Letters to the Valley Edition : Driving Courtesy Ought to Be the Law
I read with great interest Hugo Martin’s response to a letter writer in the Street Smart column on May 17, regarding lane usage on our freeways. His comment and those attributed to Highway Patrol Officer Preciado indicate to me that our traffic laws need to be changed.
What’s missing from our traffic laws are rules which enforce courteous driving.
Why legislate common courtesy? Because as the letter writer and most all L.A. drivers know, most drivers simply don’t choose to be courteous. And because this lack of courtesy clogs up the flow of traffic and creates dangerous driving conditions for all drivers.
Unfortunately, driving laws do not include useful rules regarding lane usage. So CHP officers find themselves powerless to act when a car obstructs the flow of traffic.
I propose adding the following to the California Vehicle Code: “A vehicle shall be considered to be legally positioned on a highway if it is (a) in the lane furthermost to the right, (b) passing a vehicle on its immediate right, (c) directly following a vehicle in its lane, or (d) forced by transition road locations or road conditions to use a particular lane.”
Translation: Get as far to the right as you can while still going where you want to go at the speed that is comfortable for you. This rule is merely an extension to multiple-lane highways of the rule most drivers know (if not obey) for two-lane highways: The left lane is for passing only.
It is ludicrous to accept Mr. Martin’s premise that a driver should be forced to break the law by tailgating or using high beams in order to force a driver to be courteous. If drivers obeyed the proposed rule, no such illegal and dangerous ways of saying, “I want to get around you” would be necessary.
It is equally ludicrous to take seriously Officer Preciado’s suggestion that a driver should choose a lane based on how long he or she will be driving. This is the kind of thinking used by the most obnoxious and lazy of drivers, those who plant themselves in a lane and claim permanent ownership of it, regardless of what’s going on behind them. Sure, lane changing will be minimized for those drivers, but lane changing by other drivers will be maximized, and smooth traffic flow will be greatly impaired.
RICHARD PRICE
North Hollywood
CSUN President’s Bank Post Improper
* I just read (May 20) that Cal State Northridge’s new president, Blenda Wilson, has been elected to the board of directors of Union Bank. Frankly, I’m not so sure this is in the best interests of the state of California.
The post at Union Bank is not honorary or volunteer. Ms. Wilson will be paid well over $24,000 for this work, in addition to her $134,000 salary at Northridge, highest in the 20-campus CSU system.
While the state of California’s moonlighting laws only apply to other state positions, nonetheless Ms. Wilson took office at a time of great crisis for the Northridge campus and education in general. Furthermore, she only this week announced a significant number of layoffs at the campus. Yet her new job, which will drain her of time and energy for her Northridge duties, will actually pay more in part-time remuneration than the full-time salaries of many she has just fired. I’m incensed.
There are many professors at Northridge, particularly in the Business School, who are prohibited from teaching any classes outside of CSUN unless they cut back to a 50% or 75% schedule at Northridge (this is a Business Society rule, not CSUN policy). Staff members at Northridge who work in offices and wish to teach one class at night must either cut back to an 80% work schedule or teach the class for free (it happened to me when I worked at Northridge in the mid-’70s).
So while President Wilson may legally take this extra assignment, I don’t feel the prestige of saying the CSUN president plays a role in major banking is worth the detriment of having her away from campus frequently on outside business or having Union Bank business done on state time!
Finally, CSUN is not a major university. It is a large university, though not when compared to Wisconsin or Penn State. But by major university, we should mean UCLA, USC, Stanford, Berkeley, Pepperdine, Cal Tech, possibly the Cal Poly campuses and places like Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, Duke, Texas at Austin, but not Northridge, not Cal State L.A., not Long Beach. Not yet.
RICK ROFMAN
Van Nuys
A Monorail System Is the Way to Go
* There are many advantages to building a monorail system over digging a subway tunnel.
First of all we must think of the growth of Los Angeles in the future. The sprawl will assuredly include the north and west which includes Lancaster, Saugus, Newhall, Simi Valley and the Ventura-Santa Barbara areas. It would seem highly improbable that we would dig tunnels for subways through the mountains to the outlying cities. The expense of tunneling those great distances would be astronomical and very impractical.
Monorails could follow the freeways that already exist, so obtaining rights of way is no problem and would be more economical. Representatives from Ventura have already appealed for their inclusion in a monorail system.
If building an overhead rail is dangerous, then I would ask anyone to ride down the Harbor Freeway and view the overhead busway. Surely it was examined by the proper authorities and considered to be safe for motorists on the freeway.
Monorail track, made of precast units, is laid out on pylons and can be very cost effective as well as very easy to construct. Contrast this to digging a subway through unknown obstacles.
The beginning of a vast monorail system for all of Los Angeles could and should begin with the first leg on the Ventura Freeway route. Furthermore, once this is completed, all future freeway planning could include monorail construction at the same time. The cost savings would be very significant when a total transport route is combined.
DALLAS E. GIPE
Reseda
