Dear Mayor Schieferdecker: This late in the game I ask: What compelled you to pen to publish this defense?
The sales pitch: Red light running equals death? Which begs the following questions:
In the 10 years preceding the installation of red light cameras in Maitland…
- How many people died in red-light running accidents?
- Proportionately, how many red-light related accidents didn’t involve vehicular homicide?
- How many people died in other traffic accidents in the same time period? Hint: if you don’t want to do the hard work – and/or your police chief doesn’t have this info at the ready – drive around town and note the “Drive Safely” memorial signs (although admittedly they exist only on state roads).
- How much net revenue (profit) has the city “earned” from this spurious, flawed and oppressive pursuit couched in the name of safety?
- What other traffic safety programs will Maitland be affecting in the near future?
As I hope you agree, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. So instead …
- How about signs at the primary entries to Maitland that state: MAITLAND WELCOMES SAFE DRIVERS? Instead of, say, retro way-finding signs that Winter Park – in this age of GPS navigation – installed to supplant its iconic “PLEASE DRIVE WITH EXTRAORDIARY CARE” signs.
- Or the city distributing bumper stickers to its residents that state: THIS CAR STOPS FOR RED LIGHTS? And SunRail?
- Donating all profit to a driving education non-profit (e.g., Dori Slosberg Foundation), doubling down on the benefit of the program? Just kidding; who would think of doing that?
- Or specific to Maitland, evidently: DON’T BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC.
Since I don’t want to dilute this chastisement, more commentary to follow later from perspectives from some local – including Maitland – police, on the subject.
Sincerely,
Bill Shallcross
P.S. Another rhetorical question: How did you end up with Winter Park’s retirees running your city?
