Giving way to emergency vehicles

The safety of people who live and work in Howard County is compromised every day. How? By those who refuse to yield to emergency vehicles responding to calls.

According to Maryland Vehicle Law, Section 21-405, you are to pull to the side of the roadway and stop until an emergency vehicle has passed. Merely slowing your car doesn't count.

You've seen those drivers who speed up to avoid having to yield to the emergency vehicles. And what about those drivers who slow down but won't pull to the side of the road and stop so the emergency vehicles can pass?

Many drivers do not realize the results of their actions or more appropriately, inaction, all wrapped up in their here-and-now. By choosing to ignore or refusing to pull over and come to a stop for these vehicles, these drivers create a situation for dire consequences to occur.

A driver's desire to not be "inconvenienced" by stopping may make the difference between life and death at the scene to which the emergency vehicle is responding.

In fire, rescue and medical emergencies, seconds count. Would you want to be the one responsible for causing emergency apparatus to arrive a minute later than required to save someone's life?

We have exceptional public safety workers in this county. If they can't make it to their destination in a safe and timely manner, they can't provide the help that is needed. Remember these fine men and women put themselves on the line for all the citizens of Howard County.

Make way for the emergency vehicles. It might just be your house they're going to.

Deborah Wiseman, Ellicott City

Cherish the new facts on nation's old relics

The Sun's recent coverage of our historic relics has been absolutely great. The articles about the Constellation coming back to its berth at the harbor were particularly fine. The parallel story about the Fort McHenry flag, Old Glory, being restored has given depth to my appreciation of the historic treasures we have in our area.

My curiosity is aroused as to how we are able to meld our traditional understanding of these relics with the most recent discoveries about them. I hope we can remember that the Constellation, a ship built in 1854, was thought earlier to be the frigate Constellation built in Baltimore in 1797. It does no harm to acknowledge we were wrong in the past and now have new appreciation for the restored ship.

I bought a coin in the early 1960s when the Constellation was little more than a wreck. The coin claims to be "struck from parts of the Frigate Constellation, the first ship of the U.S. Navy." The coin would permit me free visitation to the Constellation at any time. I do hope my coin works for the new ship. It was a privilege to contribute recently to its restoration.

Now about the other historical symbol relic, the Star Spangled Banner. The coverage in the papers and other media of its restoration has been excellent. One point seems never to be mentioned in any of the articles: The flag being restored was not flying during the battle at Fort McHenry. The guides at Fort McHenry told us that a smaller battle flag would have been flown during the battle, and that Old Glory flew after the battle.

I had always envisioned the big flag in the midst of bullets, rockets and the glare of battle being punctured and ripped to pieces, justifying its appearance. I have no less appreciation for the Star Spangled Banner now that I have been told the holes and the loss of the edge are not the result of battle but of scissors that snipped off pieces to be given as gifts to appreciative people.

I believe that Americans are able to update our legends and still keep a growing patriotism when research brings new understanding. My heart still thrills at the sight of the Star Spangled Banner and of the Constellation.

Perhaps all this is to teach us that the best we know today will probably be superseded by what we learn tomorrow. Not a bad lesson. May we always be humble in our knowledge and open to newly discovered facts without losing the spirit of what we "knew."

Lyle Buck, Ellicott City

Teaching moral values better than gun control

As a child, I learned to handle a .22-caliber rifle and earned marksman and pro-marksman medals at the age of 12. In high school, I was on the rifle team. And, I have never killed anyone.

The difference is, I grew up in a home, church and community where human life was valued.

Once abortion became legal and man, not God, could determine who would live and who would die, the morals of America began a steady decline.

Gun control is not the answer. Teaching moral values, the sanctity of human life and instilling a love and fear of God is the only way to prevent the self-destruction facing this great country.

"Kids will be kids" is just an excuse. Parenting is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week job and is not for cowards.

If values and morals were the norm, there would be no need for gun control. The bad guys will find ways around the law, while the good guys are denied freedoms.

I am not a gun collector. I do not belong to the National Rifle Association. I am a grandmother whose grandchildren deserve the same freedoms and safety I enjoyed as a child.

Patricia A. Leepa, Ellicott City

Roads are not built just for automobiles

I want to respond to Kevin Cowherd's column of July 15 in The Sun.

I am a cyclist from Howard County, and I object to your premise that because cars must slow down and wait to pass a cyclist, the cyclist has no business on that road. I am not familiar with York Road. Unless cyclists are prohibited from riding on it, it is everyone's civic responsibility to respect the cyclists' right and drive with the utmost care while overtaking someone.

Personally, I passionately try to avoid the most dangerous streets, and cannot believe that the majority of cyclists do not do the same thing. I ride on the quiet streets and always in a law abiding manner. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to ride on a less than ideal road in getting from point A to point B and back. I would like to point out, however, that even when I am cycling on the most ideal road that Howard County has to offer, I am still at risk for the kind of offensive behavior by the motorists on York Road described in the column. If we use offensive motorist behavior as a guide to where we can cycle, there really are no roads available to us.

I can relate to the cyclist you described, and I can see that it is difficult to for motorists to understand why he was taking up what seemed like more than his fairshare of the lane.

There are several possible explanations for this strange behavior. The most likely explanation is simply that the road nearest the shoulder may have had numerous hazards not obvious to an automobile driver. There is frequently a lot of broken glass and debris on the shoulder that can easily puncture bicycle tires. (A blowout can cause a serious accident, regardless of whether automobiles are in the picture). Also, in a lot of areas there are storm sewer grates and manhole covers that could also cause an accident. Another explanation is one that is harder to grasp. If a cyclist is feeling threatened by traffic, sometimes the only way to ensure his safety is by riding far enough into the lane that it forces traffic to slow down while passing.

This may be annoying to motorists, who are so easily annoyed, but it is absolutely legal. A bicycle is considered a legal vehicle, and a cyclist has a right to as much of the lane as he or she feels is necessary to ride safely. If it means that another vehicle must flow at a slower pace until he can pass safely and legally, so be it.

Mr. Cowherd's column frightens me and I feel it was irresponsibly inflammatory. Every time a hothead motorist reads something like that he feels justified in swerving close to a cyclist while screaming, "Get of the road!"

Reading it from some Joe in the letters to the editor is one thing, but when it is written by a respected writer for The Sun, it really reinforces a potentially deadly viewpoint. Please try to be more constructive.

Lisa Mendenhall, Columbia

Making easy call against umpires

Major League Baseball officials should be ecstatic that the umpires are making it this easy to correct one of baseball's fundamental problems.

Richie Phillips, the umpire union's insanely short-sighted leader, complains of a lack of respect. What the umpires really want is attention and to be considered entertainers.

Remember umpire Richie Garcia signing autographs for Yankees fans the day after blowing the call on which Tony Tarasco's fly ball was interfered with by a young fan reaching over the rail? Would-be entertainers sign autographs after making a critical error not unbiased men with integrity.

Umpires get paid to do a job: Enforce the rules of Major League Baseball without bias.

Yet, they hold grudges against certain players, have been known to extort players to sign memorabilia and feel it is their right to interpret the strike zone on an individual basis.

Under their current contract, MLB umpires are paid $75,000 to $250,000 per year, not counting a generous per diem, to do a job.

If they want respect, they could start earning it by showing some respect for the game. Major League Baseball should seize this opportunity to fix one its fundamental flaws and quickly accept the resignation of all umpires who have it so bad they wish to join the real work force.

Todd Kuehl, Ellicott City

Pub Date: 7/18/99