Subsequent to the little debacle relating to HB137 the House infrastructure Committee heard a presentation by CUTR research on "Cell Phone Use and driving". Now right up front the dude from CUTR research (from the University of South Florida) states that they did not do any research. They just gathered information from research already available. Which made me wonder, well why then do they call themselves "CUTR research" and not "CUTR information" gatherer's".
My hope is that taxpayers did not have to pay these folk to gather research results that were already available when all these representatives have aides that can do the same. My suspicion however is that the aides are to busy not answering the phone (as was my experience yesterday when I called the Infrastructure committee chairmans office on more than one occasion and could not get an answer or an answering machine).
Be that as it may, I stuck around hoping to get a little education knowing that there was to be no debate. I guess the lobbyist for ABATE of Florida knew that too and that's why he left.
Well dude starts out pretty good depending on how much you have researched the issue by stating that he wished to start with the premise that "there are many benefits from using cell phones." Ok so right off, I'm like a little suspicious since we already know what the legislators are shooting for so I'm thinking this is a wash job.
Well dude goes on using statistics from 1997, 2003 and 2005. When he gets to the point that I know the legislators want to hear, "Studies demonstrate mixed results pertaining to hand held versus hands free devices". Whoops I woke up, hot damn I thought. I'm gonna learn something now. Except he don't mention any of those studies that say hands free is o.k. He does go on to mention how cell phones in general not only impair driving skill but contribute to traffic congestion. Yepper we need more of that in Tallahassee.
So by now I'm getting a little antsy cause in my hot little hand is a copy of the most recent study done by Carnegie Mellon University dated March 9, 2008 (Just a little more recent than 2005, gee wonder how them edjecated, yes that is misspelled intentionally, folk missed it) that validates, re-enforces, substantiates by virtue of studies done hooking folk up to an MRI and driving simulator and measuring the physiological responses in the brain that, guess what, all the studies that state using a hands free device is equal to driving while intoxicated are TRUE! (Thanks Girl Geek for turning me on to that one).
But then dude sends me off the deep end when in response to a representatives question he states yes there are economic benefits to using a cell phone and driving.
Well it is here that I must apologize to all those "Biker Safety folk" that advocate for kissing political ass, whoops I mean being respectful to politicians so that we might "educate" them. Cause I went off my nut. Not as bad as I can go off my nut. Just enough to be jumping out of my chair waving and pointing at my little study mouthing to the chairman I want to speak. Well he's pointing at me and I'm pointing at him and he sends the little paper girl to me with another "Please can I talk form" which I scribble out quickly cause I'm afraid this dude will shut up and they will move on. But aha!
My turn came. Now I can't remember everything I said. I can get that way when passionate. I do remember starting of with, "since when does economic benefit trump human life!"
I then went on quote from my little RECENT study, reminding them that we wouldn't even be having this conversation had they read the data that was sent to them to begin with because I knew they were intelligent, after all "You did get elected didn't you?" and how the whole reason this issue was TP'd last year was because at least one legislator did read the info provided. But if they no longer have the info they can go to MADD Rays (sorry Ray) and avail themselves of all the info re cell phone use they could possibly want.
Somewhere in all of that I even offered to load em up on the back of my motorcycle and see how far we got down Monroe before some dude on a cell phone knocked us into Lake Ella using the exact same reasoning DUDE from the college used. Well yes people on cell phones have a tendency to move laterally while driving (translation=into your lane).
And I did say something about I understand it is an unpopular issue and they might be concerned about their reelection prospects were they to pass such a really effective, actually accomplish something bill as opposed to passing a bill that accomplishes nothing.
But I think I crossed the line when I pointed at them and asked, "How many of you at that table use a cell phone while driving?" Cause thats when they indicated they had heard enough.
