ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Speed cameras & safety | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Speed cameras & safety

Regarding the article “National Transportation Safety Board releases ‘Most Wanted’ list for reducing traffic deaths” (Feb. 4, TribLIVE): The safety argument for speed cameras has been debunked. Studies have shown speed camera areas having an increase in crashes or the cameras had no effect. In the UK, a substantial increase in crashes was seen due to panic braking.

Act 86 of 2018 puts speed cameras on interstates, the Turnpike and federal-aid highways and gives the state police LIDAR monitors (light detection and ranging devices). That part is not germane to speed cameras. The whole bill was modified excessively, too. These reasons may make the law invalid.

The bill does not require best-practice engineering and enforcement, and the issue of errors is not addressed. Maryland speed cameras produced many errors. There was an accuracy double-check in a previous bill, but it was removed. Did PennDOT ever hear about using the zipper merge? Where is a requirement for 85th percentile speed limits? Nowhere.

Ticket the actual driver and make the penalty community service, and see who wants cameras then. No more poor engineering and predatory ticketing, either.

Then the stop-arm cameras the state passed last year may not be legal, due to the state not knowing the rights people have under criminal law.

For real driving safety data that is unbiased, pull up the various data at the National Motorists Association.

James Sikorski Jr.

Wapwallopen


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.