On Nov 5, 10:13*am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

> > The state itself hasn't provided any proof. *

> The state isn't installing the cameras it is the local government doing
> that.

That's nothing more than purely unnecessary pedentary on your part.

> And I suppose you believe that big brother "state of maryland"
> should prohibit them from doing that.

Non-sequitur.

> >For instance, it would be a
> > simple matter of conducting a traffic (including pedestrian traffic) and
> > engineering studies of the proposed new school zones in question to see
> > whether they're needed for safety purposes.

> According to New Carrollton some sort of study was done.

Cite? I was unable to find anything substantiating your claim above
on a Google search using the city name and school zone.

> > *A simple FOIA directed at
> > the authority in question should resolve the question. *But, given that
> > the law has no requirement for any such study,

> You seem to want the big brother government to impose all these mandates
> on local authorities?

Non-sequitur. Try to stay on topic.

> >it's doubtful that the
> > authority has anything like that on file.

> They probably have open to the public town council meetings.

Which in no way indicates that any objective traffic and engineering
study of the area in question took place or whether it's documented
and copies of it are available upon request.

> > In that case, one can only conclude that such school zones were
> > established without any prior objective analysis based on need and
> > safety concerns. *

> * * * * You mean the street being in front of the school is something that
> needs to be objectively studied and analyzed.

Who said anything about these new school zones being directly in front
of schools? A significant portion of roads in New Carrollton were not
directly in front of schools (indicated on the map in the video on You
Tube were not near the schools in question) and as far as I could see,
weren't designated as school zones at all.

> Your beginning to sound like a socialist pedagogue.

I suggest learning how to use basic contractions before moving onto
the "big words."

> >Without such objective analysis, concluding that
> > establishing those new school zones is "anything other than an attempt
> > to protect the children" is suspect at best. *At worst, it could lead to
> > drivers disregarding warranted school zone speed restrictions because of
> > the decision of the authority to "cry wolf" regarding the need for new
> > school zones. *If that leads to the injury or death of a child, then the
> > authority is culpable.

> You sound like a guy who expects government to solve all your problems.

Non-sequitur. If you're (not "your") not going to actually refute my
argument, then you're (not "your") nothing more than a waste of time.