Over the Edge ° January 18 NUGSS asks, “Where’s The Funding?” NUGSS Joins a BC Student Funding Advocacy Group HANNA PETERSEN NEWS EDITOR UGSS has recently joined a provincial student advocacy group called Where’s The Funding? (WTF). The group included student society’s from UVic, UBC, Langara, Caplilano, UFV, and SFU. WTF represents over 121,000 stu- dents from across the Province. The group has three main demands of the Provincial government; the first be- ing the elimination of interest rates on student loans; the second is the re- establishment of a provincial needs- based grant program; and lastly an increase in core funding for colleges and universities. “We are calling on the BC gov- ernment to commit to an immediate increase in funding to the post sec- ondary system on a long term basis,” reads the advocacy group’s mission statement. “Post Secondary has faced over a decade of chronic underfund- ing and this has had a harmful impact on students, families, and the econ- omy.” These grievances arise from the many obstacles BC students face when trying to obtain a post second- ary education in this province. BC is the only province in Canada without a needs-based student grants program that would ensure greater access to post secondary education. Without such programs some students are essentially denied access to a post secondary education because they simply have no feasible way to pay the mounting costs needed for higher education. Grants were eliminated by the provincial government in 2004. The group is also demanding that interest rates on student loans be elim- inated. While student loans obviously help many people afford to attend university or college paying them back can be quite daunting for the re- cent graduate. High Interest rates only add fuel to the fire and BC is guilty of charging the highest interest rates on student loans in Canada. New- foundland and Labrador on the other hand, has had the interest rates on student loans eliminated since 2009. WTF suggest that it would only cost $30-million dollars to eliminate the interest rates on student loans. That may seem like a lot of money, but when it is compared to the $127-mil- lion dollars the province spends to subsidize the oil and gas industry it doesn’t seem so bad. Furthermore, WTF indicates that students are actually receiving less for their money. Between 2001 and 2009 real per-student operating grants from the BC government to public post- secondary institutions have declined by more than 8%. Over this same per- iod, according to WTF, tuition fees for and undergraduate degree have more than doubled. Universities and colleges must then compensate for the shortages by making cut-backs. This works out to be a lose-lose situation for students and universities. “This is the first time that NUGSS had formally joined a student funding advocacy group and we are looking forward to working on your behalf and building relationships with stu- dent unions across the province,” said NUGSS in a statement regarding its new membership with WTF. Those interested in these issues are also en- couraged to send a letter in support of the WTF demands to the Minister of Advanced Education, Naomi Yama- moto. If you are interested in getting in- volved with this campaign please e- mail me at nugss-president@unbc. ca --- their goal is to get 1000 letters sent! How Effective Are In-Car Cellphone B Evidence Suggests Drivers Don’t Care About the Rules HANNA PETERSEN NEWS EDITOR ome evidence suggests that in- car use bans on cell phones are extremely ineffective. Some provinces, including BC and states in the U.S. have taken this action in an effort to reduce automotive accidents that are caused by distracted driv- ers. According to the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, hand- held usage of mobile devices have declined but accidents have not. An- other organization, the U.S. Highway Data Loss Institute claim that texting bans have actually increased accident rates. To come to this conclusion the institute compared each states acci- ‘ . >» ) ' Aids. anf ®, “ he ty ’ 7. se ‘ Using a Cell phone while driving doesn’t seam that uncommon, still. dent rating before and after texting bans were in place. They found that accidents have not reduced at all and in three of the four states they studied crashed increased after the bans were implemented. What does this mean? Obviously not that texting while driving reduces accidents. According to the Institute of Highway Safety the statistic are skewed simply because the execution of such bans, rather than actually preventing drivers from putting away their phones, driv- ers are simply holding their phones lower to conceal their illegal texting making them even more distracted. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board cites statistics that show that everyday in America 13.5 mil- lion drivers are using their cellphones behind the wheel and that being dis- tracted by mobile devices was the cause of 3,000 deaths last year. The exact number of accidents that are caused by distracted drivers must be difficult to prove as it is much harder to determine then accidents caused by driving under the influence, for ex- ample. However, drivers distracted by cell phones is nevertheless a problem behind the wheel that undoubtedly contributes to its fare share of actions. The real problem exists in enforcing restrictions that, at this time, cannot realistically be enforced to the extent that it would solve the problem of dis- tracted drivers. The U.S. Federal safety data found that texting while driving increased 50 percent in 2011. An annual survey is conducted to watch drivers behav- iour at certain intersections. The latest study found a significant increase in the number of drives who text while driving. So while cell phone bans while driving remain in place and continue to grow more popular it seems most drivers won’t put their phones down.