tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88041666385583746392024-03-05T17:11:43.698-05:00Craig Friebolin's BlogJust my various thoughts on things in the world todayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-90016472342853299742010-03-24T21:13:00.005-04:002010-03-26T02:27:50.999-04:00Too Much Bad Information: Cell Phone Bans<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've grown tired of reading study after study and the many different findings that all seem to contradict one another or are just totally ridiculous. So I decide to call the National Safety Council and ask them "What is the most conclusive data you've got?" ... Unfortunately the person I really need to speak to was already gone for the day but the person I DID speak to (who admitted they were knowledgeable but not an expert on the topic) recommended I start by looking at a recent Virginia Tech study.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After starting to read it I realized that I've already been through it but I do agree with some of the opinions they offer in this part:</span><br />
<br />
<em><strong>The Disconnect Between Naturalistic and Simulator Research</strong></em><br />
<em>It is important to keep in mind that a driving simulator is <strong>not</strong> actual driving. Driving simulators engage participants in tracking tasks in a laboratory. As such, researchers that conduct simulator studies must be cautious when suggesting that conclusions based on simulator studies are applicable to actual driving. With the introduction of naturalistic driving studies that record drivers (through continuous video and kinematic sensors) in actual driving situations, we now have a scientific method to study driver behavior in real‐world driving conditions in the presence of real‐world daily pressures. As such, if the point of transportation safety research is to understand driver behavior in the real‐world (e.g., increase crash risk due to cell phone use), and when conflicting findings occur between naturalistic studies and simulator studies, findings from the real‐world, and not the simulator‐world, must be considered the gold standard.</em><br />
<br />
<em>It is also critical to note that some results of recent naturalistic driving studies, including those highlighted here as well as others (e.g., Sayer, Devonshire and Flanagan, 2007) are at odds with results obtained from simulator studies. Future research is necessary to explore the reasons why simulator studies sometimes do not reflect studies conducted in actual driving conditions (i.e., the full context of the driving environment). It may be, as Sayer, Devonshire and Flanagan (2007) note, that controlled investigations cannot account for driver choice behavior and risk perception as it actually occurs in real‐world driving. If this assessment is accurate, the generalizability of simulator findings, at least in some cases, may be greatly limited outside of the simulated environment.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-67842076673208936112010-03-24T15:19:00.002-04:002010-03-24T16:12:54.332-04:00Why Am I Opposed to Cell Phone Bans?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With a growing number of Cities and States implementing 'Fine-Based' bans on hand held devices while driving I feel it is important that the data used to base the decision of such legislation be accurate and unbiased. Furthermore I feel it is import that these bans actually address the problem and do not create additional problems; either by way of adding undo finical strain on innocent motorists or by over-extending those involved with enforcing the bans and indirectly creating more harm than good. I think most would agree it is not advantageous to take away the personal freedoms of citizens and/or fine those who do not abide by the ban when there is little to no benefit of implementing or enforcing the ban. Nor is it beneficial for police officers to be apprehending cell phone users instead of violent criminals, especially when the decision to do so is based off of flawed, biased, or incorrect data.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thus far I have found multiple studies that paint a distorted picture of the dangers related to cell phone use while driving and feel it is unfair and irresponsible for legislators to even consider implementing any type of bans based upon this data. Additionally I have found no evidence that cell phone and texting bans have a positive effect in areas that have implemented them. Typically proponents for these types of bans complain there is no positive effect due to lack of enforcement while enforcement officials argue that they are either enforcing the bans but it is having little effect or that the bans are too difficult to enforce. Whether you feel cell phone use while driving is dangerous or not, there is more and more evidence that banning these devices, in any capacity, is not accomplishing the intended goal and merely adding undue hardship on citizens and law enforcment officials in those communities that implement these bans.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-9092691184631322892010-03-22T11:29:00.028-04:002010-03-24T14:09:14.947-04:00The Distraction.gov website and Cell Phone Bans<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Apparently we're all too busy to realize we're NOT distracted. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://distraction.gov/">Distraction.gov</a> is a government website that warns about the dangers of driver distraction. HOWEVER, while I can't deny that being overly distracted is dangerous, I will say the government has a huge bias and really bad information on the subject. Especially when it comes to enforcing the Ban on Cell Phones while driving.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Below is a review of the information found on the <strong>*RESEARCH*</strong> page of Distraction.gov : </span><a href="http://www.distraction.gov/research/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.distraction.gov/research/</span></a> <br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Research items as of today March 22, 2010:</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">1)</span> "<a href="http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09-042.pdf">Driver distraction in commercial vehicle operations</a>" is long (285 pages), complex and kind of odd. I mean, why would the dangers of distraction vary by vehicle? That aside... it concludes that <strong><em>DIALING</em> a cell phone while driving is more</strong> <strong>dangerous than 'Read[ing a] book, newspaper</strong>, paperwork, etc.' but not as dangerous as reading a map, and also finds that talking on a cell phone isn't dangerous at all (which completely contradicts every other study ever done). Interesting, Huh?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">2)</span> "<a href="http://www.cellphonefreedriving.ca/media/failures_of_visual_attention.pdf">Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving</a>" is 10 pages and shows that we don't pay attention to Billboards? Seriously I have no idea why that is even in this study. Anyway, it was done by <strong>David L. Strayer</strong> using a SIMULATED CAR and it says people in the study break slower when they are on the phone. <strong>WAIT! <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer</a>? That sounds familiar. </strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">3)</span> "<a href="http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/distraction.pdf">The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes</a>" is 70 pages and Cell Phones as a distraction barely makes the list. The study was done by AAA who also says; "<a href="http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=35&ContentID=42">At this time, AAA believes it is premature to ban the use of cell phones while driving</a>...."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">4)</span> "<a href="http://www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf">A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver</a>" is <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">11 pages of crap</a> on a study done by <strong><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer</a> WAIT! David L. Strayer? That sounds familiar</strong>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">5)</span> " <a href="http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/640">Profiles in Driver Distraction: Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Younger and Older Drivers</a>." I admit I haven't even read the full study because the link just goes to a summary page. You have to PAY to read the full study but the summary says something to the effect of; young people on the phone drive like old people, and old people on the phone don't drive much worse than normal. Hmmmm? Obviously it's the cell phone and experience doesn't factor in at all. Right? It seems like blaming the phone is an odd conclusion by <strong>David L. Strayer. WAIT! <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer</a>? That sounds familiar.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">6)</span> "<a href="http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/48/1/196">Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques</a>." Is another study I can't read without paying for an account BUT it is a study of studies?! You're kidding me right!? Follow the logic ... they are more or less saying "all the studies show mixed results so we're just going to side with the studies that show MORE of the SAME results and call it a day". Which means they're not even going to check and see if they have an excess of bad data before they draw a conclusion. Convenient, Huh?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">7)</span> "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-461XFMC-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=395c4dff60e389e8e3d2a5779906f57a">Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes</a>." OMG! This "study" shows that merely OWNING a phone puts you at higher risk of a crash!? I can't even explain how retarded this is ... you read what they wrote:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>"The Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec (SAAQ) mailed a questionnaire and letter of consent to 175 000 licence holders for passenger vehicles. For cell phone users, questions pertaining to the use of the telephone were added. We received 36 078 completed questionnaires, with a signed letter of consent. Four wireless phone companies provided the files on cell phone activity, and the SAAQ the files for 4 years of drivers’ records and police reports. The three data sources were merged using an anonymized identification number. The statistical methods include logistic-normal regression models to estimate the strength of the links between the explanatory variables and crashes.