Washington D.C. -- A Motorist's Abyss

[Deaf Bob]

Like you were going in circles!

Like a fast merry go round..
You can see where you wanna go but nobody'd let you do it!
That was the 6 way off "M" street! By the hockey rink.. (was in bad shape then, might not be there no more)

[38P]

I'm getting that same "sucked into the vortex" feeling that I got when I walked into the eerily symbolic underground pit that is the "Capitol Visitors' Center" last week, but here goes . . . .

Yep. It's in the best interest of the city to have fewer cars. Less infrastructure and upkeep, not to mention making it better for the cars that are there. A lot of people would rather not drive. So I say we should support them. Leaves more room on the road for us.

Old guys (of which I'm one), our hard-earned tax dollars probably funded the educational institutions that produced this sort of "logic."

The City will still have to maintain (and improve) the same street "infrastructure" for all of the huge trucks and transit buses (which exponentially cause more damage to roadways than light vehicles. Moreover it's hard to see how creating a guaranteed shortage of parking, which will drive up parking prices beyond levels affordable to anyone but the rich and/or politically connected "makes it better for the cars that are there." It that's so, then NYC must be an automotive nirvana.

The fact that the basement-dwellers in the iPhone/iPad generation have been propagandized by the state and the alleged intelligencia against our fundamental automotive freedoms and "don't want to drive" is irrelevant. Building parking doesn't make anyone have to drive a car. And the inadequacy of the current parking requirements in D.C. certainly insures that a whole host of pedestrian and dirty, stinky, slow, and inconvenient mass transit options will continue to flourish.

What is more, the current parking requirements for development are not competing with the government subsidies for any anti-motoring alternatives. It's not as if the money that would have been invested in off-street parking will be funneled into more ridiculous "bike lanes" or money-losing subway lines. It will just be pocketed by developers who want to flood the market with rentable space that's not adequately supported by available "infrastructure."

Finally, as motorists, we ought to support what's in the best interest of all motoring, not just what benefits those who are current motorists.

I own both. It's legal here. But I own them because I don't want to get a ticket when I'm breaking the law. A square is a square, no reason to call it a circle.

A prime example of the logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. Sort of like saying "I own a gun because I want to rob liquor stores and shoot up street signs . . . so that's why anybody would own a gun."

This is a great example of what is called the slippery slope logical fallacy.

No it was a prime example of reductio ad absurdum, which seeks in this case (an appeal to "common sense" as a justification for an intrusive regulation) to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

More to the ultimate point, "common sense", whatever that may be, is wholly insufficient to establish either the probable truth or falsity of any proposition. Whenever I hear micromanaging freedom-grabbers justify more intrusions into my private choices with an appeal to "common sense," I instinctively grab my wallet and look out for a host of unintended consequences that the naïve power-grabbers either didn't see, ignored or simply lied about.

. . . .An entertaining look at "unintended consequences" in a freedomless, pre-programmed future "nirvana" world.

I've been hit by cars who rolled into the crosswalk when I'm running.

Don't run in traffic. They have big grassy parks in most towns for that sort of thing. Problem solved.

Do you know how much a knee or hip injury can mess someone up in the long run? I'm just fine with people who stop well before those lines. I smile and wave. Cars have to share the road.

The irony here is that our rules are virtually flip-flopped from those we employ for locomotives. Humans can stop and turn literally on a dime. Bicycles are almost as nimble. But motor vehicles, like locomotives are not. Yet we artificially fiat the right-of-way for foot traffic (and because the vast majority of bicyclists seem to ignore nearly all vehicular laws, in my observation, also de facto to lawless bicycles), while locomotives have the right-of-way. That's just crazy.

So while I don't support recklessness, I've got little sympathy for pedestrians who knowingly and intentionally encroach into driving paths without situational awareness. So I say, pull out those "ear buds", get off the iPhone and PAY ATTENTION! Humans are much more agile and equipped to avoid auto-pedestrian encounters than any motor vehicle.

Discretionary enforcement of "block the box" laws may be necessary to good order (as are the seldom-enforced laws against jaywalking, riding bikes on the sidewalk, riding contraflow, etc).

But using them for revenue-generation (a disproportionate tax) through automated photo systems is plainly unfair. For example, what if one looks in the mirror and sees a huge city transit bus about to rear end them. Should they be punished for rolling forward into the crosswalk by a photo enforcement array simply to avoid the collision? Of course not. While a human on the scene can make such discretionary judgments, a soulless camera system simply cannot.

And my observation is that the cameras and their inherent lack of discretion tend to cause a "chilling effect" that is both an overreaction to the situation and a costly impediment to orderly traffic flow.

