The writer of this article missed the point. Although the accident was between a SUV and a small car, the real problem was driver inattention due to cell phone usage. If the driver of the SUV had had her attention on driving, more than likely she would have stopped for the red light, thus avoiding the accident altogether.
Mark Higgins' car would still have sustained major damage, even if the other driver had been driving a car similar to Higgins' car.
I think it is time for Florida to look to states like New York, where cell phone usage while driving is illegal (unless using a hands-free device).
-- Bernard J. Jurgiel, Wesley Chapel
SUVs do not cause the accidents
In my family, we own and drive three large SUVs. We drive them carefully and with pride. We like these vehicles because they are safe, visibility is excellent and they are good road vehicles.
Every time the Times reports on an accident involving an SUV, the article is written to imply that the SUV operated itself, free of human intervention or action. The SUV did this. The SUV did that. On the other hand, the other vehicles - usually small, tiny machines - are always operated by persons who are made to appear blameless for what the SUV did.
We find daily that those driving small cars are the very ones who cause the accidents reported. The smaller the cars, the faster they try to go. They whip in and out of lanes without using signals and race between traffic control devices to prove something. These small vehicles are unsafe, not the SUVs. You make it appear as if an SUV is an inherently dangerous machine only because it is larger and because when it strikes a small "tin can" vehicle, it surely does more damage than if two small vehicles hit one another.
People are free to drive what they wish, thus far. So if people want to go out on the roads in a vehicle so small it appears as if one is wearing it instead of driving it, so be it. People who drive SUVs are very aware of the size and potential of their vehicle and drive much more carefully on the whole than do those driving the miniature vehicles you rave about.
Be fair and unbiased when you report. Presumably both vehicles in an accident are operated by a person; one is more careless than the other, resulting in the crash. It is not a fact that an SUV is more dangerous. It is the operator of any vehicle that makes it unsafe, and drivers of minivehicles are always out to prove they can beat you to a light or "off the line" when leaving an intersection. They cut in front of you dangerously close, not caring that the other driver must react quickly, often not having sufficient time to adjust for the uncourteous, dangerous driver of the small car. The drivers of these small cars are what make them vulnerable to greater damage when they deliberately attempt to involve themselves in a contest with a much larger vehicle.
They do the same thing with large trucks, semis, cement trucks, always with catastrophic results.
Give responsibility a place in your reports. SUVs do not cause the accidents.
-- David F. Kern, Oldsmar
SUVs don't always indicate wealth
Re: The accidental activist, Feb. 3.
I must take issue with a statement in this article. The writer stated that an SUV vs. a Geo Storm is a metaphor for, among other things, "upper class vs. middle class." On the contrary, I have found that persons with higher incomes are usually better educated, and as such, are aware of issues affecting us all, such as the scarcity of fossil fuels, America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil imports and global warming.
Consequently, a conscious decision is made to purchase a smaller, more fuel-efficient car. It is not a matter of affordability. Similarly, persons with higher incomes/educations are often more independent thinkers and do not feel that they must drive an SUV to be "one of the pack." I feel that the reporter, in his choice of words, has furthered the current misperception of SUVs as indicators of wealth. Bigger does not mean wealthier, just bigger.
My sympathies go to driver Mark Higgins and others who consciously choose to drive smaller cars as they share the road with all those bloated vehicles.
-- Carol McPherson, Hudson
Consider small cars' vulnerability
Re: The accidental activist.
This article struck an irritating cord in me. As I was growing up, it was an accepted fact that the smaller the car you were driving, the more dangerous you were living. In that era, the VW bug was considered a death trap because it didn't have an engine in the front and would easily be crushed in an accident. Yet today our views seem to have flip-flopped; everyone is a victim. Now the big car is picking on the small cars.
It seems to me that we need to perhaps go back a few decades. If you feel unsafe because of the larger cars on the road, perhaps you need to forgo that cutesy late model small car and invest in an older full-size car with a little "protection" built in. Better yet, buy your own "tank" and support the automotive industry with a real car purchase.
-- Stewart J. Moyer, Port Richey
Elderly need more than an eye test
An eye test for those drivers over 80 is fine, but it only goes halfway.
Just as important or more so, is a driving test. It is utterly ridiculous to be given a license for six years at that age.
