By Megan Gibson – Camosun College (CUP)

A lot of drivers have this narcissistic notion that they are the best motorists in the world. It’s as if they believe Jeff Gordon taught them to drive, when in reality most drivers behave as if they’ve ingested Charlie Sheen’s tiger blood.

Worse yet, some of these same people text behind the wheel when the vehicle’s actually in motion. It really ought to be illegal to text and drive. Oh, wait: it is. Well, it’s illegal everywhere in Canada except Nunavut, anyway. There’s even a punishment of sorts: in B.C., it’s a measly fine of $167 and a three-point penalty.

According to the B.C. government, from February 2010 to September 2011, 47,000 drivers were caught with a mobile device in one hand and a steering wheel in the other. Of those caught, 1,300 were texting. Clearly, many drivers still don’t understand the severe impact that texting while driving can have.

In 2010, distracted driving was a contributing factor in 104 collision fatalities in B.C., according to the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA).

More recently, in Quebec, a young woman drove into the back of a truck while texting with her fiance. She’s dead now.

Imagine how awful her fiance feels. Imagine if she had taken more lives than just her own. He’d feel even worse. Sadly, many people who hear this story won’t heed its warning and will continue to text and drive. But people would be less likely to ignore the laws if the fines were heftier. Better still, why not prevent texting while driving from happening in the first place? Car manufacturers could work to create a mobile deactivator that turns off cell phones as soon as the ignition is started.

And that’s what society has come to: drivers need to be treated like children so they will behave and obey the rules. Misbehave and toys start being taken away. Continue to misbehave and privileges will be revoked. Misbehave again, well, there’s a nice 10 by 10 cell where a lengthy ‘time out’ could be served.

By Michael McDonell

As students, we need to be aware of what public education means and the role of student organizations within our educational experience and development. We need to carefully define what not-for-profit means. The membership fees we pay to the SFSS keep increasing (along with our tuition rates) every year, with full-time students soon paying even more each semester to fund a student union building & football stadium package that was barely passed through a referendum vote. The SFSS hires students as employees to run many of the services it offers, and different ethics should apply for running ‘enterprises’ in the not-for-profit sector compared to for-profit businesses.

A not-for-profit is a private association run on the basis of member fees, and not subject to the same constitutional and policy requirements as governmental organizations. As an organization, it can have different objectives and practices, shaped more by particular constituencies. It can and should be about fostering community, whereas government associations are primarily about maintaining stability and administrative regularity.

Our Student Society, the SFSS, is a private organization. In section 2.c) of the SFSS Constitution, there is a mandate to provide “public, universally accessible, high quality post-secondary education” to students. This does not mean that the SFSS can fulfill the same functions as a public, taxpayer funded organization. For example, while it can promote SFU athletics by sending its External Relations Officer to speak diplomatically with other universities, it cannot do things like, say, funding football stadiums. That is a university responsibility, requiring provincial allocation of revenue, and should not be decided by the 1,193 students who happened to vote for the flawed Build SFU referendum question. While “private sector” is a wider term than is commonly spoken, the interference in providing public education, which the current proposal encourages, will open the door for other for-profit private organizations to do the same. And the worst part is that even if we wanted to question the SFSS Board on this, and to find out what they mean by “rigorous consultation,” the Build SFU Think Tank was closed down immediately after the narrow vote passed in favour of the referendum question. Yes, the SFSS is a private organization, but it is still supposed to be run democratically.

The SFSS does run a number of ‘enterprises’ on campus, but is obligated to apply very different principles than for-profit businesses. For example, the Highland Pub is a service to students, one which can be a foundation of community life and friendships on campus. It has run an increasing deficit over the last 5 years, which has led some Board members to be sceptical about revitalizing it. Yet, because it is not a business aiming to generate a surplus, it only needs to reduce its deficit to a manageable level and reverse the trend. The lower, renovated section of the Pub could be opened more frequently and other steps relating to menus and marketing could be taken, rather than blaming workers. All of them are students who, as part of Food and Beverage Services, will be negotiating with the SFSS when the current contract expires at the end of the year. Instead of allowing workers to be attacked again like they were during the Summer-Fall 2011 lockout of SFSS staff, I suggest that the three returning SFSS Board members, those newly elected representatives sitting on Forum, and students in general, should hold the society accountable to its not-for-profit mandate.

Applying for-profit methods to a not-for-profit organization does not actually improve things. It undermines the creation of community by treating people and the public as capital. It thus prevents SFU from moving beyond commuter campus status. Other organizations on campus, particularly those in the Rotunda, actively involve students. Yet, the SFSS has been silent about renewing SFPIRG’s lease agreement, and the recent Men’s Centre proposal initially threatened to take half of either the Women’s Centre’s or SFPIRG’s space away. All this while the Forum has been reduced to an advisory body to the board. Are we really creating community?

By Benedict Reiners

Proponents of the current U-Pass system have often talked about it as a useful way of introducing students to using transit, and rightfully so. However, if the system is, at least in part, designed to promote transit use amongst students, then there are some significant problems that must be addressed.

The foremost amongst these is that of not offering the U-Pass for the full summer semester to students taking either intersessional or summer session courses. One cannot claim that “the ‘U’ in U-Pass BC stands for ‘Universal’,” as Translink does on their website while continuing to limit the eligibility as such. If Translink is going to continue to claim that the program is truly universal, they must actively endeavor to make the eligibility, as well as the services available, as wide as possible.

However, even more preposterous is that those who take intersessional or summer session courses still pay the same amount for those courses as any other, due to course costs being determined by unit. Yet, despite the fact that they save no money on courses, those taking intersessional or summer session courses do not receive access to the U-Pass for the time that they are away from campus. This shows a blatant failure to recognize that students may be using transit for other purposes, something that is supposedly encouraged by the program.

Not only would this be positive for students, it would also be in Translink’s best interest, as it would bring more riders to their service that they may not have otherwise gained, suggesting that it might be slightly easier to convince them to approve the program if that avenue is followed.

However, although this change in the program would be positive for many students, not all would likely be so receptive. Students are not currently forced to pay for a U-Pass for a month in which they will not receive one, and some would disagree with the imposition of a new fee for a pass that they may or may not use. However, this practice would be in line with giving all students the pass during the fall and spring semesters, regardless of their plans to use it or not. The fact remains that students will need to pay for their transportation one way or another, but this ensures that such costs are as manageable as possible, in addition to encouraging a sustainable choice of transportation.

The practice of only offering a U-Pass for certain months to students is not limited to SFU. This summer, UBC has stopped offering full summer U-Passes for all students except those participating in the co-op program, and has received mixed reviews for doing so. Predictably, those who do not use transit much have been pleased, while those who do use it have been far less receptive to the change. However, one must keep in mind that SFU is generally more of a commuter campus than UBC, and as such, a greater number of students rely on transit regularly, providing a greater incentive for U-Passes spanning the whole summer being given to students in intersessional and summer session courses.

In the end, the question of what to do with the U-Pass program comes down to simply fulfilling claims that have already been made. If they want to keep presenting the program as universal, it’s about time that they actually make sure that it is.