Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Shame on you, editors, for espousing the same ageism you should be raging against. To suggest that the road would be a safer place if all those over 60 would take the AARP class is to paint with a broad brush of the capabilities of those in one group ("How to drive safer and save money," editorial, Dec. 9). When was the last time the driver you saw racing dangerously in and out of traffic had gray hair? I've never had a ticket and only one crash in 40 years, and that was a drunken driver who hit me while I was sitting at a turn light. Yet I have a niece who is 38 and just had her fourth crash in 10 years. Which of us needs that AARP course more?

Most of us over 60 recognize our skills and eyesight aren't as good as they used to be, so we don't drive as much at night, and we drive slower, which then makes us the object of road rage because we're not going as fast as others would like.

To try to ram the AARP course down our throats simply because of our age is angering. Instead, why don't insurance companies make the course available to all drivers for the discount? And I'd also like to suggest that all drivers who receive tickets and all drivers at fault in an accident have to take it also. Maybe eight hours of reminders about safe driving and road rules would be even better for them than they would for me, just because my hair is now gray.

Kathy Abram, Apple Valley

•••

I am a veteran and use USAA as my auto insurer. It tells me that Minnesota is one of many states that have failed to modernize legislation to include the newest technological safety features, almost of all which would provide steeper discounts for all drivers, not just seniors. I've spoken to my representative and senator about this issue, and they are in agreement, but the Legislature itself has failed in a basic duty to all Minnesotans. I'd like to encourage everyone to contact their own state senator and representative, as well as the governor's office, to bring Minnesota insurance standards up in regards to discounts insurance companies offer for vehicles with the latest technology — which does indeed assist seniors to driver safer and longer, but also would be of significant financial benefit to all Minnesota drivers.

Eugene Jacobson, Coon Rapids

As a University of Minnesota graduate student living car-free on a small stipend in perhaps Minneapolis' most transit-dense neighborhood, Metro Transit's recent service cuts have devastated my mobility ("Rapid D Line service opens, bus routes cut," Dec. 4). I relied on the 115 line, which has been slashed entirely, to get home from school every day; without it, my commute has doubled and become far less reliable. With the 7 line's frequency decimated, visiting friends in Longfellow and Nokomis is now an ordeal. Once-easy tasks like seeing my parents in the suburbs or going downtown for a doctor's appointment now require me to base much of my life around Metro Transit's schedule. I cannot afford to buy, insure, fuel and store a car on my stipend, and I resent that, in a city as proud of its environmentalism as Minneapolis, my options for low-carbon transit are becoming yet more meager.

I know that this is Metro Transit's reaction to a driver shortage, not a capricious attempt to worsen my life. But it is disgusting that these cuts come at the start of winter, when cycling and even walking become much harder options amid subzero temperatures and inconsistent snow removal on sidewalks and bike lanes. Metro Transit says it has vetted nearly 100 new driver candidates; once these drivers are trained, please, for the love of God, do not wait until spring to restore Minneapolitans' ability to exist in this city without a car.

Lily Osler, Minneapolis

It seems like our driving rules treat the right to drive like the right to have a library card. In recent years book borrowers incur no consequence if they do not return books, even though others may be in line waiting to borrow them. It seems that people think they have a constitutional right to borrow books but no corresponding obligation to return them. We have become an overly privileged and entitled society.

People interested in the topic of safe streets often talk about saving lives. Does anyone really ever consider the number of people who are injured on our roads? They are statistics also, but there is little if any follow up on them. Many of the injured lose work, sometimes long term. They often have permanent injuries. If the innocent injured person's vehicle is damaged, they lose the use of it, and if damaged enough, their insurance may not be sufficient to replace it.

I believe people have a constitutional right to be safe as they walk, ride or drive on our streets and highways. Drivers have an obligation to act in a safe and responsible manner as they exercise their "right" to drive. Because of the reduction of police officers, traffic laws are not able to be adequately enforced. If we really care about the safety and well-being of our citizens, most if not all the hurdles Tanick suggested can be overcome by thoughtful policymakers. Cameras must be a part of our safe-streets policies.

Richard Wilhoit, St. Paul

•••

Galen W. Naber, Roseville

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema might be on to something ("Why Sinema is wrong about political parties," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 13). I'd like to see Sen. Lisa Murkowski join her. I'd like to see Minnesota's senators join her. Think of the power those women would have. Let the two major parties bicker and scheme and play their political games, but with neither having a majority they could accomplish nothing. Those unaffiliated senators could broker compromises; they could be the adults in the room. Their votes would not be tied to any party but to ideals. And when they win re-election, because they're getting the things done that most Americans agree on, perhaps we'll see some progress toward a more collaborative Congress. Good luck, Sen. Sinema.