Classmate Wes Davis wrote a nice editorial called Bag Ban: The Impacts. He talked about the bag ban in Austin that prohibits the use of plastic carryout bags in retail stores. While Davis was able to write about both the advantages and disadvantages of the ban, I mostly only see negative things.
I agree with Davis that the bag ban is supposed to be a good thing for the environment. However, Austin is just one of few cities to implement this ban. Does it really make much of a difference to the environment if all the other hundreds of cities are still using plastic bags? Should we really bother? Whenever I decide to take a detour to HEB on the way to my apartment, it isn't until I'm in the checkout line that I realize I don't have my reusable bags. It's no problem to use the shopping cart to load all of my things into the car, but once I get home, I have to hope my roommates are home to help move all my food and crap into the house. It's a hassle for no reason if this ban won't catch on. Although, I would love to see Davis's "circus performer act."
Unlike Davis, the ban doesn't prevent me from wasting food, because I've always been frugal as hell. I don't let any of my food spoil or go bad, so having to take multiple trips to and from the store, buying a small amount of items at a time when I forget to put the bags back in my car, is nothing but an inconvenience.
The worse thing of all has to be the huge increase in shoplifting. Davis was correct in saying that reusable bags has made shoplifting much easier, especially since some people use backpacks instead of the reusable bags.
What I want to know is what's wrong with using paper bags. When the ban was first enacted and I went to HEB without knowing about it, I asked if there were any bags they could give me. The cashier told me that they could give me some paper bags, but they'd cost me about a dollar each. One, paper bags aren't very strong. They're paper! Do you know how many paper bags I'd have to purchase to carry all of my groceries?! Two, why are you charging me for paper bags? Stores always used to ask their customers if they wanted paper or plastic bags. If you're trying to save the environment by cutting out plastic bags, why offer me paper bags? You're cutting down the trees to make these paper bags. That seems counterproductive to helping the environment. And while you're offering these paper bags, why are you making me pay for them if they're okay to be used? I don't get it.
In the end, I enjoyed Davis's humorous commentary and was happy that he at least found something positive about the bag ban. However, I think maybe we should keep our plastic bags and just force people to start recycling them, or something.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Austin: Where 150 pounds is equal to 2000 pounds
After reading yet another article about an Austin cyclist being hit and killed by a vehicle, I finally knew what I wanted to write about! Can someone explain to me why Texas legislature believes it's safer for cyclists to ride in the street rather than on the sidewalk?
I guess ideally it's because bikes can move faster than human beings and we don't want our pedestrians to get mowed down. However, isn't a car several times faster than a cyclist?
I'm sure it's much easier to see and avoid pedestrians on a sidewalk than it is to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist biking at 15 mph.
Back in 2009, Texas legislature passed a law it believed would better protect cyclists by requiring motorists to give cyclists a 3 to 6-foot buffer zone. The law also prohibits motorists from cutting off bikers at right-hand turns. Honestly, I think that buffer zone is pretty useless. I have had cyclists cut me off in the middle of the street when I'm driving my 2-3 ton SUV at 40 mph. How does the buffer zone help either of us in that situation?
In 2012, hundreds of cyclists rallied at the Austin capital to protest the "lack of punishment" for motorists who hit cyclists. They strongly believe that motorists need to share the road with cyclists. Austin may be too cyclist-friendly for its own good. How is it okay for a cyclist to take up a whole street lane backing up traffic behind him? On a further note, Texas legislature claims that the law requires cyclists to follow the same traffic laws as a motorist, but I've definitely witnessed cyclists who don't stop at stop signs and "run red lights." When you think about it, even the tiniest car may weigh at least 2000 pounds versus a 150 pound cyclist. In a collision, the car will always win no matter who's at fault.
In actuality, cyclists are allowed to bike on sidewalks, but usually choose not to, in order to avoid riding on prohibited sidewalks. Chapter 12-2 in the Austin City Code specifies exactly which sidewalks that cyclists in Austin are absolutely prohibited from riding on. Ironically, there are few, and those streets are the ones that receive the most traffic from both pedestrians and motorists. Texas Legislature plans to improve cyclist laws as soon as possible, but in the meantime, Chapter 12-2 forces bicyclists to ride in the streets where traffic is most congested. Oh yeah, that's safe. Thanks.
I guess ideally it's because bikes can move faster than human beings and we don't want our pedestrians to get mowed down. However, isn't a car several times faster than a cyclist?
I'm sure it's much easier to see and avoid pedestrians on a sidewalk than it is to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist biking at 15 mph.
Back in 2009, Texas legislature passed a law it believed would better protect cyclists by requiring motorists to give cyclists a 3 to 6-foot buffer zone. The law also prohibits motorists from cutting off bikers at right-hand turns. Honestly, I think that buffer zone is pretty useless. I have had cyclists cut me off in the middle of the street when I'm driving my 2-3 ton SUV at 40 mph. How does the buffer zone help either of us in that situation?
