LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic Universe

Search Terms: fuel, efficiency, standards

Document 44 of 175.

August 27, 2000, Sunday

SECTION: Editorial; Ed. Final; Pg. 8B

LENGTH: 1587 words

HEADLINE: LETTERS PAGE

BODY:

Fire Department touched by display of love, support

Sometimes in the course of our work as firefighters, we have a tendency to take for granted the amount of support we receive as public servants from the citizens of and visitors to Denver. I would like to take this opportunity to ensure everyone that they are not taken for granted, nor are they ever forgotten.

On behalf of the entire Denver Fire Department, please accept our eternal thanks for the display of love and support as we grieve over the death of firefighter Robert Crump, who drowned while trying to rescue a stranded motorist.

I am very confident that we will not soon forget why we are here and why we are firefighters - we are here for you. Expect, without reservation, that your safety will always be our first priority, at any cost.

Thank you for your confidence and, more importantly, thank you for your love and concern.

Richard L. Gonzales

Chief

Denver Fire Department

Legislature slow to get serious about ozone

The recent editorial "Getting serious about ozone," and the suggestion to junk the present exhaust inspection system for a better one, was timely and overdue. A number of states have tried and rejected the system we have.

A major reason for the current ozone increase is the increasing number of pickups, minivans and SUVs on the road. These vehicles represent nearly half of new car sales. Not that long ago they were less than one-fifth of new car sales.

A loophole in the 1975 fuel efficiency law allowed a laxer fuel-efficiency standard for these vehicles than cars - 20.7 miles per gallon vs. 27.5 mpg. Each gallon of gas used pumps more than 25 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (a 33 percent increase).

Although California acted a number of years ago in this, I believe our legislature just became concerned the past few months. Car manufacturers are taking steps and may resolve the problem in five years - but that's still 10 years too late.

Frank Tracey

Lakewood

Travel agents about only source that will give travelers complete information

As a Denver-area travel agent, I have grown exceedingly weary of the trials and tribulations surrounding United Airlines. A recent letter, in particular, jumped out and slapped me in the face.

Philip Varley started out his letter by valiantly defending Frontier Airlines and other carriers currently flying from DIA. I was actually quite pleased at this point. But then he made the ridiculous statement that travelers were being "persuaded by travel agents into flying with the dominant carrier."

Our clients are not "persuaded" to fly on any particular airline. As a matter of fact, a travel agent is about the only source that will give consumers an honest appraisal of all available airlines, routes and fares available at the time of booking. Why would a travel agent choose to put a passenger on a carrier that not only led the industry in commission cuts, but also leads the industry in customer dissatisfaction?

Travelers are persuaded by advertising, Web site promotions and the promise of bonus miles if they book directly with an airline. Unfortunately, these are the travelers who now have no other source of information when stranded in an airport, other than what they receive from a harried and overworked airline employee.

Without a travel agent consumers are on their own. Lack of competition in the airline industry should be closely observed. Not only does it eliminate small businesses by forcing travel agencies to close and upstart airlines to fold, but it drives travel prices higher and service levels lower. While it is true that United is the dominant carrier out of Denver International Airport at this time, travelers usually have another choice and a good travel agent will always offer it.

Kimberly Roebuck

Aurora

Letting jurors follow their conscience instead of law could lead to tyranny

In his Aug. 20 letter ("Jurors have right, even the duty, to ignore the law and follow their consciences"), Charles B. Weiser presented an inexcusable notion - that jurors should be able to do whatever they please in relation to a trial and sentencing, and have no worries about staying within the bounds of the law. He seems to think that if we take this right away, we will all be subjected to tyranny.

What he seems to be ignoring is the tyranny that would result from his " follow your conscience" idea. Jurors would ignore the law, letting murderers run rampant while innocent people are jailed or executed. A new reign of terror would decend and the vast majority of people of trial would waive their right to a jury, knowing that at least a judge would follow the law.

The law is there to protect the people. When people violate the law, and there seems to be reason to believe that they did, they are brought to trial. The idea is that they will get a fair trial based on the letter of the law and that their guilt must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." Should the jury be given free rein to do whatever it wants, this concept would be gone.

The concept of a jury is that instead of facing a single judge who may or may not be biased, we instead have 12 people from all walks of life who have (in theory) been tested for bias. Those with a bias that might affect the case are not allowed to sit on the jury. This system allows for as fair a trial as one can get, as 12 of these biasless "judges" consider the evidence and discuss it, trying to determine innocence or guilt. If they instead just say that they "feel" the defendant is guilty, the law is thrown out the window and the system is destroyed.

Nathanael Bertram

Aurora

Parents have always had to juggle children's safety with helping them grow

Why are parents not rising up in fear regarding the charges against Jeane Newmaker, whose child died in so-called rebirthing therapy in Evergreen?

The neglect guideline used to be whether a "reasonable and prudent" parent could have seen his or her action as unduly dangerous. Rebirthing therapy apparently had no history of physical danger.

I, however, exposed my children repeatedly to activities that we all know are occasionally fatal: hiking, swimming, biking, playing on playgrounds, etc. Although I was often accused of being overprotective, was I not more culpable than Jeane Newmaker?

Caring parents have always had to juggle their children's physical safety with helping them grow to be healthy, productive adults. We have all lived in fear of the "what if?" A few of us have had our nightmares come true. Today's parents may face additional punishment they never could have anticipated. The devastating legal fees are the same for the "not guilty"; forget all of the opportunities for surviving siblings. And what of the community support that all grieving families need?

If the legal system now requires that parents prevent all possibility of injury, that should be clearly stated by law so parents know what they face. As a retired social worker, I can assure you that the child-protection laws were not originally intended to be used in this way. Unless there is public objection this direction will continue. While I fail to see who benefits from this, it is clear that the future social costs of totally risk-proof childhoods will be mighty.

W.S. Allen

Denver

It seems odd to single out Brit Hume for 'bias'

I believe Dusty Saunders was right about MSNBC's convention coverage: It was very good. I object, however, to his quibble about Fox News' performance, though. He wrote that Brit Hume's "bias against most things Democratic made a mockery of the network's 'We report, you decide' pledge."

It's true that Hume stands to the right of most of the national media - and has done so since he started covering the White House for ABC. But it's also true that he stands virtually alone among national anchors and news program hosts. And how far does one have to go to be to the right of most of them? A baby step toward the center would be enough. Given the overwhelming numbers of his colleagues who stand squarely on the left, it seems odd to single out Hume for "bias."

Odd, also, that Saunders didn't mention the "balance" provided by co- anchor Paula Zahn, who was just as prone to speak in favor of "most things Democratic" as Hume was to do so against them.

As for Fox's "We report, you decide" claim, I agree that it's a bit bold. The network that can justly make that claim is C-SPAN. But did Fox make "a mockery" of it in its coverage? No any more so than the News' own so-called objective reporters do every day.

Ben Crocker

Denver

More new authors, please

Following the News' advice, I am writing to say that I enthusiastically endorse the attention given to first-time novelists, both in the Aug. 13 and 20 Books sections, but as well as on future occasions (since I'm making an optimistic assumption that my letter will not be the only ballot cast in favor of a biannual feature).

In the intervening months I will continue to enjoy The Bloomsbury Review, which - speaking of unsung work - has spent the last 20 years uncovering gems and "giving testament to the abundance of quality . . . in the publishing world today."

Is there a chance this brand of commitment will become popular? Or is that (like writing a first book) contradictory to "a labor of love."

Cynthia Nelson

Denver

0

NOTES:
LETTERS PAGE

LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2000

Document 44 of 175.


Search Terms: fuel, efficiency, standards
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: