Several of my letters characterizing speed cameras as "legalized robbery" have been published in the Laurel Leader. My contention is that if the city were truly and primarily concerned about the "safety of the kids," then the city should put up blinking lights to alert motorists to slow down. For without the blinking lights, the net affect would be revenue for the city and a hidden tax on the citizens because the cameras alone do not adequately warn the driver of potential pedestrian danger.
Kudos to the city for posting lighted speed registers near Laurel High School to let the drivers know their speed before reaching the camera or the kids. This will obviously reduce revenue to the city, but will supplement the stated objective of safety for the kids.
The true test will be if the city does likewise at all speed cameras near schools or if this is only a temporary and targeted experiment. It is nice to know someone is listening.
lease use some of the revenue for landscaping spreading tree growth on the bridge on Cherry Lane between Route 1 and Route 197.
LaurelCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun