To the editor:

In the articles about traffic safety in the Jan. 15 issue of the Barrington Times the word that was used most frequently was “intersection.” Other words, implying the same thing, were “shopping center” and “entrance.” It is apparent that the bulk of the vehicular accidents in town are not a result of speeding, but due to road congestion and cross traffic. I do not know if there is an easy solution to this other than driver and pedestrian awareness and perhaps four-way stop signs and better timed traffic lights. Certainly, these are not speed issues.

The utilization of speed cameras in other parts of the town will not solve this problem. While I sympathize with concern about the problems caused by excess velocity of cars on certain roads, I do not believe that the usage of  speed cameras is an appropriate solution. The law of unintended consequences demonstrates that what is initially felt to be a good idea turns into primarily a revenue source and eventually a revenue requirement. This is not a worthwhile usage of Barrington Police resources and time. We all are aware of some municipalities that thrive on issuing traffic tickets to support their governmental expenses. I hope that Barrington does not become such a town. 

My other objection is that speed cameras also can easily record the comings and goings of citizens who are otherwise obeying the law. We have enough spying on the populous throughout the US without Barrington contributing to those issues.

Regardless of what a speed camera study shows I believe it is a bad idea, promulgated primarily by traffic camera companies looking for profit, government authorities looking for more income and busy bodies trying to monitor their neighbors. There are more acceptable options. 

The town council should reject this idea outright. 

Stephen E Glinick

Barrington