The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is arguably the leading area of organized antagonism toward the automobile in general and car commuters particularly. There are frequent occasions in the District of Columbia, in particular, for overt hostility to be displayed by pedestrians and bicycle riders, both of whom show signs of disdain toward the lowly car commuters, as well as most any automobile driver. Glaring and verbal assaults are common weapons used by Green Revolutionaries and their fellow travellers against the harried car driver. Could hurled stones be far away? Spray-paint terrorism?
The "traffic and news" station of record in the area is WTOP. This is an organization which features such issues as pedestrians struck by vehicles, whether buses, trucks, and cars. The manner by which the reports are presented tend to point the finger of blame at the automobile driver, whatever its form.
From my experience the District of Columbia does have more than its share of "heavy-footed" drivers. Running red-lights is hardly infrequent.
There is never anything approaching enough free parking, nor is there any nominal payment parking (what general labor can afford to pay), probably because these people aren't desired in the increasingly gentrified D.C. anyway and under any circumstance, other than as less-than-minimum-wage servants.
Hence, "double parking" in two-lane roadways is common. This occlusion of the roadway tends to induce faster traffic, much as the occlusion of a waterway tends to make for faster-travelling water. However, the double-parked vehicles also tend to obstruct vision of both drivers and pedestrians.
In the District the nature of pedestrians is such that they will, due to some mysterious force, find the heightened danger of such situations compelling "reason" to cross at precisely that point in the road. Perhaps they reason that the double-parked vehicle will shield them.
Yet, the pedestrians are known to cross at any point in the road at any time. Further, the crossings are commonly done with multiple "jaywalkers," many not even looking for cars. As for the bicyclists, they recognize no rules of the road other than "me-first." Only the fragility of their vehicles ultimately makes them "back down." Many wait just a bit too long and get "gored" or worse.
There are plenty of occasions when the automobile driver will encounter people walking right across the roadway in the District, looking with a laughing arrogance, as if to say: If you hit me, I'll sue you and the District government will put your ass in jail for a long stretch to boot. All this in utter violation of the signal light applicable at the time. Few people want to run over anyone anyway. Yet, when you suddenly stop for such "jaywalking," you make yourself endangered by an increased chance of a rear-end collision from the vehicle following your vehicle, who is, perhaps, unaware that pedestrians have boldly walked right in front of the vehicle ahead of them.
There are few nocturnal pedestrians who seem aware that black or dark clothing will make them difficult to see. It is absolutely common to drive almost upon these "shadows" before just recognizing that they are humans and pulling one's automobile aside. Are they intoxicated? Frankly, that often is the problem, for not only are dark clothes worn but poor judgment exhibited by such pedestrians struck by a car. Unfortunately, the police are not too vigilant, when it comes to "walking while intoxicated" ("WWI") pedestrians. In effect these WWIs lurch, like deer, into the pathway of oncoming cars and get struck.
Often, when that happens, the driver keeps on going. My guess is that they are "heavy-footed" drivers, who don't figure they have a good excuse for hitting "Pedro." If caught, they'll serve a fairly heavy sentence. It is the truly blameless automobile driver who stops. Yet, he will still be blamed. Remember: In the District cardrivers are the enemy.
I used the expression "Pedro" advisedly, because many of those who are struck by cars seem to be Latinos and other immigrants. They do not seem to have experience with pedestrian-automobile "peaceful coexistence." There is no awareness of "rules of the road." They simply "ford" the roadway whenever and wherever whim instructs. Again, one is reminded of deer or, indeed, opossum.
Much mayhem can develop between car operator and bicyclist. The fault here may be recklessness by either party. However, increasingly under the sway of the misguided, Greenies' propaganda, The bicyclist may convince himself that there is a paramount issue of principle involved. He may feel that equality of modes of movement demand that he peddle his bike right in the center of a lane of roadway specifically constructed for cars. It is a new day, he may think. But the "big" tend to devour the "little," and so it goes with any confrontation between the two modes of movement.
Regardless of any reasoned peril, the Greenie proceeds truculently, glaring and mouthing insults at the automobile driver.
As a VRE (Virginia Railway Express) commercial goes on WTOP, car "bad! Railroad "good!"
No comments:
Post a Comment