In a letter in the TAB titled ‘My street is not your shortcut,’ Virginia Robinson takes issue with folks who use her quiet street to avoid traffic on busier roads.
… have you considered the cost to residents of said “quiet neighborhoods” that you and other use as short cuts? Our particular short cut (two short blocks) has at this point a total of 14 very young children, four somewhat older children, and numerous frequently visiting grandchildren from toddler age up. One dearly beloved dog died on our street not too long ago as a result of a hit and run driver. Frustrated drivers sometimes take out their distress by speeding down our streets, or don’t stop at stop signs. The glut of traffic increases air pollution. The noise wakes us at odd hours. Even more egregious offenders of the public good are the large and noisy trucks, spewing noise and pollution, which love to use our “short cut.”
Is the letter writer making a reasonable request? Do you avoid cutting through neighborhoods as a courtesy to folks there? Should she have to endure the exposure to air pollution, noise, traffic that folks on busier streets do? Is any route at all fair game?
Traffic is one of the things you must accept in Newton. 85,000 people and inadequate roads to support them.
How many people in Waltham or Needham or Watertown deal with the same issues on their streets? Speeding is unacceptable, but come on. You can’t tell people what streets to drive on. Fantasy land.
I totally understand her concern especially since her dog was killed. I guess that is her point/concern – next time will it be a child?
You cannot tell people which street to drive through – but maybe the police should patrol that street and stop and ticket the speeders. That will start to deter people from making it a race track.
I completely understand Virginia’s pain – people illegally drive fast up our street through 3, yes 3 Do Not Enter signs. I count around 14 or more cars doing this daily.
If they are driving following the rules…then drive on. If drivers are breaking the law, then a police officer should be ticketing.
Ronald Reagan might say “I’m paying for this road”, but historically police have blocked traffic at rush period for a certain neighborhood in between Chestnut and Quinobequin. I say historically because I don’t know if this continues.
In any event, the writers point would have a better target at City Hall as opposed to addressing the whole community.
I’m a major cut-through driver (know every short cut from my soccer mom days), but also lived on a cut through street for many years. The problem wasn’t the amount of traffic, but the many drivers who didn’t follow the most basic rules of the road. Speeding is probably the worst offense in general, but the idea that drivers ignore signage is frightful.
Actually, Hoss, I did see it as a community issue when I lived on the cut-through street. There was no way that police could have monitored the situation on my small side street. Is it so much to ask citizens to obey the law without being “watched”? Virginia was pointing out to the community the potential tragedy that could result from a driver speeding down a side street with kids who aren’t expecting a lot of traffic.
Jane — I was thinking City Hall because her street is near the now infamous Cypress experiment and she is probably describing some collateral impact. But come to think of it — if there was ever a perfect use for a bump-out, her street might be it!
Hoss-I missed that part of the story. My street also “encouraged” cut through traffic of a different kind (inexperienced drivers). It’s worth pointing out that each situation is unique so the solutions may be as well.
I don’t think it’s realistic in a city of our size to not expect cut through drivers. We can try to manage it as best as possible. The key, IMO, is community and neighbor respect. Just having this conversation is a positive if it influences a few people to slow down and follow posted signs.
Any route is fair game! It is not “her” street – she owns a home that is on a City street which belongs to all of us. That said, she can and should expect people using that street to obey traffic laws and to be courteous drivers. The fact that her dog was killed by a hit and run driver is just awful and painful, and the thought that the next victim could be a person is terrifying. I live on the carriage lane of Commonwalth Ave – I feel Virginia’s pain when people speed down “my” street to avoid Comm Ave. We deal with it.
When I was a kid, Clark Street in Newton Ctr. was a major cut-through used by people speeding. A new resident moved in and loudly complained to the City. The City installed speed bumps. It slowed the traffic but every resident complained because it slowed them down, too! It forced the speeders onto “my” street, Halcyon Rd. Decades later, the speed bumps remain. I wonder if traffic is slower? – I no longer live in that neighborhood. Maybe the street that Virginia lives on needs a similar “improvement”?
So many people I have talked to complained to me about the lack of enforcement of speeders in the city, I have made this an issue on my campaign. As part of my platform I plan to put (as an experiement), pockets of areas where there are known speeders, cameras that will take a picture of the speeding car and license plates, etc. and send the owner of the car a ticket. They do this in wellesley and also in other countries.