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>The relative risk of all accidents and of accidents with injuries is higher for users of cell phones than for non-users. The relative risks (RR) for injury collisions and also for all collisions is 38% higher for men and women cell phone users. These risks diminish to 1.1 for men and 1.2 for women if other variables, such as the kilometres driven and driving habits are incorporated into the models. Similar results hold for several sub-groups. The most significant finding is a dose-response relationship between the frequency of cell phone use, and crash risks. The adjusted relative risks for heavy users are at least two compared to those making minimal use of cell phones; the latter show similar collision rates as do the non-users."</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!?!?!??!?!</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">8)</span> "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-4HNSB7R-3&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2006&_alid=1166430761&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5794&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=424&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=393a53f87cfb1e7590ef24aed944470c">Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance."</a> Is another study you have to pay for to read. But why would you? Doesn't this say it all: <em>"Thirty-six college students with a median of 6 years of driving experience completed a driving history questionnaire and four simulated driving scenarios. The distraction tasks consisted of responding to a signal detection task and engaging in a simulated cell phone conversation." </em>... I understand simulated driving but what in the world is <strong>simulated cell phone conversation!??</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">9)</span> "<a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc246.pdf">The effects of text messaging on young novice driver performance</a>" is basically a 40 page homework assignment where they experimented on <strong>20 young adults ages 18 to 21 who were driving for 6 months or less on a probationary drivers license</strong>. ... You can see how this data would be relevant to the banning of cell phones for everyone right?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">10)</span> "<a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf">Distracted Driving Fatality Report</a>" is a 12 page mash-up of numbers. It's hard to explain but I'll try; They take a survey that asks if you own a phone and use it when you drive then they take crash data and do some crazy math problem to make an educated guess as to who was on the phone and who wasn't at the time of a crash.<strong> In other words ... they're guessing.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To make it worse Appendix A points out these fun new fields that are being added to future reports:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">• Cellular Telephone Present in Vehicle</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">• Cellular Telephone in Use in Vehicle</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Notice how NEITHER of them is anything like "The Crash Was Caused by This Driver and they were on the Phone" ... <strong>Why are we collecting bad information on purpose? Really? Who stands to benefit from this?</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">11)</span> "<a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811184.pdf">Electronic Device Use by Drivers</a>" ... did we really need to do a study to find out more people are using their phone while they drive? That's all this is. It doesn't have ANY DATA to show cell phones are a distraction ... just information that we use cell phones.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">12)</span> "<a href="http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf">Fatal Distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver</a>" Hey! Didn't we already do this one!? Oh... wait this is the 5 page version of the <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">same crappy study</a> by <strong>David L. Strayer WAIT! <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer</a>? That sounds familiar.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">13)</span> "<a href="http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?itemno=834">100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study</a>" does not link to the study that makes some pretty big claims concidering it was nothing more than a guess rather than real world information. It's done a lot like <strong>#10</strong> in our list. The link doesn't go to the full study but if you look around you can find the <a href="http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/100-car-naturalistic-study/100-car-naturalistic-study.pdf">183 page monster</a>. After reading it all I realized I didn't need to read past page 2 to realize this was all <strong>just a scientific guess.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">14)</span> "<a href="http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4304.pdf">Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report: Teens Talk</a>" This isn't research or a study or anything of the sort ... <strong>it's a freakin pamphlet! Why is this even listed in the research section?</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">15)</span> "<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Distracted-Driving.aspx">Teens and Distracted Driving</a>" is 24 pages that outline the results of a freakin survey that makes bold claims about Teens and Texting. If I was a teen I would be seriously upset about this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><strong>SUMMARY:</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously we have some very mixed results;</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of the studies by <strong><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer</a></strong> find that <em>TALKING</em> on a cell phone while driving is distracting while other studies find <em>DIALING</em> a cell phone is distracting but <em>TALKING</em> on a phone is NOT. (Keep in mind that <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">David L. Strayer also proves it's safer to drive drunk than it is to drive sober</a>) .</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One study shows that it's more distracting to read a map and drive than it is to dial a cell phone and drive, while another shows <strong>it's more distracting to dial a cell phone and drive than it is to read a news paper and drive. LOLOL!</strong> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another study shows that studies have mixed data but if it had to make a guess based on the studies then they're guess is that cell phones and driving is distracting. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another study shows that merely owning a cell phone, even when you're not driving, means you're going to crash?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The rest of the 'Research' is a lot of guessing using math problems rather than real data or is clearly just irrelevant.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It all makes sense now. After reading all that ... I'm moving to Canada! Crap! They have a Cell phone ban too! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But seriously ... each 'study' disproves the other because none of them use REAL WORLD data in a REAL WAY. It is not surprising to me that recent reports show <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/29/cellphone.study/">States that have had Cell Phone Bans for years have not seen a reduction in crashes</a>. That is because the FIRST THING I did was look at REAL DATA: </span><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That REAL DATA told me that Cell Phone Bans won't fix the problem because there isn't really a problem. If there was the crash rate would increase with the amount of cell phone subscribers. Plain and simple. No scientific studies required. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So why do people like David L. Strayer keep putting out reports that Cell Phones are dangerous? Well, he doesn't. That is just the way people interpret them. If you REALLY LOOK he is just saying people break slower than normal but he isn't saying they break dangerously slower. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now you might wonder why do people like David L. Strayer KEEP ON putting out these reports ... I would imagine it is because he's getting paid to do so and those simulators aren't cheap. Or maybe he has a personal agenda founded on his personal bias. But whatever the reason; should we let one persons bias dictate policy especially when the REAL DATA doesn't support his findings AND when other studies flat-out contradict them? I'm going to have to say; No.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The logic of implementing a cell phone ban in the hope that it will "save just one life" should be offset by the knowledge that almost a million innocent people have already been fined $50 to $1000 in various States and the REAL DATA doesn't show ANYONE is being saved by a Cell Phone Ban (this INCLUDES texting bans) Combine that with the knowlege that the "studies" don't justify their own results; So how can they justify the persecution of innocent people?</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This all raises a bigger set of questions;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><strong>Why is our government collecting and giving out bad information on purpose? Who stands to benefit from this?</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-78968635188261507872010-03-21T13:52:00.038-04:002010-03-24T06:44:25.956-04:00Bias of Cell Phone Ban Data by Ban Supporters<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe Oprah Winfrey and Ray LaHood could explain all of this to me someday but for right now it doesn't look like people are being honest with us ...</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong>#1 ) Really? Cell Phones and Driving are as Bad or Worse than Drunk Driving?</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the study by <strong>David L. Strayer</strong> called: "</span><a href="http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FATAL DISTRACTION? A COMPARISON OF THE CELL-PHONE DRIVER AND THE DRUNK DRIVER</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">" (Which MANY Pro-Ban supporters LOVE to quote as some kind of bible scripture without ever reading it) </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The data of the study was adjusted to reflect socially accepted results (... in other words they cleverly hid some REALLY IMPORTANT information ... </span><a href="http://www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HERE IS THE LONG VERSION</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> ) On page 10 the study notes; "... this is the third in a series of studies that we have conducted evaluating the effects of cell phone use on driving using the carfollowing procedure (see also Strayer & Drews, 2004; and Strayer et al., 2003). Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. Which means if you believe that this study PROVED cell phones are as dangerous as driving drunk you must then admit it also PROVED it is safer to drive drunk than it is to drive sober.