[...]Michelle Moquin's "A day in the life of…" » Blog Archive » Flap Your Lips Friday[...]…

Maintaining the ban is not in the best interest of Virginians or visitors to the state. I know and know of people that will not drive in Virginia due to this ban. Unjust enforcement practices are not unheard of, and radar detectors can keep safe motorists from being exploited by abusive speed traps. Likewise, the ban has a negative impact on Virginia’s business community. Electronic distributors lose business to neighboring states and Virginia misses out on valuable sales tax revenue.

Radar detector bans do not work. Research and experience show that radar detector bans do not result in lower accident rates, improved speed-limit compliance or reduce auto insurance expenditures.
• The Virginia radar detector ban is difficult and expensive to enforce. The Virginia ban diverts precious law enforcement resources from more important duties and this ban may be ILLEGAL.
• Radar detectors are legal in the rest of the nation, in all 49 other states. In fact, the first state to test a radar detector ban, Connecticut, repealed the law – it ruled the law was ineffective and unfair. It is time for our Virginia to join the rest of the nation.
• It has never been shown that radar detectors cause accidents or even encourage motorists to drive faster than they would otherwise. The Yankelovich – Clancy – Shulman Radar Detector Study conducted in 1987, showed that radar detector users drove an average of 34% further between accidents (233,933 miles versus 174,554 miles) than non radar detector users. The study also showed that they have much higher seat belt use compliance. If drivers with radar detectors have fewer accidents, it follows that they have reduced insurance costs – it is counterproductive to ban radar detectors.
• In a similar study performed in Great Britain by MORI in 2001 the summary reports that “Users (of radar detectors) appear to travel 50% further between accidents than non-users. In this survey the users interviewed traveling on average 217,353 miles between accidents compared to 143,401 miles between accidents of those non-users randomly drawn from the general public.” The MORI study also reported “Three quarters agree, perhaps unsurprisingly, that since purchasing a radar detector they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit…” and “Three in five detector users claim to have become a safer driver since purchasing a detector.”
• Modern radar detectors play a significant role in preventing accidents and laying the technology foundation for the Safety Warning System® (SWS). Radar detectors with SWS alert motorists to oncoming emergency vehicles, potential road hazards, and unusual traffic conditions. There are more than 10 million radar detectors with SWS in use nationwide. The federal government has earmarked $2.1 million for further study of the SWS over a three-year period of time. The U.S. Department of Transportation is administering grants to state and local governments to purchase the SWS system and study its effectiveness (for example, in the form of SWS transmitters for school buses and emergency vehicles). The drivers of Virginia deserve the right to the important safety benefits that SWS delivers.

Please sign this petition and help to repeal this ban and give drivers in Virginia the freedom to know if they are under surveillance and to use their property legally:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-the-virginia-radar-detector-ban

Tell Friends and Family about this.

In fact, we’re fighting right now to stop Congress from cutting your Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a deal to pay the nation’s bills. Instead of cutting the benefits you’ve earned, Congress should be cutting waste and closing tax loopholes.

We will be counting on activists like you to join us in sending a message to Congress: “Cut waste, not the Medicare and Social Security we’ve earned.”

Thank you for continuing to stand with us in our fight to stop Congress from making a political deal that could cut your Social Security and Medicare benefits.

For more information about how AARP wants to strengthen Social Security for future generations, see our press release below.

Sincerely,

Fred Griesbach
AARP Campaigns

————————

Fran Dorf

Thirty years after her son’s death, my friend still smarts when she remembers all the people who pointed out how lucky she was to have two other children.

Another friend, whose brother recently died, grumbles that everyone keeps telling her it will get better with time.

Having received my share of insensitive, even hurtful, comments after my son, Michael, died 13 years ago, I certainly understand. Even people with good intentions often say and do the wrong thing.

If you want to comfort a grieving friend or relative, your primary task is to validate his/her feelings. Don’t say anything that minimizes those feelings — which, in effect, “de-legitimizes” them.

WHAT NOT TO DO

I’ve found that “de-legitimizers” can be divided into six categories…

Babblers. These people chatter on about the weather, a friend who had a heart attack and so on. But ignoring the elephant in the room just makes it bigger.

Advice-givers. People often give advice, such as, “Start dating again”… “take a long vacation”… “concentrate on your other children”… “it’s time to get over it”… “remember the good times.”