[NewEnglandRaceFan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^HA runners and walkers don't even look to see if a vehicle is coming they just start across the road.. they don't even look, and if hemi paid any attention when running he'd see and know where the vehicles are, and if they will be able to stop before crossing into the real estate he plans on running on.. but why pay any mind to that when you can call 1-800-lawyer up

[38P]

In my locale (which is not nearly as urbanized or pedestrian as the "District of Car-H8"), they put in a special, unsignalled, mid-block crosswalk next to the courthouse, because some situationally-oblivious, "Crackberry"-addicted lawyer was run over and killed while illegally jaywalking. Apparently this deceased scofflaw and his surviving lobbyists convinced "the man" that pedestrians had some endowed right to that portion of the street on demand, notwithstanding traffic patterns or the realities of motoring.

The entertaining (and frustrating) thing about that crosswalk is that now some county employees seem to relish their power at the pinnacle of the road-use hierarchy to make all motor vehicles stop at their whim and caprice, while they amble in slow motion across the street.

But then in America, we seem to bend over backwards at times to protect the terminally stupid and irresponsible from themselves and the obvious, foreseeable consequences of their actions.

[mlcraven]

While your comments on the area's traffic and DC's incompetent and draconian local government are on point, don't shit on what you couldn't be bothered to look for...The gearhead mojo in the District region is alive and well, however, just not where you looked. There are probably a half dozen active strips within 90 minutes or so of the Capitol. Any other major urban areas support that many tracks?

Spot on comment. For example, Maryland International Raceway just outside DC is as nice a racing facility as I've seen anywhere. Yes, driving in/around/to/from DC sucks, but my experience is that driving in any equivalent-sized metro area is generally no treat.

[38P]

Sorry, I was stuck in traffic on Virginia's brilliant Interstate "666" . . . .

And while surging along at a Chuck Yeager-ish FIVE MILES AN HOUR on Saturday evening, I saw another "Speed Enforced by Aircraft" sign . . . WHAT FREAKIN SPEED?!?

That segment of I-66 is next to an outdoor portion of the aging Metro line . . . with ominous "high voltage" signage. After about the 5,000th clutch engagement, I was about ready to take my chances . . . .

[Scott Liggett]

If you don't like traffic, stay out in the sticks and don't go anywhere near a major metropolitan city. Traffic sucks in all of them, Boston, New York, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles and even DC. If you can't handle it, then keep your whiney ass at home.

Oh and BTW, cities like DC, New York, and San Francisco are obviously trying to reduce vehicle traffic in their cities to reduce congestion and appeal to the tofu eaters. The lack of parking and parking costs are stupid high to get people to walk, ride bikes and take public transportation. The PR firms and travel info bureaus all warn about these things. I guess you missed all that when planning your trip.

If you think their won't be cameras, cops ever three feet, stupid ass parking restrictions in New York and DC after 9/11; you really are thick in the skull. They are the #1 and #2 targets for terrorists thanks to the people who run this country and their policies the last 70 years in the middle east in their attempts at getting cheap oil and gasoline for your "store bought" gas guzzling hot rod.

[98ciHemi]

Old guys (of which I'm one), our hard-earned tax dollars probably funded the educational institutions that produced this sort of "logic."

I have thus far had excellent results with my logic, so I must thank you for your contribution to my education.

The City will still have to maintain (and improve) the same street "infrastructure" for all of the huge trucks and transit buses (which exponentially cause more damage to roadways than light vehicles.
Moreover it's hard to see how creating a guaranteed shortage of parking, which will drive up parking prices beyond levels affordable to anyone but the rich and/or politically connected "makes it better for the cars that are there." It that's so, then NYC must be an automotive nirvana.

I feel like this shows my point for why supporting public transit better than I could explain. Plus, it'd some of those asshats who text and drive out from behind the wheel. I'd be down with that.

The fact that the basement-dwellers in the iPhone/iPad generation have been propagandized by the state and the alleged intelligencia against our fundamental automotive freedoms and "don't want to drive" is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud at this.
What this comes across to me as:
People with other opinions than mine are irrelevant. My opinion is right opinion!

Building parking doesn't make anyone have to drive a car. And the inadequacy of the current parking requirements in D.C. certainly insures that a whole host of pedestrian and dirty, stinky, slow, and inconvenient mass transit options will continue to flourish.

Well, I think that's what they are going for. But if we follow the trend of other countries, I see it as quite likely such options will improve.

What is more, the current parking requirements for development are not competing with the government subsidies for any anti-motoring alternatives. It's not as if the money that would have been invested in off-street parking will be funneled into more ridiculous "bike lanes" or money-losing subway lines. It will just be pocketed by developers who want to flood the market with rentable space that's not adequately supported by available "infrastructure."

