Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Cell Phone Ban Debate Rages On
The Daily Show Forums: (My personal favorite, only because the debate is more articulate and nobody is trolling)
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&thread.id=22452&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
Councilman Mike Schlossberg's Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/MikeSchlossberg?v=feed&story_fbid=374539865139&ref=mf
WFMZ:
http://www.wfmz.com/news/22735073/detail.html
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/wfmz/TLMD1PQJ19MF8U9FE
The Morning Call:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5cell.7195437mar04,0,4790930.story
Allentown City Council BANNED CELL PHONES Last Night
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!!!
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 crashes are down 20% since 2000 and cell phone subscriptions are up 1,262.4% since 1994, 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?!
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.
With all that said ...
I CHALLANGE **ANYONE** TO DEBATE ME ON THIS SUBJECT!
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 THE ONLY ONE to present any data)
Wanna see how stupid the study used as the foundation of this ban is for yourself ... here it is: A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. (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)
CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1)
CELL PHONE BAN INFORMATION (Part 1) Fatal Crashes vs. Cell Phone Subscibers from 1994 to 2008 Prepared by: Craig Friebolin - March, 2010 ... | ||||
Year | All Crashes Nationally | Fatal Crashes Nationally | Cell Phone Subscibers | |
1980 | 17,900,000 | 53,200 | no data | |
1985 | no data | no data | 203,600 | |
1990 | 11,500,000 | 46,800 | 4,368,686 | |
1994 | no data | 36,254 | 19,283,306 | |
1995 | 10,700,000 | 37,241 | 28,154,414 | |
1996 | no data | 37,494 | 38,195,466 | |
1997 | no data | 37,324 | 48,705,553 | |
1998 | no data | 37,107 | 60,831,431 | |
1999 | no data | 37,140 | 76,284,753 | |
2000 | 13,400,000 | 37,526 | 97,035,925 | |
2001 | no data | 37,862 | 118,397,734 | |
2002 | no data | 38,491 | 134,561,370 | |
2003 | 11,800,000 | 38,477 | 148,065,824 | |
2004 | 10,900,000 | 38,444 | 169,467,393 | |
2005 | 10,700,000 | 39,252 | 194,479,364 | |
2006 | 10,400,000 | 38,648 | 219,652,457 | |
2007 | 10,600,000 | 37,435 | 243,482,202 | |
2008 | no data | 34,017 | 262,720,165 | |
2009 | no data | no data | no data | |
2010 | no data | no data | no data | |
%(+/-) | 0.9% Decrease* | 6.2% Decrease | 1,262.4% Increase | |
* 0.9 Decrease from 1995 to 2007 Subscribers Average Call Length: (approx) 2.3 minutes | ||||
Conclusion: 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 only the likelihood of a driver being on a cell phone at the time of an accident has actually increased. | ||||
Perspective: Total US Licenced Drivers in 1995 was: 176,628,482Perspective: USA Smoking Death rate extrapolations (2010): 440,000 per year | ||||
All Crash Data: U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1067.pdf | ||||
Fatal Crash Data: Fatality Analysis Reporting System http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ | ||||
Cell Data: CTIA - International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Midyear_2009_Graphics.pdf |
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Responce to Michael Donovan's recent post
@STREET CLEANING:
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?
@DOUBLE PARKING:
Because some grumpy old man at the Morning Call wrote one of the worst, one-sided, articles about double parking ever (Paul Carpenter: Double-parking plague infects city); 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.
The REAL problem is; THERE IS NO PLACE TO PARK! This is an ENORMOUS FAILURE on the part of the Allentown Parking Authority. 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.
There are only and handful of solutions to the city's parking problems and they are clear cut:
1) The Allentown Parking Authority must buy land, build parking lots, and offer free parking to residents to alleviate congestion.
And/Or
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.
Raising fines to give the 'appearance of action' does NOTHING to actually solve the problem.
@TRUCK RESTRICTION:
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 To-Many-Laws 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. (PERIOD)
@MULTIPLE TICKETS:
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.
------------------------------------------------
For more information on the Corrupt, Wasteful, Hypocritical, Nuisance that is the APA visit this site about the Allentown Parking Authority
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Too Many Laws!
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.
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".
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?!
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:
- A statement of the facts (that seems easy enough)
- Legal basis for the cause of actions (What? Do they mean case law?)
- The demand (Seems easy but I'm the defendant!)
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.
I got a Free Lawyer
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"
What kills me is when ANYONE says "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ... to which i say "Go F**k yourself!"
Why Politicians are like a Burger King Manager
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.
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 look like they're doing something than to be actually doing something. But let's take it a step further ... odds are that the police ARE 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)
Are you missing the point of this post? If so .. i'm sorry but today I'm just spewing things out
Close the Allentown Parking Authority !