Cops can't catch texters
The June 3 article, "One less distraction for drivers," certainly hit home for me, as I'm sure it did to others. Though my stance on the upcoming law is less than favorable than that of the writer.
While I can certainly see his points on texting being a distraction, the truth is that the law will not be able to enforce this with any solid evidence. When a driver speeds, police can catch that by radar. When they drive intoxicated, police can positively identify this as well. But texting?
If you're one of the thousands with an iPhone or some other smartphone, you use it not only to text, but to surf the Web, to dial a call, jot a note and to control music just like an iPod. So how can a cop determine what one would be doing on this device when they can't even see it?
And even if you're not one with an iPhone, I would safely assume more than half the people driving use an iPod in their car. If you were texting in your lap and got pulled over, what would stop you from dropping the phone in a cup holder and picking up your iPod? Can a police officer have any justification for citing you on texting when he has no proof?
Going beyond the mistaken source of distraction, not everyone becomes a reckless driver by texting. For anyone who has buttons on their phone and regularly texts, being able to do so without even looking is fairly easy. You could send entire messages without looking at the phone even once!
Mr. Harper may have his entitlement to road rage when he sees some ditz texting while driving with her knees. Though as for me, as long as she keeps her car in her lane and in her control, I'm not concerned with what she does on her phone. Nor should the Tennessee General Assembly or Gov. Phil Bredesen.
I can't wait to see police try to enforce this one.
Ryan Green Senior mass communication
Law reassures motorcyclist
Thank you for the cover article, "One less distraction for drivers," in your June 3 issue.
I could not agree more when it comes to the "no texting while driving" legislation recently passed. Yes, there is the problem of enforcing the law due to the accused claiming they were simply "looking through their address book." However, texting while driving must stop. I have known several young people that have died in accidents while attempting this feat and what their mothers wouldn't give to have them back now.
My fiancé and I ride a motorcycle. Although I am the passenger I am just as alert as he is - watching for vehicles that might want to pull out in front or on top of us. It can be scary out there, especially as I am more tuned in to the behavior of others and see them looking down doing something else in their car besides driving. Knowing that the law protects us from one less distraction is reassuring to a degree and I know it will not completely protect us either.
As for the road rage, Andy, I completely understand. I have made a point to only text while at a red light or when I have stopped due to traffic. So, I apologize if that is you every time there is a honk behind me as the light has turned green and I am still looking down, distracted and texting.
Nicole Edmondson Junior public relations
Fees should be heavier
Your April 27 opinion story, "Tenn. texting bill raises several questions," has very valuable information for Tennessee drivers. Many, including myself, were unaware of the consequences involved with texting while driving.
I agree with your inquiries of the bill. Many drivers could feel under attack if a police official pulls them over and searches their cell phone. How could such a thing be justified in court? Many others are texting while driving and just not getting caught.
One could argue the official targeted them. Also, the fact that drivers partake in numerous other tasks while driving, so how did they decide that text messaging while driving was the most severe?
On the other hand text messaging has been proven to be dangerous and in some cases fatal, so drivers should be penalized for partaking in the act. In this sense, a $50 ticket does not seem to be effective. A texting driver, who receives two tickets for violating the law, should receive more than just $100 worth of tickets.
I appreciate you suggestions for being safe while driving when it comes to cell phone use. Drivers need to be aware of the harm they could cause, but also know ways they can still communicate such as calling the person to converse or pulling off the road to continue texting. I feel this article should reach a larger audience than college students because it is very effective. High school students and adults should be exposed to this information as well.
Kelly Neal Junior mass communication Needs of university can be figured out philosophically
In response to the June 8 article, "McPhee doesn't rule out cutting philosophy," for which I was interviewed, I would like to make a few comments.
President McPhee was quoted as saying that the department of philosophy would be cut if the department did not come up with a plan to reduce costs and increase growth. I was quoted as saying philosophy is not practical, yet I believe philosophy is very practical and it can even be used to evaluate if it is a good idea to cut the philosophy department.
I believe President McPhee could benefit from engaging in some philosophical thinking. Perhaps McPhee could ask himself, "If I were a university what would I desire?"
Perhaps the president would ponder for a few moments and decide that if he were a university he would want to grow. Maybe he has already asked himself that question and that is why MTSU's slogan is "Let's Grow Blue!"
If I were a university I would desire to be a good university. But what would it mean to be a good university? A good university would provide excellent education. Would cutting out the Philosophy Department mean better education at MTSU? I think not.
MTSU already has the state's largest number of undergraduates. MTSU only trails UT in the number of postgraduate students it has. Maybe instead of insisting that the philosophy department grow in the number of its undergraduate students, the president could insist that the philosophy department provide a better education by creating a graduate program.
That way the quality of education that the university offers would improve and the university would grow as well. A graduate program would increase the amount of money coming to the university as graduate school costs a student more than undergraduate education does.
If I were a university, I would be happy that the quality of education I offered improved by the addition of a graduate program in philosophy, and I wouldn't be too upset about the extra growth.
The priorities of those in charge of MTSU need to be changed. Why does growth seem to be the number one goal of MTSU? Is it because the school needs more undergraduate tuition money to pay for a new parking garage to accommodate all the new undergraduate students?
Perhaps if the powers at be would focus on MTSU being an institute of higher education instead of an institute of growth we would not have a budget crises.
Jeffrey Pair 2005 MTSU Alumnus
Animal activist pleased with alternatives
In response to your June 8 article, "Vegan cooking classes held at Discovery Center," I would like to thank Sassy VEG Productions for working to educate MTSU students about vegetarian and vegan cuisine.
These classes come at a time when meatless options are more popular than ever-particularly on college campuses. In fact, a recent survey by Aramark, a leading food service provider, concluded that nearly a quarter of college students are actively seeking vegan options when they sit down to eat. Reasons range from their own health to environmental concerns to of course cruelty to animals.
As students become more informed about the routine suffering animals face when raised and killed for food, it's understandable why they are seeking meatless alternatives in droves. For example, chickens on factory farms have their beaks sliced off with hot blades, and many are even scalded alive in feather removal tanks.
If these kinds of abuses were inflicted upon cats or dogs, it would result in a cruelty to animals charge. Thankfully, with dining halls now regularly carrying cruelty-free and delicious dishes like veggie barbecue "riblets" and vegan pizza, it's never been easier to cut animal products out of our diet for good.
For more information, visit peta2.com to request a free vegetarian starter kit, as well as stickers and a DVD.
Ryan Huling College campaign coordinator - peta2.com
Gun laws not uncommon in other states
After reading Andy's article, "Guns, alcohol don't mix" [June 1], I can only assume that he has stopped going to McDonalds because he "might have to sit next to a person packing heat while trying to enjoy a" Happy Meal.
And I'll take it as a given that he would never vacation in (or even drive through) Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia or Wyoming - all of which are "shall issue" or no permit states.
Oops, with Tennessee surrounded by "shall issue" states, I guess he can't drive anywhere out of state - or in state for that matter.
Maybe he'd just better move to the United Kingdom, where he wouldn't have to worry about people with guns - other than criminals of course. So what if the violent crime rates (apart from murder) are 2 to 4.5 times higher than in the United States? He won't have to worry about having "to sit next to a person packing heat while I'm trying to enjoy my happy hour beer." And they have really good beer in the United Kingdom.
Bruce Krafft Columbia Heights, Minnesota
Be the first to comment on this article!