To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I have been up and down Highway 69 to Parry Sound and beyond for the third time in a week. I have driven this road more times than I can possibly keep track of over the last 35 years.
As I travel along, I have time to think about the problems of the two lane link to the south. The biggest drawback is the limitation these two lanes place on resolving speed differentials among drivers. The average speed which most cars travel is well above the speed limit but is not, in my opinion, excessive. However, there are cars traveling various speeds from below the 90 KPH limit to the fast movers.
Then you have the trucks and RV's which are unable to move at the same pace as the average traffic. Combine the faster vehicles with one slow-moving truck or car, add steady oncoming traffic, and you have lineups of cars, none of which are able to travel their preferred speed.
The passing lanes alleviate this somewhat, but they are limited and only allow so many to pass before ending. Also, strangely, some of the slower cars seem to speed up in the passing lanes.
With the lineups and limited ability to pass, some drivers get frustrated. While they should be cool and wait a bit, they resort to tailgating, passing in unsafe situations and other hazardous behaviour. Based on my life experience, I don't think any amount of education will change this and the enforcement budget is barely enough to put a token police presence on the road.
The solution is to four-lane Highway 69. No big news there. The current plan is to provide a complete limited access highway that will take 12 years and more than $1 billion to complete. As a taxpayer and a traveler, I ask why?
I would be happy to see the existing right of way widened to create a four lane road similar to Regional Road 80 from Sudbury to Val Caron. This would allow faster traffic to get by expeditiously, reducing the high risk behaviours, and would not cut off side roads and local businesses.
And all of this could be done in a fraction of the time and at a much lower cost than the current plan. Also, by not relocating right away, all the environmental studies and negative impacts would be avoided.
Why spend our tax dollars on something that is way more than what we really need?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Alcohol Growing Factor in Sled Mishaps
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read your article on the study of snowmobile incidents by the Canadian Institute for Health Information with great interest. It amazes me that this is being presented as new and surprising information since the results of studies done by local trauma Doctors Brian Rowe and Gary Bota in the early 90's provided similar statistics. Ms. Keresteci would not have been shocked at the alcohol involved rate if she had read this and other published studies going back over 20 years.
In response to a series of fatalities in Sudbury in 1992, OPP Sgt. Lynn Beach called a meeting of stakeholders including clubs, dealers, doctors, insurance people and police to see what could be done to improve things. Local Mayors got involved and Terry Kett of Walden became Chair of the Mayors and Citizens Task Force on Snowmobiling.
Armed with Drs. Rowe and Bota's study (and with their support), the task force determined that alcohol was the primary contributor to fatalities (approximately 70%) and a major factor in personal injury incidents. It was also determined that police did not have adequate manpower or equipment to maintain an effective enforcement presence on the trails. Based on a proposal by Norm Hein of the Sudbury Trail Plan, the Snowmobile Trail Officer Patrol was born. This consisted of a volunteer force of experienced sledders trained and given the authority to enforce the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act as well as area snowmobile by-laws, and assist police with alcohol interdiction on the trails.
A further study by the good doctors found that, in the three years before trail patrols, Sudbury experienced 15 fatalities of which 13 were alcohol involved. In the next three years, with an enforcement presence, there were four fatalities of which two were alcohol involved. The conclusion was that increased enforcement presence on the trails, made possible largely because of the S.T.O.P. volunteers and police working together and focusing on the root behaviours causing mishaps, was effective in reducing fatalities. A second study indicated the same effect on injury incidents. In 1995, the program was approved for expansion across the province.
So where is this landmark program today? There are significantly less S.T.O.P. officers in Ontario now than there were in 2000. Sudbury still has a presence on the trails due largely to the dedication of Norm Hein. I see Dr. Bourdon states that alcohol is a factor in 28% of Sudbury incidents compared to 49% nationwide and I suggest that S.T.O.P. and police activity here is a contributor to the lower levels. Elsewhere, expansion seems to have ground to a halt and recruitment is not up to replacing those who leave the program. Attempts to sell the concept to other provinces found resistance from police services who did not accept the idea of empowering highly trained volunteers. And the deaths and injuries continue.
Now there is another study stating that which is already known as if it is a new revelation. Meanwhile, a program which proved to be one very effective step in improving the situation languishes, largely due to a lack of real commitment and a failure to understand the original strategy by both snowmobile and police organizations.
When will we ever learn?
I read your article on the study of snowmobile incidents by the Canadian Institute for Health Information with great interest. It amazes me that this is being presented as new and surprising information since the results of studies done by local trauma Doctors Brian Rowe and Gary Bota in the early 90's provided similar statistics. Ms. Keresteci would not have been shocked at the alcohol involved rate if she had read this and other published studies going back over 20 years.
