Austin Needs More Bicycle Lanes

In his blog post, “Gimme Gimme Gimme – Some More Bike Lanes Please!!!,” T explains the positive and negative aspects of  making Austin a more, “bike[r] friendly city.” T discusses how Austin is in fact a great city to bike in, “in some areas, but Austin is a difficult city to bike due to a lack of bike lanes.” T also explains that the Austin Police Department (APD) has, “recently been using their power to give out tickets to cyclists.” The APD made it very clear that cyclists are to follow every law that motorists do as long as they are biking out on public roads. T also discusses that the APD may be taking ticketing and forcing cyclists to follow the law a bit too seriously – considering APD officer, “Jason Mistric,” wants cyclists arrested instead of just ticketed if they run red lights. Although, “the APD says they want motorists to respect cyclists, and they want cyclists to be safe.” T’s proposal is to have Austin provide bike lanes all over, to make cyclists and motorists the safest they can be.

T uses three different sources of evidentiary support to back up his ideas. First, he uses information from the League of American Bicyclists. Second he states a quote explaining the APD’s expectations of cyclists who bike out on public roads. Finally, T uses information from an article, “Critical Mass Arrests Pride or Policy,” from the Austin Chronicle to explain the arrests of two cyclists for not stopping at a red light.

Over all the post is well written, although I believe it is difficult to follow the organization of his ideas. I also found myself doing additional research to understand some of the ideas he was trying to explain. The only addition I would add to T’s post, would be to explain in more detail why exactly Austin needs more bike lanes. For example, he could discuss how the city of Austin surrounds a very large Texas university (The University of Texas as Austin). On many college campuses, students bike a lot. This is a huge incentive for there to be more bike lanes. Not to mention, biking is much more environmental friendly than taking your car to class or work.  

Teen Mothers and House Bill 592

In her post, “Teen Mothers Need Help,” Dinora discusses why she believes Senate Bill 592 should be passed. First, Dinora discusses what the bill encompasses. She explains that the bill would allow women, “ages 16 and older who are already mothers,” the ability to use contraceptives, “without the consent of their parents in efforts to deter repeated pregnancy.” Second, Dinora explains why some representatives oppose the passing of the bill because they believe, “that this would only encourage bad behavior.” Although this is a good point brought up by the representatives, Dinora rebukes the bill is only “aimed towards” women and teens that already have children. Thus, these women and teens “have already engaged in sexual activity and have already had kids.” Dinora’s point is, with or with out contraceptives, the teen girls are more than likely going to continue participating in sexual activity, and the bill will allow them protection without having to go through their parents to get it.

I agree with Dinora that teens who are already mothers are going to continue to participate in sexual activity. Although I believe that if contraceptives are not available to teens without their parents’ consent, they may be more apprehensive to participate in such activities. Also, if the girls are trying to “take some responsibility to protect themselves from another unwanted pregnancy,” they need to stop engaging in sexual activity because they are already living the consequences of their previous surprise.  

Overall, Dinora’s post is informative and well written although she does not offer any evidentiary support. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and I respect Dinora’s opinion about Senate Bill 592’s passing wholeheartedly.   

Red Light Cameras in Texas: Are They More of a Help or a Hassle?

It seems as though red light cameras are placed on almost every stop light intersection throughout Texas and many other states. Are these cameras really helping Texas or are they just creating an unnecessary hassle?

Personally, I am for red light cameras. I believe the positive aspects of red light cameras out weigh the negative aspects. Red light cameras increase safety to Texas’ drivers. If drivers are aware of cameras at certain intersections, they are, without a doubt, more reluctant to run red lights because they do not want to pay a large fine as a result of their careless action. Red light cameras reduce the number of car accidents because drivers are more cautious. Red light cameras generate tickets, which increase revenue for municipal governments. Additionally, red light cameras deter individuals from running red lights. This incentive results in lower insurance premiums because drivers aren’t involved in as many accidents and do not receive as many tickets.

Some argue that red light cameras display a few negative aspects. First, red light cameras are, in a way, an invasion of privacy. For example, if a college student living away from their parents is out at three o’clock in the morning and runs a red light, a ticket is sent to their parents’ home address where their license plate is more than likely registered to. This informs their parents they were out at all hours of the night. Secondly and most important, red light cameras may cause more rear-end collisions due to abrupt stops. For example, if an individual identifies a camera at a stoplight at the last second, he or she may stop abruptly to ensure they will not be ticketed and cause a rear-end collision.

Both sides of the argument are clear, but I am for red light cameras. Not only do they keep me conscious about not running red lights, they prevent me from receiving tickets. Overall, red light cameras have increased safety, driver caution and awareness. I also believe revenue generated from tickets is positive. If a driver is ticketed because of a red light camera, chances are he or she will be significantly more cautious about running another red light.

  

 

Make Recycling Mandatory

In his blog post, Push for Recycling, T explains the benefits of recycling and proposes new ideas to increase the amount of recycling that takes place in Austin. After discussing the places where recycling is already required, T gives examples of where recycling should be mandatory. The posts’ overall main point is a proposal for a bill that would require all residents in Austin to recycle. Then, after making recycling mandatory, an incentive will be created by punishing those who don’t follow the new law by ticketing them. 

