the posted speed. You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK.
Not sure if you took some offense from my post, but that wasnt intended.
But yes i agree with this part of your comment...

"You must be able to go 90 or 110 mph. 55 mph posted, then I must be allowed to go 60 or 70 mph. My tires didn't pop, suspension didn't break, nothing flew out in front of me, didn't run anyone off the road so it must be OK."


As per the law.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
521
Location
Round Rock
First Name
Dusty
Last Name
Windham
I am so looking forward to automated cars, like the google experiment, so the drivers who really don't want to make safe operation of their car a priority over more mundane activities will have the option to not be the driver at all.
Can we say "Terminator" or "i-robot"? haha
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
1,796
Location
Hangin' out at the "bars"
Can we say "Terminator" or "i-robot"? haha
Well, I meant for, you know, everyone else. :trust:

AS responsible drivers we can still drive our bikes and cars, and the texters can focus on what is more important to them. Avoiding personal responsibility for their actions as roadway users.

If road safety were more important than revenue we would have tiered licensing by now. This would go a long way toward getting the herd to take their skills more seriously. Higher tier licenses would enjoy reduced insurance costs, access to faster lanes, night privileges, fog privileges, etc. based upon their knowledge, aptitude and demonstration of skill.

I think this could even be done independently without any government mandate, other than having highway engineers designating the terms for license level access to roads and lanes.

Third-party training and testing facilities could provide the basis for the insurance companies to use as a yardstick for establishing the discounted premiums. Drivers would pay the testing facilities for training and qualification with the hope of the cost eventually being a wash with reduced insurance costs, access to designated high-speed lanes restricted to higher tier operation, etc.

Personal responsibility would then be in the forefront of the driving experience. You want to drive faster? Drive at night? Drive without supervision? Well, then you must qualify and agree to be measured against a higher standard, by choice.

This would be much more promising than simply putting 85 mph signs on a tollway and turning everyone loose.

Aw, nevermind . . . :lol2:
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
538
Location
Texas
Been on 130 between I-10 and Austin quite a bit the last couple of weeks. Some bike, mostly cage.
Use the GPS for speed (85) and I don't recall anyone passing me.
Last night I had my first wild pork sighting.
At 85 there's not much you can do about it. Lucky for me the Very Large Critter was in the breakdown lane, headin' for the bar ditch.
I slowed down to 75 for the rest of the trip.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
698
Location
Austin, TX
First Name
Wayne
Last Name
Brissette
Been on 130 between I-10 and Austin quite a bit the last couple of weeks. Some bike, mostly cage.
Use the GPS for speed (85) and I don't recall anyone passing me.
My wife and I took our bikes on it and we were doing 85 and we were passed by a couple of cagers, but you know some people are always going to want to go faster. The road itself is boring, and honestly I don't know maybe it was the time of day, but the stretch of I-10 through Seguin was stop and go and nearly backed up to the exit ramp of 130.

I still don't see how they expect 130 with the current pricing scheme to get 18 wheelers off I-35, or how they will entice standard drivers to pay the prices they are asking even at 85 MPH. I really would like to know if they are making any real money with the toll roads around Austin. I know that several of the businesses along 290 complained about the new section going to Manor, but were basically told tough luck (My wife works at Applied Materials and their CEO apparently complained directly since it affects them attracting employees). They were told folks cold use the "free" side roads (however, living out in that direction, we've already been informed the speed of the side roads will be decreased ... follow the money).

Wayne
 
Top