Greensboro Personal Injury Lawyer

Restraining order puts Chapel Hill cell phone ban on hold

Pierce Egerton — Fri, 04 May 2012 11:02:29 GMT

The battle in Chapel Hill, N.C., to prevent distracted driving caused by cell phone use has become tangled in a lawsuit over towing cars.

Just over five weeks after the North Carolina college town became the first municipality in the nation to ban all cell phone use while driving, a judge has issued an injunction delaying enforcement of the ban.

The ruling Wednesday by Judge Orlando Hudson is the result of a lawsuit by George King, owner of George’s Towing and Recovery company of Chapel Hill. The suit claims that because of the cell ban and other rules, the towing company won’t be able to do business.

^{Oregon DOT}

^{The challenge to Chapel Hill's ban on cell phone use while driving is focused more on the car-towing business than the main issue: distracted driving.}

The temporary restraining order lasts 10 days, with a hearing on the lawsuit set for Monday. That hearing could lead to a preliminary injunction, which would prevent enforcement of the cell ban while the issue is still being argued in the court system.

The cell phone talking-and-driving ban was to go into effect on June 1.

The foundation of the case, according to the King’s attorney Thomas Stark, is that a municipality does not have the authority to regulate cell phone use.

“The town doesn’t have the authority to pass the ordinance,” Stark said in a report by the New & Observer of Raleigh. He argued that a letter to the town from the N.C. attorney general’s office last year said that state authority overrides the power of the town to regulate cell use by drivers.

But the towing company’s lawsuit hauls in several issues along with a town’s alleged lack of authority over cell phone use. It also challenges a new towing ordinance passed by Chapel Hill, which regulates things such as towing fees, storage fees, equipment fees, and procedures for towing. The ordinance was to go into effect next Tuesday. Finally, the lawsuit takes on the state’s authority to regulate towing cars in the first place.

The company’s arguments include:

Chapel Hill has no authority to prohibit using a cell phone while driving, because the state legislature has not delegated that authority to the town.
Furthermore, the state itself doesn’t have authority to regulate commerce such as providing a towing service, because that is in violation of the N.C. Constitution.
Chapel Hill’s towing ordinance violates the state constitution because it would allow police to search towed car storage lots without a warrant.
A phone number is required to be posted on parking lot signs so that someone can call at any time to release a towed or immobilized vehicle. The phone must be answered by a person, and someone must be available to release the vehicle.
Tow truck operators must use their mobile phones in their vehicles to call the police department to report illegally parked vehicles they have towed.

Ah, what a tangle towing web they’ve woven.

The bottom line is: Can a towing company operate without its drivers driving around while talking on a cell phone?

It’s been done.

Do tow truck drivers have be available to take calls on a cell while their truck is in motion? I would think the call should go to the towing storage lot, not the tow truck. Do truck drivers have to call while they are driving to report a tow the police? I wouldn’t think that’s necessary.

Chapel Hill has been tossed a red herring with this challenge to its effort to make its streets safer. This distraction should not deter the town from its real goal: To prevent distracted driving and the dangers it presents.

Let’s hope that the hearing Monday will let this step toward safety go into effect on June 1, as was planned.

Further information:

TV Channel NBC 17 reports on the issue and links to a copy of the lawsuit complaint.
Background: My blogs on the issue on the day it passed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Don’t let your dog distract you while you drive

Lawrence Egerton — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:48:04 GMT

Distracted driving caused by using a cell phone has been big news recently. Chapel Hill, N.C., became the first town in the nation to pass a complete ban on cell phone use while driving, as we reported last week. That really got attention, such as recognition from the National Safety Council.

Plenty of other distractions take drivers’ minds off the road: music players, food, kids, even just daydreaming. One that often goes overlooked is the distraction of a dog in the car.

^{Photo by Tobyotter}

^{Dog restraints prevent driver distraction and provide safety and comfort for your pet.}

According to a survey taken in 2011, nearly one in four dog owners (23 percent) said that over the past year they had used their hands or arms to hold their dog while applying the brakes. The survey was sponsored by AAA auto club and Kurgo, a maker of pet travel products. Other findings:

56 percent of respondents drove with their dog at least once a month.
19 percent had used their hands or arms to keep their dog from climbing into the front seat.
18 percent reached into the back seat to interact with their dog.
17 percent let their dog to sit in their lap or held their dog.
13 percent gave their dog food or treats.

