Reader blasts Road Warrior errors

Could more frequent use of the Google search engine by The Record's editors and copy editors help improve the accuracy and completeness of the thrice-weekly Road Warrior column?

Editor's note: At least one reader has brought frequent errors and omissions to the attention of Staff Writer John Cichowski, who has been writing The Record's Road Warrior column for more than nine years. His latest e-mail to the Road Warrior appears below:

John,

It would help if you stopped publishing articles, such as your 10/3 article, with clueless, misleading, incomplete, or false/incorrect info that you mistakenly report and then confuse or mislead readers with a review that contradicts or miscomprehends the facts.   It does not promote the integrity of The Record and offends informative readers.

Your clueless reporting and responses are truly most frequently glaring and troubling when you respond to readers' questions, who many times can get better answers by simply contacting state agencies.

You have a repeated habit to NEVER directly answer a reader's specific question.  Instead, you respond with other info, which typically is not correct, and that may not be related to the question.

This is the 5th article on which I've alerted you about your mistaken reporting since your 9/12 article.  You have made no attempt to correct or respond to your mistaken reporting and advice.

If no effort is being made to resolve these matters or respond to me, I am beginning to publicize these matters with other media personnel, news organizations, and your readers.

You reported that, initially, MVC's "Skip the Trip" will affect motorists born before 12/2/64. You FAIL to mention that it will also affect people born before 12/2/64, who renew their non-driver IDs.

You reported that MVC estimates that "Skip the Trip" could take 1 million people off long lines.  MVC estimates have actually stated that "Skip the Trip" could take UP TO 1 million people off long lines.

If you think the words "UP TO" are meaningless to your readers, anyone who advertises knows that inserting the words "UP TO" completely changes the meaning of a stated savings (i.e. savings of up to $400, which could be $1-$400, is a completely different meaning than savings of $400).
  
You confuse readers by cluelessly misreporting that MVC's estimate for the number of people eligible for "Skip the Trip" will not be reached because it doesn't subtract out exceptions for commercial licensees, convicted drunken drivers, and other categories that tend to complicate licensure.

MVC was very clear in their statements & news releases that their stated initial estimates for those eligible for "Skip the Trip"  already subtracts out these exceptions.

You FAILED to report on other factors, which are not included in their statements, that the MVC realizes would reduce their stated estimate of people eligible for "Skip the Trip."

You reported "4 years from now, [older] trip-skippers will be back to have their pictures taken". Then, "They'll still be in line with you."  This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG since in four years time the younger drivers will be allowed to renew their licenses on-line and NOT have to stand in line at the MVC with these older trip-skippers.

You FORGOT to report that renewals will still require in-person registration at an MVC office every 8 years.  How many times do you have to be reminded, and still not report this???

In response to a question about whether senators wait in line at the MVC, you indicated that "MVC insists state officials are offered no preference.  But I'm still waiting for a reader to say he has spotted one member of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly standing in line with him."

Readers are still waiting for you to simply ask a more relevant question to NJ legislators to indicate if they stand in line at the MVC for license renewal.  I was easily able to get answers today from legislator offices that appear to verify they stand in line.  Sorry, to burst a bubble of mystery you wanted to leave readers with. 

It would be interesting to see a picture posted online of NJ legislator(s) (smiling or not) standing in line with someone at the MVC.

You NEVER responded directly to a reader's question about "What happened to the court decision that said we don't have to [provide a SS number to renew a driver's license]"?

First of all, you NEVER referenced the specific court decision and if (Yes or No) or how it was actually relevant, or subsequently overruled, to the SS requirement since this was what she wanted to know.

You proceeded to answer with a very tenuous tangent for requiring the SS numbers based on incomplete and clueless reporting about the 1974 Privacy Act and post 9/11 security issues.

You misreported that "[1974 Privacy] act only limits the requirement [for SS numbers] in those cases in which there IS a clear authority to collect the number."

The [1974 Privacy] act actually only limits the requirement [for SS numbers] in those cases in which there WAS a clear authority [statute] prior to January 1, 1975 to collect the number.

Tax Reform Act of 1976 also already exempts MVC & state agencies from any restriction to the extent that Social Security numbers are collected "in the administration of any driver's license or motor vehicle registration." 

While 9/11 security issues reinforced these needs, Washington and New Jersey did NOT need 9/11 to allow collection of SS numbers, as you so stated.

As we say in watching political debates, "Thanks for not answering the question that was asked."

Here's hoping for change and better fact checking & reviewing (Googling?) by The Record's editors, columnists, & reporters, for more reliable, accurate, and common sense info prior to publication.