With this new law, an 80-year-old person will still have six years to drive. To me, the reason this is being done is that an eye test is cheaper than a road test.
As an 83-year (young) retired motor vehicle license examiner from New York, I know about driving. What I see some drivers do on the road is outrageous.
-- Joe Abramowitz, Dunnellon
Driving with "diminished capacity'
Re: Too young to die, editorial, Jan. 31.
You wrote, "Juveniles have a diminished capacity to make informed judgments, control their impulses and understand the consequences of their actions. The law looks upon juveniles and adults far differently, barring minors from voting, drinking and entering into contracts due to their lack of maturity."
Considering the above position, why do we give "juveniles" the right to drive a powerful motor vehicle under demanding conditions, thereby creating our own weapons of mass destruction? Interesting.
-- Ken Connolly, Largo
Get serious about noise
Re: Soothing the savage stereos, Feb. 1.
When will Pinellas County get serious about this type of disturbance? If a neighbor's dog barks constantly, the verbal or written testimony of two people is sufficient to establish a violation. But if someone drives through a residential neighborhood night after night rattling windows, no citation is issued unless an officer is on hand to witness the violation. This is a real problem in many neighborhoods. Ordinances that are never enforced won't solve it.
-- Scott Andrews, Clearwater
Let's join in singing the anthem
Last weekend, as a talented young woman sang the Star Spangled Banner just before the start of a hockey game, I heard an unfamiliar sound behind me. I turned around, and yes, a man was singing along with the words. As I had expected, he had gray hairs amid his brown and a few lines in the face. He was younger than my 56 years, but he was one of us, a baby boomer.
Usually I am the only one singing along with the national anthem, eliciting stares from those around me. It's something those of us who started school in the '50s and '60s learned to do - to be a participant rather than someone who passively listens to the Star Spangled Banner performed.
For the record, I am not a right-wing conservative. They do not have a monopoly on patriotism. I believe in equal rights for gays, a woman's right to choose and separation of church and state. I also believe that if the national anthem is played before a sports event, people should sing along. Only then does it mean something, becoming an affirmation rather than a performance.
When did one's inability to hit the high notes become a reason not to sing? My father was always off key, but he did sing along at the baseball games he took us to in the '50s - he and every other citizen who was there.
I think it would be nice if the ever-present display on the screen above the ice showed the words of the national anthem to encourage us to sing along, to give us the feeling of unity despite our disparate beliefs and backgrounds - all valued parts of the world's longest-lasting democracy.
-- Karen Sinnreich, Tampa
What about freedom of expression?
Re: War of words waged over Confederate flag petition, Jan. 30.
I am not surprised that, once again, someone is offended by the Confederate battle flag and attempting to ban it from being flown or worn somewhere. Sadly, it happens quite frequently around here. I am surprised, however, to read that some school principals in other districts have already banned students from wearing it.
What happened to freedom of speech and expression? Imagine how students must feel learning in an American government class about the First Amendment and what it means, shortly after being told they can't wear a particular symbol on their clothing because it might offend someone else. What hypocrisy!
In the case of the Confederate flag, it is a popular misconception that everyone who embraces it is promoting racism and hatred, when in all actuality, the opposite is true. They are usually the victims of hate, not the perpetrators. In the case of Tarpon Springs High School, nowhere was there any mention of the students who wore the flag behaving violently toward anyone else, or even making racist comments. It was an individual who just moved into the area who decided since she was offended by what they were wearing that they were the ones who had to change.
Anyone who is truly against hatred and discrimination will support the students wearing the flags in this case, and their right to do so in the future.
-- James Bennett, Safety Harbor
A school frozen in 1950s mode
Re: More voices are essential to discourse about hate, Feb. 2.
Mary Jo Melone's column about Tarpon Springs High School (and her two previous columns about it) show that this particular school, although good in academics, is frozen in 1950s mode. Young women are strongly admonished if they want to participate in the Epiphany dive. Now a biracial student is told not to complain about white students wearing Confederate symbols. When the peaceful complaint happened, the student was suspended.
From some of my female USF students, who graduated from this high school, I was aware that this attitude has long existed. Is it too much to ask that the county personnel in charge of public education address tactfully this issue and bring to the school administrators who are in tune with the present age.
-- Charles W. Arnade, distinguished professor, international studies, USF Tampa, San Antonio Fla.
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