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Think I'm crazy? Well maybe you should read their explination as to WHY they think the drunk drivers performed better: "One factor that may have contributed to the absence of accidents in the alcohol condition of our study is that the alcohol and driving portion of the study was conducted during the daytime (between 9:00 a.m. and noon)." ... Really? That's the best explination they could offer? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact of the matter is this was a VERY POORLY done study FILLED with bias and questionable methods. (ie - The constant mention of increased crash rates while in fact crash rates are down, only 40 people in the study, some never owned a cell phone, only some of those cell phone users ever used the phone while drving, it was done in a simulator, they were asked to talk to a research assistant, only 1 baseline test and 1 drunk drving test against 3 cell tests, and the list goes on and on and on ... )</span><br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Still don't think <strong>David L. Strayer</strong> (the primary author of this study) was biased? Well you should know his "Lab" ( <a href="http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/">http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/</a> ) is Partners with <a href="http://www.focusdriven.org/">http://www.focusdriven.org/</a> (Advocates for Cell-Free Driving)</span></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga8By7TOYdK3RTtuXcaQBw_Yh7K8io4u2W9Q48m6yyC-yYWgLO3HtjkxIjq3RZgq59bfgppmnjbFXbCP0jp2wCVBzuS8g4beaT_EyPSJwoD_XYowG98DcQPYZWMeoenFeCIaHIsnpO4PJT/s320/focusdriven.jpg" vt="true" /></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I don't know about you; but if someone had something against rap music and then paid a doctor to find 40 people who crashed their car while listening to rap music, wrote a report on it called "Rap Music More Deadly Than AIDS", and then passed it off as "science" I think we should question the results.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>NOW HERE'S THE KICKER!!!</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.allentownpa.gov/Portals/0/files/Legislative/Ordinances/2010/0550_001.pdf">Items 1(a) and 1(b) of the ordinance to ban cell phone use while driving in my city</a> quotes this crappy "study" as the primary basis for implementing the ban! Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!</span><br />
<br />
<em>"a. Mobile phone usage while driving increases the likelihood of a crash fourfold;</em><br />
<br />
<em>b. Drivers operating motor vehicles while using a mobile phone are as impaired as drivers with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level-the level that defines drunk driving in most states;</em> "<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BTW, any rational person should be able to realize the wording of this statement is completly false: "Mobile phone usage while driving increases the likelihood of a crash fourfold". But my City Council passed the ban unanimously anyway. UGH!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><strong>#2) It's All in These Reports?</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is fun ... if you visit this page </span><a href="http://www.distraction.gov/research/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.distraction.gov/research/</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> you might think "WOW! That's a lot of data and studies and stuff" ... that is until you start clicking around and realize most of the links aren't what you and I would concider "RESEARCH" of any kind. I've done a breakdown of each item here: <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/distractiongov-website-and-cell-phone.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/distractiongov-website-and-cell-phone.html</a> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">#3) Numbers Don't Lie?</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is just one example of a common tatctic used to misrepresent the data. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First lets give some perspective to the numbers: <a href="http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx">The total Traffic Fatalities in New Jersey for 2008 was 509</a> ... now read on:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Below is the last paragraph of this article: </span><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/nj_police_issued_225k_citation.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/nj_police_issued_225k_citation.html</span></a> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>"Since 2008, handheld cell phone use was involved in 3,610 crashes and 13 deaths, compared with 3,129 crashes and 6 deaths where a hands-free device was being used."</em> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What it fails to mention (and what we REALLY want to know) is how many of those accidents were caused by the cell phone user. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">For example F.A.R.S. uses <em>estimates</em> based on:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[ ] Cellular Telephone Present in Vehicle</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[ ] Cellular Telephone in Use in Vehicle</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Ref. page 8 of: </span><a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">This information is applied to ALL vehicles involved in an accident. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In other words; someone on a cell phone could have been hit by a driver who ran a red-light and this data is added to the cell phone statistic merely because a cell phone was present. Even if nobody was using the phone at the time of the accident and no matter who was at fault.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Much like what happened in this case: </span><a href="http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx</span></a><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"... I once litigated a case where a trucking company attempted to make a defense that my horribly injured client was contributory negligent simply for being on a cell phone. The facts of the collision were that a semi at full speed crushed my client’s car without braking as she was slowing with her signal light on to make a turn.</span></em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now that fact scenario may seem beyond logic but the Trucking Company went so far to hire a so called expert to opine that by the simple fact my client was honest about being on her cellular phone, she thus was distracted and did not take evasive action from the semi behind her. No fact existed to support this other than cellular phone studies showing an increased risk in accidents. In reviewing the cited literature I immediately noticed that not a single study cited dealt with the cause of the crash, who was at fault and what type of crash was involved with use of the cell phone...."</span></em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">#4) Call in the Experts?</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">WOW! This guy really sounds like he knows what he's talking about! RIGHT!?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HPB6EH2tMkE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HPB6EH2tMkE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First you should know that the man in this video; Dr. John Medina has not been published in any medical journals (on ANY subject). While I won't say he's equal to the "Doctor" in those ExtenZe commercials ... I will say you might want to get a second opinion. Like saaaaaay ... this one .... </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Brodmann area 10 / BA10 / Medial Frontal Cortex:</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Although this region is quite extensive in humans, its exact function is still poorly understood. Koechlin & Hyafil have proposed that processing of 'cognitive branching' is the core function of the frontopolar cortex. Cognitive branching enables a previously running task to be maintained in a pending state for subsequent retrieval and execution upon completion of the ongoing one. Many of our complex behaviors and mental activities require simultaneous engagement of multiple tasks, and they suggest the anterior prefrontal cortex may perform a domain-general function in these scheduling operations. However, other hypotheses have also been proffered, such as those by Burgess et al."</span></em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In other words ... they don't know what this part of the brain does. BUT by </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO_oEGHWSMU"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. John Medina logic</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> nobody would ever be able to play drums or walk and chew gum or as one funny comment on YouTube pointed out; "Watch Porn and Masturbate"</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSxHyX85h1Z5Z1MLzSfvy-r4JeIzXgzwwi8TCNWT5JPpsqKSO5bVLHT7NaPTusHhonj-UgcAipzu0gpa1HXzAhuLH-uVVTUUYKftGso9Mj96zoKwiDzCjSUoSiY5WjFVviZSj-0Wvcn14j/s1600-h/BA10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSxHyX85h1Z5Z1MLzSfvy-r4JeIzXgzwwi8TCNWT5JPpsqKSO5bVLHT7NaPTusHhonj-UgcAipzu0gpa1HXzAhuLH-uVVTUUYKftGso9Mj96zoKwiDzCjSUoSiY5WjFVviZSj-0Wvcn14j/s400/BA10.jpg" vt="true" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><strong>The Big Question is Why!?</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With all that said; my question is WHY?! Why is the government putting out bad and biased information? Are we no longer allowed to make informed decisions?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here is all the UN-BIASED information you need: <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html</a> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PS - My Mom is going to kill me for calling Oprah out! lol</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-87735747364129756462010-03-19T08:39:00.007-04:002010-03-22T17:42:45.314-04:00Stupid Cell Phone Bans<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While </span><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">THIS</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is all you need to know, here is even more info on why cell phone bans are stupid:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"At this time, <strong>AAA believes it is premature to ban the use of cell phones while driving</strong>...."</span><br />