In 2012, hundreds of cyclists rallied at the Austin capital to protest the "lack of punishment" for motorists who hit cyclists. They strongly believe that motorists need to share the road with cyclists. Austin may be too cyclist-friendly for its own good. How is it okay for a cyclist to take up a whole street lane backing up traffic behind him? On a further note, Texas legislature claims that the law requires cyclists to follow the same traffic laws as a motorist, but I've definitely witnessed cyclists who don't stop at stop signs and "run red lights." When you think about it, even the tiniest car may weigh at least 2000 pounds versus a 150 pound cyclist. In a collision, the car will always win no matter who's at fault.
In actuality, cyclists are allowed to bike on sidewalks, but usually choose not to, in order to avoid riding on prohibited sidewalks. Chapter 12-2 in the Austin City Code specifies exactly which sidewalks that cyclists in Austin are absolutely prohibited from riding on. Ironically, there are few, and those streets are the ones that receive the most traffic from both pedestrians and motorists. Texas Legislature plans to improve cyclist laws as soon as possible, but in the meantime, Chapter 12-2 forces bicyclists to ride in the streets where traffic is most congested. Oh yeah, that's safe. Thanks.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Re: "Why People Should Support Bill HB866 and Waive NCLB!"
Today, I am commenting on an editorial written on Jamilia's Blog, titled "Why People Should Support Bill HB866 and Waive NCLB." Jamilia chose to discuss HB866, an education reform bill passed in June that lowers the amount of standardized tests a child has to take in his grade-school career. Ideally, if a student receives satisfactory scores on a standardized test, that student won't have to take a standardized test the following year. HB866 waives the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2002 by George Bush. NCLB required schools to administer standardized tests every year and the students must meet "adequate yearly progress". If the students didn't do so, steps were taken to try and improve the school. While Jamilia clearly vouches for HB866, I do not think it's a good idea.
I do agree with Jamilia that the No Child Left Behind Act needed to be done with. The NCLB caused instructors to "teach to the test", which means teachers were only focusing on subjects they knew to be on the test and not on all the subjects that students need to know in life. For example, I volunteered as a teacher's assistant last semester, teaching 5th graders during an afterschool program. The students could tell me that 5 times 5 was 25, but could not tell me a number that was a factor of 25. They didn't know what a factor was. The students could also tell me that one-half was equal to three-sixths, but they couldn't tell me what a numerator or a denominator was. When I tried to teach them those things (and a better method for finding equivalent fractions), the teacher told me not to worry about it as long as they were getting the answers correct. That is not okay.
Now, I don't know much about the small, intricate details of HB866, but I believe that its main goal of lowering the amount of standardized tests is more hurtful than helpful. Sure, I complained about taking my standardized tests each year (which used to be called TAAS, and soon changed to TAKS), especially because I always excelled at them. I thought the questions were dumb and way too simple and wondered why I had to take them every year if they were that easy. However, taking those tests just proved that I knew more material than the minimum requirement, and that was a really good thing. But exempting students from STAAR tests for knowing 9x3 is 27, when they can't tell me why one-half is the same as 50%, is not helping them. It's better to know too much than just enough.
What is the solution then if I just put down both the HB866 and the NCLB? Well, I think the NCLB was a good idea with a bad execution. It seems we should just improve the NCLB and find a way to avoid "teaching to the test." Jamilia believes it's better to improve upon HB866 and be rid of NCLB. In the end, I'm glad that Jamilia and I both agree that neither option as it stands will solve the education problems going on right now. Hopefully, legislature will find a better solution than NCLB and HB866.
I do agree with Jamilia that the No Child Left Behind Act needed to be done with. The NCLB caused instructors to "teach to the test", which means teachers were only focusing on subjects they knew to be on the test and not on all the subjects that students need to know in life. For example, I volunteered as a teacher's assistant last semester, teaching 5th graders during an afterschool program. The students could tell me that 5 times 5 was 25, but could not tell me a number that was a factor of 25. They didn't know what a factor was. The students could also tell me that one-half was equal to three-sixths, but they couldn't tell me what a numerator or a denominator was. When I tried to teach them those things (and a better method for finding equivalent fractions), the teacher told me not to worry about it as long as they were getting the answers correct. That is not okay.
Now, I don't know much about the small, intricate details of HB866, but I believe that its main goal of lowering the amount of standardized tests is more hurtful than helpful. Sure, I complained about taking my standardized tests each year (which used to be called TAAS, and soon changed to TAKS), especially because I always excelled at them. I thought the questions were dumb and way too simple and wondered why I had to take them every year if they were that easy. However, taking those tests just proved that I knew more material than the minimum requirement, and that was a really good thing. But exempting students from STAAR tests for knowing 9x3 is 27, when they can't tell me why one-half is the same as 50%, is not helping them. It's better to know too much than just enough.
What is the solution then if I just put down both the HB866 and the NCLB? Well, I think the NCLB was a good idea with a bad execution. It seems we should just improve the NCLB and find a way to avoid "teaching to the test." Jamilia believes it's better to improve upon HB866 and be rid of NCLB. In the end, I'm glad that Jamilia and I both agree that neither option as it stands will solve the education problems going on right now. Hopefully, legislature will find a better solution than NCLB and HB866.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)