Slashdot Mirror
New York To Ban iPods While Crossing Street?
An anonymous reader writes to mention Reuters is reporting that New York State Senator Carl Kruger is looking to institute a $100 fine for using electronic gadgets while crossing the street. Citing three pedestrian deaths in his Brooklyn district as the main driving reason he believe Government has an obligation to protect its citizens. "Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes. 'I'm not trying to intrude on that,' Kruger said. 'But what's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem.'"
But this is natural selection at work. If you're too stupid to pause your music/chat/game while you're crossing through traffic, you should be removed from the gene pool, and a city bus going 30+ mph is a capable tool for that extraction.
It's just like the government to try to make laws to keep stupid people from killing themselves. How else are we going to evolve as a species if the government tries to legislate out of existence those activities that get people into the Darwin Awards?
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
The government might want to step back up onto the curb on this one. This is legislation and government oversight gone amok.
There probably already are ordinances anyway that cover contributory actions by pedestrians in accidents... even if they happen in a crosswalk.
Regardless, I think the best course would be to absolve motorists of 100% contributory negligence in accidents with pedestrians who are otherwise electronic-gadget engaged while crossing a street or intersection. It is otherwise unnecessary to proscribe pedestrians from using electronic gadgets (and, hey, why just electronic?... what about the dolts who are reading the paper, a magazine, etc. while walking into an intersection?)
There may even be an argument for letting Darwin and evolution taking its course for those who would be so caught up in their ipod, razr, etc. they blindly step into oncoming traffic. Besides, those are the ones who would continue to use and abuse regardless of the ordinances on the books. Does it really make sense to allocate time and energy of law enforcement officials to monitor people and their gadgets? Not so much.
"Nothing to hear for you, see? Please move along."
Yes, it's all the pedestrian's fault they got killed.
"The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me
The drivers of vehicles should be a bit more aware and give right away to pedestrians. They are smaller and squishier, after all.
Seriously, I cross streets with my music on all the time but I tend to look both ways and watch the crosswalk signals.
Would this man suggest that the deaf can't cross streets either?
It seems more like a tax for being stupid and/or irresponsible than a true 'safety' concern for citizens.
So when do we start requiring people to start taking responsibility for themselves?
www.joshferguson.org
Darwinism to me. Why the hell would you outlaw this? If people want to walk around with sunglasses at night, you gonna ticket them, too?
I thought Americans were rabid about maintaining their freedoms. Recently, it looks like they have just rolled over and played dead when they are taken away. Maybe they should promote this law as a way to improve national security, then everyone would probably eat it up with a spoon.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
the other thing that strikes me is how in the heck are they going to enforce this? More likely, it will be used by the cops as an excuse to haul someone in that looks suspicious, but they can't prove is doing anything wrong.
EVOLUTION BABY! ...this is just natural selection at work
'But what's happening is when they're talking to their spouses, children or friends, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem.'
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If people can't use the most basic common sense maybe the gene pool won't be losing out too much.
How can we seriously expect to start making laws about every little act of stupidity, or simple carelessness, that people could possibly indulge in?
That guys time and money would be better spent in trying to get some basic life skills and common sense hammered into peoples heads at an earlier stage in life.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Ban smoking, ban drugs, ban "hateful" speech, ban trans-fats, ban iPods, ban anything the Nannystate says might let you hurt yourself. How long will it take people to realize that government exists to protect us from other people, not from ourselves?
Crow T. Trollbot
When I am out walking wearing headphones I find myself looking back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth multiple times when crossing a street because I am accustomed to relying upon hearing to augment sight. I almost feel blind when I can't also hear the traffic. Something tells me this law won't help. As a wise man once said, "you can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious".
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Fines or listening to your ipod while crossing streets and yet no fine to cab drivers with rank b.o.
Windows Vista Help Forum
Windows Vista Help Forum
The overwhelming sentiment here is that the motorist is at fault, not the iPod user. But the same people here with this sentiment are the first to blame guns when a person is shot. Can someone explain this to me?
I haven't read any of the comments, so forgive me if I'm being repetitious. (Also, like a typical /.er, I haven't RTFA)
This is a prime example of a situation where a public awareness program would actually be much more beneficial to the people, but passing a law with a menial fine instead means a money-making opportunity.
I don't know about you, but if I were in the habit of walking across the street with my MP3 player going full blast, getting a fine by some bored, under-quota police officer is not going to seriously encourage me to be safer when crossing the street. It's just going to put me in a bad mood, and give me a thinner wallet.
However, some creatively done advertising that informs me that "x number of people die each year when crossing the street because they can't hear the traffic barreling down on them" might catch my attention. That way, I also don't have to be spiteful to the bureaucratic mess that is the civil judicial system.
The power of Christ compiles you.
A Random Blog
Even if you're not on a cell phone or listening to your iPod you can still be killed by a car.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
This is Natural Selection at work and legislation like this is going to turn us into a Hockey Helmet Nation. I say we encourage the dumb to step in front of bus's, after all, these Dolts are breathing MY air!
This seems to assume that the iPods were the proximate cause of these pedestrians' deaths. What were the full circumstances? i.e. were they jaywalking? Were the vehicles moving against traffic regulations? While I may not like current NYC traffic regs, they do presently exist for that purpose. If the pedestrians were in a crosswalk, moving with the light, then *technically* it's not their responsibility to avoid traffic - it's the vehicle's responsibility to avoid them, according to NY State law. If they *weren't* in a crosswalk and moving with a light, they were *already* in violation of traffic regulations for which they can be punished, iPod/gadget or no. Why another whole layer of government legislation to interfere with my behavior which, if I'm obeying the law, does nothing but raise my personal risk vs. others (drivers) who aren't?
A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
If these idiots are too distracted to look out for buses, they surely won't think to take their iPod off when crossing the street. Another worthless law. It seems that we have to have a law for absolutely everything these days.
for those idiots walking along, staring at their cell phones and not looking where they're going? Often also seen dragging their briefcase on wheels behind them, so the rest of us can trip over it. And then they stop dead in front of a revolving door to fold it up, or at the top of a flight of stairs to unfold it. ARRRRGHGG!!
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I think people who are going to go and play in traffic should be required to put their nifty things into a big box beforehand so that those of us who don't walk into moving traffic for fun can still find use in their stuff.
It's not the iPod's fault its owner is a moron.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
Let me get this straight:
If I have the right of way (i.e., I am at a cross walk, and the WALK sign is on), and I get hit by a car while crossing the street, this is clearly not my fault, and any amount of cell phone talking or iPod listening is entirely irrelevant.