<a href="http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=35&ContentID=42"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=35&ContentID=42</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bad Bill to Ban Cell Phone Use While Driving Passes Senate</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx</span></a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ford Says Cell-Phone Use Danger Exaggerated; Supports Texting Ban</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://wardsauto.com/ar/ford_texting_ban_090929/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://wardsauto.com/ar/ford_texting_ban_090929/</span></a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wired.com : Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/12/56733"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/12/56733</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Top Driver Distractions:</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/DistractionsInEverydayDrivingHiRes.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/DistractionsInEverydayDrivingHiRes.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">N.J. police have issued 225K citations for cell phone use while driving</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/nj_police_issued_225k_citation.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/nj_police_issued_225k_citation.html</span></a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Statewide highway deaths reach historic lows (without a cell phone ban)</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://meadvilletribune.com/local/x1338262632/Statewide-highway-deaths-reach-historic-lows"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://meadvilletribune.com/local/x1338262632/Statewide-highway-deaths-reach-historic-lows</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even more info on the stupid cell phone bans:</span></strong><br />
<a href="http://www.tucsonnorthwest.com/cellsrvy/references.htm"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.tucsonnorthwest.com/cellsrvy/references.htm</span></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-52075281079139504242010-03-19T02:09:00.012-04:002010-03-24T16:42:17.434-04:00Definitive Arguments Against Cell Phone Bans<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you are Pro-Cell Phone Bans ... you should know this: </span></div><br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Accident rates keep dropping while cell phone use sky rockets. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html</a> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bans don't solve anything in places that have them:</span><br />
<a href="http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cell-driving-ban,0,4721082.story"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-cell-driving-ban,0,4721082.story</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People won't stop using their cell phones:</span><br />
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/local/me-maria-drive14"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/local/me-maria-drive14</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Accident rates won't change:</span><br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/29/cellphone.study/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/29/cellphone.study/</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Stop saying using a cell phone is like drinking and driving. If you believe <a href="http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf">that study</a> proved cell phones are really as bad as drunk driving; you should know the same study also proved it's safer to drive drunk than it is to drive sober. (it's a REALLY POORLY DONE study with a flashy headline): <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html</a> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div></font><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The "studies" on this topic are REDICULIOUS! You really should read them! REALLY! Just because some place called; The National Institute Of We Think We Know Some Stuff Council put out a report doesn't mean it's not total crap. You should READ IT and not just skip to the "conclusion" (BTW, the most insane stuff is almost always AFTER the conclusion):</span><br />
<a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/distractiongov-website-and-cell-phone.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/distractiongov-website-and-cell-phone.html</span></a> <br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Distraction by cell phone" is not a option on a police accident report so a large majority of the numbers people spout off as being fact are either made up or from questionable sources: <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/bias-of-cell-phone-ban-data-by-ban.html</a> </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To summarize ... Cell Phone Bans don't work and only accomplish the following:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div></div></font><br />
<ul><li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They encourage road rage towards those who choose to use a phone while they drive</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Criminalizes over 98.5% of people who are not guilty of any moving violation</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;">Over extends the duties of law enforcement because now they are chasing down cell phone users rather than violent criminals, etc.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;">Gets those who support the ban all-fired-up because they feel the ban is not being enforced (Weather it is or not! Which is not surprising since they didn't look into reasons for supporting the ban so why would they look to see if it is actually being enforced? The same people who use "I saw a guy doing something bad on a cell phone" as their logic to punish everyone are the same people who will use "I saw a cop drive by a guy on a cell phone and not give them a ticket" as their logic to say the ban isn't being enforced.)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;">Lastly, It adds to the hyper inflation of the danger on the subject. Thus creating a greater bias and more problems ... such a this: </span><a href="http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx?googleid=279248"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://oklahomacity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/bad-bill-to-ban-cell-phone-use-while-driving-passes-senate.aspx?googleid=279248</span></a> </li>
</ul><br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most of the information to draw these conclusions has existed for a long time (<a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html">http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html</a>) but everyone chooses to ignore it in favor of studies that nobody actually reads or questions ... but they keep telling us to use common sense while supporting a law that clearly won't solve anything!</span><br />
<br />
<div></div></font><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's not forget most places are combating this "problem" with *FINES* ... But I guess if we had to only punish those that actually were involved in an accident, then that would limit our punishments to the guilty instead of those that might be guilty at some time in the future. </span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously speculative correlation with draconian fines is our only hope.</span><br />
<br />
<div></div></font><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sure we are going to fine hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who didn't hurt or endanger anyone, but this is the cost of the extremely remote chance it might save one life. Think of the children!</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div></div></font><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>(How remote you ask? Take your odds of being in an accident then factor in your odds of being on a cell phone at the time of being in the accident)</em></span><br />
<br />
<div></div></font><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Apparently; Education is useless and punishment of the guilty is just too hard.</span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Still not getting it? Answer this:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Have you ever driven in a city where there isn't a cell phone ban and even with the "super crazy increased danger that driving and cell phones create"; you did it anyway? ... Why was it was worth the "risk" when it was YOU who had to give up a personal freedom? Will you stop driving in places that don't have a call phone ban?</span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is a clear bias to get these bans passed ... here is an example video:</span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- Around :30 seconds into this video, the driver who almost hits someone IS NOT on a cell phone while those who are on a phone aren't doing anything dangerous. But when you slice the video up in this mannor it leads people to think otherwise.</span><br />
<br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">- The kid at 2:18 just speeds up and runs into the video game car in front of him on purpose ... what's that about!?</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div></div></div><div align="center"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xXubisFvGPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xXubisFvGPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><div align="center"><br />
<div></div></div><div align="left"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here is the reality:</span></div><div align="left"><br />
<div></div></div><div align="center"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HG0g8HY00Rg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HG0g8HY00Rg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><br />
<div></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here is what Cell Phone Ban Supporters seem to think is happening everywhere and most also act like this guy wouldn't get a reckless driving ticket:</span><br />
<br />
<div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uAcmrUEp2U&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uAcmrUEp2U&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-60777149859847784592010-03-04T20:29:00.001-05:002010-03-04T20:30:51.478-05:00The Cell Phone Ban Debate Rages OnBelow are links to the vaious places I'm trying to educate people on this subject.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>The Daily Show Forums:</strong> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(My personal favorite, only because the debate is more articulate and nobody is trolling)</span><br />
<a href="http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&thread.id=22452&view=by_date_ascending&page=1">http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&thread.id=22452&view=by_date_ascending&page=1</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Councilman Mike Schlossberg's Facebook Page:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/MikeSchlossberg?v=feed&story_fbid=374539865139&ref=mf">http://www.facebook.com/MikeSchlossberg?v=feed&story_fbid=374539865139&ref=mf</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>WFMZ:</strong> <br />
<a href="http://www.wfmz.com/news/22735073/detail.html">http://www.wfmz.com/news/22735073/detail.html</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.topix.net/forum/source/wfmz/TLMD1PQJ19MF8U9FE">http://www.topix.net/forum/source/wfmz/TLMD1PQJ19MF8U9FE</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>The Morning Call:</strong> <br />