But when we hear this advice, we may interpret it as, “What’s wrong with you? If only you would take my wise counsel, you’d feel better.”

I remember that people advised me to take a sedative, but somehow I knew that I needed to shed a certain number of tears (more than I could ever have imagined) and that it would be counterproductive to try to mask my pain with medication.

Platitude-offerers. When you spout clichés, such as, “God must have wanted him… he’s in a better place,” the bereaved may feel offended.

You may prefer to believe God must have wanted him, but the bereaved person may hate God at the moment and thus feel de-legitimized for feeling what he feels.

Pseudo-empathizers. It’s particularly distressing for those experiencing “high grief” — for example, from the loss of a child — to hear, “I know just how you feel.” If you haven’t experienced the same loss, you have no idea how a person feels — and maybe not even then.

Lesson-learners. There may be profound lessons to be learned from tragedy, but it’s best to let others learn them in their own time and ways.

Don’t say, “Everything happens for a reason”… “We must learn to appreciate our lives”… or “Life is short.”

Abandoners. Whatever the conscious or unconscious rationalizations — such as fear of saying the wrong thing or feeling uncomfortable in the face of grief — if you walk away from a friend who needs you, you’re probably walking away from the friendship permanently.

HOW TO HELP

Take your cues from the bereaved person. If he’s sitting quietly, sit quietly beside him. If he’s using humor to cope, laugh a little.

Let the grieving person tell his/her story in as much detail as he chooses to, even if he repeats it and it’s hard to hear. It helps the bereaved to tell and retell the story. If you’re not sure how to respond, try simply, “I’m so sorry” or even, “I don’t know what to say.”

Read a book on grief. You honor your bereaved friend by learning all you can. Good books include A Good Friend for Bad Times (Augsburg Fortress) by Deborah Bowen and Susan Strickler, and I Wasn’t Ready to Say Goodbye (Sourcebooks) by Pamela Blair and Brook Noel. Or search on-line for information about grief under “grief” or “bereavement.”

Acknowledge the deceased person. Tell a wonderful anecdote about him. Even now, I am grateful when someone mentions my son, Michael. Just saying his name aloud brings him back into the world.

Contact the bereaved on significant days — birthdays, death days, anniversaries. These are difficult, especially “firsts.” Don’t avoid, ignore or forget them.

Offer practical and specific support. Pick up the kids from school… cook a meal… mow the lawn. Don’t say, “Is there anything I can do?” or “Call me if you need me.” Decide what you can do, and then do it.

Stay in touch. Remember that when the formal mourning period is over and the last casserole is gone, the bereaved is still grieving. Continue to call and get together.

Banish the word “closure” from your vocabulary. There is no such thing, and who would want it anyway? We incorporate our losses into our lives.

Psychologists have proposed many ways to describe how we find a way to live with loss, but the one I find most useful is that we must “reinvest” in a new reality.

In memory of my son, I eventually wrote a novel. Also, my husband and I established an educational program for toddlers with special needs. But reinvestment can be private, too, revealed in a change in priorities, attitudes, interests or goals.

Meet us where we are. Don’t have expectations. Don’t compare one grief to another. Remember that grief may take years to work through. Be prepared for tears, moaning, sighing, wailing, trembling, even screaming.

Don’t take anger personally. Psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s classic five stages of grief — denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance — come not in stages but in circles and waves like a roller coaster.

The best definition of compassion I’ve ever found is a Buddhist one — “Compassion is willingness to be close to suffering.”

Grief support takes work, stamina and commitment. Be present. Be humble. Be patient. Observe. Reflect. Allow silence. Don’t judge. Accept. Listen.

Personal interviewed Fran Dorf, author of the novels Saving Elijah (Putnam), inspired by the loss of her son, Michael, and Flight (Vivisphere).

She holds a master’s degree in psychology and conducts “writing for healing” workshops to help people cope with their losses, Stamford, Connecticut. http://www.frandorf.com.

How’s this for being on the money. – Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking Republican John McCain (R-AZ), along with Jim Webb (D-VA), called for an entirely new plan for basing U.S. troops in East Asia on May 11, arguing that the current plans were no longer feasible or cost effective.

They proposed halting the realignment of U.S. troops in South Korea, scaling back the plan to drastically increase the U.S. military presence on Guam, and changing the plan to relocate the controversial Futenma Air Base on Okinawa to a new facility elsewhere on the island.