If I do not have the right of way (e.g., jay-walking), and I get hit by a car, it is my own damned fault, but the problem is the fact that I jay-walked, not the fact that I was listening to a bloody iPod!
Jay-walking is already illegal, there's no reason for this law.
Really, the whole problem is solved by taking a second to glance up and down the street. Heck, it's even solved by not crossing against signals!
You don't even need to go so far as to pause, you just need to look! It's like passing a law fining you $100 for using an oven while also listing to the iPod, just in case you burn yourself!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can't legislate stupidity!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Take care of the few pedestrians in danger from this, along with the hundreds of others killed because they were in the road a car. We all win!
Turning coffee into code.
don't waste our time with this. this proposal is going nowhere and you know it.
Just give them a Darwin Award (posthumously, of course; they all are) and move on. I figure they are doing the rest of the species a favor by taking themselves out of the gene pool. Hopefully they've been too distracted to reproduce already.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Is that New York is a city of idiots. Or at least, that's what they're politicians have us believe. I strongly suspect that even the most illiterate New Yorker is capable of crossing the street and talking on a cell phone. And you would think that of all people, politicians would be doing this the most often.
I suppose the real problem is that we live in a society where idiot laws like this can get passed, and the general public thinks "It's for the safety of the people".
It's about revenue, folks. Specifically, non-tax revenue, which works out well for "We don't raise taxes on the working-man" republicans, and the "Think of the children!" democrats.
It's just like the red light cameras - which actually increased traffic accidents because of the unforeseen side effect that people would now stop at yellow lights if there was a camera at the intersection.
All about the revenue. Who cares about your freedoms, anyway?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I thought Americans were rabid about maintaining their freedoms. Recently, it looks like they have just rolled over and played dead when they are taken away.
Not at all true, Americans are rabid about maintaining freedoms. But there will also be idiots like these looking to chip away at real freedoms, and eventually they fail.
The law is not passed yet and I don't see where it would be.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A better solution would be two-fold:
Similar legislation already exists to prevent the use of electronic gear while driving. These laws are almost universally ignored. Well over half of all NYC drivers are talking on a (non-hands-free) cellphone at any given time.
Why should we expect that a pedestrian ban would have a higher enforcemet level?
for targeting cell phones re-engineered to perform other tasks generally designed for Middle East use.
I'll let the geniuses at Slashdot figure out what these other tasks are.
Why not ban iPods on car drivers?
Sincerely,
Philboyd Studge
...begins in New York, evidently.
Yeah, let's start collecting fines for ALL the stupid things people do. Wow, the income from politicians alone would wipe out the national debt!
Please, the conservative authorotarian politicians took away plenty of freedoms in the name of 'Protection from Terrorism' and 'Protection from Drug Users'.
They all do it, because there are plenty of Americans on both sides of the coin who crave to be told what to do.
Blar.
They can't hear the traffic either. Let's just make deafness illegal! Morons.
btw - joke
bang goes my karma... again...
Shure offer headphones with a button that shuts off the music and feeds in sound from outside. I use Grado headphones which are open-backed; they don't attenuate outside sounds at all, I can hear the outside world through them perfectly clearly and hold a conversation normally, just with music superimposed onto my hearing. Why should sensible, responsible users of headphones be penalised because some idiots listening to earbuds at deafening levels walk into oncoming traffic? Hell, why are the authoritarian fuckwits running New York seemingly outlawing everything they even vaguely disapprove of?
I tried wearing an MP3 while walking to work, but it was too distracting.
I live in a rural town and found the headphones way too distracting, as I could not concentrate on the what was going on around me. If I was running in the park or something that's a different matter, as I don't expect a fright or logging truck to not notice me and run me over. But on the partly sidewalkless streets here, you got to be aware of whats going on.
Though I think drivers are given way to much percived right of way than pedestrians, (it may say peds have it the law books, but not in real life). Not more than a week ago one kid in town got hit by a car while crossing the street to go to school (Caltrans took out many of the cross walks as it 'instilled a false sense of security', and are reluctant to put in a stop light else truck drivers would complain about stopping on a grade.).
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
People have been using portable audio players since the late seventies. Before the iPod, there was the Sony Walkman and assorted knockoffs that were (and still are) commonplace with city dwellers all over the country. I find it hard to believe that people are more careless now than they have been for the last 25 years when listening to their portable music players and crossing a street.
If one pedestrian in fifty had a couple of kilos of nitro-glicerine (sp?) in their backpack, no pedestrian would ever be hit again.
"OMG it's a pedestrian - look out!!!"
...to ban people from listening to their ipods while driving their cars? if two people are listening to music and they walk into each other, no big deal- but if two people are listening to music and they *drive* into each other (or another person), well....that's how accidents happen.
Most likely because nobody in New York ever heard of it!
How loud can your headphones be that you don't notice the honking of horns and screaching of brakes as the bus tries not to mow you down?
In pedestrian vs. car accidents, the obvious victim is the pedestrian who suffers, likely, severe physical trauma. But the driver also suffers psychological damage when they strike, and possibly kill, a pedestrian.
If requiring people to remove their earbuds for the period of a minute to cross the street for the sake of two people's health, why the hell not?
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
People get hit all the time by cabbies, drives not looking, etc- pedestrians often look both ways (if they look at all) but then walk out without paying attention again. I have to wonder, of the 3 deaths, how many just happened to have an ipod, but it would have happened either way?
Ultimately, the drivers are 100% responsible and need to be watching for anything that might come in front of the car- forget if people aren't supposed to go or are supposed to pay better attention- be prepared to stop at any time.
But, come ON! More goofy laws enacted by the same state that made pinball machines illegal during the 60s. I'm moving to NY so they can protect me from myself! I sound dangerous. Besides, anyone who continually fusses with their tech while walking thru intersections deserves to be run over. The next of kin can now use their iPod. Problem solved. Next!
Must be a slow law year.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
A pedestrian wearing an ipod doesn't put anybody else in danger. A person driving a car, ipod or not, puts a lot of other people in danger.
Why punish the victims of other people's dangerous behaviour?
While I certainly feel bad for a careful car driver or mass transit operator that has to deal with the horror of someone walking in front of their vehicle, perhaps it's not a bad thing being rid of people that are so engrossed with their gadgets that they walk into traffic.
Out here in N. Calif, I see droves of people everyday listening to their iPODs while driving or riding their bike...
God loves the marines, b/c we keep heaven.... FULL.
I guess next they will start banning deaf or blind pedestrians?
Isn't it already against the law to cross the street at places other than crosswalks? And if you get hit crossing the street when you have the right of way, aren't drivers at fault?
