Ending Lawn Litter

Writing in the New York Times, Sewall Chan offers a wonderful article about local efforts to Halt Unwanted Paper Deliveries. Excerpted, he says:

"In an era of spam, telemarketing, moving billboards and other forms of aggressive commercial solicitation, an old-fashioned form of advertising is surprisingly - many say irritatingly - resilient: fliers, restaurant menus and business cards slipped under the doors, wedged in door jambs or left on the stoops of houses and apartment buildings in New York City."

"Until now, homeowners have had no recourse to block the unwanted paper, often called 'lawn litter' because in neighborhoods with yards much of the paper ends up on the lawn." Now however, the city is "enforcing a recent state law that prohibits the placement of 'unsolicited papers, fliers, pamphlets, handbills, circulars or other materials advertising a business or soliciting business" at homes in New York City if the property owner has posted a sign saying such materials are not wanted." Bravo!

"Advertisers who violate the law face fines from $250 for a first offense to $1,000 for repeat violations... Under the new law, the property owner's sign must be at least five inches tall and seven inches wide, and display the following language in legible letters at least one inch high: "Do Not Place Unsolicited Advertising Materials on This Property."

"...property owners who receive unwanted advertisements will be able to fill out a citizen complaint form and mail it, along with the unwanted ads, to the Sanitation Department's enforcement office in Brooklyn."

"Paperwork" is Here to Stay

Business Week: At 20 large U.S. banks, the cost of complying with U.S. laws and regulations grew 159 percent from 2001 to 2006, far faster than profit growth, an industry survey found. It costs the average big bank $83.5 million a year to keep up with Surbanes-Oxley, the Patriot Act, and other laws.

Given this reality, each of us needs to build greater "administration" time and effort into our plans. Society inherently grows more complex all the time. Our challenge is to harness that complexity and convert it to a competitive advantage.

Jail Time for Cell Phone Drivers

An article in the London Telegraph by David Millward and Christopher Hope reports that "Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years under tough new guidelines issued today by prosecutors. Drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel could also face prison sentences."

"Prosecutions will be brought if by using the equipment a motorist is judged to have posed a danger to other drivers, such as causing another car to swerve. Using a hand-held mobile while driving was outlawed in 2003, but it is estimated that half a million motorists flout the ban each day."

"Existing guidelines restricted prosecutors to pursuing only a charge of careless driving, for which the maximum fine is $10,000 along with up to nine points on a motorist's license. But under the new rules, drivers could be charged with dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail."


I has heartened to learn that U.K. police now check mobile phone records after road collisions to see if the driver was making a call. An excellent move and one that will help guard other people's Breathing Space.

Confronting the Noise

The city of Mount Dora, Florida, "may put a leash on frequent dog-barking," according to a feature written by Brad Buck of the Daily Commercial. "Under a proposed change in Mount Dora's noise ordinance, dogs won't be able to just keep barking and barking, creating a disturbance in a neighborhood."

"Mount Dora already prohibits dogs from barking for five minutes at a time. But under the revised ordinance, even if dogs bark for less than five minutes, their owners can be cited by the city if the dog barks for three periods in 24 hours. Such barking is considered a noise disturbance."

"If passed, residents can add barking dogs to noisy radios, TVs, musical instruments, loudspeakers, tape players, record players, power equipment and similar devices. Loudspeakers, public address systems or similar devices can be used at activities authorized by the city including parades and art festivals.

"Currently, the ordinance says dogs can bark for at most five minutes at a time or intermittently for at least 30 minutes. City staff starting changing the noise law after resident Monique Richardson told the council in August she was concerned about a new renter in her neighborhood that has a dog or dogs that bark at all hours."

My view: seems a bit draconian but what else can you do in a nation with well over 70,000, 000 dogs distributed among 110,000,000 households?

Foolish Highway Games

NBC Channel 10 in Phildelphia recently reported that "New Jersey legislators pushed forward a plan to make it illegal to text message while driving. The Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee voted unanimously to release the proposal after several legislators admitted frequently firing off text messages while behind the wheel, even though they know doing so is dangerous."

"Assemblyman Paul Moriarty acknowledges doing it himself, but he's not proud of it. 'It's very, very dangerous,' he said. Citing that risk, the Democratic assemblyman wants to stop motorists from sending text messages while driving."

"'It's more dangerous than talking on a cell phone because I believe you can keep your eyes on the road when talking on a cell phone,' Moriarty said. That's not the case when typing and sending text messages, he said. 'I only assume they're using their knees to drive,' Moriarty said."

