Harmar needs better enforcement
Re. the article, “Stop Sign Wanted” (March 5) about the accident on Guys Run Road in Harmar Township: Why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a traffic study and possible installation of a stop sign when the problem can solved with resources already in place.
If the speeding on Guys Run is such a problem, then why are Harmar police not patrolling the area and writing speeding tickets? If, as Chief Jason Domaratz said, “the motorists are notorious for coming out of the bend above the 30 mph limit,” why aren't they being stopped?
And it appears this particular accident wasn't caused only by speed, but by an intoxicated driver — who ultimately ran off after begging for no one to call the cops. Maybe we should stop the drunken drivers first.
I drive through Harmar on a semi-regular basis and often see people violating traffic laws — running the stop sign on Guys Run at the tunnel, blocking the intersection of Route 910 and Route 28 when the traffic light changes and speeding on Pearl Avenue to name a few. Maybe the Harmar police need to focus to these types of violations.
And the woman quoted in the story said she feared her car would be hit by a speeding drivers. Then why did she park her car there? I would have parked my car in a safer spot.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Good riddance
- Stop electing judges
- Punishment pushback I
- Leaders unaccountable
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Help for Tina
- Don’t blame bus drivers I