Slashdot Mirror


Honolulu Now Fines People Up To $99 For Texting While Crossing Road (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The Hawaiian city of Honolulu has resorted to fining people up to $99 for staring at the devices, to try and force people to look up from their phones while crossing the road. The new law gives police the power to fine people up to $35 for their first offence, $75 for their second and $99 thereafter, perhaps expecting it to take quite some effort to get people to take notice. The bill, which comes into force today after being rubber stamped by the Hawaiian city's mayor in July, states that "no pedestrian shall cross a street or highway while viewing a mobile electronic device." Mobile phones are included as well as any "text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, or digital photographic device" but audio equipment is excluded. Holding a conversation on a phone while walking is still permitted, as is using a device in an emergency, but crossing the road while texting, reading or Facebooking -- as millions around the world do every day -- is not.

5 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder... by olsmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will they deliver these fines to people in their hospital beds if they are struck while crossing? Or are their immediate relatives on the hook to pay if the person is fatally injured?

    1. Re:I wonder... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They should get the fines regardless, and yes, their families should pay rather than taxpayers. It's about time people get their face out of their phones while they are walking around.

    2. Re:I wonder... by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. They might accidentally wander on to your lawn too.

      This law is pure 'for the children' type protectionist crap. Should someone watch while crossing the street? Yes of course. Could they get hurt by not looking? Yep.

      Do you need a LAW and FINE to tell people to do what they already know they should be doing? ... and furthermore punishment for something where there is no victim? Not at all.

      Now, if someone causes an accident there are already ways to hold them responsible (protip: a $35 fine isn't it). If they don't cause an accident, then no-harm, no-foul. This law will be enforced for 15 minutes then forgotten except when they decide to 'crack down' and 'do something' like target minorities.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    3. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you, but do YOU want to be the person driving the car?

      I have had a person in my family who was in an accident where someone was killed. He was completely not at fault but the burden had a devastating effect.

      I am all for natural selection to weed out the stupid, but do not want to hurt someone even if I am right.

      Sometimes you have to hit people in the pocket to make them wake up.

  2. Re:Faces in phones by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >I think it's kind of interesting that Millennials and other constant users of smart phones, especially singles, who walk around all day looking at a screen, complain that they can't meet any decent people

    Oh come on, that problem pre-dated smart phones... we just outright ignored everybody instead of being entranced by our electronics.

    Being 'dating age' sucks, because only welcomed approaches are socially acceptable and you don't know if your approach will be welcomed until after you make it. We don't really have great social customs for young people to meet; it's "be in the same class" or "get drunk at the local meet/meat market".

    I'm well and truly happy to be past all that shit and I don't envy young people who - like me - aren't naturally gregarious but still would like to have a partner. ( I still have no idea how I ended up married with children).