<a href="http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5cell.7195437mar04,0,4790930.story">http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5cell.7195437mar04,0,4790930.story</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-46960289829414118312010-03-04T04:33:00.003-05:002010-03-04T04:43:33.878-05:00Allentown City Council BANNED CELL PHONES Last Night<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's true ... </span><a href="http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-5cellcn-030310,0,4732161.story"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Allentown now has a cell phone ban</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I went to this meeting armed to the hilt with REAL data against this getting passed but I was given only 3 minutes to speak!!! It took me 3 DAYS to research everything! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! What REALLY makes me mad is how they *PASSED A LAW* without being AT ALL informed on the subject!!!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When speaking, Mike Schlossberg (the author of this nightmare) often miss quoted the only study he referenced while drafting this piece of garbage and not a single council member even noticed. (Note: It was a study done with only 40 people, some who never owned a cell phone, the study was done in a driving simulator, the study arbitrarily mentions an "increased rate of crashes" when in fact </span><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/03/cell-phone-ban.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">crashes are down 20% since 2000 and cell phone subscriptions are up 1,262.4% since 1994</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, so on and so on ...) Also just minutes before the meeting started I was showing Councilman Julio Guridy the U.S. Census "Motor Vehicle Crash Data" and it was "NEW" information to him!? Which means... there MORONS passed this thing without ever ONCE looking at the crash statistics ... not to even formulate a baseline?! </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When the meeting was over I attempted to speak to Mike Schlossberg, I tried to ask him what he read in the study that made him think this is a matter that needed legislation, but he just kept telling me he wasn't going to talk about it and acted like a HUGE DICK!! I can only suspect it is because he didn't read or understand the study and the bias of it's findings. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With all that said ... </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>I CHALLANGE **ANYONE** TO DEBATE ME ON THIS SUBJECT!</strong> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While I would preferr it be Mike Schlossberg he doesn't know enough about it to even try. (Does my challange seem childish or baiting? Remember... he authored a law to take away your rights ... don't you want to make sure he actually knows something about the subject? Only 4 people spoke on the matter before it was voted on and I was <strong>THE ONLY ONE</strong> to present any data) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wanna see how stupid the study used as the foundation of this ban is for yourself ... here it is: </span><a href="http://www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver.</span></a> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Be sure not to miss the parts where they say ... we didn't find evidence that drunk driving is really dangerous but just ignore it ... i'll try to find time to point out each of the flaws in this study at a later time)</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-15311770421062956982010-03-04T03:36:00.006-05:002010-03-04T03:41:39.339-05:00CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1)<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="5" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1)</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>Fatal Crashes vs. Cell Phone Subscibers from 1994 to 2008</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Prepared by: Craig Friebolin - March, 2010</span> </i></span><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">...</span></em></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Year</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All Crashes<br />
Nationally</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fatal Crashes<br />
Nationally</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cell Phone<br />
Subscibers</span></b></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1980</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17,900,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">53,200</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1985</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">203,600</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1990</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11,500,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">46,800</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4,368,686</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1994</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">36,254</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">19,283,306</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1995</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10,700,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,241</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">28,154,414</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1996</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,494</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38,195,466</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1997</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,324</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">48,705,553</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1998</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,107</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">60,831,431</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1999</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,140</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">76,284,753</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2000</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">13,400,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,526</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">97,035,925</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2001</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,862</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">118,397,734</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2002</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38,491</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">134,561,370</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2003</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11,800,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38,477</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">148,065,824</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2004</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10,900,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38,444</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">169,467,393</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2005</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10,700,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">39,252</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">194,479,364</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2006</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10,400,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38,648</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">219,652,457</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2007</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10,600,000</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37,435</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">243,482,202</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2008</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">34,017</span></td><td align="right"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">262,720,165</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2009</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2010</span></b></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td><td align="right"><span style="color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">no data</span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">%(+/-)</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.9% Decrease*</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6.2% Decrease</span></b></td><td align="right"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1,262.4% Increase</span></b></td></tr>
<tr></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>* 0.9 Decrease from 1995 to 2007</i></span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Subscribers Average Call Length: (approx) 2.3 minutes</span></i></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Assuming that cell phones are indeed a distraction; they are no more distracting than other common tasks that an overwhelming majority of drivers are already equipped to handle. (i.e. - looking in a rear view mirror, or rolling down a window). Because cell phones do not increase the amount of motor vehicle accidents it is clear that <b><i>only the likelihood </i></b>of a driver being on a cell phone at the time of an accident has actually increased.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Perspective: Total US Licenced Drivers in 1995 was: 176,628,482</i></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Perspective: USA Smoking Death rate extrapolations (2010): 440,000 per year</span></i></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>All Crash Data: </b>U.S. Census Bureau</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1067.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1067.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Fatal Crash Data: </b>Fatality Analysis Reporting System</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Cell Data: </b>CTIA - International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Midyear_2009_Graphics.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;">http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Midyear_2009_Graphics.pdf</span></a> </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-48033852931211716382010-02-28T17:52:00.008-05:002010-02-28T18:18:47.276-05:00Responce to Michael Donovan's recent postCity Councilman and Allentown Parking Authority Board Member Michael Donovan recently posted this blog entry: <a href="http://donovanforallentown.blogspot.com/2010/02/parking-ticket-fines.html">Parking Ticket Fines</a> ... below are my thoughts:<br /><br /><br /><strong>@STREET CLEANING:</strong><br />Wow ... you're my hero. Except for the fact that Street Cleaning in Allentown is COMPLETELY UNNESASSARY! I've spoken to several people in the Allentown Streets Department as to why they do so much redundant street cleaning and within a day found a reasonable solution that would eliminate all the parking havoc caused by the current method. I then presented that solution to the Streets Department and never got a response to my endless follow-up calls. Next I presented a case for a performance audit of current Street Cleaning methods to the City Controller and "surprise surprise" I got no response. The fact of the matter is; that a reasonably priced upgrade to the city's water system would solve MANY PROBLEMS, but the current method that involves two city departments following each other around for countless man hours and requires every citizen to move their car off the streets in a city that is already hard-pressed for parking seems like the cheaper, easier and more logical way to go, right?