This is a pretty fucking stupid idea, but I wouldn't expect much more from the folks who elected Bloomberg and Guliani. Just because a city has some semblance of culture doesn't mean that the majority of its inhabitants are not fucking morons.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have released a joint press release condemning Senator Krugar for "not going far enough in protecting our citizens from themselves". The pair promised to introduce legislation that would outlaw the practice of day-dreaming while crossing busy intersections.
"Obviously the dangers of random and creative thought are well-documented. Take the videogame industry for example. While we are working towards a comprehensive solution to this problem, this new measure will help provide immediate protection to the clear and present danger of thinking while navigating our busy cities," Lieberman said.
Experts have estimated the number of deaths last month due to day-dreaming while crossing busy intersections is in the ones to teens, nationally. Citing that figure Senator McCain stated, "That number is just too high. In a post-9/11 world, the security of the American is paramount and any threats to the safety of our citizens, even those from within, must be dealt with."
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Your telling me that my tax dollars are going to a person that has nerve to pass a law as dumb as this? Fire his ass! With all the things that are going on in the world right now, we have this politician wasting tax payers time and money?????? I don't get it. It's bad enough that our individual right's are compromised in the name of national security. There needs to be accountability factor for things like this. Instead of waisting time and money on stupid issues like this, how bout we tackle real important issues that face us on a daily basis. I think i'm smart enough to look both ways before i cross the street
Seriously, you don't have the mental capacity to listen to music without worrying about it affecting your abilty to avoid danger while walking or bicycling?
I routinely bicycle/walk/DRIVE with headphones or earbuds at reasonable volumes and am fully cognizant of my surroundings.
Perhaps they should also make it illegal to breath air... because every living person who dies has recently done so.
Seriously though, I wish they would all stop trying to save people from themselves. I don't so much mind it when government institutes laws/regs to keep truly dangerous things from us. Example: I used to curse OSHA, but not since seeing industrial working conditions in countries that have no such regulatory body.
But, trying to save us from stupid things we might do only keeps our lawmakers from taking care of truly important business.
Is it even worth pointing out that some people are born with hearing impairment? Having the use of your ears does not make or break your ability to safely navigate through city streets. Having a fully operational brain is what accomplishes that.
pfft you don't understand, that's not a problem: they are doing it on purpose.
There are plenty of people that once they get married are no longer afraid of death, and start seeing death as a goal. I mean, I am sure that more than one guy wanted to just get hit by a bus rather than listening to the "we need to talk" bullshit one more time.
Get real. Stop posting populist drivel from the main stream media.
/. feed.
Please revert to covering the unique angles in computing like people creating garage shop devices which compete with the iPod, iPhone and zune, nanotech robots or clever exploits.
Who cares about crazy NYC laws and the cops who try to enforce them? This is yet another distracting law and you took the bait wasting yet more
the danger behind a law like this is that insurance companies could latch onto it as a way out of having to pay a claim.
all that has to happen is for an insurance company to find out you were carrying an ipod, phone, or other music player when you were hit by a car and they can deny your claim. never mind that you weren't listening to it or that the battery was dead at the time.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Email Senator Kruger, tell him what you think of this ridiculous, time-wasting ban: http://www.nyssenate27.com/send_email.asp Seriously.
Limina.Log
Walking and chewing gum to be banned within intersections as well a simultaneous patting and rubbing of the head and tummy. Violators will have to sit in the corner for an hour.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is a single state senator calling for it, and not a single legislator or public commentator is echoing his comments. This has been picked up by the media purely because it IS absurd. It will never get passed. It is transparently stupid and not enforcable.
I listen to my iPod all the time when I'm out and about. and I have never had it interfer with my paying attention to where I was going. My questioon is what was the driver doing besides sitting behind the wheel driving the car. Were they paying attention to their enviroment around them.
How long have people been walking around listening to Walkmans and CD players while crossing streets? Almost thirty years now? Why do people act like the iPod is the first portable music device ever created? All the problems attributed to the iPod have been around for decades already and they can be attributed to one thing: human stupidity.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I love my ipod. It makes homeless people disappear. And people with clipboards see my white headphones and don't even bother to ask me anything.
In Germany we are told at the driving school that the car is a weapon and essentially, the driving license is a weapon carry permit.
That's why getting one of this is pretty hard, the exam is quite tough. And quite expensive too, ~2000 euros.
I saw people wearing iPod when they are riding bicycle on a busy street, and I read article that some people wear noise isolation ear phone when they ride their bicycle. It could casue accident that kill innocent people on the streets. The driver might try to avoid hitting you and hit another car. So, the law might be difficult to enforce, at least it is there.
If iPods were causing more deaths, then there should be a spike in the death rate after their introduction in 2001. graph
Instead, the graph is steadily declining. No spike at 1999 either when the Blackberry was introduced.
However, 72% of the 15,000 pedestrians that are injured by drivers of motor vehicles every year are hit while they are in a crosswalk. Obviously, since crosswalks are so prevalent in pedestrian injuries they should be banned from the entire city.
New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Title 3 Article 9 375-24a:
It shall be unlawful to operate upon any public highway in this
state a motor vehicle, limited use automobile, limited use motorcycle or
bicycle while the operator is wearing more than one earphone attached to
a radio, tape player or other audio device.
Just the other day I was driving my car down the road when an ipod wearing idiot stepped out in front of me. I had to brake so hard that I dropped my phone which then shattered on the front of my cd player, causing it to eject the disc, which is now scratched beyond repair. In a way I am glad that I still did not manage to stop in time, served him right!
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
It seems that unless the ipod or electronic gadget is somehow self-detonating as one crosses the street, it's not the culprit. Assuming the individual is crossing with the light and is being struck by a vehicle, the problem is that the driver of the vehicle is at fault, not the pedestrian. Granted, it is possible that somebody is stepping in front of a moving vehicle, but, again, if one is crossing with the light at the crosswalk, it's hard to see how they are going to get hit and if they do, how it is their fault.
The article states three people were killed. How many people without ipods were killed while crossing the street? What percentage of ipod users crossing the street are killed vs the percentage of non-ipod users crossing the street who are killed?
If crossing the street is so dangerous in New York, they could always, lower the speed limit to 5 mph or pass a law that cars must stop at each intersection. That way, not only ipod pedestrians would be protected, but all of them would be!
Again, where is the proof that the ipod or electronic gadget user was at fault in these accidents or that said device was the cause of the accident?
I serve on a local advisory board for pedestrian related issues. It's my opinion that this law way oversteps. If we're going to ban electronic devices that make crossing a busy street illegal, why not just ban electric wheelchairs?