In response to a series of fatalities in Sudbury in 1992, OPP Sgt. Lynn Beach called a meeting of stakeholders including clubs, dealers, doctors, insurance people and police to see what could be done to improve things. Local Mayors got involved and Terry Kett of Walden became Chair of the Mayors and Citizens Task Force on Snowmobiling.
Armed with Drs. Rowe and Bota's study (and with their support), the task force determined that alcohol was the primary contributor to fatalities (approximately 70%) and a major factor in personal injury incidents. It was also determined that police did not have adequate manpower or equipment to maintain an effective enforcement presence on the trails. Based on a proposal by Norm Hein of the Sudbury Trail Plan, the Snowmobile Trail Officer Patrol was born. This consisted of a volunteer force of experienced sledders trained and given the authority to enforce the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act as well as area snowmobile by-laws, and assist police with alcohol interdiction on the trails.
A further study by the good doctors found that, in the three years before trail patrols, Sudbury experienced 15 fatalities of which 13 were alcohol involved. In the next three years, with an enforcement presence, there were four fatalities of which two were alcohol involved. The conclusion was that increased enforcement presence on the trails, made possible largely because of the S.T.O.P. volunteers and police working together and focusing on the root behaviours causing mishaps, was effective in reducing fatalities. A second study indicated the same effect on injury incidents. In 1995, the program was approved for expansion across the province.
So where is this landmark program today? There are significantly less S.T.O.P. officers in Ontario now than there were in 2000. Sudbury still has a presence on the trails due largely to the dedication of Norm Hein. I see Dr. Bourdon states that alcohol is a factor in 28% of Sudbury incidents compared to 49% nationwide and I suggest that S.T.O.P. and police activity here is a contributor to the lower levels. Elsewhere, expansion seems to have ground to a halt and recruitment is not up to replacing those who leave the program. Attempts to sell the concept to other provinces found resistance from police services who did not accept the idea of empowering highly trained volunteers. And the deaths and injuries continue.
Now there is another study stating that which is already known as if it is a new revelation. Meanwhile, a program which proved to be one very effective step in improving the situation languishes, largely due to a lack of real commitment and a failure to understand the original strategy by both snowmobile and police organizations.
When will we ever learn?
Friday, November 25, 2005
Lynne Reynolds
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Councilor Lynne Reynolds letter of the day with great interest. It struck a chord with me and I found her giving voice to suspicions I have harboured for some time about the state of governance at City Hall.
I believe, based on past observations, that the civil service bureaucrats in all levels of government have their own agendas which often are at odds with the elected officials who are supposed to guide and direct their activities. The elected representatives can only be effective if they are in possession of all the facts before rendering a decision. Withholding or distorting those facts is an old civil service trick to subvert the principles of elected oversight.
I also read Mayor Courtemanche's long and impassioned condemnation of Councilor Reynolds' letter. I believe, however, the councilor's first responsibility is to the constituents who elected them and not to present a united front to the public if they feel it isn't warranted or to rubber stamp the recommendations of staff even if the Mayor urges them to do so.
I admire Councilor Reynolds for having the courage to speak out and I believe that there is substance to the points she has raised. We need people who will tell it like it is at the helm and not those who preach political expediency at the expense of elected, efficient and effective government.
Should Lynne Reynolds choose to run for Mayor in the next municipal election, she would have my vote. Mayor Courtemanche, in any case, will not.
I read Councilor Lynne Reynolds letter of the day with great interest. It struck a chord with me and I found her giving voice to suspicions I have harboured for some time about the state of governance at City Hall.
I believe, based on past observations, that the civil service bureaucrats in all levels of government have their own agendas which often are at odds with the elected officials who are supposed to guide and direct their activities. The elected representatives can only be effective if they are in possession of all the facts before rendering a decision. Withholding or distorting those facts is an old civil service trick to subvert the principles of elected oversight.
I also read Mayor Courtemanche's long and impassioned condemnation of Councilor Reynolds' letter. I believe, however, the councilor's first responsibility is to the constituents who elected them and not to present a united front to the public if they feel it isn't warranted or to rubber stamp the recommendations of staff even if the Mayor urges them to do so.
I admire Councilor Reynolds for having the courage to speak out and I believe that there is substance to the points she has raised. We need people who will tell it like it is at the helm and not those who preach political expediency at the expense of elected, efficient and effective government.
Should Lynne Reynolds choose to run for Mayor in the next municipal election, she would have my vote. Mayor Courtemanche, in any case, will not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