@Tom: As must as they like to believe they are special there, you realize Wellesley is not a country, right? 🙂
Bip, the number of residents in Newton has been somewhat constant, as have the number of streets, yet there’s clearly an upward trend in traffic. I’m not sure how well we understand the factors that cause this. The number of people driving their kids to school (along with the drop in number of schools) is part of it. Development of nearby communities and the failure of our regional arteries drives ‘cut through’ traffic to Newton’s main streets and feeds this problem also, in turn spilling over into our neighborhoods. These problems won’t go away, but there are steps that could be taken to help in both cases. I hope I’m wrong and the state is not building another way to drive traffic into Newton.
If drivers on a congested road find a narrow but open route, it would be foolish to expect them to drive slowly or respectfully. They’re going to drive as if they’re on a highway getting to their destination. Neighborhood streets aren’t designed for that sort of traffic. If there’s a systemic problem that encourages traffic to go down residential streets, PR campaigns and occasional enforcement aren’t going to solve the problem. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. Only engineering will change the way people behave. Clark Street is one such example, but people just don’t drive that way at all anymore, which may not be the right outcome. Unfortunately, the 1980’s era speed humps on Clark were poorly engineered and gave traffic calming a bad name. The city needs to find ways to improve throughput on our main roads — even though it they may not always get it right on the first try — while taking action to protect neighborhood roads. The letter writer would be more effective if she promoted those goals.
Good idea, Tom. In certain areas I bet it would pay for itself and change behaviour. They are all over Chicago. I know them too well.
Sounds great Tom, but I was told it’s not (yet) legal in Mass. Are you sure Wellesley does this?
I live on a cut-through street, made worse during summer construction, and yes it is annoying but I think the author of that piece is making an unreasonable request. Unless it’s a private way, why shouldn’t people drive on it?
Speeding is another issue altogether and the speed limits should be better enforced. Another issue I find on our cut-through street is that people frequently double park or park completely illegally, making the speeding around a curve more dangerous.
Tom Sheff — Here’s some background on what those cameras are used for: http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellesley/news/x1146196641/How-many-traffic-cameras-are-watching-Wellesley-streets
There are so many drivers who feel that the rules of the road don’t apply to them. They drive their cars fast. . . while talking on the phone. . . . . and this is fine, until it is their street. I use residential roads to avoid Rt 9, but I obbey the speed limit. I would rather drive at a slower speed, than sit on Route 9 and watch people try to squeeze out other drivers.
But, if there is a problem, we need to get traffic control. Although, I have to say, when I report cars parked during a snow emergency, the police don’t come and ticket. They want to give the commuters (who are too cheap to park in the MBTA lots) a chance to get their cars. Meanwhile, my street remains unplowed because of the parked cars.
I understand that need to be considerate, however, if you ticket people, their behavior might change. If you do nothing, the behavior doesn’t change.
We live in a community and we all have to live with each other, and no one deserves to speed down your street to avoid traffic. The driver can drive down the street obbeying speed limits, stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. However, if the behavior is aggresive, then ticketing is the way of changing behavior.
Newton Mom, perhaps you don’t live on a street with much speeding. Even if the police had the appetite to write more tickets, they can’t be everywhere. Issuing parking tickets is one thing. They make a pass and it’s done. But traffic patrols mean a patrol car sitting and watching. That can’t happen on every side street in Newton enough to make a difference. They can barely patrol major dangerous intersections for violations.
By the way, proceeds from traffic tickets don’t go to the police department, so it’s not like the police can fund enforcement on a large scale. Another job for the BoA…
When it comes to side streets, I taught my kids to drive respectfully, as if they are driving through people’s front yard, because that is essentially what they are doing. I believe that most side streets in Newton should have a posted 20 mph limit.
@Tom– When used the way you suggest, those cameras would violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Frankly, the last thing we need right now is more government spying, in any shape or form. Let the police do their job = speeding problem solved.
Adam,
If an officer was there for an hour from 5 PM to 6 PM, on and off, then the job is done. First, it might act as a deterrent, but in addition, he or she could ticket. I use Summer Street in Weston as a cut through to 128S when there is an accident. A few times every month, there is an officer sitting on summer street, waiting for speeders, who avoid 128S. I am proposing something that could be used an hour a day a few times a month. . . . not a dedicated officer 24/7.
I am suggesting that we as a city could try it. . . . and see if it helps.