Being able to hear certainly helps cross the road safely, however, some pedestrians don't hear well or at all. Should we also ban them from being pedestrians. What about the blind?
It is the drivers responsibility to yield to pedestrians. IANAL, but I think this law will eventually fall flat on its face since it contradicts state law requiring drivers to yield to pedestrians.
Why do not tool up all busy road crossings with wide frequency generator broadcasting IN VERY SHORT DISTANCE RANGE (strictly inside of cross-road diameter) the very loud pre-recorded or live warning message. It is supposed to suppress any other sound from any gudget inside this perimeter, plus causes the interference and unability to use PDAs and other pointing devices, too. After awhile, everybody will find using any gudget during road crossing just useless and counter-productive (Pavlov's reflex). In case somebody need emergency call, s/he anyways has not do this in the middle of the busy traffic, and just steps away a bit to be totally comfortable to do so. Just a thought. My concern could be to avoid interference with heart-pacers (if any), doh.
But yeah if you want kill yourself in other stupid ways go right ahead. Just don't get public transit involved in the equation.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Libertarians love to say "If X happens to you, it's your own damn fault!"
What blissful ignorance.
Yes, if someone is listening to their MP3 player while crossing the street it's their own damn fault. However there are consequences to the rest of us when that happens: the ER gets tied up, there's cost to the medical care, friends and relatives are affected, etc.
No man is an island, no matter how much the Libertarian ethos would wish it.
You wanna be an island, fine. Go live on one.
That's not a problem, that's a solution!
What happens when they're both using electronic devices at the time of the accident? A driver yakking on his cell phone mows down a jaywalker jamming out on his iPod.
Who's at fault?
Also, Sen. Freddie Kruger states, "If you want to listen to your iPod, sit down and listen to it," Kruger told WCBS-TV. "You want to walk in the park, enjoy it. You want to jog around a jogging path, all the more power to you, but you should be crossing streets and endangering yourself and the lives of others." Another article on the subject
Good deal, Mr. Kruger! I'll go get my chainsaw and start widly running up and down intersections all over Manhattan chasing people that look at me funny... while listening to an iPod!
No, governments thrive on paperwork and meetings. That's what bureaucrats live for; it's what makes them get up in the morning.
This is about ticket revenue. See, right now, it's hard to cite pedestrians. New York loves to hand out tickets, but too few New Yorkers drive cars. Brooklyn desperately needs to find a way to give out more citations to pedestrians, and this is the perfect way.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
I seem to recall similar research that showed people wearing their hoods up are more likely to be killed crossing the road because they have less peripheral vision.
This does sound ridiculous. I walk around all the time with my iRiver. Thing is, when there's a lot of traffic around it's not noise that tells you a cars there, there's too much of that anyway. The thing that gives them away is seeing them - they're often painted in pretty colours, and have lights on them and all sorts of giveaways. Listening to music is not an excuse for not looking. How do deaf people cross the road?
Talk about nanny state ridiculousness. Maybe they should force you to take a test proving that you're not too tired to concentrate before crossing the road. What about drunkenness?
If you can't be bothered to look out for yourself then you should probably learn the hard way. Instead of assuming you have some fscking right to just walk across the road, why not look. Assume that the car coming is going to turn at the junction you're about to cross (saved me plenty of times - wtf do people have those orange lights for if they never turn them on!), assume that the person is doing 60 not 30, and maybe you should wait for them to go past instead of guessing you have just enough time to get past them. Keep looking when you cross the road. People get hit by ambulances because they are going faster, where I'm from they're also bright colours, have sirens, and big flashing lights. How did you miss it?
A huge number of things can kill you. You are squishy. Take care of yourself or have your squishyness tested. It's got nothing to do with Ipods or hoodies or anything else. It's to do with whether you have the slightest sense of self preservation or not. It's only because of bullshit wrapping people up in cotton wool that you end up with this sort of problem.
I actually worked somewhere were my manager was an utter pita about all the health and safety rules. Always double checking and insisting and really winding everyone up by keep asking them if they'd isolated machines, padlocked the isolators, swallowed the keys etc. before working on them. Of course we all did, didn't need to be told - it's that self preservation thing. If I'm going to stick my arm into a remote controlled, 60 tonne an hour grain elevator, I'm damn sure going to make sure it's off, and no bastard can turn it back on again until I'm done. Simple. Of course health and safety nazi lost his job - when the boss found him with his arm inside an elevator, not even switched off at the isolator, let alone padlocked. It's one thing to preach the rules, another to have the sense to understand how they protect you, and therefore how to protect yourself (this guy had nothing like that ability).
I'm sure Apple will thank you. It's also annoying to the rest of us that know the difference.
But society does pick up the tab through healthcare, insurance, etc. Responsibility and freedom are a two-way street. If you do walk with you ipod on, then you should also be personally responsible for resulting costs.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This is just another thinly disguised cash grab in the form of a largely unenforceable law. I can just see it now; pseudo-cops running after citizens in rush hour to issue them a citation for Walking Without Due Care and Attention. /rolls eyes
I guess the tax haul from jaywalking tickets must be down.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Seems to make more sense for the iPod to have a feature that stops people from walking across streets while looking at it. Right?
Gentlemen, I present you the Walkman! We've been running around with tape and CD Walkmans for 28 years now, crossing the street and everything. If we haven't adapted to this in one generation something's seriously wrong.
"Think of it as evolution in action." --Larry Niven, Oath of Fealty)
--
Tomas
Just make NYC downtown vehicle free, like most european big cities.... you can still get hit by a bike but that's less lethal than a bus
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
What happened to legs? Did the joke chop his legs off? [grin]
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
You make a very valid point. This regulation implies that loss or distraction of ones hearing, is directly responsible for getting hit when crossing the street.
If anything, I would think ones eyesight loss would be a bigger hinderence than hearing loss, if this particular Senator wants to talk about sensory loss and accident rates. Keep in mind, the blind usually have a secondary animal or person to accompany them in on their way.
Though I haven't been to New York, I ask what good is hearing the noise of NY traffic vs. the song on your iPod, when you have to LOOK TO SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING???
The use of the iPod is just a symptom. They have to go after the root cause if they want to solve this problem. Rather than making it illegal to cross the street while using an iPod, they should make it illegal to walk in front a speeding car, regardless of what you're doing when it happens. A stiff $100 fine would certainly be sufficient deterrent to keep me from walking in front of a speeding car.
Take off every Sig. For great justice.
I always read my mail and reply to posts on my cell phone while walking across the streeiiikkk BAM!
