http://www.northjersey.com/…

When the prospective bestseller, “Crazy N.J. Drivers and the Signs, Laws and Traffic That Make Us That Way,” is written someday, one extra-long chapter should be titled “Bad Ideas.”
That’s as good a way as any to describe many of our notions about driving behavior that turn out to be wrong, such as the chronic reader complaint about police “constantly breaking the law” by driving while yakking on a cellphone. (Wrong! The ban exempts emergency workers.)

Sometimes bad ideas can be blamed on the sovereign state of New Jersey, but usually they occur because too little oxygen was fueling our pea-size brains at a critical moment. (”Of course, I saw the yellow light, officer. That’s why I sped up.” Or, “I thought we disabled people didn’t have to feed the meter.”)

But there is hope, because sometimes bad ideas can actually make life better. As alluded to in Tuesday’s column, this rarity occurred last month when Emily Wisniewski, 16, criticized her father for failing to thoroughly remove snow from his car.

“It’s the law,” counseled Emily, whose recent study of New Jersey’s driver manual included these 11 words on Page 88: “All snow and ice must be removed from the entire vehicle.”

Her claim, however, was disputed by the family patriarch.

Although he last studied the manual 29 years ago, dad was familiar with driving regulations. After all, he’s chairman of the state Assembly transportation committee, which plays a big role in creating safety laws. Its responsibilities include overseeing the state Department of Transportation, whose duties include posting electronic highway signs that warn us to clear snow from our vehicles because “It’s the law.”

Not exactly. Clearing off snow is a Good Idea. But saying it’s a law is a Bad Idea because statute 39:4-77.1 only says non-commercial drivers can be fined as much as $1,000 if snow or ice from your car causes damage or injury.

That’s what John Wisniewski learned when he looked it up. The assemblyman figured Emily deserved better. To reduce the confusion for 16-year-olds, as well as 46-year-olds like him, Wisniewski revived a bill that had been languishing in his committee for nearly two years.

If it passes and the governor signs it, drivers whose vehicles carry this frosty hazard will risk $25 to $75 tickets — and New Jersey will enjoy the rarity of a Bad Idea becoming a Good Idea.

I think the comment I left on the article covers it.

Good idea? Sounds like little more than a way to increase town coffers. Driving with ice and/or snow on one’s vehicle does not by itself harm anyone. The current law legitimately requires a victim. And as for officers talking on cellphones. I have been told first hand by a Fort Lee police officer that the law was vague regarding non-hands free usage of a mobile phone. It says they are exempt in their official duties. It seems very unlikely it was meant to exempt them from talking with their friend about the game last night while on duty. And for official communications aren’t they supposed to use their radio? Even without that vague exemption some departments, Fort Lee is one, ban the practice. Of course most of us couldn’t know that because the FLPD and others don’t allow their SOPs to be released to the public.

Cliffside Park Police patrol car CP-6 was idling while at a gas station today at around 1:45pm today. I’ve looked around the net and through New Jersey statutes but was unable to find a law prohibiting such an action. As I’ve read that many states outlaw idling at a gas station when fueling up a vehicle due to the potential for the engine to ignite vapors. Especially should they backfire. I was told by someone today that he believed it was illegal for officers on duty to turn off their vehicle but I’ve not been able to substantiate that nor does it seem likely to me. I did not notice any signs instructing the engine to be turned off as you find at many gas stations.

If anyone knows whether New Jersey has such a law and what it is please contact me personally or leave a comment.

I don’t know if it’s actually dangerous and as I said I didn’t see from the road whether or not there was a sign indicating engines needed to be off but knowing New Jersey and how anal the government is (not even allowing people pump their own gas) I wouldn’t be surprised if it was prohibited.  If it is prohibited then the cop should be following the same statutes the rest of us are supposed to. If it’s prohibited but authorities are exempted I think that’s just as unfair as officers being exempt from NJ laws prohibiting non-hands free mobile phone usage while on duty. If it’s not prohibited and not against the station’s rules I would still prefer that the officer stop the engine while refueling. There is no reason to waste fuel given that the tax payers, not the officer, are ultimately paying for that gasoline.

