Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

To avoid road rage, be courteous and move out of the way

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover, April 27.

The incident on the Courtney Campbell Parkway is another indication why the bill passed by the Legislature concerning slow drivers in the fast lane should be enacted and enforced. As soon as people in the fast lane realize that someone wants to pass them, they should move over. Better yet, drive in the right lane except to pass. That's what the left lane is for, passing.

As a professional driver, I see people drive slowly in the fast lane and also in the middle lane on I-75. Many don't realize that the middle lane is a truck driver's passing lane. On certain stretches of I-75 it is illegal for trucks to be in the left lane and passing in the left lane can cost them dearly, not only in fines, but also in points on their license.

When you take to the road, you should realize that your actions affect what other drivers do. Be courteous and move over when you realize someone wants to pass you. It may make you mad at the moment that they flash you with their bright lights or blow their horn, but think about the alternative.

A young man's life was lost because he failed to follow not only the rules of the road (slow traffic in the right lane), but also the laws of the state (not wearing his seat belt). As bad as I feel for his family, I also feel that he contributed immensely to his own demise. Had he pulled over, the other driver would have passed, and we wouldn't have been reading about his death. The next time you find yourself in this situation, please pull over.

Making way for bullies

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover.

I wonder how the family of Vincent Edward Tucker, killed when his vehicle went out of control and rolled over after an encounter with an SUV driver suffering from a major case of road rage, feels about the bill passed by the Legislature that gives that maniac the legal right-of-way, forcing slower drivers to move to the right.

What a sad state of affairs when a road-hogging testosterone-fueled pig-headed driver can bully - no, attack and kill - someone with his vehicle just because that person was going too slow in what he perceived to be his own personal express lane.

It could have been different

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover, April 27.

It's very sad that Vincent Edward Tucker is dead. However, any one of four acts of common sense or courtesy on Mr. Tucker's part could have changed the outcome of this so-called hit and run accident.

If Mr. Tucker had been driving in the right lane or if he had moved into the right lane when the SUV approached or if he had slowed down when the SUV passed him on the right or if he had been wearing his seat belt, the outcome would have been vastly different, and Mr. Tucker would be alive today.

We are all responsible for our own actions. Don't look to blame someone else for our own foibles

Is speed worth a life?

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover.

A question to all of those who think the fast lane belongs to them: Is it worth risking a human life so that you can get ahead of me? And the next guy, and the next? I've seen too often the kind of reckless driving described in Wednesday's article.

If there should be a law passed, it should be against improper lane changes and tailgating, not simply driving too slow. Furthermore, is driving the speed limit, or even 10 mph over the speed limit, driving too slow? Speed control alone, taken out of context, is not the solution to traffic safety.

Perhaps too many drivers follow too closely because they have experienced the guy who passes on the right (unlawfully) and wedges his car in front of them when they've tried to keep a safe distance back. That is what causes the "freight train" to start backing up, not slow driving.

Have we lost all patience and respect for others on the road? Some of us realize that we are all wielding heavy, deadly weapons on the road. Tuesday's encounter on the Courtney Campbell proved that some of us aren't afraid to use them.

Lane hogs are frustrating

Re: Road rage.

There is no excuse for the driver of the black SUV to cause the death of an individual. If found, the driver of the black SUV should get the maximum sentence!

As a daily commuter who drives back and forth across the bay, I think the inconsiderate and selfish drivers who hog the fast lane need to move over and let others move along. While I would never take action against another, many slow movers knowingly stay in the fast lane and care not one iota about the delays or inconveniences they cause. It's certainly dang frustrating!

The speeding lane?

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover.

I am confused as to why the Times in this story labels the left lane the "fast" lane. I thought the posted speed limit signs applied to all lanes of traffic. Do speeders in the left lane have special privileges that let them exceed the speed limit?

And do they also have control over our state government, and can they influence the lawmakers to pass laws to penalize drivers who abide by the law? If that is so, then let's post signs that say "Left lane for speeders only - enter at your own risk."

We need to drive more safely

Re: Road rage causes a fatal rollover.