One of the things people do seemed so absurd it never would have crossed my mind. Of the people surveyed, 3 percent reported taking a photo of their dog while driving.

Try visualizing that. The driver has to take both eyes and at least one hand off the wheel. He focuses the camera on his pet, and takes the picture – “snap.”

Or maybe – “crash.”

The survey also said that 83 percent of respondents said they thought a dog moving about in the car can be dangerous, but only 16 percent used a restraint of any kind.

Using a restraint device is more than a good idea, it’s a life-saver. Not only does it help prevent crashes, it helps prevent injury to the dog if a crash happens. And after a crash, a frightened dog may run away from the scene, adding a frantic search for a beloved pet to the ordeal already caused by the wreck.

There are a number of types of restraints for dogs: Harnesses, safety barriers, crates or carriers are options for dog travel safety. They provide comfort as well. As one dog lover pointed out, she uses a dog booster seat to give a better view and add to her dog's enjoyment of the ride.

A simple Google search, such as “dog harness car safety,” will quickly show you a multitude of products to help you secure your dog.

So take the time and make the small investment to provide peace of mind for you and safe traveling for you, your pet, and others on the highway.

Announcement: Egerton Law is sponsoring a “Like Drive” for Ruff Love Rescue, a nonprofit run by volunteers who find homes for homeless dogs. The firm will donate $1 for each new follower they receive on the Egerton Law facebook page – up to $200! The drive continues through Sunday, April 8. To learn more about Ruff Love Rescue, visit their website at http://www.ruffloverescue.com/

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Egerton

Chapel Hill becomes first town in United States to ban hands-free cell phone use while driving

Pierce Egerton — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:21:13 GMT

The town council of Chapel Hill, N.C., voted Monday, March 26, to ban all cell phone use while driving in the town limits – including the use of hands-free devices such as headsets.

The complete ban makes the North Carolina college town the first municipality in the United States to prohibit hands-free cell calls while driving.

The ordinance would make driving while talking on cell phone a secondary offense, which means a driver could be ticketed for it when stopped for another violation. The rule would make exceptions for emergency calls. Offending drivers would be fined $25.

^{Photo from leadinghands.org}

^{Chapel Hill is the first municipality in the nation to ban hands-free cell phone use while driving in the town limits.}

On March 12, the town council voted on a first reading of the ordinance. But because one council member was absent, they wound up with a 4-4 tie. On Monday night, with all council members present, the ban passed 5-4.

Although a public hearing had been held in February, four citizens spoke before the council Monday. The final speaker asserted that “Safety needs to trump convenience,” comparing the ordinance to laws making seatbelt use mandatory.

For background and more information, see my previous blog.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Chapel Hill hands-free cell phone ban back in play tonight (March 26); would be first in nation

Pierce Egerton — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:29:17 GMT

(UPDATE: Cell phone ban - including hands-free use - passes)

As the home of the Tar Heels, Chapel Hill gets plenty of national attention. Still, it hurts like heck that the Kansas Jayhawks put the skids on the Heels’ run for the NCAA championship last night.

But tonight – although UNC didn’t make the Final Four – the town of Chapel Hill will get another shot at nationwide recognition, albeit in another arena.

A proposal to ban all cell phone use while driving in the town limits is on the Monday town council agenda. And the proposal includes an option to ban using a hands-free device to talk and drive while a vehicle is in motion.

^{Photo from leadinghands.org}

^{Hands-free sets can give a driver a false sense of safety behind the wheel.}

The rule to prohibit hand-free conversations by drivers would be the first such ban in the United States, according to the town attorney.

On March 12, the town council voted on a first reading of the ordinance. But because one council member was absent, they wound up with a 4-4 tie – sending the game in overtime, so to speak.

Tonight, with a key player back on the floor, a 5-4 vote can put Chapel Hill in the record books.

