Mailbag: Drayman way off on bunny outburst

Some think this is entrapment, but it is not. If a pedestrian is legally crossing in the crosswalk, whether it be a citizen, plain-clothed police officer or Easter Bunny, the motorist alone makes the choice to violate the law and not yield the right-of-way, as required.

I have long considered Drayman a friend and supporter of public safety, but his outburst caught my attention, as I spent eight years as the traffic bureau commander trying to make a difference — a job that required my officers and me to investigate too many pedestrian fatalities, and then make the painful and heart-wrenching notifications to their families.

So I applaud the Glendale Police Department and Traffic Bureau for continuing to work on pedestrian safety and using the model developed by Guay.

DON MEREDITH

San Dimas

Editor’s note: Meredith is a retired Glendale police lieutenant who served 36 years in Glendale, eight as the Traffic Bureau commander.

Same old arguments from reform haters

Robert Buniatyan, in attacking health-care reform, simply restates the Republican arguments that have been debated for an entire year (“Bill takes away freedoms,” March 26).

Simply stated, Buniatyan, you lost, get over it. Or join up with the “repealers” and see where that gets you politically. When your guy was in charge I strongly and vocally opposed the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the massive tax cuts that went almost totally to the already rich and led to the $1.2-trillion deficit, the bank bailouts and the 2008 Great Recession that President Obama inherited. When I lost my argument, I shut up and let George W. Bush do what he called “governing.”

I will ignore Buniatyan’s philosophical objections to anything that would make America a more humane nation and will just deal with what he calls the most adverse part of health-care reform — the mandate to buy health insurance, with subsidies when necessary.

He doesn’t state whether he objects to health insurers being able to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. I’ve never heard anyone, even Republicans, not support that part of reform, but they do object to mandates.

It’s really quite simple. After doing away with the preexisting-conditions clause, without the mandate, why would anyone buy insurance? Why not just wait until you get sick or injured, then buy insurance?

I wonder whether he objects to the requirement for every automobile to be insured? I have to assume that, to him, that’s unconstitutional too.

JIM CARROLL

Burbank