Ok, I'll bite again, since I never really post here, and my last one was marked flamebait -1. There are currently eight pieces of legislation that relate to pedestrian issues in the New York Senate. You can search for these at http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi . Every one of these relate to pedestrian safety. Not protecting cars from pedestrians. So mod me flamebait all you like. It's a sad fact that most people refuse to look at issues through the eyes of the pedestrian.
I have parents. I really don't need another one but it seems the goverment thinks i'm to stupid. This world is just getting stupid... Whats next make a law to ban my video games cause they may instill violent thought.. oh wait they are working on that too. Hmm... I know a law the requires placing warning labels on coffee cause its hot and we are to dumb to know that... wait no they beat me there too. Getting so tired of the government acting like parents and treating all of us like morons. What are they going to make a law for next? come on, you can't do this, or you can't do that. WTF my parents taught me how to use my brain and how not to play in traffic. Jesus I'm to old to have another parent. Our government needs to learn to use there brain and let morons who walk into traffic just die... survival of the fittest baby or at least the smartest!
This is a local pol who always finds stupid little things to harp on, holds press conferences, anything to cover his shady dealings with local contractors (as documented in local newspapers).
Kruger has been a thorn in the side of many logical thinking New Yorkers, with the dumber constituents thinking he is such a CARING human being.
The man never met a photo op he didn't like, except when at a Community Board meeting he was exposed for taking money from contractors in exchange for not backing downzoning. It was the first time I ever saw the guy hide from cameras (TV and print was there), and take the evidence presented and hid it under his coat. CLASSIC.
that's what i say. No need to pass a law for something like this.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
The best way to fix this "problem" is by mandating new features into all new audio players.
Each new player (made after, say, 2008) must be equipped with a receiver that can respond to transmitters placed into the curbs and roads. Further, all vehicles over about 1000 pounds must be equipped with a transmitter. This network can determine when the user is about to walk onto a street. The earphones / buds / etc must also have accelerometers.
When the user is about to walk onto the street, then the transmitters in the vehicles and the curbs will signal the receivers in the audio players. They will in turn warn the user that they are about to enter traffic. The accelerometers can be used to check if the user has turned to the left, then the right, then left again in the time immediately preceding the traffic danger entry points. (Looking both ways before crossing the street, if you will.) If the user has rotated their head correctly, then the alarm is bypassed.
Certain models of audio player could deliver a mild shock which immobilizes the user, preventing them from crossing the street unless it is safe to do so.
I'd say we could use GPS to check position, but then we're getting ridiculous.
All right, let's see how over-the top we can make this idea.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Nobody here has ever been to Casablanca?
There, the rule is... pedestrians run out into traffic and hope that cars stop (or at least slow) for them. One pedestrian is fair game. A couple are a nuisance, and four plus means it's probably a good idea to stop. I'm not kidding. If there's a crosswalk law (ie, you see people crossing at a crosswalk, you stop), I never saw any demonstration of it except by accident; people aren't even safe crossing on a green. Pedestrians are expected to fend for themselves crossing busy streets, and they're a familiar hazard for motorists.
For some twisted reason, I wish it was like this everywhere. =) It makes things interesting for everyone concerned. As for the whole electronic gadget angle... I'll go with the Darwin view on this one. If you can't be bothered to notice you're walking in motorised vehicle turf, well, you deserve whatever you end up with.
Anyone else here actually live in New York City? The peds control the road. Jaywalking is illegal, but you can't stop it. Watch any intersection in New York and you'll watch mobs of people jaywalk. Try watching around Times Square in the evening. Once the stream of cars has passed you'll easily find a hundred people jaywalking AT ONCE.
The problem with New York is that the traffic laws are merely optional. Driving up on a sidewalk and driving the wrong way down a one way street are not likely to get you a ticket, nor is double parking or driving through a red light.
I say we ban pedestrians. That'll teach the city.
Dekker Dreyer
I am not a fan of smoking and I watch my trans-fats so I don't need laws to protect me from them... I'd rather not walk into a bar and leave smelling like smoke... but where will it end...
New York plans to make it Illegal to cross the street while using an Ipod... New York is protecting the weakest links... People not smart enough to looks both ways will listening to music, eating Oreos while smoking in public places.
This is a scary trend that we need to watch out for... Just because you don't take advantage of a civil liberty doesn't mean you shouldn't try and defend it.
Here in Super Suburbia San Jose where pedestrians are second class citizens, man v. car (SUV) incidents are all but too common. And the police crack down... on the pedestrians. It must be nice to have only about 1 death every couple of months. Here in the south bay we average 1 death every couple of weeks. San Francisco is only a little bit better with a bit more than 1 death per month.
---k--
</stupid>
If the real goal of this bill is to counter the stupidity in the world, just legalize abortion. Maybe this will stop the massive influx of stupid ghetto mexicans born to stupid single mothers.
Yeah, I'm racist. So what?
Yeah seriously, that really gets my goat, like those idiots who call all cotton swabs Q-tips.
when I was younger, I was taught to look both ways before I cross the street. Did those folks just forget that basic rule or are the people that got killed the only people on the planet that was never taught how to cross the street?
Wait, I paused my iPod - why am I getting fined? I got a call and I want to look on the outside display and see who it is - $100? This is nothing more than ridiculous FUD. Vote it down and move along.
"Think of it as Evolution in action."
That was on a diving board, on the top of a mile high arcology, but it fits.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Going by that logic ban deaf people from crossing the streets too.
So it's very hard to craft this law and have it be consistant with the Civil Rights laws in the country.
The problem is people using devices that remove their ability to hear. However the deaf can't hear,
and some of the blind use headphone driven devices to navigate. For the law to go after electronic
devices generically enough that it is no unduely unfair to some of the device manufacturers it would
also probably catch those devices used by the disabled. And if the law put forth hearing as a requirement
then the deaf would not be allowed to cross the street.
The resources that they are going to spend on this idiotic bill should just go to programs to educate people
avout pedestrian safety. But New York would much rather product the stupid then eleminate them by teaching.
For all you green people.
If they made jaywalking legal, and forced motorists to stop every time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, in the busier cities, this would make cars that much more inconvenient, and would encourage people to possible use public transportation.
Hmmm.
There is no way this will be practical to enforce, particularly in the presented venue of NYC. However, if you are a cabby and you hit some hot chick in the crosswalk while they are listening to Death Cab For Cutie then you've now got an inception point for a new legal precedent to avoid even manslaughter charges.
It's the sort of law that mainly presents itself after the fact.
I have walked hundreds of miles with headphones one, through busy city streets (though not as busy as NY) and have never had any problem looking around myself when I get to an intersection. Anyone can be walking around doing anything and be distracted. There is no reason to believe that this situation is anything more significant. But, hey, lawmakers have to do something to make it look like they deserve a paycheck.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
Yes, but it's arguments like yours that make evolutionists think fundamentalist Christianity is a mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots. And even if that's not true, that kind of thikning certainly doesn't help the Christians' public image.
