It baffles me that some people still miss the point about speed cameras. I will try to make the point clear and avoid humorous illustrations that seem to be lost on some. It should be noted that I do not wish to speed past children, nor do I harbor sour grapes from tickets acquired, because in fact, I have not received any.
The point is this. Vehicle-activated signs (those that flash your speed at you as you drive by) are twice as effective as conventional speed cameras. Twice as effective means that if a speed camera will get 100 people to slow down, a VES will get 200 people to slow down.
This means that more people will drive slower and children will be safer.
Therefore if the best solution exists in the form of a VES, and the city of Laurel chooses a less-effective technology, we are forced to conclude one of two things. Either incompetence (the city cannot choose correctly, or has failed to conduct proper research), or they have an additional motivation and choose to deceive by saying it's only about safety.
Now if Laurel needs the dough, I'm OK with that. Man-up and say "Hey, we are gonna address speeding and help with city finances at the same time." But don't tell me a fish story that it's only about safety. Because it isn't.
Nate Hammond
Laurel