^^citation needed

Finally, as motorists, we ought to support what's in the best interest of all motoring, not just what benefits those who are current motorists.

This is where we have a significant difference in outlook. This might be how I'd look at it:

As people, we ought to support what's in the best interest of all people, not just our own interests.

That doesn't mean I'm giving up my interests, but that I'm not going to try and force them on others.

A prime example of the logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. Sort of like saying "I own a gun because I want to rob liquor stores and shoot up street signs . . . so that's why anybody would own a gun."

I'd wager a paycheck that the average radar detector user buys one so they can avoid tickets cause they speed. But I don't feel like researching it.

No it was a prime example of reductio ad absurdum, which seeks in this case (an appeal to "common sense" as a justification for an intrusive regulation) to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

Slippery slope is the idea that because we allow one thing to occur, the next thing will occur, and the next, and the next.... Such was the structure of your statement. The closely related straw man argument would also fit.

Reductio ad absurdum has better applications in mathematics, where we commonly use to show something is true by showing that it cannot be false.

I'm ignoring your next paragraph to avoid taking this any more political than it is.

Don't run in traffic. They have big grassy parks in most towns for that sort of thing. Problem solved.

So I'm expected to give up my right to run or walk in the designated pedestrian areas so drivers can continue to be idiots?

The irony here is that our rules are virtually flip-flopped from those we employ for locomotives. Humans can stop and turn literally on a dime. Bicycles are almost as nimble.

What's the difference between a car and a pedestrian in a collision? If the driver messes up, the pedestrian dies. If the pedestrian messes up, the pedestrian dies.

Without metal wrapped around you, you tend to be a lot more fragile. Ergo, you get the right of way.

But motor vehicles, like locomotives are not. Yet we artificially fiat the right-of-way for foot traffic (and because the vast majority of bicyclists seem to ignore nearly all vehicular laws, in my observation, also de facto to lawless bicycles), while locomotives have the right-of-way. That's just crazy.

So you have no more control over your car than a 5000 ton train on fixed rails with a metal/metal traction surface? You might want to get that looked at.

I'm tired, and I have to work tomorrow at my hippy job where my life of ease and lack of work ethic erodes my connection with common man. 'cause that what working as an industrial mechanic in a foundry that makes big three auto parts does, right?

I'll finish my response some other time.

[NewEnglandRaceFan]

the lib__al indoctrine is well on it's way to hitlers dream ^^^

note to runners and walkers/joggers, vehicles even with abs can't stop on a dime.. maybe if they took the 1800 sue away they might look around before they deside to put body in harms way.. I wish they'd start ticketing for j walking . they could make millions here.. there is a sidewalk USE IT.. these bozo's better hope dash cam's don't start getting used in numbers here.. as all their law suits from getting hit. because they think they own the roads will end real fast..

winter is coming fast. and now we will have runners running IN the road. and cry because they got hit when a vehicle comes around a corner and they are in the middle of the road.. or slides on ice.. treadmills use them.. they are a hazard on the roadways.. to bad you can't ticket people for being stupid.. commonsence left the building years ago.. replaced with I'll sue

[Scott Liggett]

the lib__al indoctrine is well on it's way to hitlers dream ^^^

note to runners and walkers/joggers, vehicles even with abs can't stop on a dime.. maybe if they took the 1800 sue away they might look around before they deside to put body in harms way.. I wish they'd start ticketing for j walking . they could make millions here.. there is a sidewalk USE IT.. these bozo's better hope dash cam's don't start getting used in numbers here.. as all their law suits from getting hit. because they think they own the roads will end real fast..

winter is coming fast. and now we will have runners running IN the road. and cry because they got hit when a vehicle comes around a corner and they are in the middle of the road.. or slides on ice.. treadmills use them.. they are a hazard on the roadways.. to bad you can't ticket people for being stupid.. commonsence left the building years ago.. replaced with I'll sue

New York still does ticket for J walking. And, from what I hear they ticket those who are texting while crossing the street.

[NewEnglandRaceFan]

New York still does ticket for J walking. And, from what I hear they ticket those who are texting while crossing the street.

N.Y. isn't here. here those m.f. don't look and start crossing street, and if and when they see a vehicle they slow down, hell my grandmother could walk faster.. and 99% of the time it's the ones 98hemi's age that do this,while the older folk. even those with issues walking see car and try to get across the road faster not slower.. J walking.. then slow'n down all while smirking.. or they'll start talking to each other while standing there or jogging on place.. oh to use the chrome horns..
but they get away with it. as they can just dial a lawsuit.. and insurance co's roll over and pay them.. this is one time all the town/city camera's are gonna do some good, as these dopes won't even have a clue that an electric eye caught their b/s

[BigAL]

Hey someone ran over someone's bike!!!!