Speak Out

The place to speak your mind on everything from politics to potholes.

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Ben Goldberg May 30, 2014 at 10:24 AM
I believe only the State Police are allowed to use radar for traffic enforcement in PA. LocalRead Morepolic e departments are not. That is why they use Vascar, which is a computer system to time speed between two points, usually white lines painted on the road. When you see those lines, you are potentially passing through a speed trap (only if it is manned by an officer who can see your car enter and leave the zone between the lines).
Ben Goldberg May 30, 2014 at 10:43 AM
While we are on the subject of dangerous driving, please be aware that driving while texting orRead Moreeven speaking on a cell phone is extremely dangerous, even more dangerous than speeding. Drivers who talk on mobile or cell (cellular) phones are as impaired as drunken drivers, according to research.1 Drivers who use a handheld device are four times more likely to get into a crash serious enough to cause injury. The risk to the public is serious. At any given moment during the daylight hours, over 800,000 vehicles in the U.S. are being driven by someone using a handheld cell phone, according to research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).2 The National Safety Council estimates that in a recent year, 21% of vehicular crashes (1,100,000) involved talking on either a handheld or handsfree cell phone.3 Both hand-held and hands-free mobile phones impair driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. Researchers have asserted that this well established scientific fact “calls into question driving regulations that prohibited handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones.”4 1. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., and Crouch, D.L. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2006 (Summer), 381-391; Collet, C., et al. Phoning while driving I: a review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioural and physiological studies. Ergonomics, 2010, 53(5), 589-601. 2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Policy Statement and Compiled FAQs on Distracted Driving. nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Distracted+Driving/Policy+Statement+and+Compiled+FAQs+on+Distracted+Driving 3. National Safety Council. Annual Estimate of Cell Phone Crashes 2010. 2012. nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/AttributableRisk Summary.pdf 4. Strayer, D.L., et al. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2006 (Summer), 381-391.
David May 30, 2014 at 11:44 AM
As others have commented, it is not the speeds on the highway (e.g. 202) that is my concern--it isRead Moret he speeds on some of the local road. When people drive 60 on, say, Chesterbrook Blvd, it is a problem. Radar would make it more efficient and easier to enforce reasonable speed limits on local streets. I don't think it would make much difference on the highways--between the State Police (who already use radar) and set speed zones (the white lines), local police being able to use radar on the highways won't make much difference. But they will be able to efficiently step up enforcement on local streets.
Jenna Reese May 21, 2014 at 11:15 PM
Call PUC and file a complaint....that will at least delay any shut-off for a while. The new meterRead Morew ill be able to read your usage by the hour. The ones they put in 10 years ago are scan-able via ride by which they do monthly. The new meters have high RFD's and are a health hazard. They also will be able to tell when you are home or not....so if it's hacked...i hope your house isn't robbed. This is the same for smart electric meters. For people not in the know, like Randall, water and energy will be the new commodities of the future. All you have to do is look around you and read or listen to news. Here is a website for those who care to keep their homes.... Radnor was an ICLEI town but got smart enough to bow out. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/iclei-when-they-say-local-they-mean-it.html
Dave Snell May 22, 2014 at 04:53 PM
Jenna - health hazard, RFDs?! Can I have a little of what you're smoking? They're brass and theyRead Moreh ave nylon impellers, just like your current meter - no health hazard there. RFDs... Well, that's not really a thing so nothing to worry about there! They'll be able to tell when you're home? Mine is my crawl space - is it going to assume no one is ever home? I don't think so. It will do one thing - it will tell Aqua, or whomever you buy water from, how much you're using it and when you use it. Get over things Jenna - the sky isn't falling!
Jenna Reese May 23, 2014 at 04:53 PM
Dave, Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and wipe the sand off your head. Google Iclei, educateRead Moreyours elf about RF dangers. You can bring a horse to water but Dave prefers Kool-aid.
C. L. Bittner May 12, 2014 at 07:33 AM
Your township most likely has a noise ordinance. You need to go to the township building to get aRead Morec opy of it. Then go to your noisy neighbor and ask nicely that they abide by the law. If they fail to do so then you can contact the police.
Tom McCarey May 28, 2014 at 03:50 PM
NMA Position On DUI/DWI - Basic Tenets The NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based onRead Morer easonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior and reckless, dangerous behavior. The NMA does not support "zero tolerance" concepts, nor does it endorse unconstitutional enforcement and judicial procedures that violate motorists' rights. Periodically, a member will write and express concern over the NMA's support of "drunk drivers." This is usually motivated by our opposition to some particular anti-DWI initiative. The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving. The NMA supports constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respectful of fundamental rights. Basic Tenets 1.We believe that penalties for DUI/DWI should be related to the degree of risk involved, and that these penalties be equated with penalties for equal-risk violations of other traffic safety laws. 2.We support those legislative and enforcement initiatives that are effective in achieving stated goals of deterrence and removal of impaired drivers. We do not support initiatives based on revenge, political expedience, or emotional hyperbole. 3.We believe that all Americans should enjoy the same Constitutional rights and privileges. Legislative or enforcement initiatives denying these rights and privileges to motorists violate this uniform application of Constitutional standards. 4.We believe in basing laws and penalties on actual evidence of impairment whenever possible. Blood alcohol content should only be used as prima facie evidence of impairment, and there should be flexibility in laws that base penalties on blood alcohol content. To better explain the position of our association on this emotionally charged issue, it is important that the problem be properly defined. Thoughtful, objective discussion of this subject in the popular media has been sadly lacking. The press has been content to reprint whatever they receive from self-serving and vested interests. The result has been a misinformation campaign of staggering magnitude. Claims such as "50% of all highway fatalities are caused by drunk drivers" are unmitigated propaganda. The public officials and special interest groups that perpetuate this myth know it is a lie but persist in this kind of gross deception. A far more likely estimate of "drunk-driver-caused" fatal accidents is 10%, still a very large and unacceptable number, but not quite the national crisis championed by anti-drinking advocates. What the public has not been told is that the "drunk driver" numbers promoted by these public officials and special interest groups include any person, with any amount of alcohol in his system, who dies in a traffic accident (some exceptions for vehicle passengers). This includes accidents where alcohol impairment was not a causative factor, pedestrians and bicyclists with alcohol in their systems, and suicides. Given that the vast majority of adults in the United States consume some form of alcoholic beverage, it is not unreasonable to expect the presence of alcohol in their blood. Leaping to the conclusion that the presence of alcohol in the blood of an accident victim equates to an alcohol-caused fatality is fundamentally illogical. The whole purpose of this discussion is not to diminish the seriousness of the problem. However, it should cause you to question the merits of the "solutions" proposed by the same interests and agencies that have so grossly misrepresented the problem. Tom McCarey
See more »