As someone who lives on a cut through, I can tell you. We’ve tried it. It doesn’t work. It takes a lot of lobbying to get the police to come. It’s not like there’s only residents on one street that thinks they have a problem. First, they come when they’re least busy (and there’s the least traffic) like around 10am. Then, you push harder and maybe they’ll show up during rush hour, when there are many other things they should be doing. Traffic calms for a couple of days, but it doesn’t have any lasting effect. Now, try multiplying this by every side street in Newton that has cut through traffic.
I’m not against enforcement, I just know it won’t solve the problem. But to get an increase in enforcement, it has to get funded and there has to be a political will for it to happen.
Anther reason why enforcement may be ineffective: for speeding, the police are unlikely to write a ticket for anyone going under 40mph. Mike’s right, 20 is the safe speed for most of our side streets. In most cases, the city can’t set speeds lower than 30mph. It’s also very difficult to enforce aggressive driving.
So the dog wasn’t on a leash?
For anyone who hasn’t heard this before, I’d like to mention that in addition to their other environmental benefits, street trees also have a traffic calming effect, as the driver’s perception is of a narrower space, as opposed to a speedway. Here’s one study: http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/StreetTreeEffectandDriverSafety_ITEfeb08_.pdf
which found:
I was on Albemarle Road the other evening — the northbound northern end, which doesn’t even go much of anywhere except to dead end at the Charles — and someone drove by fast enough that one of the residents I was talking to did the double arm ‘slow down’ wave. I got the feeling he was used to doing it.
As it happens, we were on the tree-less stretch, and we were actually talking about the trees we’re going to plant there.
I’d imagine most drivers do at least some short-cutting through neighborhoods in and outside of Newton. I do. And I must say I don’t give much thought to adding traffic on those streets. But I do pay attention to my speed.
My point though is if we complain about folks cutting through on our own street we ought to be willing to not do that on others’ side streets.
Adam is correct. Enforcement is tough and doesn’t always change behaviour. I’ve had many requests from residents to help control speeding in their neighborhoods. I’ve worked with the police who were very responsive and who ticketed and added more signage. It certainly helped for the period of time the officers were there, but seems to need constant attention and signifciant resources to maintain the lower speed levels. This is why I like looking into Tom’s idea.
@Mike – The police have been doing their jobs and quite well from my standpoint. i’ve seen how cameras can work in Chicago and its a solution that I believe will become more accepted.
@David– A couple of weeks ago the police were operating a cross walk sting that required the attention of 4 officers at a time. As important as crosswalk enforcement is, these types of stings take police off patrol and put them in a fixed location for hours. The police are most effective at traffic enforcement when they are allowed to patrol.
As far as the cameras go… I don’t know what they do in Chicago, and I really don’t care. Here in Massachusetts, we respect the Constitution. Read the Sixth Amendment, paying special attention to the Confrontation Clause. Beyond the Constitutional issue, is the issue of cost. Not just the initial cost of cameras, but the constant maintenance costs. I’d rather put that money toward more police patrols.
Mike – Are you sure they are doing this? “When it comes to side streets, I taught my kids to drive respectfully, as if they are driving through people’s front yard, because that is essentially what they are doing.” Kids can know one thing and do another. There are several young men who zip around our neighborhood, esp. on Sumner. I know my daughter takes corners too fast, no matter how many times I tell her not too.
This is why bump-outs help. Street design – if the road looks narrow – slows traffic. “narrow streets slow traffic and reduce vehicular crashes, increasing neighborhood safety” conclusion from ‘Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency’ Denver Regional Council of Governments, http://www.drcog.org/tod/dsp_viewPublicationDetail.cfm?publicationID=137
It is a worth while plea to the community. We should be aware of all our neighbors as we drive through neighborhoods … it is where people live and we should treat them as we hope our neighborhoods would be treated.
That said, we also have MANY private ways and private roads and in fact they are NOT city streets. Many driveways (and private parking lots) become popular turn arounds for cars that have no business with said property. I know several homes that live near businesses who have to put up signs to remind people that their driveway is NOT public property and NOT for “just a short stop” or “a quick turn around”
What I really got out of the letter was not simply against people who were cutting through her street, but the inconsideration that goes with those “cut through drivers” … the speeding, the aggression, the disregard for traffic and public safety. If drivers drove through the neighborhood with respect, I suspect she would not be complaining.
BE CONSIDERATE don’t take your frustration out on a poor side street. If you are to go down one, go down it as if your beloved vision impaired grandmother lived on it and liked to walk her little shiatsu every day.