From our friend Manuel Lora:

The state scores again:

Baltimore police will no longer release the names of officers who kill or injure people, changing a long-standing practice that the department believes put officers at risk.The decision is prompting criticism from several Baltimore leaders, who said withholding officers’ names will only endanger an already tenuous relationship between the police and the community. Baltimore police shot 21 people last year, 13 of them fatally – the same number killed by police in 2007, when 31 people were shot. Those numbers are up from 2006, when 15 were shot and five killed.

I can’t imagine why the relationship between the cops and the community is so bad!

Re: from Bill Anderson

Manuel’s post also raises the larger question about the nature of police and government. The article also points out that Baltimore’s mayor, Sheila Dixon, is not objecting to this new policy:

A spokesman for Mayor Sheila Dixon said she will not interfere with the department’s decision.

Not surprisingly, the police union is all in favor of this farce:

The police union applauded the policy change. Robert F. Cherry, president of the Baltimore police union and a former homicide detective, said the department vigorously investigates shootings that involve officers.”If anything, the investigation is more intensive than for the average citizen,” Cherry said. “The only thing the department is doing differently is choosing not to release their name. … I’m surprised we haven’t gone to this earlier.”

My experience in working on the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case tells me that police do not aggressively investigate themselves, and that police are held to much lower standards than are ordinary citizens.

For example, the infamous police shooting in San Francisco has the police urging “caution” and no “rush to judgment,” yet if an ordinary citizen were to shoot an unarmed person in the back at such a close range, the police and press would be denouncing the “execution-style murder” and vowing justice. Instead, we hear the usual claptrap from the authorities.

All of this raises the larger question for me. If a police department is subject to the authority of government, and if government simply is an extension of “the will of the people,” as “Progressives” are fond of telling us, then why do police departments act as a law unto themselves?

The obvious answer is that not only do police officers intimidate everyone else, given they have a license to kill, but they also control a large number of votes and government unions today are major factors in determining elections. All in the name of “progress,” of course.

Sort of like how they don’t release standard operating procedures or the names of officers who break them? Even when the infraction is just using a cell phone?

While driving in Fort Lee, New Jersey today I came up behind a Fort Lee Police Department car stopped for a red light at Glen Road and Brinkerhoff Avenue at approximately 10:07am. The car number was 464. The officer was talking on what appeared to be his personal cell phone. After the light turned green the officer started to turn left from Brinkerhoff Ave onto Glen Road. As he turned he moved the phone from one side of his head to the other.

His lights were not on nor were his sirens.

The overview from the State of New Jersey website says:

On November 2, 2007, Governor Jon S. Corzine signed into law a bill which amends N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 to make the use of a wireless hand-held telephone or electronic communication device by the operator of a moving motor vehicle a primary offense. The complete text of the law amending N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3 can be found at P.L. 2007, c.198.

• It is a primary offense for a motorist to talk or text message with a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device while driving.
• Use of a hand-held wireless telephone or electronic communication device includes, but is not limited to:
  • Talking or listening to another person.
  • Text messaging or sending an electronic message.
• The fine for violating this statute is $100.00; no points will be assessed for the offense.
• The operator of a motor vehicle may use a hand-held wireless telephone while driving with one hand on the steering wheel only if:
  • The operator has reason to fear for his/her life or safety, or believes that a criminal act may be perpetrated against him/herself or another person.
  • The operator is using this device to report to appropriate authorities: a fire; traffic crash; serious road hazard; medical or hazardous material emergency; or another motorist who is driving in a reckless, careless or otherwise unsafe manner or who appears to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• The amended law takes effect on March 1, 2008.
• The Division of Highway Traffic Safety, in partnership with the Motor Vehicle Commission, will conduct a public education campaign beginning in mid-February.