Cell Phone and Driving

No amount of mitigation will diminish the reality that driving and talking on the phone is not as safe as simply driving. The vendors of cell phones and other vehicle gadgetry will argue that speaking to others in the car, listening to the radio, or engaging in other such behavior is equally hazardous. This is not true in any respect because of a concept known as sharp attention.

You can only give your sharp attention in one basic direction. Listening to the radio or CD, or speaking with someone in the passenger seat does not pose the same risk. The reason is that your sharp attention can continue to be on the road, and as practical, you can give some attention to the radio, CD, and the passenger in the seat next to you. However, at any given moment, your driving takes precedence.

This is not the case with the use of the cell phone — concentrating on the conversation on someone at a distance and driving compete with one and another. If activist state legislators get their wishes, people who hold a cell phone to their ear while driving may soon find themselves talking to a judge. That's the message that could come from more and more states considering legislation that would ban the use of handheld, wireless phones while operating an automobile.

The legislative efforts come in response to an increase in cell phone use while driving, hands free or not, which some politicians say has led to more vehicle accidents. Momentum for this cause has been building ever since The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February, 1997, titled: "The Association of Cell Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions." The article concluded that drivers talking on a cell phone are four times more likely to get into car accidents than those who aren't, and they are 11 times likely to die in an accident.

Multitasking in your car is not pretty. The message for readers: do not use a cell phone in your vehicle when the engine is on, and minimize conversation time with those who make such calls to you.

For Bloggers Everywhere

Reid Goldsborough, a syndicated columnist of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway offers the following suggestions for bloggers everywhere. He can be reached at reidgold@netaxs.com

You may quote short bits of what someone else has written, particularly if you’re providing commentary, without violating the person’s copyright.

You may report facts or ideas of others (though it’s considered plagiarism to couch them as your own).

You may use the trademarked name of a company (without the trademark symbol) unless you’re using it as the name of your own competing product or service or implying that the trademark holder endorses your content.

In criticizing another party, truth is an absolute defense against libel, but truth can be expensive to prove legally.

You can’t just stick an “In my opinion” in front of a verifiable statement for it to become opinion and protected against a libel charge.

If you don’t name a person you’re criticizing but the person is still identifiable through the context of what you say, you can still be exposed to a libel charge.

If you make up something about a company, such as finding a severed finger in the company’s chili, you can be liable for trade libel.

You may be liable for invasion of privacy if you publish private facts about another person if they’re offensive and not a matter of public concern.

If you get an unjustified cease-and-desist letter or e-mail message, consider exposing the party trying to squash your freedom of expression at the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.

If you criticize your boss or company in your personal blog, even if you do so off-hours using your own computer and Internet service provider, you could be fired, legally, if you’re an “at will” employee.

Vanquish Telemarketing Calls

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 regulates telemarketing calls. Telemarketers violate the law by using a machine to play a recorded sales pitch, by calling you between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., or by calling you within one year after being told "not to."

To avoid some of the law's loopholes, say the following to a telemarketer:

* Put me on your do-not-call list.
* Do not solicit me for anything offered by your firm, its clients, affiliates, subsidiaries, or principals.
* Notify other affiliated organizations of my request.

You may ask that a copy of the telemarketer's "do not call" policy be mailed to your home. If a telemarketer calls you again within one year, or if you do not get the telemarketer's written "do not call" policy, you can sue for $500 for each violation.

These rules apply only to telemarketers making sales calls to your home; see www.fcc.gov/cgb/donotcall. Calls from charities or survey groups are not covered. Also, if you have not done so already register all of your phone numbers with the National Do Not Call Registry. Most telemarketers (some are exempt) will be required to stop calling you 31 days from your registration date. Your registration is good for three years. Visit: www.donotcall.gov

Tired of Receiving Junk Faxes?

Here’s a letter you can use…

YOUR UNSOLICITED FAXES ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. READ THIS AND IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST SENDING THEM TO [your fax number]

Under U.S. Code Title 47, section 227 (b) (1) (c): It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.

"A telephone facsimile machine is defined in Sec. 227 (a) (2) (B) as: "equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper."

Under this definition, an e-mail account, modem, computer and printer together constitute a fax machine. The rights of action are as follows: Under Sec. 227 (b)(3)(B):

"A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of a court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State:

(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or

(C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph."