It is disappointing that Gov. Jeb Bush chose to veto a bill that would have enhanced the safety and efficiency of Florida's roads. The concept of staying right on multilane roads except to pass is what enables roads to work to their fullest capacity.
To defend the veto by saying that the bill encourages drivers to travel at greater than the speed limit shows a disconnect with reality. They already are, and the speeding is condoned by the government and the police.
Given that his governorship has been so pro-automobile, perhaps this would have been the time to show that he is pro-driver as well.
Paul Gilchrist, St. Petersburg
Bill was aimed at wrong people
Re: Bush vetoes road rage bill.
I applaud Gov. Jeb Bush for taking a stand against a bill that is utterly ridiculous and does nothing to punish the road rage "bullies" for their insensitive and careless driving.
It is a rare occasion that a driver, with open road in front, remains in the left lane. Most times, it's in moderate-to-heavy traffic. The bullies want the road to themselves and other drivers are not about to impede their progress.
The governor is right when he says there is no empirical evidence to connect safe drivers to road rage. The rush to judgment mentality of the Legislature would have, if passed, been a complete failure. There are just as many of these angry idiots in the right and middle lanes.
The bill should have been written to punish those found guilty of road rage by levying heavy fines and the loss of driving privileges. Then and only then would they realize the roads belong to all taxpaying citizens.
Jim Lambert, Largo
What's wrong with left-lane lingerers?
Re: Bush vetoes road rage bill.
What is wrong with people who insist on driving in the left lane for no apparent reason other than they seem to prefer it to the right lane? Doesn't it just make sense for slower traffic to keep right except for making left turns or to pass slower (not necessarily speeding) traffic? That is and has been the method employed by many states for decades to ensure a smooth flow of traffic. I was taught to drive this way in 1954 because it was already a law in my state. It just plain makes sense!
Bryan Wilcox, St. Petersburg
Bush was right to reject it
Re: Bush vetoes road rage bill.
The statement in this story, "They impede traffic and encourage other motorists to dart between lanes, leading to accidents," is asinine!
"They" applies to those people driving at the posted speed limit and needing to get to a destination requiring a left turn. "Other motorists" applies to drivers who want to go above the speed limit and get enraged because other drivers are obeying the law and going about their rightful business - traveling on the road.
This "act" needed to be rejected! It's time the law-abiding citizens stop having to pay a price because of those who can't control themselves and leave themselves too little time to drive to their destinations!
Michelle Marissa, New Port Richey
A little courtesy goes a long way
Re: Bush vetoes road rage bill.
So what? This would have been just another law ignored by the left-lane driver and the speeder anyway. The road-rage wackos and the discourteous drivers don't care. They both think they own the road.
The first thing my dad said when he taught me to drive more than 60 years ago is to drive courteously - there are other people on the road. If someone wants to speed, get out of his way, he is dangerous. Be neither a speeder nor a road hog. A little courtesy goes a long way and helps keep your own temper in check.
Tom Ammerman, Seminole
Say no to Starbucks
Re: A perfect blend, May 19.
Starbucks does not mean Tampa's Seminole Heights has "arrived." That's like saying Ybor City has arrived because Wal-Mart wants to build a store there. Oh, wait. Mark Huey (Tampa's economic development administrator) did say that!
As far as I'm concerned, Starbucks is in the same category as Wal-Mart and represents much of what is wrong with our culture: a growing homogeneity, an encroaching blandness, a dull sameness, a lemming mentality.
I'm a resident of Old Seminole Heights. I live just blocks from the proposed site, and I do not want Starbucks in the neighborhood. People who know me well know that I boycott Starbucks.
Unfortunately, I don't have the deep pockets to open my own cafe, and it's too bad some other private investor hasn't stepped up. But let this story serve as a notice to small business owners and entrepreneurs: Seminole Heights is ripe. If you are creative and have an idea for a small shop, cafe, gallery, specialty boutique, or some other product or service, then step right up. This neighborhood will support you, as long as you provide excellent customer service.
-- Scott Taylor, Tampa
Try a Biltmore compromise
Re: Belleview Biltmore.
It seems to me there is room for a solution that could satisfy both parties. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing solution. Why not designate only a portion of the historic hotel to be preserved and allow development? This way the historic hotel in Belleair remains a part of the community and the developer gains an instant marketing tool by utilizing the existing good will and ambiance of the structure.
Laure Taylor, Lutz
[Last modified May 24, 2005, 14:17:06]
