This thread discusses the Content article: IN OUR VIEW: Safe crossings for school kids

Finally, the first sensible editorial in the Herald in some time.

You need to understand that UDOT's primary interest is to keep traffic moving as fast as possible. Child safety, or that of any pedestrian (read second-class citizen) is of little consequence. What will determine the placement of a traffic light is traffic volume, not child safety. It's insane. We've built our communities around the car, and we swallow the horrid annual stats with little complaint. How many children have been killed by cars already this year? Its sickening. We all drive. As more of us join our children as pedestrians, the more well see its time to take the streets back. But many parents, who can blame them, will drive their kids to these schools. Traffic will increase, but not safety. Keep in mind, by far the most likely place a child in the US will die is in a car, not in front of it. So driving is not solution.

Of course, this sensibility will not last. Already the parrots at the Herald are busy at work trying to fault the environmentalist for dangerous school crossings. Expect this to turn into an irrational blather promoting drilling in Southern Utah. (Tomorrows IN OUR VIEW: If only we would drill in Southern Utah, the Utah driver would no longer be worried about gas prices and susbsequently would drive their kids to school, keeping them far safer than their dangerous walks. But the environmentalist wants our children placed in harms way by forbidding us our God given right to drill. For shame, Al Gore. Peace prize, indeed!)

The herald editorial board has one agenda only. When that becomes glaringly obvious like it has over the course of the last week, they throw in stories about keeping kids safe.