<br /><br /><br /><strong>@DOUBLE PARKING:</strong><br />Because some grumpy old man at the Morning Call wrote one of the worst, one-sided, articles about double parking ever (<a href="http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-quote-c.7179685feb17,0,5337085.column">Paul Carpenter: Double-parking plague infects city</a>); you're going to raise the fine? (I see no mention of enforcement, just rising the fine; which will actually accomplish nothing) Now, I admit some people double park in a very inconsiderate manner ... they park in the middle of the street then leave the vehicle sitting, while others, pullover, do a quick 'drop-off' to let a passenger out who may have a heavy item or child/children with them, etc.. But to simply punish EVERYONE is not the answer because it doesn't address the problem.<br /><br />The REAL problem is; THERE IS NO PLACE TO PARK! <strong>This is an ENORMOUS FAILURE on the part of the Allentown Parking Authority</strong>. With that said I would like to add; WOW YOU HAVE NERVE! YOU HAVE FAILED AND NOW YOU WANT TO FURTHER PUNISH THE CITIZENS OF ALLENTOWN FOR YOUR FAILURE!?!? I am very very very un-impressed.<br /><br />There are only and handful of solutions to the city's parking problems and they are clear cut:<br /><br />1) The Allentown Parking Authority must buy land, build parking lots, and offer free parking to residents to alleviate congestion.<br /><br />And/Or<br /><br />2) The City and the Parking Authority need to work together and not allow houses to be converted to apartments in areas with little or no parking. Furthermore they need to convert some of the multi-family buildings back to single homes.<br /><br /><strong>Raising fines to give the 'appearance of action' does NOTHING to actually solve the problem.</strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>@TRUCK RESTRICTION:</strong><br />THIS LAW IS MORONIC! If a truck is parked on a city street in a manner that obstructs the flow of traffic and is a danger then give it a ticket. But to simply BAN a truck from parking anywhere is stupid! This is clearly something that falls into the "We have <a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2010/01/too-many-laws.html">To-Many-Laws</a> category" since other laws already address any REAL PROBLEM that could occur from an oversized vehicle being parked on the street. All this law does is punish and inconvenience people who happen to drive a truck. <strong>(PERIOD)</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>@MULTIPLE TICKETS:</strong><br />Every once in a while you do something that will only help bring attention to the fact that Allentown Parking Authority is out of control. When we have a city full of hard-to-ignore, big-yellow-boots, on every car, truck, SUV, baby stroller and ambulance; people will start to take a good long look at how the APA is run and I can assure you they will not be pleased.<br /><br />------------------------------------------------<br /><strong>For more information on the Corrupt, Wasteful, Hypocritical, Nuisance that is the APA visit this site about the </strong><a href="http://www.brokenladders.com/allentown_parking_authority/"><strong>Allentown Parking Authority</strong></a><br /><u><span style="color:#810081;"></span></u><br /><u><span style="color:#810081;"></span></u>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-11686334210235955592010-01-02T20:16:00.004-05:002010-01-02T21:19:51.892-05:00Too Many Laws!I can't believe I'm going to link to Fox News but... everyone should read this: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113861,00.html">America Mired in Morass of Laws and Regulations</a><br /><br />Lately I feel like the City/County/State is just coming up with new ways to take what little money I have and put me in jail if I can't pay it.<br /><br />When I try to fight back I'm stone-walled because EVERYTHING needs to be presented by "my attorney" ... WHO THE F**K CAN AFFORD AN ATTORNEY!? You might be saying "you can get an Attorney for free if you can't afford one" to that i will say; Most of the time "No you can't" and the rest of the time "you get what you pay for".<br /><br />But I'm not a total moron so I figure I'll just handle things myself ... "yeah right!" Have you ever seen how dense the legal speak is in merely trying to present a case to the court?!<br /><br />Here is an example of a civil case I'm involved in where I'm instructed to present a document (no longer than 2 pages) that contains:<br /><ol><li>A statement of the facts <em>(that seems easy enough)<br /></em></li><li>Legal basis for the cause of actions <em>(What? Do they mean case law?)<br /></em></li><li>The demand <em>(Seems easy but I'm the defendant!)</em></li></ol><em></em><br />Now here is the kicker.... this is a civil case over a stupid domain name that I've already won in 'International Court' and I defended myself without a lawyer. The Switzerland based 'World Intellectual Property Organization' gave me 'fairly' clear instructions on what needed to be presented and had helpful examples and even templates on their website. But not the U.S. courts.. noooooooo... here you have to pay a lawyer your weekly income to get one question answered because everything is so damn over complicated.<br /><br /><br /><strong>I got a Free Lawyer</strong><br />For a totally separate case I got a free lawyer. Oh Boy! This case is still pending and here's what I can tell you so far ... After filling out the forms and being told I would hear back in 3 days as to whether or not I would be granted an attorney, I waited 20 some-odd-days with no responce. Finally I called to see what the hold up was on the responce and was told a letter was mailed to me the day after I applied from my new free attorney (I never got it). So I asked who was given, gave him a call, left a message and a day or 2 later i got a return call from him that started off with him telling me I wrote my phone number wrong on the application (suuuuuuuure i did, just like you mailed me a letter I never got) we spoke for less than 5 minutes before he started to ask me about my job and say in a condescending tone "sounds to me like a lucrative business" (as to imply I was loaded and just to cheap to pay for a lawyer) shortly after he cut me off in mid sentance while discussing the details of my case and said he had to go and if I wanted to speak with him again before the court date i needed to make an appointment to come in and see him. All of which was said with the undertone of "Good luck buddy, I'll be screening my calls"<br /><br />What kills me is when ANYONE says "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ... to which i say "Go F**k yourself!"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-18842801946602186832010-01-02T20:04:00.003-05:002010-01-02T20:11:35.277-05:00Why Politicians are like a Burger King Manager<p>When you were young did you ever work at a place that had a manager who would make a federal case out over an employee's nose ring or make life hell for the employee who clocked in 2 minutes late even though they are the same employees who NEVER mess up a customer’s order and all the other employees love them? I feel Government operates in a similar way. They nit-pick us to death passing & enforcing laws over STUPID STUFF to make it look like they are doing something while the the person who always clocks in on-time just messed up the last 8 drive thru orders. </p><p>Here's an example of what I mean; City Council member Michael Donovan recently posted a comment on his blog that he wants the police to start issuing more traffic tickets to give the appearance of a strong police presence in Allentown. So basically what he's saying is that it’s better for the police to <em>look like</em> they're doing something than to be <em>actually</em> doing something. But let's take it a step further ... odds are that the police <em>ARE</em> doing something and now they have to go write more tickets too ... Sooooooo ... the cops will now be too busy to fight REAL CRIME thus the crime rate goes up ... theeeeeen ... we'll need more money, for more cops who will be asked to hand out more tickets and it just goes on and on. As a result none of our food orders are correct (we all get more speeding tickets) and the only person who is happy about it is the ONE A-HOLE customer who has a problem with nose rings (the person who is happy they got a speeding ticket because it makes him feel safer living here)</p><p>Are you missing the point of this post? If so .. i'm sorry but today I'm just spewing things out<br /></p><p>Close the <a href="http://www.brokenladders.com/">Allentown Parking Authority </a>!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-46442022041654209582010-01-02T19:15:00.003-05:002010-01-02T20:04:35.969-05:00RamblingJon Stewart often says something to the effect of; "people don't get involved in politics because they have other s**t to do" and I couldn't agree more. I often have dozens of solutions to problems that never make it on this blog because I don't have the time to type them out into coherent sentences but today I'm just going to start typing a few and see what happens ...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-75551604321318229702009-12-15T18:47:00.002-05:002009-12-15T19:01:37.356-05:00Allentown Parking AuthorityOver the weekend I finally found some time to put into the Anti-Allentown Parking Authority website: <a href="http://www.brokenladders.com/">http://www.brokenladders.com</a><br /><br />It's nowhere near my best web design work, but with limited time to put into the project, I think the information on the site makes up for the lack of my normal flashy graphics. I'll keep updating the information and plan to add 2 more sections when I can find the time, so check in from time-to-time for the latest updates.<br /><br /><em>On a related note:</em> Today I was at the A-Plus on 12th and Hamilton and I ran into a police officer who shook my hand for calling out the Allentown Parking Authority ... and ... well ... while I might not get paid cash for all my hours of research into the APA ... that handshake made it all worthwhile.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-92062686333690723532009-09-19T16:57:00.006-04:002009-09-19T17:37:56.100-04:00Protest the Allentown Parking Authority on Wed. Sept. 23, 2009 at 4pmCome One, Come All! To what may just be the greatest show on earth! The Wednesday September 23, 2009 - Allentown Parking Authority Board Meeting at 4pm! I'll be there (with a few others) to amaze and astound you! It will be a board meeting like none you've witnessed before! Chock-full of News Worthy information the general public WANTS TO KNOW! While it may not be the Jerry Springer Show; Tempers will Flare and that always makes for entertaining news, right?