The following links provide a review of information and background on the issue.

Town Council Agenda: Monday, March 26, 2012

Item No. 11: An executive summary of the ordinance and attachments, including links to:

The town attorney’s memorandum on the ordinance, including key issues raised at a Feb. 20 public hearing.
The text of the ordinance.
A letter of support from the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board to the Mayor of Chapel Hill.

Videos of the Feb. 20 public hearing and the March 12 meeting.

Overview: My blog discussing the March 12 meeting and cell phone ban issues, including:

The NTSB’s recommendation for nationwide ban of the use of cell phones while driving, including hands-free devices.
U.S. Department of Transportation proposed guidelines on reducing cell phone distraction while driving.
The debate on whether a municipality has the authority to regulate cell phone use while driving or if state law overrides local authority.
Media reports on the issue, including a report on how a local ban on hand-held device use has already been reducing accidents for two years in Evanston, Illinois.

Naysayers will be passing around a lot of objections: Police can’t realistically enforce the law. Prohibition didn’t work, so this won’t either. Other activities such as eating or fiddling with music devices are just as distracting. (That last one comes under the heading of “other distractions cause accidents, so why not add another one?)

Hands-free devices give drivers false feeling of safety when they are behind the wheel. Research shows that phone conversations cause a different and dangerous kind of distraction when compared to other activities, such as talking to a passenger. But the fact that federal agencies are getting involved shows that momentum is building on a national scale to block this threat to highway safety.

If Chapel Hill takes the lead on this issue tonight, the town will chalk up another national victory, and the lives saved will mean a victory for us all.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Chapel Hill deadlocks on landmark hands-free cell phone ban – for now

Pierce Egerton — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:33:42 GMT

Chapel Hill narrowly missed claiming another national title Monday night.

Hold on there, hoops fans – I am talking about driving, but not on a basketball court.

This event took place at the Chapel Hill Town Council meeting. At question was a proposal to ban cell phone use while driving in the city. The council also had the option of having the ordinance include a ban on hands-free devices. A complete ban, says the town attorney, would make the North Carolina college town the first municipality in the nation to prohibit hands-free cell calls while driving.

^{Oregon DOT photostream}

^{Five city council votes on March 26 could place a ban on all cell phone use while driving in Chapel Hill.}

With one member of the council being absent, the contest ended in a tie, with a 4-4 vote. But the issue of cell phones and distracted driving will come before the council for a vote again on March 26, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.

Furthermore, passing the ban would improve safety beyond the city limits of Chapel Hill, according to the town attorney, Ralph Karpinos.

“It is possible that … the consideration and/or enactment of local regulations will prompt further discussion of this matter at the General Assembly,” Karpinos wrote in a memorandum on the ordinance.

I think he’s right. And I think the well-known name of Chapel Hill just might score some points beyond the boundaries of North Carolina as well.

Already, the National Transportation Safety Board has strongly recommended a nationwide ban of the use of portable electronic devices, including hands-free devices, with a vote Dec. 13, 2011. The NTSB sent that recommendation in a letter to all 50 states and the District of Columbia in February.

Also in February, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued proposed guidelines to auto manufacturers to develop technology that will keep drivers from being distracted by the communications devices built into their vehicles. More guidelines being considered by the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would address the use of portable personal devices like smart phones, electronic readers like iPads and Kindles, and portable GPS’s.

Whether the town of Chapel Hill has the authority to regulate phone use while driving is not clear. According to one assistant attorney general, the state’s authority to establish uniform rules regarding cell phone use while driving outweighs the authority of a local ordinance. But the report by the News & Observer of Raleigh pointed out that other legal experts say the issue might wind up being decided in court. That would likely happen when someone challenged a citation for violating a local cell phone regulation, according to one professor of public law and government at UNC-Chapel Hill.

And there is a precedent, albeit in another state – in another college town. In 2009, police stepped up enforcement of a local ban on hand-held phones in Evanston, Illinois, home of Northwestern University. Since then, injury accidents have decreased by 17.6 percent, the head of the Evanston Police Department traffic bureau told the Chicago Sun-Times. Now Evanston officials are looking at a proposal to expand the ban to hands-free devices.