I really don't want to sidetrack this thread into a religious debate (I was more harping on the pseudo-social-darwinism of the OP than on Christians, but with a humorously over-the-top jab at the other extreme thrown in for good measure), but what the hell, I've been riding high on the Slashdot karma scales for my entire history here.
Fundamentalist Christianity is a "mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots". That's not meant to harp on Christians in general and say they're all fundamentalists, nor to say that ONLY Christians are fundamentalists; they're just the predominant religion in this culture and so a handy example. But fundamentalism of ANY sort is meant to stifle critical thought processes. That's what makes it fundamentalism: the belief they you somehow hold the absolute truth, that you are above close, critical inspection and reasoned examination of your beliefs, that there is no way in hell that you could possibly be wrong, because you say so, or your church/temple/mosque says so, or your holy book says so, and anyone who disagrees is obviously a heretic/infidel and must be converted or else destroyed by any means feasible.
If someone just reads some "holy book" and happens to agree with most of what it says, fine, more power too them. I'm not going to disagree with them just because they got the idea from religion; but I'm not going to agree just because of the source either. I happen to agree to varying degrees with significant parts of most religions' teachings. I also happen to agree to varying degrees with significant parts of most secular philosophies out there too, even the ones which position themselves as opposed to each other. Of course I don't agree with the entirety of any of them; I agree with what parts accurately describe the world as it seems to me, or those parts which reason well from things which do seem so obviously true to me. So I wind up believing what I find to be true of my own independent thoughts, which overlaps with a lot of other people's thoughts in places; but never do I just blatantly concede "I believe in X-ism", for any complex value of "X" (i.e. any religious or philosophical system). Nor do I insist that I of my own accord have arrived at the absolute truth; I'm constantly refining my own beliefs, rethinking things, learning from experience, reading new things and getting new ideas, talking with people and testing my own ideas, and so forth. And not just because I'm easily persuaded or haven't got any strong beliefs myself - I've got some very strong, well-thought-out beliefs that I'm not willing to let go of easily, but I am willing to let go of them given good reason to do so, and I have done so repeatedly over the years.
It's when you stop doing that sort of thing and say "Ok, I know the absolute truth now; end of discussion" that you become a fundamentalist, and how is a social culture promoting that sort of thing NOT "a mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots"?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Does this mean all the TV screens and advertisements in Times Square have to go as well? since they might distract a pedestrian at the (in?)opportune moment? :P
... as long as I can continue to use my cell phone and iPod while driving. Those pedestrians better watch out.
</sarcasm>
>a $100 fine for using electronic gadgets while crossing the street.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Doesn't smoking kill thousands of people a year? How about they ticket smokers $100, to 'save them' from themselves. And how about heart disease? Are they gonna ticket people who walk out of McD's too? Stop the insanity!
LRN 2 SWM
The purpose of the government is to preserve individual freedom. Protecting citizens from themselves is not the purpose of the government. Last I checked I didn't select 'shepherd' on the ballot.
New York City != the entire nation I've not heard of any iPod-using kids getting hit by cars anywhere in my entire region. (Midwest) Hyperbole, or New Yorker attitude? To quote Tom the newsguy from Family Guy, "I believe I speak for all of us when I say that everyone from New York can fornicate themselves with an iron stick."
New York has no obligation to protect people from themselves. This is just another revenue source for The Peoples Republic of New York.
If the State wants me to be safe, they'll let me be responsible for my own safety, and not force ME rely on others to follow the law for my own personal safety.
-- My Sig is a P228.
Let's ban deaf people, too.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Three whole deaths? Goodness, gracious, something must be done!
Good gravy. Will it never, ever stop? This was supposed to be a free country, with a few laws to protect us from taking or damaging each other's life, liberty, or property. A law that prohibits using electronic devices while one crosses the street? How is that going to advance the cause of liberty or protect my person and property without infringing on the rights of others? If we're going to have more laws, why don't we pass one requiring every person elected to a government office to take and pass mandatory classes in civics, history, Constitutional law, and freaking common sense? Okay. I feel better now. Thanks for listening. Go ahead and mod me down now.
The Big News Page
How are they going to enforce this.
Cop "Can I see your license".
"But I don't have it I'm not driving what do i need a walking license now. Do I have to take a test to walk down the street in New York now over here".
And considering that New Yorkers are the idiots getting people like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton elected time and time again they deserve every stupid fucking law they get from their elected government.
Explains nicely what Kruger is about, and where such laws come from.
Think of the misery this will cause to peds who now will be aware of the vehicle bearing down on them,
piloted by a driver with a cell phone in his/her ear.
Before they were blissfully unaware until the moment of impact.
Is this really progess?
This acutally had some effect. In London IIRC the removal of CO from the heating gas reduced the incidence of suicide.
Guns are scarce, bridges are nerveracking and hanging is not pleasent. CO was the prefered method.
This is a stupid idea. Let's make it illegal for deaf people to cross the street while we're at it. Here's an idea: How about a $10,000 fine for people who hit pedestrians?
On a side note, pedestrians/joggers (and drivers, of course) are prohibited from wearing headphones on most military installations, although sometimes exceptions are made such as only 1 ear, or only on specific paths, or both. While there's no fine per se, they can just ban you from the base if you're a civilian, or use NJP and/or letters of reprimand if you're a uni, any of which is potentially much more devastating than a meager fine. Of course, the military isn't fond of letting its people make their own decisions in life, and that's just one example.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
iPods and other gadgets should be mandatory since they will train pedestrians to get used to those silent electric vehicles that are about to hit the streets...
It is easy to cause casualty if there is a beauty while crossing the road. It is easy to cause casualty if focused on a advertisement while crossing the road. It is easy to cause casualty if daydreaming while crossing the road. It is easy to cause casualty if play non-electronic gadget while crossing the road. Let's BAN them all!
Only when you start looking at faith in government as being a religion, do laws like this make sense.
So:
Careless people are being killed because they are not paying attention because of ipods.
The threat of death or extreme physical harm is not enough of a penalty to force them to not wear ipods while crossing the street.
There are far more potentially dangerous automobiles on the roads than there are cops patrolling intersections looking for ipod wearers.
Therefore, the law must rely on one of the following beliefs:
Either a $100 fine is worse than death or serious injury. (I don't think anyone believes that).
