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.
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.
Actually, it is, if they were paying attention and not jaywalking across the street, then there is a good chance the would still be listening to their ipods or whatever. Although, you gotta wonder if the players still work after that. If they do, could be a good advertisement for apple.
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.
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
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
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.
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!!!"
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.
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.
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?
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?
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'm sure Apple will thank you. It's also annoying to the rest of us that know the difference.
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).
>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.
You misspelled "California."
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
Actually, that I can understand! The problem with fundamentalist Christians is the vast majority of them believe in a mishmash of ideas that incorporates the worst ideas from the Bible while leaving out the best ones. Throw in a bit of nationalism, anti-environmentalism, capitalism, and xenophobia (none of which the Bible supports), and you've got the average fundamentalist Christian.