At any rate, the rematch on the phone-ban debate in Chapel Hill is set for March 26. At the second reading of the proposal, five votes will be enough to clinch the decision, one way or another.

I’m rooting for the council to make the call on the side of safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Arrest made in Wilkesboro scooter hit-and-run

Pierce Egerton — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:46:54 GMT

Scott Richard Anderson, 38, was driving with a suspended license when he struck a man riding a scooter in a hit-and-run crash near Wilkesboro, N.C., on Monday, Feb. 27, according to the North Carolina Highway Patrol.

The victim, a resident of the nearby Broadway community, was severely hurt in the crash, news reports said. He suffered injuries to his spleen, pancreas and kidneys, a family member said, and had extensive abrasions.

Anderson, of Traphill, was charged with felony hit-and-run and driving with a suspended license.

^{Photo by Argazkiak}

^{Fortunately, the victim in this accident was wearing a helmet.}

The victim, who was on his way home from work, initially declined to be taken to a hospital. He later became sick and was taken to Wilkes Regional Medical. Reports said he was suffering severe internal bleeding and was transferred to Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

It is disturbing that this victim’s internal injuries were so severe, and yet he did not realize the physical danger he was facing until later, after he had been taken home.

Even after a minor accident it is wise to be examined by a doctor. Symptoms of injuries can surface well after the actual event.

The victim was still at the Wake Forest Medical Center under intensive care on Thursday.

Anderson allegedly hit the victim from behind at 8:50 p.m. on Speedway Road near Fishing Creek Road.

According to Trooper K.W. Dean, the hit-and-run car had damage on the passenger’s side, including a missing headlight and side mirror. The scooter was almost torn in half, Dean said.

Anderson was arrested late Wednesday morning. Dean told the Wilkes Journal Patriot newspaper that he had been given information that led to the arrest.

Which illustrates one of several circumstances that are common to hit-and-run crimes, and are common in helping the police catch the perpetrators.

Other people in a community are usually aware when someone has a bad driving record but is still driving without a license. I would venture to say that many of those people vehemently disapprove of that illegal activity – and are willing to serve as a valuable source for investigators.
Also, when a driver without a license knows that a wreck was his fault, that naturally leads to panic, and even desperation. This was a violent crash, and it’s hard to believe the driver did not know that he had hit a scooter.

In this case the hit-and-run car was silver, and a TV report described the missing parts of the vehicle. I’m sure plenty of people knew the suspect had access to a silver car. Pieces of the damaged vehicle left at the scene can tie the accident to the car, and it shouldn’t be too hard to find out who was in possession of that car at 8:50 p.m. Monday.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

DOT calls on automakers to limit or disable distracting devices

Pierce Egerton — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:04 GMT

Auto manufacturers should develop technology that will keep drivers from being distracted by the devices built into their vehicles, according to proposals issued Thursday by the federal government.

“The proposed voluntary guidelines would apply to communications, entertainment, information gathering and navigation devices or functions that are not required to safely operate the vehicle,” according to a press release from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In other words, car companies ought to install gadgets that won’t let people engage in dangerous activities such as text-messaging, surfing the ’Net, reading their electronic newspaper, chit-chatting on Facebook, or Tweeting. Drivers wouldn’t be able to dial the phone or type on a GPS to enter an address they might never make it to if their typing takes their eyes off the road and causes a crash.

^{U.S. Department of Transportation}

“Distracted driving is a dangerous and deadly habit on America’s roadways – that’s why I’ve made it a priority to encourage people to stay focused behind the wheel,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “These guidelines are a major step forward in identifying real solutions to tackle the issue of distracted driving for drivers of all ages.”

The NHTSA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is working on a three-phase, distracted-driving project. The first phase is aimed at “in-vehicle” systems, while Phase II would address the use of portable personal devices like smart phones, electronic readers like iPads and Kindles, and portable GPS’s. A third phase may address voice-activated controls to minimize electronic distractions.