Now I know that there are a lot of folk out there including our state Motorcycle Rights Organization that has transitioned into a Motorcycle Safety Organization that do not want to believe the truth and probably wish I would shut up. But ya know there are still folk that don't believe we ever landed on the moon. There are still folk that still believe in Astrology even after the discovery of the 13th constellation that renders it bogus. Hell there are probably still people that believe there were weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq! And I'm ok with that. Until your need to believe a lie puts the lives of me and my loved ones at risk. Damn don't I wish a few others felt the same!Add to Technorati Favorites
And the Florida legislature protects your rights
For those who have been following the saga of HB137 and felt it was discriminatory by only addressing the seizure of motorcycles, i.e. your personal property. How does the legislature address it? Do they abandon a bill full of redundancies as there are already numerous laws on the books to address the issues? Do abandon the idea of seizing personal property for municipalities to profit from which is currently constitutionally challenged in the state? Nope! They address it by expanding an ill conceived bill to include "ALL" vehicles. What you say? There are already laws in Florida by which they can seize your vehicle? Well if we do not get off our ass, there will soon be more! Below notes from the hearingAdd to Technorati Favorites.Update re: HB137. House infrastructure committee meeting met at 8:30 this morning to address HB137 the bill that provides for seizure of Motorcycles and revocation of Motorcycle Endorsement for up to 10 years for “certain” reckless driving offenses.
Despite calls and e-mails alerting people of the meeting and the importance of attending and voicing any concerns there were only three that showed to address the bill, one, the Motorcycle Industry Council representative who arrived late attempting to get clarification on certain issues and didn't get to speak.
There was late notice as to the agenda of this meeting and confusion over amendments, clarifications and agreements that many in attendance were not aware of and had no chance to review.
Apparently to address questionable issues from the last committee hearing on the 137, there has been a redefinition of the term “wheelie” however if anyone knew what the final definition was it was not announced or discussed. The discriminatory issues that were addressed at the last meeting pertaining to the bill only addressing motorcycles was resolved by amending the bill to include “all vehicles.” The seizure of motorcycles/vehicles was addressed by moving the seizure option to the third offense.
One person who was present to speak on another issue, rose to voice his opposition to the bill and then waived his time.
The next person to speak was the lobbyist for ABATE of Florida who stated that his organization opposed the bill and made a pitch for stiffer penalties for those who violate motorcycle right of way causing injury and/or death to the motorcyclists.
I was called after the ABATE's lobbyist and attempted to address the bill from a perspective relating to the state Supreme courts declaration last summer that they had significant concerns regarding the constitutionality of vehicle seizures as they are being done in Florida. Also mentioning Miami vs. Wellman (1-23-08) wherein the Third district court of Appeals with Supreme Court approval declared the city of Miami's program of vehicle seizures unconstitutional on three points to include, denial of due process and “the city's (Miami) preponderance of the evidence of the evidence standard of guilt was too weak for a statute that deprives individuals of their personal property”. Putting the 12 million dollars Miami has earned from the sale of confiscated vehicles at risk.
I then when on to reiterate the ABATE lobbyists concerns about draconian measures to address this issue and the minimal penalties received by persons who kill and maim motorcyclists by violating their right of way.
Also expressing the contention that this bill may in fact lead to more deaths as more motorcyclists may be inclined to run if they thought seizure of their bikes was imminent.
Neither the ABATE lobbyist nor I were asked any questions.
A highway Patrol officer then spoke of their ability to catch these individuals using helicopters and
other means.
Representative Lopez- Cantera was next to speak and the only real question of significance came from representative Susan Bucher who asked him about the citizens right to seek redress to which he assured there was (this contradicts the findings in Miami vs. Mellon). The rest of the comments were of praise for Lopez-Canterra's efforts in this effort. The vote was taken with all yea's and one nay. I was not able to see who voted nay.
It looked suspiciously as if this hearing was orchestrated based on the little amount of discussion and questioning of information that was unavailable to the gallery.
Afterwards I was interviewed by WFSU regarding my thoughts on the hearing during which I expressed frustration with the publics failure to be concerned enough about the actions of their representatives. That a bill that was initially perceived as only applying to motorcyclists now applied to anybody that operates any motor vehicle. That governmental seizure of personal property is an issue all citizens should be concerned with.
I must say I was disappointed at the lack of attendance by motorcyclists, sport bikers and Harley riders alike as this legislation affects us all. The word went out about this hearing by a number of people.
In this area there are hundreds of “Bikers” of which at least a few could have attended to stand for their rights.
The meeting went on to include a presentation regarding cell phone and driving (to include the economic benefits of doing so) which I will post on when I have gathered my notes. rc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)