I agree with Steve there is not a need for public awareness I;m really surprised at the number of people driving through the village and town with a cell phone I see it everyday! The same with speeding it is allowed to happen and will continue until there is strict enforcement not passive enforcement. I'm still waiting to hear from the public that oh one better not exceeded the speed limit or drive with a cell phone if you do you will get a ticket. Especially in the village where crime is low its the perfect time to concentrate on safety. Steve, I would like to thank you on your road awareness speed adherence while driving on mountain road we the Homeowners and pedestrians appreciate it.

If driving while talking on the cell phone has the same effects as a drunk driver I would of hoped that Todd Hazard called in the license plate of the driver who almost hit him as that driver is a public hazard

It's inexcusable. And the convenience and size of cell phones have caused it to become an epidemic. Hands-free is one thing; having one hand off the wheel is quite another.

The only reason for a "public awareness" campaign is to set the table for the strict enforcement which ought to be our clear policy. Some tickets, and some hefty fines, are the way to begin to break this potentially deadly habit.

Regardless of how you feel regarding driving with cell phones, is this the work the councilman should be focusing on for our community? This is an issue for law enforcement.

I would be much happier if he and others on the Board were seriously addressing the increasing commercial vacancy rates along Main Street. (?an no, I don?t think a $10k ?community development grant? counts as serious action. http://www.cornwall-on-hudson.com/news.cfm?page=3517 )

For goodness sake, in this very issue two more businesses have announced their intention to close up shop.

The less commercial activity we have, the more residential properties will be relied on to shoulder the tax burden.

While the argument can be made that any form of talking while driving carries with it a certain level of distraction, the reason hands-free phone use isn't illegal is that it's indistinguishable from talking with the person sitting next to you in the car, which can't possibly be prohibited.

And, to my knowledge, nobody's yet shown that hands-free isn't an improvement over occupying one of your hands holding your phone.

The bottom line is that hands-free is legal and holding your phone isn't.

First Off I agree with Matthew Degraw. This is not Mazzocca's business but the Police Chiefs. My bet is he had an altercation with someone one on the phone while driving. Secondly I believe Al Mazzocca listens to no one and has a one track mind. His own. Stephen is absolutely correct. The brain cannot multi-task, drive and hold a phone conversation without the brain disregarding driving ability. Case in point. As I was responding to a structural fire in the Bronx I had the siren going and was blasting away at the air horn of a driver who wouldn't move. I left the truck went up to the passenger side window and knocked on it. The women was totally oblivious to the 95' Tower Ladder behind her until that point. The brain shuts out other things when people hold phone conversations.

This has long been one of my major peeves...drivers who don?t deserve the privilege. Driving requires all of one?s faculties. If you drive responsibly you can only hope that the person coming at you at night, who is exceeding the speed limit and burning your retina with high beams, is using all of his mind and body for the task of operating the vehicle. But, alas, the chances are that he may also be engaged in one of these distractions: smoking/lighting/extinguishing a cigarette/cigar/pipe/joint, sipping/opening/closing a can/cup/bottle/flask, fiddling with radio/iPod/GPS/pistol, searching for wallet/pen/eyeglasses/bullets... The list goes on. OH, I forgot to mention cell phones! That too. By the way, the other day I saw a local official vehicle whizzing along my street. The driver's lips were moving (there were no passengers)and his hand was against the side of his head. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he might have been singing to himself with hand cupped to ear to better hear his song...but I suspect not. Thus endeth the peeve rant. Let us pray.

Is it selective or law enforcement?

Councilman Mazzocca,

At the COVAC ambulance corp. meeting re: town/village possible consolidation you stated you were against it(before any study was done) and that you would not be changing your mind. That is NOT the job of a town Councilman. His job is to listen to both sides of an issue and then make an informed decision. To already have your mind made up shows a one track mind, Al Mazzocca's vs. the voters who elected you to listen to both sides of an issue. I for one would prefer a Coucilman/Councilwoman who would listen to both sides of an issue. This is not a popularity contest. I know what I heard you say as did everyone at that meeting. I do not need to know you personally. Rest assured I will be looking for someone in the future to vote for that is willing to listen to both sides of an issue before gruffly telling the public his mind is already made up.