<br /><br /><br /><strong>Where:</strong><br />"The Circus" AKA - The Allentown Parking Authority<br />1005 Hamilton Street Allentown PA<br /><br /><strong>When:</strong><br />Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 4:00pm<br /><br /><strong>Why:</strong><br />Because it's way overdue<br /><br /><strong>What to bring:</strong><br />A Camera! You're going to want to watch this over and over again!<br /><br /><br /><br />BTW, Did you know the Allentown Parking Authority <strong>IS</strong> a privately owned "<strong>FOR PROFIT</strong>" business? (Don't believe me? Go ahead; call them up and ask them: 610-437-3366 / <a href="http://www.allentownparking.com/contact.php">http://www.allentownparking.com/contact.php</a>)<br /><br /><br />I'll be pointing out things like:<br /><ul><li>How it’s a bad thing for the Allentown Parking Authority to boot and/or impound a car used for medical emergencies (because they were obviously too stupid to figure it out on their own)<br /></li><li>How Tamara Weller (the Executive Director) is like an out-of-control manager of a Burger King!<br /></li><li>How spending OVER $53,704.00 for a website is a HUGE F'n WASTE OF MONEY! (and this is just one example)<br /></li><li>How the Allentown Parking Authority should use Public Transportation (What a waste of money for them to buy all those cars when we already pay for buses ... not to mention their carbon footprint)<br /></li><li>How the parking authority should be considered a Public Nuisance (if your Bar or Nightclub needed police assistance as much as they do, you wouldn’t be in business very long)<br /></li><li>How the Allentown Parking Authority rarely provides a service to YOU ... the citizens (demonstrated by the low number parking complaints vs. the large number of parking tickets)<br /></li><li>How the Allentown Parking Authority targets low-income families<br /></li><li>And so much more!</li></ul><p></p><p> </p><p><strong>DON'T MISS THIS SHOW!</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Where:</strong><br />"The Circus" AKA - The Allentown Parking Authority<br />1005 Hamilton Street Allentown PA </p><p><strong>When:</strong><br />Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 4:00pm </p><p> </p><p>PS - For those who find this post after Sept. 23, 2009 ... don't give up! Fight for what is right!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-47321973109868042772009-08-30T23:41:00.000-04:002009-08-30T23:42:33.271-04:00The Allentown PA Parking Authority Sucks!The Allentown PA Parking Authority is a business that targets low-income families for profit (period)<br /><br />Need Proof they target low income families? Ok... <a href="http://blogs.mcall.com/allentown/2009/06/no-parking-violations.html">Click Here</a><br /><br />How much profit? AT LEAST 5 million dollars annually (but I've seen a report of 19 million recently). Need Proof? Ok... <a href="http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_cr54zt">Click Here</a><br /><br />If you think they HAVE to give out this many tickets... you're wrong!<br /><br />A large number of tickets are given out due to "Street Cleaning".<br /><br />Street Cleaning closes down 25% of Center City parking for several hours 4 days a week in a City that is AWARE OF THE FACT that there are not enough places to park already.<br /><br />The City claims it "has to" street clean because of regulations from Fed. & State Government with regard to pollutants that enter into the water supply via street drains/gutters so their hands are tied.<br /><br />HOWEVER! Allentown's water filter system is archaic!<br /><br /><b>Solution:</b> Take the MILLIONS the Parking Authority makes and re-invest it into replacing the gutters with newer ones! This would eliminate the need for all the redundant street cleaning, solve the parking problem and make more citizens happy and less inconvenienced!<br /><br />If you agree with the proposed solution above then call this guy at the Allentown Dept of Public Works and rip into him: Richard Young - 610-437-7587Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-65235139673384997202009-06-04T13:56:00.007-04:002009-06-04T14:56:48.214-04:00Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax (continued - Part 3)<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">Killing "Pennsylvanians" One Pack at a Time; by Craig Friebolin</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I got a cut-and-paste response from the Governor’s Office today and you can see my response below:</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><em>"Thank you for your recent correspondence about the 10-cent per pack cigarette tax increase that I included in my budget proposal for the coming year. As you know, Pennsylvania and all other states are feeling the impact of the national recession, and 2009-10 budget represents a momentous challenge to ensure fiscal discipline while making critical invests that grow our economy and protect Pennsylvanians who need help during this economic storm.<br /><br />The federal government and every state in the U.S. impose some sort of tax on cigarettes,<br />usually for two reasons. First, cigarette taxes help raise the price of the product, which discourages consumption, especially by kids. Second, cigarette taxes are enacted to fund public programs for the common good, and often the programs that benefit from cigarette tax revenue are directly related to health care initiatives. Here in Pennsylvania, the largest portion of our budget goes toward funding health care, and the increased cigarette tax will help us meet those obligations.<br /><br />Pennsylvania’s current cigarette tax places it in the middle of all states and Washington, DC with the 21st highest cigarette tax, and less than neighboring states New Jersey, Maryland and New York. Raising the tax rate by 10 cents will increase Pennsylvania’s ranking only marginally, to 19th place.<br /><br />Inexplicably, Pennsylvania is also the only state in America that does not tax smokeless tobacco – chewing tobacco, cigars and cigarillos. I have proposed taxing those products as a fair, common-sense way to generate needed revenue.<br /><br />The cigarette tax was first enacted in Pennsylvania in 1935 and it supplies a substantial source of funding for public services provided by the commonwealth. The tax rate has increased nine times over the past 74 years to provide sufficient funding to the General Fund and programs such as a health insurance plan benefiting Pennsylvania children, a fund that helps reduce medical malpractice costs for healthcare providers and a farmland preservation effort.<br /><br />The proposed cigarette tax increase – the first in five years – and the first ever tax on smokeless tobacco will benefit Pennsylvania by further reducing tobacco use and funding important programs on which many residents rely.<br /><br />In the long run, reductions in tobacco use will provide public health benefits that will reduce the cost of health care in the public and private sectors, reduce sick leave usage and lengthen the life spans of many Pennsylvania children and adults.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion on this issue."</em></span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>My Responce:</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">What programs *<strong>directly</strong>* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *<strong>direct</strong>* taxing of cigarettes support? </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">You have a 75% failure rate on the only one I could find and it doesn't cost NEARLY $600,000,000+ a year to run. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">My point is ... Use tax money from the <strong>general population</strong> to support programs for the <strong>general population</strong>. Do not single out one group (smokers) to fund projects that are not specifically related to that group (smokers). </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">So help me god if you tell me the money goes to "Healthcare" assuming that broad definition will be satisfactory; you will have severely insulted my intelligence. Your current logic is like saying you're going to tax black people just for being black; give the money to the Klu Klux Clan; then say the tax is used to support "Diversity Programs". You have no REAL programs in place to reduce the amount of smokers in PA and you use smokers as a piggybank to fund projects that sound vaguely related but aren't related AT ALL. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">So here's the deal... I propose you fund a Nicotine Replacement program that subsidizes the cost of Nicotine Patches, etc. and pass a law that requires any Cigarette/Tobacco retailer to carry, stock and prominently display the low-cost subsidized Nicotine Replacement items. Because your current "Give us your money and we'll try to fix you AFTER you get sick if there's any money left over" model is stupid!</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Or am I missing a good answer to the question: "What programs *directly* related to smoking does the $600,000,000+ annual tax revenue generated by the *direct* taxing of cigarettes support?"</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-11848473217572088932009-06-02T16:52:00.006-04:002009-06-03T21:19:56.614-04:00Thank You for Calling PA Governor Ed Rendell's Office … Now Go F#*K Yourself<span style="font-size:85%;">How Edward G. Rendell Personally Wastes Your Time; by Craig Friebolin</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So I decide to call the Governor and show him the error of his ways with regard to the </span><a href="http://craigfriebolin.blogspot.com/2009/06/pennsylvania-cigarette-tax.