Page One

In your June 19 edition, two bicycle activists (from North Berkeley, if I read my phone book correctly) argue against changing the posted speed limit on Claremont Ave. to help police officers enforce more speeding tickets. Their shared rationale is that the state legislature might soon pass a bill that would uphold more tickets under existing limits. 

The emphasis should be on might: The legislature might pass the law. If so, the governor might sign it. If so, it will take effect next January – and the city might take advantage of it some time in 2001. 

But during the intervening six months or longer, how many people might be injured by speeders on Claremont who would otherwise be cited? How many drivers might get habituated to speeding, when their attitude would otherwise be permanently adjusted by getting a single $100+ ticket? Isn’t preventing speeding and injuries worth the scant “1,000 bucks” required to change signs – especially since the city would recover its investment after writing just a few extra tickets? One would think that bike activists, especially, might support this proposal. One wonders what might be their real agenda in leaving Claremont Ave. pedestrians (and, for that matter, cyclists) hanging for another six months? 

Unlike activist Hank Resnik, I do “get to Claremont very often” (almost daily). Let me reassure him that the positive changes there recently shepherded by Councilmember Polly Armstrong – including bright fluorescent signage, and even flashing lights in crosswalks – have already reduced prevailing speeds noticeably. Also, increased enforcement is coming, expedited by neighbors’ complaints about truck traffic. The final piece of the puzzle is this proposal to change the posted speed limit. 

Let’s hope the City Council puts that essential piece in place on Tuesday. 

Tom Brown 

Berkeley