@Lucia– You’re right. I taught my children to drive respectfully, and I set a good example for them, but I can’t follow them every time they drive. At some point you have to hope their training pays off. That’s why I highly recommend “skid-school” for new drivers.
Slightly off topic — I am not against the bumpouts, but I find the curb extension on Langley across the street from CVS in Newton Ctr. to be rather too large and the opening into Langley too narrow, it seems like OVERcompensation to me for addressing the issues there. I foresee a lot of cars possibly hitting that curb during left turns and greater congestion.
Back on topic, the letter writer can justifiably ask anything she wants about traffic on her street but hopefully she is realistic about people complying.
The new entrance to Langley Road is a full traffic lane, the same width as the rest of the street, not unlike any other road in the city. The way it was before, for a short distance there was an extra car width or two so people could cut the corner and make the turn faster to jump oncoming traffic, and then effectively have to merge with traffic taking a right onto Langley. The roadway design should not encourage that sort of behavior. Perhaps that short length was two-way once? Anyway, I welcome the additional park space.
@Mike – Glad we have you to tell the police department where they are most effective. You should care about what other Cities are doing. It’s a terrific learning opportunity and gives us insight into how to best manage our own City. You know this. And, when you talk cost, you remember the structural deficit, right? We need to find ways to improve services in ways that are cost efficient. I’m open to idas that might do this, and if that means not adding to OPEB etc, then I’ll consider it.
@Lucia – Thanks for the comments on bump-outs. I also think they help.
Remember also that those crosswalk stings did not come out of the NPD budget. They were funded by grants, so they may not have taken from the regular patrol hours either. But in the end, the way it’s structured now, enforcement is a money-losing proposition for the NPD. Revenue goes to the general fund.
History repeating — we had Chief Cordero that ordered officers to ticket anything that looked like it needed a ticket and he didn’t go so swell. When officers do ticketing on a small scale by entrapping drivers at cross-walks, you just have fewer people being affected so the complaints are not as loud. We see that in every sting there are multiples of drivers getting a warning for not stopping and others getting a fine. How could there possibility be any discretion in a stop or no stop situation? Mike Striar is spot-on both his assessment of enforcement cameras and manufactured violations – both are not policing and are certainly not what a community applying a respectful level of gov’t authority should tolerate.
Please Note: I did respond to Alderman Kalis, in what I felt was a reasonable way. But my comment was removed by Village 14. One of the functions this blog serves, is affording us the ability to challenge public policy and elected officials. When Village 14 censors comments made to elected officials, it undermines its effectiveness as a public forum. I believe I’ve been a positive contributor to this blog since it’s launch a few years ago. But if Village 14 is going to start protecting elected officials from harsh comments made in a public forum, I’m going to reevaluate my participation. I think the public should be free to speak their mind to elected officials, and I’m opposed to censorship in general. I’m hoping Village 14 re-thinks this new policy, and re-posts my comment.
I have to agree with Mike Striar about the whole speeding camera issue.
I normally don’t see myself agreeing with Hoss but he nailed it with regards to Former Chief Jose Cordero’s ticket anything that moved model. Cordero had no business being Newton’s Police Chief though I concede his approach worked well in East Orange, NJ.
Adam, although I concede that Newton is one of the safest cities in the US, I would prefer our police combating violent crimes and property crimes than engaging in crosswalk stings myself.
Mike, please do comment, but try to follow house rules. Take a deep breath, and try again.
Mike: You used a four letter word that just wasn’t necessary. Beginning and end of story.
Josh, I agree, but after Chief Cordero there was a long period where there was virtually no traffic enforcement. No visible speed traps. People were given carte blanche to drive however they liked. Combating violent crimes is important, but minimizing the risk to me, as a citizen, getting hit by another car, whether I’m out for a drive, a walk, or a bike ride, is pretty important to my quality of life, too. There ought to be a balance somewhere in the middle, where police can have a strong presence and efficiently ticket offenders without violating civil liberties. I don’t have a problem with the crosswalk stings. There are realities here that may not be obvious. Without a police officer as the pedestrian, I wonder how easily those citations may be tossed out in court.
@Adam– I’m not angry, so there’s no reason for me to “take a deep breath.” I enjoy being part of the debate here on Village 14. But Alderman Kalis is an elected official, willingly engaged in a public forum. He doesn’t need your help.
