Editor:
I must say the article in Coast Reporter concerning the South Coast Ford sign was not only a major revelation to me but also, with the Christmas season coming on, the timing could not have been better.
I am of course referring to the argument: “flashing lights could be distracting to motorists.” This of course has major impact not only with respect to the South Coast Ford sign but obviously any flashing lights that operate at a cycle rate at least as rapid as the South Coast Ford sign.
Imagine the consternation when this becomes known to all other jurisdictions within B.C. and across North America. It will be necessary to remove all flashing green pedestrian-operated lights, all amber flashing lights at specified crossings, all flashing lights on police and emergency vehicles as well as school buses as well as those silly flashing lights on the wings of planes causing motorists to look up.
I personally will be glad to see those flashing lights that alert you of your speed as you approach a restricted speed construction zone go.
Sechelt is one thing, but Vancouver will be quite busy dealing with the issue.
And of course, with Christmas around the corner, we need to get the bylaw officers out to ensure people take down any flashing Christmas light decorations. This is particularly important if one returns home, is distracted by their flashing Christmas lights and forgets to open their garage door before they drive in.
On a more serious tangent, I noted the light at South Coast Ford cycles about once every eight seconds. I use that portion of Wharf quite frequently, going to and returning from town. So I took a more careful look at the matter, and it was pretty obvious to me the sign was not in my line of sight until I was about 150 metres away in either direction. Now, driving at 40 km/hour that means 150 metres is covered in, let’s round it off, 13 seconds. At a maximum the text will change once in that period of time. One flash.
So there has to be another reason for the position council has taken. I am going to take a wild guess that they are concerned if one of these signs is allowed, they will be popping up everywhere. If that is the case, why did they not just state that instead of coming up with a misleading argument and making a decision based on flawed language in a bylaw?
Lou Janke, Sandy Hook
