BACKYARD MOTOCROSS TRACKS

It’s too bad that we even need to consider this type of regulation, but unfortunately the notion of courtesy disappeared some time ago. When I was a teen there was an understanding that you pushed your dirt bike through the neighborhood to get to the woods. A couple times I got lazy and fired up my bike to get to the trails quicker and boy did I get the hairy eyeball from my neighbors. My offense would have only caused about a half a minute of noise pollution but it was unacceptable so I went back to pushing. Today we have residents building practice tracks right in their back yards. If you have a couple hundred acres of land to play with this might be reasonable, but where do we draw the line? Pittsfield’s zoning ordinance has a “permitted uses table” that regulates a wide range of activities. For example, shooting ranges are only allowed by special permit in zones R-20 and R-43. Like shooting ranges, practice motocross tracks can produce a lot of noise. But unfortunately this activity is not addressed in our current zoning ordinance.

What do you think? Should off road vehicle (ORV) recreation be regulated in residential zones?

Williams Street Recreation Path

Sometimes called a bike path, sometimes called a greenway, and
always controversial, the proposed path that would connect Williams
Street to East Street is currently being studied for feasibility by an
engineering firm called BSC Group of Worcester.

My opinion on this project hasn't changed.

1) I'm a big fan of recreation paths in general for purposes of exercise,
recreation, and alternative transportation.
2) I think this particular location offers a singular opportunity to connect
two city neighborhoods that share an elementary school (Williams).
3) There are valid issues that need to be addressed including safety,
privacy for the abutters, and environmental impact.

The ongoing engineering feasibility study is expected to produce results
and recommendations in June.

What's your opinion?

Cameras for traffic control?

At a recent Public Health & Safety subcommittee meeting Chief Riello shared some options for using cameras in law enforcement. One example was planting surveillance cameras downtown or in an area that you want to watch (as Springfield has done recently). Another example was installing cameras on traffic lights to catch scofflaws.

And a third type was the hidden camera for traffic speed control. As Bernie pointed out, this function could be provided by a vendor hired by the Police Dept. The vendor would place a device that inlcudes a radar unit and a camera at some roadside location. The device would record images of any vehicle traveling above a certain speed. According to the Chief, the photos are from both the front and rear of the car and provide a crystal clear image of the license plate and driver's face.

The driver never knows what happened, and receives a citation in the mail with the recorded speed and photographs. The driver is of course free to appeal this citation, just like any other.

Knowing the problems with speed enforcement, I am all for trying this. And if it results in the complete breakdown of campaign finance law, as suggested, then we can certainly discontinue the experiment.

What do you think?