Editor,
We are residents on Pearson Street, and yes, we have been advocating for measures to deal with speeding vehicles on our road, in particular, but we have also supported the concerns raised by folks on Miller Street and Ridge Road. We are aware that there are other roads of concern in the town.
Your article regarding citizen concerns about speeding (The 3Rs…Rants, Raves & Rumours, July 29 print paper) struck a nerve with us, because we don’t believe you understand fully why we have been persistent in requesting traffic calming measures. So, it would appear that, in your view, the only justification would be collision and personal injury data.
Indeed, we are fortunate to have avoided tragic scenarios thus far. However, many residents are very fearful when walking here, some to the point of avoiding doing so. There are many anecdotal stories of ‘near misses’, some rather harrowing in recalling ‘jumping into the ditch’ as a speeding vehicle came perilously close.
This week, we have welcomed the installation of new speed limit signs with a lowered limit of 40 km. As well, digital speed monitoring devices have been installed on Pearson heading west, and on Ridge Road heading east. We have already observed drivers slowing down on Pearson once they see the flashing sign noting their speed….we think these signs influence behaviour and for that we are grateful.
Regrettably, we have been informed that these digital signs are only temporary and will be returned to St. Vincent St. once school starts. While we do understand the importance of school proximity, it is most unfortunate that they cannot be permanent here as well, as we believe they are having and would continue to have a strong deterrent effect.
We recognize and acknowledge that it is not realistic to expect police presence on a regular basis, although it would be very satisfying to observe a speeding driver being ticketed. Alternatively, traffic calming measures will hopefully decrease the incidence of speed violations. Traffic studies and monitoring on our road in the past couple of years have verified a significant incidence of speeding, so we don’t understand your reference to lack of data.
Unless you live in this community, or walk our streets, you would not understand our concerns. We are well aware, as responsible tax-paying citizens, that these measures have budget implications, but we believe it is a small price to pay to avoid a tragic accident and help to keep our community safe.
We feel that your rant trivialized our concerns, ones we believe to be serious enough to have warranted proactive, preventative action. Kudos to the Council members who supported the speed reduction by-law and to the municipal staff who implemented the recommendations in a timely and effective way.
Bette Sweatman and Carol Dockrell, Meaford
Editor’s Note: Certainly no intent to trivialize. I have no issue with working to solve isolated issues, but as my column noted, as so often happens, Council’s conversation goes well beyond solving an isolated issue, and has morphed into talk to municipal-wide 40 km/hr speed limits – if you can’t get people to obey a speed limit of 50, good luck with 40, and of course there has been recent talk among some members of Council about exploring adding expanded services to our policing arrangement. Those are my concerns about issues such as this; local councils can tend to over-correct and that can come with unintended consequences.