Additional information is linked from the overview site to here.

The State of New Jersey driver manual also clearly states that using a mobile phone while driving is a stoppable offense.

Here is the legislation: 2007c198_law.pdf

I don’t desire the officer of car 464 to be punished. I want for statutues such as this to be removed from the books. In the least I’d like to see police officers to ignore victimless crimes. Driving while on a cellphone is not a real crime. No one was harmed by his actions. There is no victim. If he was threatening other drivers by eradically driving due to being distracted with his phone conversation he should then be approached and cited but being on the phone in and of itself should not be a stoppable or finable offense.

http://www.ft.com/…

Morgan Stanley has won the contract to market the prime broadcast spectrum that will become available for sale once all television stations switch from analogue to digital signals in 2012.

The auction, which may raise up to £5bn for the Treasury, will make available up to eight packages of wavelength in a “sweet spot” on the spectrum.

About 128Mhz of spectrum in the sweet spot around 700Mhz will be available.

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, is expected to begin the process at the end of next year or in early 2010.

The spectrum provides an optimum combination of broadcast range and the ability to carry large amounts of data. It will be of particular interest to mobile telephone companies and those wishing to build wireless networks in urban areas.

Wherever a television signal can be received, the same will apply to mobile phones and laptops.

Morgan Stanley beat several other banks and two marketing companies to the contract, the value of which was not disclosed.

An official at the regulator said that Morgan Stanley’s contact book, allowing it to open direct contact with anyone from US telecoms groups to Asian investors, would be of great value in getting the best price.

In the US last March a similar sale of 52Mhz in the 700Mhz range raised $19.1bn (then £9.8bn). Taking into account the size of the market, this suggests a figure of £4.4bn for the 128Mhz on offer in the UK.

Analysts expect existing telecoms companies to take up most of the spectrum, although Ofcom believes that it can spark wider interest from around the world.

An auction of spectrum in 2000 raised £20bn from mobile phone companies for 3G services.

I’m against government ‘owning’ the radio spectrum anyway but why is it that they are contracting out the auctioning of it? Whether it’s a fix ammount or a percentage of the winning bids the ammount spent is far too much in my opinion. Sure there will be a lot of paperwork when you get down to it the only thing occurring is a transfer of license owner. Why does an organisation like Morgan Stanley need to be involved? I’m sure given the size of the federal government and the FCC itself there is some system which could be arranged without the need of a middle man.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/…

The government is pressing ahead with plans to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a massive central silo for all UK communications data, The Register has learned.

Home Office civil servants are working on plans for the database under the banner of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP). The team has recently been expanded and a director-level official appointed to run the project, which is not yet official policy in public.

The project has been pushed hard at Whitehall by the intelligence agencies MI6 and GCHQ. One ISP source described their demands as “science fiction”. It’s envisaged that the one-stop-shop database will retain details of all calls, texts, emails, instant messenger conversations and websites accessed in the UK for up to two years.

Others have countered in Communications Data Bill discussions that a central, searchable database will not “maintain capability”, but grant investigators unprecedented power to cross-reference data sources (including location data from mobile phone triangulation), go on “fishing trips”, and infringe privacy.

The Information Commissioner’s Office voiced such opposition when early details of the IMP were reported in May. But according to our sources, public resistance to the überdatabase has so far had no significant impact on policy.

I reported on this in May. Doesn’t look like much has really changed but it seems that there has been some outrage over it. As expected the government doesn’t care what the subjects say and are continuing more or less full steam (as inefficiently as that is).

I think that if I were over in the UK I’d work to start a movement to fill the database. Generate huge amounts of bogus data. Modify email servers to throw in randomly sized file attachments from /dev/urandom into every message sent and the receive end can remove it. Either the government starts filtering everything which would increase necessary cpu power, they’d start dropping messages, or they log lots of completely bogus data. I think each scenario is a win. Push TOR and other anonymous/encrypted forms of communication and you render their efforts mute.