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> (Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office: (717) 787-2500) A woman answers the phone with a bad attitude and a long-story-short I state my case to the woman and I’m told that “my comment will be passed on”. I follow up by asking “will someone be calling me back to discuss this further?” and I’m once again told “my comment will be passed on”. When the call is over I feel like I was just brushed off as being insignificant. I stew over it for a minute or two and get increasingly angry and decide to call back with the intent of insisting that I speak to someone. Another woman with a bad-attitude answers the phone, I state my case again, and again I’m told “my comment will be passed on”. And once again I ask “will someone be calling me back?” to which she replies “What do you mean?” …. Oooooh … now I’m just mad. I take a moment to explain the difficult question of “will someone be calling me back?” to the confused young woman with the chip on her shoulder and she tells me I need to put my comments in writing. “And THEN someone will contact me back?” I ask. I hear her sigh in frustration at my question and now I’m really getting irritated … “I don’t want to waste my time putting it in writing if it’s not going to go anywhere because I have other s*#t to do” once I said that she seemed almost excited to say “we don’t tolerate that kind of language” and she hung up on me because she’s not smart enough to answer simple questions and obviously not smart enough to know I’ll be calling right back … which I did … and the conversation continued like so; “Why did you hang up on me?!” … “Because we don’t tolora… ::click click click ring :::” and I realize I’m being transferred. A man answers the phone and I fumble through saying something to the effect of “Where am I? I think I was transferred but I’m not sure why … do you do something with the cigarette tax?” he says “I can help you” and for the third time now I state my case but this time emphasizing that I would like to speak to someone about the matter. The reasonable man gives me honest answers “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I explain to the man that this is my third time calling and the first 2 women I spoke to told me my comment would be passed on. He responds with silence. “So what you’re telling me is those 2 phone calls were a complete waste of time” he responds in an empathetic tone, “It is the Governor’s policy that if it’s not in writing … ‘it never happened’”. I’m taking the hint so I too am now speaking in an empathetic but confused manor “Do you have a pen? Or a computer? Why not just write what I’m saying down?” he tells me “honestly … it’s what the Governor wants. He’s the chief and we’re just the little Indians”.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So here it is Eddy … all written down … it took about 7 hours to get all my facts straight and type this up for you … and now that I’m this invested I’m not letting it go. I didn’t get paid for this time and as I stated to your office earlier “I have other s**t to do” so hopefully your office will correct this common sense mistake and not make any more so I don’t have to put my life on hold to spell them out for you because you refuse to empower your staff with a God damn pen. Maybe you could gouge the smokers of Pennsylvania a bit more to donate some of its $613,000,000.00 in annual tax revenue to buy them computers?</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-35940102699633061192009-06-02T04:06:00.002-04:002009-06-02T16:52:20.048-04:00Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">Killing "Pennsylvanians" One Pack at a Time; by Craig Friebolin</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I started smoking when I was 20 years old (the summer of 1991) and my first attempt to quit smoking was on my 30th birthday. I am 38 now with a pack-and-a-half-a-day habit. I consider myself rational and well disciplined but when it comes to smoking all of that goes out the window. (Do you think that’s because they are addictive?) I know the dangers of smoking and I know that nobody is putting a gun to my head and making me smoke. (But they’re addictive … did I mention they’re addictive?)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Obviously the state of Pennsylvania knows that cigarette smoke carries with it many serious health risks and that is why I can’t smoke in any public places anymore. They did this to protect “all of us” from the dangers of cigarette smoke. Admittedly I tend to just go outside and smoke every-so-often because I can only go so long without a cigarette because they’re addictive. (Did I mention the addictive thing?) Another thing they do every so often is tax the ever-loving-crap out of a pack of cigarettes to punish me for smoking … or at least that’s the logic I thought I heard somewhere. It was this thinking that infuriated me recently when the cigarette tax was raised again. I thought; “if the state is so concerned with my safety and getting me un-addicted to cigarettes why don’t they sponsor a program that sells nicotine patches at convenience stores for a tenth of the price of a pack of cigarettes rather than make me work harder to support a habit I don’t even want!?” A little while later I thought I would look into this idea and see if I could suggest it to someone but that is when I found out that the cigarette taxes are used to raise money for anti-smoking campaigns … oh ... wait … that’s not right. They use the money for legal aid to help those battling the tobacco industry … oh … wait ... that’s not right either. Apparently they just do it for the money. Then they give the money that only the smokers have to pay to non-smoking related projects.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">From: </span><a href="http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/cwp/view.asp?a=13&q=270812"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/cwp/view.asp?a=13&q=270812</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><em>“Cigarette tax revenue helps fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provides quality health insurance for children of working families, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Fund for farmland preservation and the Health Care Provider Retention Account that helps reduce medical malpractice insurance costs.”</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>ARE YOU F*&%ING KIDDING ME!?</strong> Put a tax on Toys for CHIP, put a tax on Topsoil for farmers, and regulate the insurance industry! Don’t charge me extra for an addictive product that is killing me and then hang me out to dry!!!! <strong>WHAT THE F%$# IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!?</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></strong><br /><strong>Part 2</strong> :<br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So today I decided to make sure my information was correct and pulled up the current <a href="http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/current_and_proposed_commonwealth_budgets/4566">state budget</a> and I found the only smoking related project is the 1-800-QUIT-NOW line that is run by the American Cancer Society. I gave them a call and after being asked for my name, address, age, race, sexual orientation, and a ton of other off topic questions they offered to send me some brochures (I suppose I’m supposed to smoke them?), receive a call from a ‘counselor’ on Monday June 15th (2 weeks from now and I’ll let you know how it goes) and they also let me know about the </span><a href="http://www.determinedtoquit.com/"><span style="font-family:arial;">www.determinedtoquit.com</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> website which is pretty much cut-and-paste from the American Cancer Society website (</span><a href="http://www.cancer.org/"><span style="font-family:arial;">www.cancer.org</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">). They also let me know that there is no “Nicotine Replacement Program” so don’t call them if you have the realistic expectation that they’ll send you some nicotine patches or anything like that. So now I had proof that hardly any of the <a href="http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/cwp/view.asp?a=180&q=248930"><span style="font-family:arial;">extra $1.35 PER PACK TAX</a> (Approximately $1,680,517.00 PER DAY TAXED IN PA) We are spending is going to help or prevent anything smoking related. (Apparently COMMON SENSE is void at State level)<br />So I decide to call the Governor and show him the error of his ways (Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office: (717) 787-2500) …</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804166638558374639.post-30657382799530210192009-05-27T11:51:00.003-04:002009-05-27T13:04:33.448-04:00I’M JUST DOING MY JOB<span style="font-family:arial;"><strong><span style="font-size:78%;">A Hypothetical Article / Wish-list by Craig Friebolin </span></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">In a speech not yet delivered by President Barack Obama he addressed the nation and encouraged Americans to stop justifying poor judgment and bad behavior under the excuse; “I’m just doing my job”, and asked Americans from all walks of life to “speak-up” but not “walk-out”. </span><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />“I realize American’s need to provide for their families and it would be irresponsible for me to suggest you quit your job over matters of minor principal … but it is not unreasonable for me to suggest that you voice your opinions and concerns in a peaceful and casual way to your employers, family members, and government officials” said the President. “We can accuse the Bank CEO’s of being greedy but can we excuse the hundreds of customer service representatives and billing department staff who silently implemented and executed these unfair practices under the justification of ‘I’m just doing my job’?”<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The President’s solution is a simple one that can be executed from anywhere without finical burden or the need to assemble; which certainly fits into every Americans budget and hectic lifestyle. The simple “Trickle-Up” approach was delivered in such an intimate way that viewers felt the Obama manta change from “Yes, We Can” to “Yes, YOU can”. … I was personally moved by the speech and have since called my editor at FOX News to speak-out internally about our collective irresponsibility. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">---------------------------------------------------------------</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">My name is Craig Friebolin and I don’t actually work for FOX News, nor do I work for any type of media outlet. I’m just an average lower-middle-class secular American who feels that others in my situation don’t realize how self-defeating the “I’m just doing my job” attitude can be and I wanted to offer this hypothetical, yet simple, solution in hopes of effecting some change. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">What I am suggesting is nothing more than a well-written speech that encourages Americans to ask themselves, on a case-by-case basis, if what they are doing is right or wrong, and then voice the answer to those closest to them with the power to effect change. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I believe the President can make a dramatic impact on our national value system with this simple request. I believe that at our core we all know that speaking out is the right thing to do, but as individuals we feel un-empowered and that we only run the risk of job loss by saying anything without unified support or the feeling of being granted ‘permission to speak’ by a power higher than that of those who employ or oppress us. … Who better to unify us than the President of the United States?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I do hope this will be taken under serious consideration and I can be contacted at anytime for further elaboration. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Thank you for your time.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Sincerely,</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Craig Friebolin</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;">(Faxed to the White House today at 11:45 am EST and mostly likely in the trash by 11:55am EST)</span><br /></strong><br /></span><br /></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0