Or government manipulates some sort of sympathetic magic ( http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html ), where by what is made a law has some sort of physical manifestation beyond the simple penalty or enforcement, simple by decreeing something on paper. Much like God says "Let there be light", and there is light... the government says "do not wear ipods while crossing the street", and therefore no-one can wear ipods while crossing the street.
The vast majority of people nowadays, instead of looking at a law as say a 'medicine' (that might work, that might not work, that might have side effects, that might have a greater social cost to use than the problem itself), they look at it as ordination - People assume the will of the state simply manifests itself, and to solve problems all you need to do is make a law forbidding said problem.
Today, I saw a prie example of exactly what the article was talking about. As I was driving out of the paring lot at college, A teenager listening to their headphones simply just walked out in front of my car, without even looking at me and walked away. Now, if I had hit that individual, I would be homeless and broke, because here in California, they would have had more than an easy time suing my pants off. This wasn't exactly something that you could miss - I was driving a giant, lifted, white Ford F250 Diesel that is impossible to miss, even from a block away. I was watching the person the whole time, and did not see him look, or show any hint of knowing that I was there, even when he walked out in front of me about 6' from the giant winch on the front of my truck. How he could miss a giant white rectangle with a very loud rumbling 7.3L diesel engine in it, I am still not clear on.
This isn't an isolated case, as it i very common to see other people just like him - completely oblivious to what is going on, and more interested in paying attention to their music, than the giant vehicles they are stepping in front of.
Society need to just admit it - Some people are just not capable of walking and listening to music at the same time. Nobody wants to admit it though, as it is never the fault of the individual who makes the bad choice (especially here in California, where nobody likes to be held accountable for their own actions).
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Are you trying to ruin my dreams of watching the politicians pass the law forbidding use of iPod while crossing the street? I would take great glee in getting hit by a car if it meant I could laugh at the city when it tried to fine me for that.
Of course, I'd still be in the hospital. Maybe I need less masochistic dreams.
... it's called the State Lottery.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
for get new laws, just let evolution take its course
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Right, because no one was listening to music on headphones on city streets 20 years ago.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
"Socialising New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to friends and collegues and swaying to seemingly loud voices. 'I'm not trying to intrude on that,' Kruger said. 'But what's happening is when they're listening to their friend or wife or boyfriend or child, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem."
Yes, people not paying attention in traffic IS a problem. The other day i was standing behind two women involved in a intense conversation at a street crossing while waiting for a green light. A young man decided he didn't want to wait so he crossed between cars. The two women noticed the movement and started walking, but with a delay of a few seconds... and almost got hit by a car... No video game, no iPod in sight, only people being careless... What should be banned in that situation?
Come on! Accidents happen, politicians should not try to "sell" security for something they simply cannot deliver.
It should be perfectly legal to run over jay-walkers who are listning to an i-pod.
Talk about overreacting.
This is about the government feeling only responsible for the well-being of cars and their drivers. Reducing speed in crowded area's is far more effective, as is forbidding music in cars. But they want to give free way to cars, and see pedestrians only as potential roadblocks.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Even if I'm not listening to music, I usually leave my headphones on. It keeps my ears warm and it's a good excuse to ignore people around you (if you're ever worked in downtown Seattle, you'd understand why that's important). If it ever comes here, it'd rock... I'd be ignoring yet another random person asking for this or that, the cop would think I'm listening to music, and ticket me... everyone wins! :-P
I don't really care about the natural selection thing. People are still going to get hit by cars. I also think helmet laws and seatbelt laws are worth it b/c they really don't affect your everyday lives, people live by example, your kids learn from you, not to mention the emotional pain of a lost life is a lot greater than the pain of recovering from an accident. This law, however moves that no electronic device may be used while crossing an intersection. Aka, please turn off all cell phones and portable electronic devices, BTW, the seat cushion can be used as a flotation device. Are you really going to end a conversation on your cell phone or remove your headphones just to cross the street at a green crosswalk for the ten blocks you walk to work? How about keeping your eyes on the danger? The point is laws like this are basically another tax for the average person going about their boring lives. Furthermore, it's easy to pass this law because it's easy for legislators to make it sound like a good idea. Essentially, it's getting more expensive to be stupid, or just plain ignorant. So let's say 0.000001% of Americans die from a certain avoidable death. You can split the statistics up into: were they doing 'a' at the time of death or were they doing 'b' at the time of death? Well, let's just make 'b' illegal. Will it save lives? Yea, maybe 2 or 3. Will it affect Americans? You betchaa. Because those 0.000001% who happened to be listening to music while getting hit by a bus, 100% of Americans now have to hang up their cell phones, remove their earbuds, and pause their PSPs at every intersection or else Officer Mommy will issue them a ticket. I can forsee several million dollars in fines racking up really fast. As I recall, the story started because I think 3 people were killed by traffic while listening to their Ipods within N.Y. What I want to know is how many people get struck by a car in that city in that same period of time (not listening to Ipods). I would assume there's no real change since Ipods came along. Yea, music is distracting, but there have always been distractions before Ipods and cellphones roamed the streets. Don't worry Darwin people. They're saving the airheads, but the true retards will continue weed themselves out. Ipods don't ruin lives, Stupid people do.
...Fining the drivers who blow through the traffic lights hitting the pedestrians in the crosswalk? I'm willing to bet that if you look at the statistics, there are probably dozens of deaths in his district due to that. Of course, he is probably just annoyed at all the people who get in his way by stepping in front of him as he is passing through a red light. The dent and scratches that idiot teen's iPod left on his hood will cost at least $300 to buff out. That so totally got in the way of his phone call...!
As far as those pedestrians who truly are stupid enough to step in front of traffic while in a state of complete oblivion — do we really want to stop them? Darwinian Selection is a very important duty to one's species.
This is a New York CITY problem, not a state problem. This guy is trying to pass this law that can be abused throughout the whole state when in reality he only intends it to be used in busy city streets. Where I live, a car drives buy a couple of times an hour... does that mean I can't have headphones on if I want to cross the street and check my mail? I can't stand downstate lawmakers. What if three people fall down the stairs while listening to headphones? Should that be illegal too? Or should we just trust people to use some of their own judgment?
nothing
In the future... "I'm sorry, I don't know why I hit him, I was only driving with my feet while doing my hair, makeup, and taxes! He should NOT have been talking on that phone! He would have seen me coming! HE was the lawbreaker!"
3 people in Brookland get hit by cars when using iPods. Over the same period of time hundreds of people won the lottery. In fact, most people who get hit by cars either have lottery tickets in their pockets or have purchased them in the last week. Ok, I don't know that for a fact, but I'm pretty convinced this is just a guy making noise to get in the news. Good job. It worked. What were the odds?
