Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 4, 1993 TAG: 9307070429
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Meanwhile, Roanoke Times & World-News' reporters interviewed a Virginia Department of Transportation official. He was quoted as saying the "curves" on Route 220 were not responsible for this accident.
That much may be true. But it seems to me that the reporters might have found that statement somewhat provocative, given the reputation of Killer 220.
In the southbound lane the same afternoon, there was another one-vehicle accident involving a pickup truck. It took place about two miles north of the earlier accident.
On June 29, the voracious appetite of this monster, lying just south of the city, consumed yet another vehicle in the southbound lane. Was it due to the curving nature of Route 220?
Examination of the characteristics of highways and automobiles lies in the province of engineers. I am not an engineer. However, I travel this road quite a lot and am concerned for the safety of my family and others who drive this road with their children.
It appears that while the answer of the VDOT spokesman may be true, it may not be the truth.
What effect, if any, would the pitch, roll and yaw characteristics of the road surface have on a vehicle? How does VDOT account for the high number of wrecks and deaths on 220? If not curves, what?
We need a new law covering the priority given to the repair and replacement of Virginia's highways, which would determine the priority of repairs based on an index of relative danger. It should include the number of accidents for each one-mile segment of highways, dollar value of destruction caused, number of injuries and deaths.
Those highways with the highest index should be placed on the repair schedule in order of their rank. THOMAS E. LINK ROANOKE
by CNB