The NHTSA proposals don’t go as far to prevent distracted driving as the recommendation made last month by the National Transportation Safety Board, a federal advisory group. That board recommends a full nationwide ban on all cell-phone use by drivers except in emergency situations – and includes a ban on the use of hands-free devices, a significantly stronger restriction.

The proposed Phase I distraction guidelines include recommendations to:

Reduce complexity and task length required by the device;
Limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to control the vehicle);
Limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration;
Limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view;
Limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation.

A second category of recommendations is more interesting. It addresses restrictions, rather than convenience or ease of use:

The proposed guidelines would also recommend the disabling of the following operations by in-vehicle electronic devices while driving, unless the devices are intended for use by passengers and cannot reasonably be accessed or seen by the driver, or unless the vehicle is stopped and the transmission shift lever is in park.

Visual-manual text messaging;
Visual-manual internet browsing;
Visual-manual social media browsing;
Visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address;
Visual-manual 10-digit phone dialing;
Displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.

The NHTSA guidelines, as well as the proposed ban on hands-free cell use, are already drawing misguided wails of complaint about the interference of the “nanny-state.”

“I cant believe (sic) how some of you idiots are so willing to give up your freedoms for what you think will keep you safe,” said a commenter on LaHood’s Facebook page. In a newspaper article, an Arizona state representative argued, “This call for action from the NTSB is too far reaching and goes beyond practical common sense … To think that we will be able to eliminate any and all types of distractions while driving is not reasonable.”

And during a New York state Senate hearing on the issue Monday, the discussion turned onto a typically off-topic track, as one legislator described how the activity of drinking coffee and eating a sandwich while driving is more distracting than using a phone.

Of course, laws can’t eliminate all risks on our highways. But laws to prevent distracted driving, just like laws against drunken driving and speeding, do make common sense.

And will save lives.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Don’t jog and jam – replace music players with “fartleks,” other tricks

Pierce Egerton — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:54:32 GMT

With the first month of 2012 under our belts, I’m sure we’re all rocking along to a steady rhythm as we work on our New Year’s resolutions. You betcha.

If one of those ambitions is losing weight, I’m sure those belts are getting looser and looser. But when jogging or running is part of your regimen, be careful not to get too deep in the groove. Musically speaking, that is.

With today’s iPods and other MP3 players, smartphones that play music, and even MP3-equipped sunglasses, it’s easier than ever to take your tunes with you when you hit the road. The trouble is, if you are zoned out to music, things on the road can hit you.

We’ve all been bombarded with the message that distracted driving is a killer. Well, distracted jogging or running can be just as deadly – in ways you probably haven’t even thought about.

^{Photo courtesy of Wordpress}

^{Roger Bannister breaks the world record in the mile, running it 3 minutes 59.4 seconds on May 6, 1954. Bannister trained himself to make history and break the 4-minute barrier by listening to his body, not to an iPod.}

Obviously, if your music is too loud, you can’t hear engine noise or a warning honk from an approaching car or truck. But here’s a scary thought: You might not be able the hear the approach of other people – one of whom might be a possible attacker.

Music also exerts powerful influences on you other than diminishing your hearing. “Music floods the brain and takes over your thought processes,” explains Dr. Diana Deutsch, a psychologist who researches the perception of sound. The lyrics, or even the melody itself, can call forth memories or summon up thoughts that can take over your attention, sending you into a daydream.

Don’t overlook the fact that the same thing can happen while listening to a recorded book on a portable player. Get lost in a good story, and your friends and family could wind up watching a story on TV about you as a crash victim.

Scientists have even theorized that music and other auditory distractions can hamper your vision. “The tempo can interfere with the rate at which your brain perceives images that are passing by you, which could trip you up,” Deutsch says, making you more likely to run into or in front of vehicles, or even run into stationary objects.

Something else to think about is that distraction can make your workout less efficient, and even make you prone to injury. People use music to help them ignore the fatigued, winded, “feel-the-burn” kind of pain. But you also may not notice the “uh-oh-I-just-hurt-myself” kind of pain. A minor turn of an ankle, twist of a knee or bruise on a foot might not break through the reverie of the music until the injury has gotten much more serious than if you had stopped immediately.