Over all, the post is well written and brings up many intelligent ideas and proposals. The post examines a topic that is very popular in our society today, making it a very attractive read. T’s evidential support comes from the Residential Recycling Guidelines list from the Solid Waste Services provided by the City of Austin.

I agree completely with the proposal. There is one idea that I recommend adding to the post. Why not require all of Texas to recycle instead of just Austin alone? Wouldn’t that create an even larger benefit? Imagine if Houston, Dallas and Austin were all required to recycle by law. What a difference that would make! I think ticketing people for not recycling is also a brilliant idea. Understanding the consequence for not recycling would be a ninety dollar fine, I would certainly recycle! If we don’t do anything thing to protect our earth and make it more “green,” who will? This is a great proposal and a wonderful post overall. 

Should Texas Consider Reducing Tuition Costs?

In recent months, some school districts in Texas have been considering to pay their students for making good grades. Typically, this is being considered in school districts with low test scores and low grade point averages overall.

Receiving money for making good grades would be incentive to many if not all children to do their work and do it well. The concern lies within the ethics of the idea as a whole. Is it right to bribe students for their work and knowledge? What will the students do with the money? Ethics regarding this topic are free for exploration, although my argument emerges elsewhere.

If Texas school districts have sufficient funds to pay their students for making good grades, why can’t Texas universities and colleges work with Texas legislators to request funding to reward students who have been making good grades in high school all along? One possibility would be creating a reduction in tuition, or offering other incentive based opportunities to students in high school, who will eventually be in college. For example, if a student has made all A’s in high school, that student should be entitled to a reduction in their tuition cost. This would not leave the student free to spend money granted to them any way they wish, but it would go directly to aid in funding for their higher education.  

One argument that is brought up is that students’ incentive to making good grades is automatic acceptance to Texas colleges and universities due to the top ten percent rule. This is a great incentive, although we must consider the financial implications. For example, individuals who “make the cut,” and are forced to decline acceptance because they cannot afford the high cost of tuition. Tuition has increased roughly forty percent since my brother began college in 2001, and there is no indication of lower tuition prices at this time.     

I think it would be a very intelligent decision for Texas legislators to consider reducing tuition costs for students who made all A’s in high school. Not only would it be incentive for the students to perform well while in high school, but it may also allow some students the opportunity to attend the college of their first choice. I believe that Texas’ government should work harder at reducing college tuition rates for top performing students, but I do not believe higher education should be free.    

Allowing Guns on College Campuses. Risky or Somewhat Necessary?

In the blog post, “Keep Guns Out of Texas Schools,” Katherine Haenschen lists various Texas universities who have stated their opposition towards a bill “that would make it legal to carry concealed weapons inside Texas college classrooms.” Haenschen also generously displays many ways Texans can prevent the bill from being passed, “in the House.”

Within the post, Haenschen focuses on the negative aspect of allowing guns on college campuses. Haenschen also states, “the lives of our Texas students depend on it.” My disagreement to this statement is, the lives of Texas students may in fact depend on the passing of the bill. For example, in past years, shootings on college campuses have resulted in the death of innocent individuals. Although lost lives are not to be unnoticed by any means, perhaps some lives may have been saved if it had been legal for students to carry guns on campus. For example, perhaps a student with a gun on the days of the tragic shootings could have used it as self-defense for themselves and their peers.

It is law, that to carry a concealed gun, you must be twenty-one, and have a license to carry the gun. It is up to each individual to make their own decision as to whether or not they will carry a gun in many public places. Why should a college campus be any different? If an individual follows the law regarding handguns and chooses to carry one, why should we be concerned that they are brought to a college campus? If an individual seriously intends to hurt someone and has a mission to bring a gun on campus (even though it isn’t yet allowed), they’re more than likely going to bring the weapon on campus whether the law passes. I realize passage of the bill for reasons I have noted above is unlikely, but my reasons are worth mentioning, in my opinion.

This is a difficult and controversial topic. While I wish for protection for innocent lives and understand the increased risk with allowing guns on campus, I am currently on the fence regarding the passing of the bill. I believe it is crucial that reasons from both sides should be evaluated and discussed before a final decision is made.       

Should Plan B be Available in All Hospitals for Women?

In the article, “Bills aim to tell women more about emergency contraception, but for different reasons,” the issue of providing availability of the morning after pill in all emergency rooms in all hospitals emerges. The “emergency contraception, also called the morning-after pill or Plan B, can be taken [by women who are raped, for example] within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy.” I believe that the Plan B, or the morning-after pill, should be available to women in all emergency rooms. In my opinion, all options should be presented to individuals, and individuals are entitled to and responsible for making their decision. More than likely, a women who is raped is unprepared mentally and physically to become pregnant raise a child.

I also believe that people admitted to the hospital for any illness should be presented all treatment options in order for them to make the best decision. I am questioning why emergency contraception is different. The intent of the bill is to make the pill available to every woman who is in a rape situation, not to persuade women to consume the pill.

One point within the article that caught my attention was the idea of women who live in rural areas. If they seek emergency assistance for unexpected or unprotected intercourse, and the emergency room they is not forced to carry the morning-after pill option, women may become pregnant. This could lead to unnecessary abortions or birth of children women may not be capable of caring for.

I believe that Plan B should be available to woman in all emergency rooms. I agree the bill should be passed, and that all women should be informed of treatment options and the implications of treatment.