With turkey gone, it’s time for beefs from you

Each week, readers are invited to rant about various topics and since most of my valuable transportation sources had the pleasure of taking this last week off, this seems like an ideal time to share some of these concerns and beefs. It sounds more interesting than tanking it this week and writing about mundane topics like, say, gasoline prices.

My favorite rants came from a gentleman named Bill, who apparently woke up one morning and felt compelled to pick up his phone and dial my desk to deliver this message: "I bet that column picture of you is 8 years old and you've put on 25 pounds!"

Just to clarify, the picture was taken three years ago and up until Thursday I think I had dropped 5 pounds. After a few tasty Sierra Nevadas to pay homage to my college town of Chico, Calif., coupled with a Thanksgiving feast, Bill might be spot-on with the 25-pound gain. We'll call it a draw.

On to more timely topics, like pedestrians and the cellphone law that has been in effect since October, but will be backed with fines starting Jan. 1.

■ ■ ■

This is what Charles has to say about the law:

"When will our government stop telling us what to do in the name of safety? Why do we need specific laws for every little thing you do in a car? The distracted driving laws covered cellphones, there was no need for another law. Cops wonder why they are not as respected as they were in the past. Because they pull people over for every little thing nowadays. Seat belt laws might save lives, but that is still no reason to have a law forcing people over the age of 18 to have to wear them. That goes for helmet laws also. Riding a motorcycle in this city is crazy anyway. Once government gets started telling you what to do they never stop. What's next? No eating, radio playing, or talking to your kids in the car? All these laws are is a money grab for bloated police departments. America is supposed to be free, as long as you are not hurting someone physically or financially then do what you want. I know the argument: 'But if people don't wear seat belts, everyone has to pay their medical bills.' But that could go for anything: food, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking and how about outlawing big families? They put a drain on the system also."

Charles, agreed. I banned my family from riding in my car years ago. The constant chatter about whether the 49ers could beat this team or that team was too much of a distraction. Visions of the teams of the '90s would creep into my head, bring tears to my eyes and blur my focus on the road.

■ ■ ■

And this from Rob: "The cellphone ban has increased the accident rate in other states, not reduced it and (has) not saved any lives. That is according to the insurance institute, not the cellphone companies. Cellphone use has gone up well over 1,000 percent over the past 15 years while fatalities on highways have gone down by 30 percent plus. Where is the correlation? Please show me facts that cellphone use has increased accident rates. Yes, people have been run over by people texting, but that is not proof of a widespread problem."

■ ■ ■

How about crosswalks and the increasingly deadly interaction between pedestrians and drivers? This is what Warren had to say about the issue: "We have had a number of pedestrian hit recently by motorists. I think I know why. The general attitude by pedestrians is astounding. They don't look either right or left, they stroll when crossing the street and they assume the motorists will yield or stop. I see this day after day and pedestrian attitude is so blasé, it's no wonder they get hit. Let's train the pedestrians as well as the driving public!"

■ ■ ■

Richard proposes this to lawmakers: "I feel the law that gives pedestrians the right of way actually invites disaster. I can't help but feel this law was designed for an earlier less urbanized and sophisticated environment. The backlash of indignation from motorists who were ticketed by the recent sting operation in North Las Vegas document my sentiment that this law is not accepted, doesn't include common sense and needs to be changed. I'd recommend an education program and law change that stresses crossing only when safe by getting eye contact with a driver and changing the right of way of pedestrians that uses more common sense, like cross only where there are traffic control devices and do not cross against the signal. In other parts of the country, it is the pedestrian that gets ticketed for walking out into traffic. If we are to be an urban center, this is just indicative of our backward ways in Las Vegas."

■ ■ ■

And one last quick comment from Don, a former law enforcement officer: "Due to the very wide streets in the Las Vegas area it requires a pedestrian to walk at a good pace to cross before the signal changes. My suggestion is to have the traffic engineers set the signals to go red for all directions for a designated period of time and allow the pedestrians to cross in all directions even across the center of the street. This would result in faster movement of both pedestrians and motorists."

I see where Don is coming from and I believe there are some intersections in San Diego that are signaled like this. In Las Vegas? That makes me nervous. The upside is that there might be more space for the pedestrian to dodge out of the way of a distracted driver.

■ ■ ■

Since it is the Thanksgiving weekend, I would just like to thank you all for reading and sending me your opinions, whether they are positive, negative or critiques. I appreciate the feedback, column ideas and, of course rants. Keep them coming.

If you have a question, tip or tirade, call Adrienne Packer at 702-387-2904, or send an email to roadwarrior@reviewjournal.com. Include your phone number.