“Running Unplugged”

Women’s Health magazine offers some excellent tips for taking your mind off your discomfort as you run while staying aware of your surroundings and the physical signals from your body.

Counting

Match your breathing to your stride. For example, breathe in for four steps, (right, left, right, left) and breathe out for the same number. Adjust the number to what’s right for you. Counting keeps your mind busy, but you’re not distracted from what’s going on around you.

Fartleks

Swedish word for “speed play,” fartleks incorporate intense sprints into a distance workout. Pick a point ahead of you – a mailbox, a tree – and sprint to it. Mix eight fartleks into a 45-minute run. It won’t feel so tough because the end of the sprint is always just ahead. (The football team did these in high school. You can imagine how hilarious the word “fartlek” is to teenage boys.) But this is a tough workout There's actually a “Fartlek Hill” in Quantico, Virginia, at the Marine Corps Officer Candidates School.

Body Scan

Systematically inventory each part of your body. How does your right foot feel? Your calf? Thigh, ribs, chest, shoulder, Work your way up one side and down the other, looking out for tightness or excess discomfort.

Head Games

Really need music? Sing to yourself – it doesn’t have to be pretty. Count things: trees, streetlights, squirrels, cute … well, you get the picture.

One friend even tells me that for diversion while running he berates himself in an accent. He claims he sounds like an Australian drill sergeant. “That ain’t pain, ya styoopid git, yer fat as a wombat, run loik there’s a dingo on yer ar$e!”

Well, mate, whatever works for ya.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Conspiracy Alert: First Lady’s “Get Moving” scheme linked to child pedestrian slaughter

Pierce Egerton — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:20:56 GMT

Few people know this, but Barack Obama was spotted on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963. Michelle Obama has interviewed aliens in captivity at Area 51 in Nevada.

And they both know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

Now dogged journalists have sniffed out even more nefarious secrecy buried like a bone within the current presidential administration.

Read this first paragraph in an article from “The Examiner” of Washington, D.C.:

“First lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to get people to exercise outdoors might be a factor in an increase in the number of pedestrian deaths during the first half of last year, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.”

^{Photo by John Ramspott}

^{From the manic media muddle, one point becomes clear: Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign is successfully promoting healthier lifestyles.}

The executive director of GHSA, Barbara Harsha, told The Examiner that the drive to “get moving,” led by Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to eliminate childhood obesity, could be to blame.

"Obviously, further study is needed," she said.

The first lady's office did not respond immediately to a request for comment, the Examiner said. Can you say, “Cover-up?”

Other media weren’t so subtle and restrained.

“Highway safety spokesperson blames pedestrian deaths on Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign?” bayed “The Daily Caller.”

Harsha promptly rolled over on her initial claim. “I was misquoted,” she whined.

WMAL-AM 630 radio joined the pack with this headline:

“Michelle Obama’s ‘Get Moving’ Program Linked to Pedestrian Deaths.” This claim was backed by an interview with yet another GHSA spokesman, Jonathan Adkins. “They're running in front of cars,” he said.

Well, folks, at least they aren’t chasing them.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, as other media asserted that the reports linking the “Let’s Move” movement to motor vehicular mayhem might be barking up the wrong tree.

(Although I suspect that you had picked up that scent by now.)

Adkins told a “Media Matters” interviewer that the Examiner story was a “total sham.” He said that GHSA supports the Let's Move initiative and that their research showed no connection whatsoever between the Let's Move program and pedestrian fatalities.

“The Atlantic” ran an article headlined: “Highway Safety Director: First Lady's Anti-Obesity Program Does Not Endanger Pedestrians.” “We in no way oppose Ms. Obama’s program,” Harsha said.

And on TBD.com, Harsha was given the chance to express the GHSA views more clearly and completely.

“We came out with a report about slight increase in pedestrian fatalities based on first six months of 2010, and we were speculating on potential causes" she said. "We think [one cause] is possibly distracted pedestrians or distracted drivers.

