News
Opinion
Sports
Business
Community
entertainment
Schools
News
Announcements
Classifieds
Place Ad
Advertising
Contact Us
Archives
Search

letter to the editor


I love reading the Letter to the editor section as well as presstalk as it reminds me of reading The National Lampoon in my college years. The nonsensical arguments used to eliminate red-light cameras run from: use of the cameras will lead to the loss of our personal freedoms if we are held accountable for not following the law, a death in the family should allow me to run a red light, this is an invasion of my personal life, and the ever popular, this is a revenue stream for the city funds dreamed up by the city mayor and council.

Bottom line, we agreed to follow the law when we get our driver’s license and if you insist on not doing so just stop using your car, there are buses and taxis for those that find it too hard to understand what a stop sign means or that a red light means to stop.


I wish we had cameras at our neighborhood stop sign as it is routinely run by people with obviously no concern for anyone’s safety. This particular intersection is at the outlet of one of our walking trails, which is used by small children who don’t always know the hazards of walking out into the street. One person went through the stop sign so fast [he] bottomed out [his] car and lost control, which careened through three yards and almost killed two boys playing in their yard. Imagine what would have happened if your child had walked into the intersection at that time.

I also would like to mention that State Rep. Ryan Haynes (R-District 14) seems to side with the people who don’t want to follow the law. He is backing a bill that would make an intersection a more dangerous place not only for other cars but pedestrians as well. When people [who are walking] reach an intersection they take it for granted that people will be stopping at a red light or stop sign. Haynes wants to create a situation that would only confuse the issue for everyone.

I would also like to see the red light issue come to a vote. If it does I hope that all the parents and grandparents would vote knowing that they could impact the lives of their children and grandchildren.

I hope the safety of the general population is a high priority for the state legislature as well as the city fathers. The cameras are only a tool to help maintain safe conditions on the roads, keep the cameras in place.

Paul Barrett

Farragut



I am a little bit ambivalent about the red light camera issue. However the gentleman in the “Letters” section that claimed there is 30 percent difference in energy between making a full stop and accelerating to 30 mph versus 7 mph (rolling stop) accelerating to 30 mph is incorrect. The equation: Kinetic energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity x Velocity can be used for this calculation. The actual difference in kinetic energy is 5.4 percent.

I also started driving long before the Federal “right turn after stopping on red” became the law of the land. I do not think that we should extrapolate the intent of the 1976 Congress to include “rolling stops” on red lights in order to save fuel. The intent was to reduce the long periods of idling at red lights reducing fuel use and pollution. I recall being relieved that we did not have sit for long periods at a red traffic signal for no reason. However, there is a legitimate reason to stop and look carefully before entering the intersection. If you really want to make change, ask Congress to modify the language to “right turn after yielding on red light.”

Ken Chipley

Farragut

 

News | Opinion | Sports | Business | Community | Schools | Obituaries | Announcements
Classifieds | Place Ad | Advertising | Contact Us | Archives | Search

© 2004-2014 farragutpress