The alderman was off the wall insulting. I didn’t know who he was so I googled his name.
I am open to any better solutions. Allowing people to go wild and drive recklessly, to me, is not a solution. It endangers everybody. The police force has been cut over the years, they can’t be everywhere at once, we can supplement their wonderful job with technology.
Just don’t speed and you won’t get ticketed.
Mike, the country of Wellesley has it, Chicago has it, so I am assuming they implemented the camera without affecting the constitution. It obviously can be done without affecting the constitution. If we went this direction, I would follow the laws of our land.
David, WRT your support for police cameras, I would prefer solutions that aren’t Orwellian and don’t infringe upon people’s constitutional rights.
As for your comments about Newton’s structural deficit, Newton never had a structural deficit, it has a structural spending problem.
As for what other cities are doing, the Shrewsbury Police Department spends less than the Newton Police Department on a per capita basis yet it has lower crime rates. Then again, it has a different operating model:
Shrewsbury officers don’t egg their sergeant’s houses.
Shrewsbury officers don’t try to steal meat from Stop & Shop
Shrewsbury’s Chief of Police doesn’t go around kicking his secretary
Shrewsbury officers don’t have to sue their town or their department for $500K-$1.1M
Shrewsbury officers don’t accuse their long-time loyal secretarial employees of stealing cash and destroying checks
Getting back to the homeowner not wanting people to use residential side streets, efforts to address “traffic calming” have a number of unintended consequences.
http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/problems
Greg,
last time I looked it was 5 letters:)
(That is for the wellesley comment).
@Greg– I don’t want you giving anyone the wrong impression of my post. It’s not entirely accurate to say I “used a “four letter word.” I replaced one of the letters with an exclamation point, so as to not be crude. The decision to censor my post, which was two paragraphs long, is far more offensive than anything I wrote. Should I expect you to jump into the fray the next time a blogger makes an off color comment to Ted Hess-Mahan? I’ve seen Ted shrug off far worse comments than anything I directed at Alderman Kalis.
@Mike: Believe it or not, fascinating as you and everyone else here is, I don’t read every comment! Fortunately Adam was paying attention this time. Other times, we just miss it.
@Mike – IMO you are a valued contributor here. I read your comments and have a lot of respect for you. Please don’t stop contributing, challenging, and calling me and others out when appropriate.
@Hoss – Sorry if you read my comments as being “off the wall” offensive. They were not meant that way.
@Josh – Nobody is saying let’s immediately throw up cameras. But, if they are being used year over year in other communities, I’m willing to look into them. I don’t think your Shrewsbury example added much here, but ok. I suppose we can learn from them as well.
I am still thinking enforcement would help. Others have nixed it as “It won’t work.” I am telling you that Sumer Street in Weston is a good example. The police come there a few times a month, and I can tell you that they catch speeders, and others slow down. I think it is worth the try.
Also, it seems as though bikers and car drivers believe they both rule the road. Cars speed up and drive through red lights (hey, I missed it by one car) doesn’t help. We live in a busy world where people run late constantly. I am asking the police officers to sit in the cars, observe what is going on and ticket people. There is a happy medium between NO tickets and TOO many tickets.
Yes, the police should protect the city, but I agree with Adam, part of that, is when I use the crosswalk in Newton Highlands, I shouldn’t have to wait for 15 cars to whiz by me before ONE stops. I am not asking drivers to stop short, but to stop in a safe manner. At the same time, I choose to shop at Shaws in Newtonville, and I often stop for many pedestrians in the crosswalks. I have nearly gotten rear ended, because the person behind me was speeding, and it never occurred to the driver that I might stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. We need to change behaviors with regards to driving. We have tight conjested roads, and that is not going to change.
re Wellesley traffic cameras. According to the article, Wellesley does not use them for traffic enforcement (i.e. writing tickets), which is where the constitutional issues would arise.
I did recently get what appeared to be a warning about an expired inspection sticker from the Newton police department based on a what I’ve been told is a similar automated camera system. I drove through an intersection one morning and the next day got a warning in the mail.
I was completely mystified about how the cop directing traffic in the middle of the street was able to notice the expired sticker, read and remember my license plate number as I drove by, all while directing traffic.
A few days later, a neighbor told me that the squad cars have a camera with an automated image detection system that constantly scans for expired plates and stickers, etc. That’s the first I had heard of that. Has anyone here heard of this system or was my neighbor telling me a tall tale?