I work in Tampa and Orlando during the week, which means I spend plenty of time driving between the two cities. It seems as though every time I reach my destination, I have a story to tell about the bad drivers I observe during my commutes.

This news story is the result of erratic Florida drivers. I have driven in many of this country's busiest cities, and in my opinion, the Florida drivers are easily the worst in the country.

I plead to all Florida drivers, whether you think you are a safe driver or not, please slow down, stop tailgating, and we will all get to our destinations safely. As the bay area's population continues to boom, we are only going to see more headlines like this one, unless people start driving safer.

Keep race out of it

Re: Handcuffing of a 5-year-old.

I wish that you would keep the terms "black" and "white" from dominating this story. This is simply about an unruly child who demonstrated that she had a lack of respect for rules. Schools should not be made to put up with this type of behavior.

The protesters say this sends a message of fear of police to black children. Children should be taught respect for the law instead of fear of it. They should not fear the law itself but should fear the consequences if they break the law. Too bad that the mother took the child and fled the state. The child clearly needs help.

It appears that the mother is more interested in getting the story out where she can make some money with it.

Parents need to parent

I have been watching and listening to the stories concerning the 5-year-old child handcuffed at school. It saddens me that today our society has forfeited its obligation of parenting to the school system and law enforcement. After listening to the story and watching the tape, I ask: Where was the parent? I was a single mother of three but set limits and behaved as a role model for my children because children need consistent limits and learn from example. I did not expect the school or any other organization to raise my children.

I am amazed at the criticism of the school and, yes, the police. The mother should have come to the school instead of putting the police and the school in such a no-win situation. I was amazed further by the comments of the police chief, who should be supporting his officers instead of "giving in" to pressure.

Parents need to take responsibility for parenting, and the police chief needs to support the officers on the front line.

Looking for a better way

Educating our children is the most important aspect of our society. It can be rewarding and in some cases difficult. In the regrettable case of the handcuffed 5-year-old kindergarten student, we understand that current guidelines were followed by both the Pinellas County school district and the St. Petersburg Police Department in handling this matter.

It is our position that this case offers a positive opportunity for both organizations to work together for the benefit of our children. The superintendent of schools and the chief of police should jointly commence a review of their respective organizations' standard operating procedures for the purpose of gaining control of school situations before handcuffing becomes necessary. Their goal should be to determine what alternative steps can be taken in the future to diffuse situations before they become uncontrollable.

If successful, the effort may result in a more acceptable outcome in the future for everyone involved. After all, it's our belief that a safe and nurturing environment is the foundation to an equitable educational atmosphere.

A fitting tribute

Re: Images of the war dead form a portrait of loss, by Wes Allison, April 23.

Thank you, Mr. Allison, for the very straightforward way you wrote your story and presented the fact that we have lost more than 1,300 men and women in these wars.

It is fitting that we recognize and value the dedication, the service, and the sacrifice of each of these men and women. We should never forget for a moment that we have a volunteer military and those people stepped up and said, "I'll go." Nothing can diminish the honor and the nobility of that. We can recognize that authentically without exaggeration and distortion.

It is also fitting that we remember that each of them came from a family and a community. Each of those communities and families has lost a portion of itself. Some part that was vital and promising, that was the unfolding future, is gone. Nothing can diminish the grief and loss.

Our media and politicians reflexively label them "heroes," and some of them are. Many of them were just scared kids who made a wrong move at the wrong time. That's not heroic. It's sad. Some were simply riding from place to place and happened to enter what became a blast zone. Not everyone who dies in combat or in war is a hero. Let's stop repeating that. It distorts our thinking about war.

Some of them are actually heroes. All of them are dead. Their families have neatly folded flags and spent rifle shells instead of sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, friends, lovers, partners. We should think about whether we would prefer flags and cartridges or sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. . . .

The most horrible calculus of war is the question, "What have we gotten in return?" For these 1,300 members of our families dead and $300-billion dollars from our treasury spent: What have we gotten in return?

The fog of Dowd

Re: The whole Pope Benedict, by Michael Novak, and Voice of God turns down on TV, up at the Vatican, by Maureen Dowd, April 21.