Councilman Mazzocca,

Yes you certainly did express your view after relating the story about your wife's stroke. I hope she is well and I hold our Village Police and COVAC in extreme high regard. In fact I am of the opinion (as you) that we are better off with our own Police(the village) being so geographically isolated and how busy the Town P.D. is compared to the Village. What I took umbrage to was that you stated you had made up your mind. Most were asking for a study to be done by the state that would not cost the Town nor the Village a penny. I do appreciate your candor and BTW my wife and I voted for you when you ran just because we were told you were not afraid to speak your mind. All I ask as a voter and taxpayer is that my Councilman/woman keep an open mind and that includes not having made up one's mind prior to a study many asked for. Not to put the blame on you but I do believe the study should have been done prior to that meeting and that neither the Mayor nor Town Supv. seemed to want it. Doing the study doesn't mean you have to implement it.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

John,

I'm not certain what your question marks are meant to represent. The conversation between Stephan, Councilman Mazzocca and I are regarding a meeting at COVAC headquarters during the summer which I don't believe you attended.

Yes Stephan we may have veered off topic a wee bit but then again Councilman Mazzocca is an elected official and should realise this is nothing personal. The WWW is a great place to interface our opinions and I admire a guy Mr. Mazzocca's age able to defend his point here in cyber-space. If John has a point to make I suggest he just make it as did everyone else. ?????????????????????????? is a cryptic message of some type? Beats me!

Mr. Welch---Thank you for your nice letter. Just one more thing---My comments at COVAC were--As a village resident, I am against consolidation and as a town councilman I will listen to both sides. I did say that having a 10 person board (village and town combined) or a contractual agreement were unacceptable. If the village abolished their PD, the town was ready, willing and able to cover the village. You are right the village was not properly prepared for that meeting. There was no specific request or plan. At COVAC and after that meeting, The ball was in their court and they dropped it.

The topic is that a councilman namely Al Mazzocca has noticed unsafe conditions in the town and wishes to put the word out of unsafe habits its not about police consolidation nor is it about presumptive allegations also Its the job of our elected officials to notice problems in the community and direct officials to the problem specifically in this matter the towns police force. So it is every right of Al to make those recommendations.
Why must people always find something to complain especially when one is trying to do right. The Question marks I left, well I thought I was living in a different world.

John,

My topic was in regard to a meeting that YOU did not attend so YOU are the uninformed one.

Secondly for one who does so much complaining about 2 less days a year recycling in the village I always think is this guy too cheap to just go and and buy another recycling can or what. I'd say when it comes to complaining John you have trumped every poster on this board.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

'm'on back boys...
I must say this was a very enjoyable repartee. The cell phone issue is very important and every one makes some very good points and counter points. Well, most everyone... A spirited discussion keeps the mind sharp. The only thing that detracts from the spirit, really, is Stephan's initial barb to Mr. Mazzocca. Stephan, I am surprised. You are usually so very fastidious in your language usage and to see you insert words and convolute someone's intent is not acceptable from a writer of your caliber. In the vernacular - you pulled that one out of your,... uhh...ear. I mean, "deign" is a $3 word for sure, but you insert it with no basis in fact and then you proceed to attribute an opinion to Mr. Mazzocca that is clearly not indicated by his writing. (And if you are driving with your knees, I hope it's not on Mountain road.) Regardless of the PD consolidation mtg. and the recycling issue... and aside from the fact that these people phoning while driving should be slapped, nothing will change as long as there are only fines and no DMV points for cell phone violations.

I like that kate! Good thinking! Maybe we all should write a letter to Senator Bill Larkin. I certainly will! We will call it Kates Law.

http://senatorbilllarkin.com/39/contact.aspx

John,

Stick to your complaints about recycling makes more sense. Or maybe we can make sure when and if a person gets permission to put in a new fence or to redo the outside of one's house that there is a specific time frame so its not and eyesore for the neighborhood. I know I had MY FENCE inspected and paid $200. for the permit. Those that don't do this are cheating the village, eh John?

John, In cas it slipped your mind????????????????????? you can check with Bill Lee.

I'm restoring the house to original 1900 and even talked to the village historian everything else was existing to a survey.

oh god, please John, let's NOT all call Sen. Larkin and ask for another law, and if you even *think* of tying my name up in it we will have to come to fisticuffs... A good hearty slap by an enraged citizen should be enough. It would be like therapy...(ha ha ha, insane laughter in the background) But what happened to the cell phone issue?
Now we're on eyesores? Honestly, as long as they are not breeding rats and stinking I don't really think I have anything to say about what my neighbor's yard looks like. If you want 65 gazing globes and 100 statues of those saccharin little kissing dutch children go for it, or maybe you prefer a collection of lumber, or an assortment of vehicles, or 6 inch high grass. I lived near a women who complained about the hammering when the neighbors were building an addition - Get a LIFE! I say

And, since we're feeling like bringing up unrelated issues, would someone PLEASE tell me why, with a freaking TV in EVERY classroom, the students at the high school were not watching the inauguration of Barack Obama (my favorite Irishman)This was probably one of the most amazing moments of their political lives and it was business as usual at the high school? What the hell were they thinking?