"If [people] do walk more, they need to be aware of their surroundings and do so in a safe manner. But we support the goal of getting people to be more active."

Harsha said a major concern is the increased use of electronic devices to listen to music, or fiddling with smartphones.

"What we were trying to say is if people do walk more, there's more risk," Harsha said. "We're concerned with the increase in pedestrian fatalities, and we need to monitor it. Maybe some education needs to be done for people who are into physical fitness."

Beyonce is one artist who has teamed up with the first lady to get in on the act, as you can see in this report and videos.

I’d say that if there’s any conspiracy going on here, its goal is to save lives through healthy living.

Clearly, getting fit is a great thing to do. And there is a point to be found in this ridiculous ruckus: i.e., if you are planning to run, jog or walk, keep an eye – and an ear – out for traffic.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Research into “nature’s glue” may improve unpaved roads

Pierce Egerton — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:04:22 GMT

I’m a-blowin’ down this old dusty road, Lord, Lord,

And I ain’t a-gonna be treated this a-way.

– Woody Guthrie

If Mother Nature could sing, she might well do a cover of that old folk song.

On an unpaved road, be it dirt or gravel, the impact of tires on the road pulverizes surface material, and the breeze of passing vehicles creates pollution, sending particles of soil into the air. The wear and tear on the road makes for a rougher riding conditions such as washboarding, but worse, the dust granules are swept away by the wind and most often land where they will be carried into the drainage system of the roadway.

One civil engineering graduate student in Kansas is working on a way to cut the dust.

“One of the problems with unpaved roads is that they are made from loose granular soils with particles that are not bound to each other on the road surface,” said Wilson Smith, a Kansas State University master’s student.

^{Image by LHOON}

^{The sustainable plant byproduct "lignin" can reduce pollution from unpaved roads. It is 100 percent non-toxic, unlike traditional soil stabilizers.}

The solution may be an industrial waste product called “lignin,” a substance found in all plants. The adhesiveness of the material, sometimes called “nature’s glue,” can significantly improve the stability of unpaved roads.

Kicking up a dust is just part of the problem. Erosion from unpaved roads is a major cause of pollution. The loosened dirt particles tend to wash into the roadway’s drainage system. That results in flooding, which in turn leads to more erosion. Most of the runoff will wind up in streams and rivers. There the sediment can reduce the stream’s capacity to let water flow and cause a cycle of more severe and more frequent flooding. That destroys wildlife habitat and harms water quality.

Several properties make lignin a valuable material. It is adhesive when it becomes moist, making it good for binding soil particles together and providing cohesion. Apart from environmental advantages, more stable roads have an added benefit of lower maintenance costs.

Smith is in the right spot for doing his research. Located in middle of the Great Plains, Kansas is one of the largest wheat-producing areas in the world, and wheat straw is an excellent source of lignin. And the need to improve roads is a big incentive there – more than 70 percent of Kansas’s 98,000 miles of roads are unpaved.

For his research, Smith takes soil and mixes it with different amounts of water and lignin. He is mixes various lignin concentrations with water – 2 percent lignin, 4 percent, 6 percent, 9 percent and 14 percent – to understand how different levels of lignin affect the soil cohesion and, consequently, road erosion.

As for application, lignin mixtures can be sprayed on a road surface to control dust. For stabilization, it's better to mix it with the top few inches of road surface. Some other benefits include increased load-bearing capacity (similar to a 3-inch layer of asphalt concrete), a firmer road surface without loose gravel, dust abatement, reduced frost-heave damage, and cost-savings in both construction and maintenance.

A person living in our region might ask how this all might relate to North Carolina. The Tar Heel state also is home to a robust agricultural industry. Lignin constitutes almost 30 percent of common coniferous and deciduous trees, and the state is home to many forestry operations and pulp mills. Lignin can also be extracted from cotton stalks, corn stalks, peanut shells and other crop residue.

As research reveals the optimum lignin concentrations and means of application, Mother Nature might well be able to sing another verse to the old song:

I'm a-goin’ where them dust storms never blow, blow, blow,

An’ I ain't a-gonna be treated this a-way.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton