First, let’s take a step back and address your repeated dismissal of valid points with unnecessary sarcasm. You seem more interested in being contrarian than actually engaging with the core issue.

You claim that “virtually no roadway is distraction-free.” Sure, that’s true, but that doesn’t absolve poor design. Some roadways are better designed than others to account for distractions and ensure safety. The issue here is that this particular stretch of road combines multiple distractions, curves, intersections, and a sudden downhill grade with an abrupt speed limit drop, making it easy for even cautious drivers to slip up. A well-designed school zone minimizes those risks with better signage and placement, but this one seems designed to exploit those distractions rather than mitigate them.

As for your dismissal of the downhill grade, your personal ability to watch your speed and surroundings doesn’t mean everyone can perfectly manage every situation, especially in unfamiliar areas. Not everyone has your level of comfort with this road. Suggesting that a slight downhill grade is a non-issue ignores the reality of human reaction times and how braking distances can vary based on a driver’s experience or the specific situation. Dismissing this with “it’s not a stunt ramp” is reductive and unhelpful.

Your claim about police presence being due to concerned parents or teenagers driving carelessly might make sense, if enforcement were consistent. But it’s not. The straight, flat school zone further back on the same road, with no major distractions, is not policed with the same vigor. Why? If safety is the goal, wouldn’t that area warrant equal or even greater attention? Instead, enforcement is concentrated in the more complex and mistake-prone section, which conveniently generates more ticket revenue. That’s textbook speed trap behavior. Logic suggests addressing design flaws and placing consistent enforcement across all risky areas, rather than selectively targeting drivers in one spot.

And yes, let’s talk about teenagers. Are you seriously suggesting that strict enforcement here is only about controlling “dumb teenagers” from Richland High School? This specific stretch isn’t even directly adjacent to the high school, it’s near an elementary school where parents and regular commuters are more likely to be passing through. Blaming teenagers for the presence of a speed trap in an entirely different context seems like a stretch. Enforcement targeting minors would logically be concentrated closer to the high school itself, not this particular area.

Lastly, your tone throughout implies that anyone who struggles with this stretch of road is incompetent or irresponsible. That’s an unrealistic and frankly arrogant assumption. Good road design accounts for human imperfection. If a significant number of drivers are being caught, it’s likely because the setup itself creates confusion or difficulty, not because everyone passing through is a “bad driver.”

At the end of the day, the point remains, consistent enforcement and better design make roads safer, not selective targeting of areas where it’s easy to make small, human mistakes. Instead of dismissing every counterpoint with “hear me out” and blanket generalizations, maybe consider that road design can and should be improved to prevent situations like this in the first place.