You come at the King of Beers, best not miss. |
If/When/If they install the #MStreetCycleTrack, I'm going to take that instead of R Street. I have a love/hate relationship with the repetitiveness of my commute and especially R Street. In the love column:
- the chance to notice really small changes that happen on a day-to-day basis, like building construction and houses for sale.
- the chance to run into the same people, which makes me feel like part of a community
- the chance to sort of zone-out, knowing the patterns of the lights and the exact minimum speed and effort required to reach maximum enjoyability.
In the hate column:
- It's really boring.
But, such is the way of the commute. Unless of course, I could hire someone to blindfold me and drive me and my bike to a different location every day, from where I'll have to rely in guts and guile to get me to work. But that sounds expensive with the high cost of blindfolds and gas and such. Also, super creepy.
I took Massachusetts the rest of the way to work, noticing a number of drivers who felt compelled to turn on red, in spite of signs indicating that they oughtn't. To the best of my knowledge, no one was harmed as it appeared rather safe for them to turn red. I don't know why the sign is there. Maybe it shouldn't be. I think a lot about "traffic laws" and I think the thing that bothers me the most about "traffic laws" and the discussion around them is selective literalism. Sometimes signs mean exactly what they say (most normally for people who aren't you) and sometimes they're just suggestions, open to interpretation.
I saw a photo recently of a "No Turn on Red" (Except for Bikes) sign, which made a lot of sense....I don't get why cars can't turn in some places, either, but there are sooo many places places (i.e. Garfield Street and Cleveland Ave., on my daily commute) where it absolutely makes sense to let cyclists turn.
ReplyDelete