Vhernande

Vhernande's Recent Posts

Cell-phone law July 1 has sales of hands-free devices in high gear

Just like the cell phone law is intrusive is the recently inacted seatbelt law. How can you say seatbelts save lives, how can we be sure that drivers put on the seatbelts on correctly, that they did not use a faulty seatbelt. What is the true evidence is it out there for us to document and verify. I know that for the most part, statements like those are purely sepculation. I know that in some cases seatbelts dont help, and a few cases they actually harm. Dont get me wrong, I know that in general they save lives, but its so hard to prove. When I was in an accident a few years back, I was injured and so were all the other passengers in the car. In fact on that morning we all happened to be wearing our seatbelts and were rear ending on a raining morning before school. I still remember like it was yesterday. In that instance, me wearing my seatbelt did not do much help, if any. But I cant speak for the other passengers. After attending a traffic school I found out that the driver at fault had his license suspended for 6 months and was still driving. I know that there are many other drivers out there like him, drivers that think its ok to continue driving even after their license is revoked or suspended or even the drivers that are on the road today that do not have automobile insurance. That is an even more common occurance. For what its worth, all these factors contribute to a more dangerous and risky task to drive on the highways today. So whats the message should we just stop driving our cars? How would we get to work? How would we shop for food? There must be a better way to address this problem. With so many drivers on the road today, with their history of accidents and DMV driving points that look like a Lakers game or final score, what can we do? Make tougher restrictions on drivers, require more education and experience for the drivers that are permitted to drive, and especially focus on the younger drivers of america who dont have the experience. (Jun 27, 2008 | post #10)

Have you heard of a new California smoke free car law. On January 1, 2008, a new law went into effect in California banning smoking in cars when there are passengers under the age of 18 in the vehicle. If caught violating the law, you may face up to a $100 fine. California is only the 3rd state to ban smoking in cars carrying children. In Arkansas a law was passed in 2006 banning smoking in cars when there are passengers younger than six years old. Also in 2006 Louisiana passed a similar law requiring smoke free cars when there are children 13 years or younger. Web-Traffic School applauds these decisions, and is publicizing the new California smoke free car law in our drivers Ed courses and our traffic school courses as well. In a 2005 California Tobacco survey more than 90% of those surveyed supported a law to ban smoking in cars when children are present, remarkably the survey indicated that close to 90% of even smokers surveyed agreed with the law. It has long been argued that children are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that the air quality with in a car, where someone is smoking can significantly endanger children in the vehicle. "The dangers of secondhand smoke are well published relative to in-door facilities, so ignoring the danger which occurs in the very tight environment with in a vehicle would be unforgivable, " said Victor Hernandez of Web-Traffic School, during a recent interview. "It would seem to be only a matter of time before other states will follow suit." Web-Traffic School now incorporates driving related information into the air driver's ed courses and traffic school curriculum as a public service. Secondhand smoke is particularly dangerous to young children because they breathe more rapidly than adults and their lungs are still developing, and are more susceptible to the kinds of problems caused by breathing such pollutants. Studies also suggest that children who breathe secondhand smoke on a regular basis are at a greater risk for serious ear infections. Other studies have shown that children who breathe in secondhand smoke regularly are much more likely to contract asthma and other breathing disorders than children who are not exposed to such smoke. Further, especially children six and under and especially babies who breathe in secondhand smoke are significantly more inclined to acquire respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. In January 2006 the state of California's Air Resource Board officially declared second hand smoke to be a toxic air contaminant, which in effect likens it to asbestos or automobile exhaust fumes in its toxicity level. This announcement set the stage for the passage of the current law. Further still, in June of 2006 United States Surgeon General announced the continued exposure to secondhand smoke can cause disease and or death, especially in children, but also in non-smoking adults. In the face of the publication of these types of surveys and significant statistics, which indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the dangers of breathing in other peoples exhaled smoke is significant indeed, public sentiment even from smokers has moved continually in the direction of protecting children and other non-smokers from the very real health dangers from secondhand smoke. Web-Traffic School has announced its intention to continually update the public of such new information or in conjunction with traffic school courses or driver's ed courses which are taught in their local California classrooms or in the similar courses that they have available across the country, online. This article is the beginning of a series of public service announcements which Web-TrafficSchool. com will publicize in their traffic school courses and driver’s ed courses both locally and on-line. (Jun 24, 2008 | post #1)

Profile Q & A

Vhernande's Recent Posts