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.'"

Comments

government might want to step back

[yagu]

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.

Re:government might want to step back

[spun]

When I was in Rome, a fellow I met told me that, in Italy in general but Rome in particular, you should NEVER look while crossing the street. If the drivers see you looking, they'll know you've seen them and they won't stop. He said you should just step out into traffic without the slightest hint that you might have noticed them. Only then will they stop.

Re:Natural Selection At Work

[EastCoastSurfer]

I live in a state with no helmet law, but we have a seatbelt law. Go figure. Do helmet laws really save money though? Figure w/o a helmet you're probably more likely to die in a crash. Thus, the one time cost of cleaning up the road and a funeral. With a helmet you might live, but be messed up for life. I wonder given the stats which is greater?

Re:Natural Selection At Work

[jeremymiles]

Seatbelts also lead to a shortage of donor organs - at least they did after the law was introduced in the UK. And dialysis is pretty expensive, if you only want to look from an economic perspective.