After reading Michael Novak's well-balanced, thoughtful and articulate essay on Pope Benedict XVI, I happened to glance at the adjacent column by Maureen Dowd, reprinted from the New York Times and, as the headline piqued my interest, I read the piece. What a remarkable contrast to Novak.

Dowd was apparently attempting to write on the subject of Ted Koppel's replacement vis-a-vis the new pope. Her point had something to do with the replacement efforts on the part of ABC, which included a show with faux fog, or that the pope was a Nazi, or women's lack of representation in the media and the Vatican or... well, to be honest, I'm not sure what point(s) she was trying to make. The article was devoid of any semblance of cohesion.

I do know she dismissed the pope and the Catholic Church with a few ignorant, not to mention ageist, inflammatory statements. She threw a few jabs at Republican legislators and the Family Research Council and quoted Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., about debating the filibuster in heaven, and so forth.

This brings me to my own point: How can a person whose intellect is so demonstrably shallow and whose writing is so disjointed be paid good money to write a column for a major newspaper? Is this truly the best the New York Times can find? Perhaps Maureen Dowd should volunteer herself as a replacement for Ted Koppel. One thing is certain: There would be no need for additional fog.

Pope puts church first

Re: Church vs. state, April 27.

This article highlights what most modern Americans do not understand about the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has never in its 2,000-year history been a democratic organization. John F. Kennedy was saying that a Catholic can freely chose the church teachings he or she plans to follow. Benedict XVI disagrees and is stating church policy.

The Catholic Church has opposed revolution, free thinking, nonconformity, personal choice and Protestantism. The new pope is saying Catholics cannot pick and choose what they will believe. He says you cannot be an American Catholic, you must be a Catholic American or you will be denied church service. Give him credit for spelling it out and not putting a spin on it. That philosophy is why I left the church 50 years ago.

Some wrongs go beyond religion

Re: Church vs. State, April 27.

The juxtaposition of statements by Pope Benedict XVI and President John F. Kennedy in a Crossfire-style debate is clever but not accurate in its conclusions. I would note that the action of the church in denying Holy Communion to a member of its own religion is well within the province of a bishop or pope in governing the church. It merely states the obvious, that a person has clearly stepped outside the well-defined bounds of the faith and is no longer in "communion" with the church.

The Catholic Church maintains that matters such as abortion and euthanasia not only violate God's law but are discernible as violations of universal natural law. They are not merely religious prohibitions. Many actions are prohibited by civil and criminal law that overlap with matters that are defined as "sin" by various religions. Thus, we readily recognize that murder, stealing, fraud, perjury, etc. are inherently wrong, not merely because they are violations of the Ten Commandments.

Even our Declaration of Independence refers to a universal law based on being a creature of God when it states that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Opposition to "intrinsically unjust laws" (Pope Benedict) comes not only from members of the Catholic Church. People from every religion and of no religion are among those who see certain injustices that should be prohibited by law.

Descending into irrelevance

Re: Church vs. state.

This article simply confirms what became obvious with the election of a reactionary to the papacy: that the Catholic Church has already peaked and its descent into irrelevance is well under way. Pope John XXIII, who called the Second Vatican Council, could never be elected today.

After the admirable way they dealt with the anti-Catholicism that threatened to derail John Kennedy in 1960 and that did derail Alfred Smith three decades earlier, they simply chose to join the pack that went after John Kerry last year.

By the way, John Kerry is a better Catholic and a better man than Cardinal Law. But Kerry gets threatened with being excommunicated, while Law gets to officiate a Mass during the pope's funeral ceremonies. It's the reactionaries' way or the highway. After growing up as a Catholic, I give my best wishes to men and women of faith, but I'll take any highway over this.

A new perspective on the pope

Have you ever had the feeling that you've stayed at the party too long?

As a teenager, I noticed that my Catholic girlfriends had a photo of a fatherly person in their homes: the pope.

Years later, along came John Paul II and the sober realization that he was only a couple of years older than I am. The pope!

Now we have Benedict XVI and the even more startling discovery that he is a few years younger than I am. The pope!

Within hours of his ascendancy to the new position, he is being criticized. So now, I have to say, "Give the kid a break!"

[Last modified April 30, 2005, 00:51:14]