More News

Letter off the mark

I have several objections to the letter by [Maryland State Police Superintendent] Terrence Sheridan ("Speed cameras help save lives," Oct. 14). His article runs at least 500 words, well over the 200-word limit you ask writers to adhere to. It runs nearly 12 column inches. It includes his photo. Goodness, his view must be important. I doubt you would devote such attention to a civilian writer.

But what's worse is that Sheridan's arguments are specious throughout. He spends the entire article discussing the need to control speed in work zones. It's not rocket science to know that the speed cameras are placed in locations that have nothing to do with work zones. The incident locations he cites do not, and probably never will, have speed cameras installed nearby. It is no secret that the cameras have nothing to do with construction, lane closures, or crash sites Sheridan refers to. He completely misses the potential constitutional rights issues associated with the cameras.

I can only conclude that this man supports your editorial views, and therefore has been given special treatment. Shame on you.

Walter Ligon, Silver Spring

Enforcement infringes

on constitutional rights

Traffic safety is certainly an issue we should all be concerned about. I certainly do not condone speeding or careless driving habits; nor do I question the right of the state to enforce traffic laws. But unlike The Gazette, I cannot condone a solution — speed cameras — that raises so many serious constitutional questions. In addressing traffic safety, our politicians opted for the easy solution, one that both regulates traffic speeds and raises county revenues. But in doing so they turned a blind eye to the Constitution. The Gazette and some county citizens feel safe under the watchful eye of the speed camera, and are unconcerned about the constitutional issues. But for me and many others, the cameras give the county the look and feel of a large internment camp, making us feel more like inmates than citizens. In the long run, we do ourselves a disservice by allowing our politicians to infringe on our rights. While I support the idea of controlling speeding and improving traffic safety, I don't feel as if I should have to trade in my constitutional rights to achieve it.

Phil Plante, Olney

Each case needs

individual evaluation

Reductions in collisions and injuries confirm that the speed camera program has merit. However, the justification should be reviewed camera by camera.

For example, the reasons given for cameras on the last section of Germantown Road before Darnestown Road and on to Seneca Road were stated to include: numerous requests from residents and business owners, injuries to drivers and pedestrians, a school, 50,000 vehicles over a seven-day period, and cars exceeding the 11 mph threshold at a rate of 62 percent of the time (their emphasis).

The problems with these explanations include: There are no businesses or pedestrians and very few houses on either of these sections of road; the number of vehicles breaks down to about seven per minute, with most in clusters due to the lights; most of the time these straight rural roads are virtually free of traffic; it is a private school off the road that generates no pedestrian traffic; the more reasonable interpretation of the highlighted statistic is this speed limit is too low, and not that the lower speed should be enforced.

Cameras are justified if the accident record for each section suggests a need and, later, should be removed if the accident statistics have not changed.

J.B. Cowie, Germantown