Recently, I found myself in a discussion with a woman at a local bookstore regarding traffic problems in the area. As an example of the abysmal state of our local transportation system she told me, "I was parked in the red zone outside of my son's school, and I got a ticket."

"Oh, you must really be kicking yourself for that," I said.

"I'd like to kick the officer who wrote me up," she responded. "I wasn't parked there for more than three or four minutes to walk to my son's class and back."

This woman could walk and she seemed healthy enough. Why couldn't she just park legally and actually ambulate a few extra steps, or possibly -- gasp! -- a block or so to pick up her child?

I didn't ask her why. I didn't want to get kicked.

Later, during a General Plan Advisory Committee meeting at Avaxat Elementary School in Murrieta the popular topic was, once again, traffic. In addition to problems with the general flow of traffic, issues of speeding, running traffic signals and stop signs, and double parking were mentioned.

I can relate. I've heard stories about people driving 80 miles an hour down Clinton Keith Road. I've seen people running signals and breezing past school buses with their red lights flashing. I see cars parked in red zones at schools on a daily basis.

Some solutions given during the general plan meeting for addressing traffic problems were limited access to certain streets during school hours, more stop signs and signals, and speed bumps.

"Traffic calming" is the term used for these and other practices designed to compel drivers to slow down and follow the rules of the road. In theory, more signals and speed bumps and the closure of certain streets during certain times of the day should work to reduce traffic congestion and moving violations.

Unfortunately, I believe Southwest County would not benefit from "traffic calming." In order for such a plan to work, drivers would need to abide by traffic laws. Implementing traffic calming would only further aggravate already frustrated drivers. People are too lazy to walk, too rushed and preoccupied, and much too busy yakking on their cell phones to navigate the makeshift obstacle courses that traffic calming creates.

Stop-and-go traffic increases air pollution. Impeded traffic flow can also make some businesses less accessible to consumers. And implementing traffic calming on problem streets often only shifts the problem over a street or two.

Increased enforcement seems to be the best solution. As one who believes in minimal government intervention and the sovereignty of personal rights, it pains me to believe such a thing. Unfortunately, too many of us are heavy on personal rights and light on personal responsibilities.

Police should be more visible in problem areas, and militant about writing tickets to offenders. Nothing makes a more solid citizen than the chance of getting caught and paying hefty fines.

The costs to increase surveillance in problem areas and to provide more traffic officers are substantial, and will cost more than traffic calming measures. But it makes more sense to pay more for something that works than waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective solutions.

Elaine Bellucci of Murrieta is a regular columnist for The Californian. E-mail: elainebellucci@msn.com.