I'm not sure if this is an egregious case of big brother gov't at it's worst or just an expression of how annoying it's become to walk around the city because of the proliferation of these types of engaging personal devises. A lot of you responding that don't live in NYC or a similarly crowded city, where walking and using public transportation is the norm and not the exception can't really understand the complexity of feelings about this. Mobile phones were bad enough; I can't count the number of times someone yelling at his girlfriend has walked into me or stepped on my feet. But now people are walking around with music or video players, or playing video games. It's not much trouble when they are standing still at a bus stop, although sometimes the noise these devices make can be really annoying. But some people continue to use these devices as a way of entertaining themselves when they are moving around. This inevitable leads to them bumping into people or acting in other ways that seem rude, since they are often not fully away, or seem to care, of how what they are doing is effecting the people around them. And yes, they are a danger to themselves because if they are distracted while crossing the street they are more likely to miss the oncoming car.
In a very crowded city, in which millions of people flow into and out of everyday, what type of courtesy do we owe each other? A lot of people feel that some very selfish individuals are so caught up with their own stuff, with their video game, responding to their blackberry, etc. that they are acting rudely. So I'm not surprised to see this frustration vocalized in a bill like this, regardless of the safety issue.
And the truth is there is a real safety issue at stake. Just ask yourself, if you ran over and killed some kid who was walking to school and then you found out afterward the child was loudly playing an iPod and playing his PSP, totally oblivious to his surroundings, how would you feel about this proposed law? Would your support for it increase? At what point should the gov't regulate self protection and common courtesy? Maybe in small towns, or in spread out cities this isn't an issue, but in a place where people are literally crammed together into buses and subway cars it is an issue.
Also, how do you all feel about things the other way around, that is are you pro or against drivers using mobile phones while driving, or trying to play a PSP while driving?
I don't know if I like this law, but I am not having the self righteous libertarian reaction a lot of posters on this thread are having. In my mind there is an issue here and we need to start the discussion about it somewhere. So I see this as a start for coming to a common consensus as to what we are going to tolerate.
Peace, or Not?
However, "Real Life Frogger" is right. If they ever make a VR version of Frogger, I will be a pro!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
It is a simple process called culling of the herd. If the dumb sod is to stupid to look and see a very large public buss coming down the street, then they deserve the the end result. The only unfair part is now the city gets sued by the fools family. NY should simply state: "Any person struck by a vehicle while using an electronic device is at fault and must pay for any damages done by his/her actions (or lack thereof)."
Ofcourse anyone dumb enough to get hit by a car as a direct result of listenning to a DMP would own an ipod.
Commute to Manhattan every day. I see mothers hang their baby carriages over the curbs while buses pass inches in front of them. People lean over subway platforms with their backs to on-coming trains. Everyday I see people step into the street without so much as a glance at the light. Over my life time, I have seen the "me first" attitude of people all around me swell to ridiculous proportions. It's a city full of people in a hurry to get somewhere and then not care about the where they are when they get there. Do you think banning music and messaging at crosswalks is going to help?
1. Cut the number of lawyers in half. Cut those salaries in half and limit the % they can get.. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
2. Addition of "stupidity" check-box on hospital ER Form. Easy way to cut down on admittals!
3. Stop selling designer drugs to treat mild "disorders". Stop believing you need a drug for everything or have a "medical" condition in the first place.
4. Change "no-child-left-behind" to "dumb-and-lazy-kids-grow-up-to-work-at-McDonalds"
5. Teach people how to parent again.
6. Fire or strip doctors of licenses instead of suing for huge cash settlements in malpractice suits.
7. Remove car/home/etc. insurance. Maybe then we all won't have to pay if you build your house directly on a tsunami prone beach.
8. Make congress & the house of representatives live in the poorest district / area they represent.
9. Remove safety net programs. The purpose of your life may be only to serve as a warning to others.
10. Stop calling everyone a "victim".
11. Stop telling people they are "entitled" to everything.
12. Mandatory 1 year military service / public service for everyone.
13. More politics: create a viable 3rd party. Maybe then there would actually be a difference between the first two.
14. Calling someone a "nazi", etc. simply because they disagree with you grants them a free punch to your face without an assault charge.
15. Kill "political-correctness". Instead teach respect.
16. Each member of congress / house serves a 1 month duty on border patrol during their term.
17. Hollywood (and maybe L.A.) breaks off and sinks into the ocean.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
From what I can tell, they're really trying to outlaw stupidity and carelessness. Penalize carelessness, yes, but outlaw stupidity?...
...If they think they have a prison overcrowding problem now, just wait...
As Albert Einstein once said [paraphrased]: there is only one difference between stupidity and genius--genius has its limits.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
'both sides of the coin' is supposed to mean that both parties have supporters who would rather the government told them what to think and do, so they don't have it.
Blar.
Electronic Gadgets eh? I can see it now... (insert wavey scene here)
"Sorry sir, you're using a pacemaker. I'm going to have to fine you... Oh! Ma'm! Yes you! You're in an electric wheelchair, you're getting fined too! Hey Bob, I thought you're covering the south end today. My walkie-talkie? Oh, come on Bob, don't give me a fine..." The flood gates are open, let the fining begin...
IMO, if you are at fault of a driving accident due to an ipods and what-naught, that's distracted driving, we already have laws for that. If you get killed while not paying attention to the little red hand while crossing the street, that's natural selection. If you are at the receiving end of a car accident while someone is using an iPod or something similar, they're at fault and deserves to be weeded out of the gene pool (that's after they pay you for all the damage they've caused you, of course.) Anyways, continue the flaming.
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
To get hit by a bus because you were listening to headphones means that:
1. You don't understand how to use crosswalks, or how to jay walk safely.
2. You don't understand how that you shouldn't step into traffic unable to hear.
3. You don't understand that you should look for cars before stepping into traffic.
4. You don't undestand that moving cars are dangerous enough to warrent addressing #1-3.
First, anyone who has those qualities is not going understand laws concerning listening to music, which are bound to be more complex than "being hit by cars = bad".
Second, are we a society so incredibly safe that we have nothing better to do than concentrate on those who blithely walk into moving vehicles? Aren't there people being injured from things that actually require assistance to avoid?
I'm sorry to get all Darwinist here, but I have no more immediate urge to help people who cheerfully step in front of moving busess, than I'd have to put signs on the beach warning that the sea "should not be inhaled" if that was becoming a problem.
But maybe I'm missing something. Because I've been seeing these "no sense of self-presevation" pedestrians for years, and I STILL can't figure out how they've survived to adulthood.
...8,213,836 to go
Citing three pedestrian deaths...