Here’s an old idea I had when I ran 8 yeas ago. How about parking empty patrol cars in key intersections. Once people see the patrol car they will automatically slow down. I am sure once people see the cars a couple of times they’ll know that the patrol cars are empty, so every once in a while, you man the cars and ticket speeders.
Adam, people don’t have carte blanche to drive however they like in Newton even if cops weren’t engaged in enforcing traffic laws. Newton is a highly trafficked city which naturally limits the ability of people to drive however they like.
I have no problem with your proposed “balance somewhere in the middle, where police can have a strong presence and efficiently ticket offenders without violating civil liberties.” I’d like to see that bit of rhetoric match up with reality though.
As for Virginia Robinson not wanting others to use her street as a shortcut, I would inform her that the National Motorists Association found that increased traffic on residential streets is often caused by misguided and ill-informed management of the main arterials and collector streets. These streets are designed to carry most of the traffic, keeping it off of residential streets. Misguided proponents of “traffic calming” always fail to realize that the reason they are seeing more traffic on their residential streets is because the same tactics have already been applied to main arterials and collector streets. These include improper installation of stop signs, mistimed traffic signals, and under-posted speed limits that have no relation to actual vehicle speeds. Throw in construction and congestion, and it is no surprise that residential streets are experiencing increased commuter traffic.
The solution to this problem is not to further obstruct traffic flow by pushing the problem into someone else’s neighborhood. The real solution is to upgrade and improve the traffic handling capabilities of main thoroughfares. This means implementing physical improvements, as well as raising speed limits and synchronizing traffic controls to accommodate actual vehicle speeds. If main streets provide convenient access between home, work and shopping destinations, motorists will use them, versus alternate routes through residential neighborhoods.
http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/build-opposition
David, I only shared Shrewsbury in response to your remarks about learning from other municipalities. While you’re willing to look at traffic cameras, I question why cities and towns are engaging in such a Big Brother approach.
Tom, I have no problem with giving the police technological tools to do their jobs, I also believe its also important to reevaluate what police are responsible for.
As for the number of police personnel declining over the last 8 years, police related spending (adjusted to include the impact of retirement benefits) still increased by nearly 30% from 2004 to 2012 due to ample pay raises and rapid growth in their lavish benefit packages.
A friend just sent me this link about the “ALPR” system that is currently being used in Newton cruisers.
My apologies for distracting from the conversation. I want to take this opportunity to briefly say goodbye to all of you on Village 14. I’ve enjoyed participating in countless threads about endless topics. And I thank you all for putting up with me. Over these years I’ve done my best to offer an opposing viewpoint on many subjects, in a city that has no “opposition party.” I believe vigorous debate is essential to helping the city of Newton live up to its potential. For the first time in memory, Village 14 censored one of my posts, removing it from this thread. I find that particularly egregious, because my comment was part of an ongoing dialogue with a public official. I believe I’ve earned the right to choose my own words, and I always carefully consider what I’ve written before hitting the Submit Comment button. I am opposed to all forms of censorship, particularly censorship of political speech. I now find that ideal to be at odds with Village 14, leading me to conclude that it’s time to sign off. Thanks again to all of you. I’ve enjoyed my time here. I’ll continue to post on other local blogs.
I hope you’ll reconsider Mike. I’ve always enjoyed your posts and appreciated your points of view on various issues.
Josh, I find it interesting that you keep citing the National Motorists Association, an organization that specializes in helping people beat tickets, advocates “rights” for motorists, even for those with lower levels of alcohol in their blood. A pretty strong bias, to be sure. It gets more offensive the more you read… According to them, the anti-drunk driving movement is based on “lies” and “deception” and it is “not unreasonable to expect the presence of alcohol” in the blood of the vast majority of Americans. Conspiracies abound!
Adam, I don’t think the NMA needs to apologize for helping beat tickets that police officers write in order to make their quotas.
I have no quarrel with the NMA advocating rights for motorists. It’s nice that someone doesn’t think of motorists as milch cows.
I didn’t see anything offensive with their stance on DUI laws.
“NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based on reasonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior & reckless, dangerous behavior.”
The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving.
The NMA supports constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respectful of fundamental rights.”
Mike, I didn’t see your original comment, but aren’t you censoring yourself? Clearly all of us now know you had a post deleted, and you could repost with the bad word…
Btw, if my son tried the “I wrote it with an ! point so it wasn’t a bad word”, he’d still be in trouble…