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.

83 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.

    4. Re:I wonder... by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Your proposal is fine only if you also pass laws that running over people looking at their phone is fine, and educate them to not suddenly break or take evasive maneuvers to avoid them - since otherwise there's still a lot at stake for those who just drive and do not stare into their phone while doing so.

    5. Re:I wonder... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      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.

      The problem is you could use that exact same argument to legalize driving while drunk. If you cause an accident, you get in trouble; if you don't, no harm, no foul.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re:I wonder... by Meski · · Score: 1

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

      And you know this because the victim didn't dispute the police report.

      Sadly, the police tend to be biased against bicyclists and pedestrians for "getting in the way" of cars. There was a time when jaywalking wasn't a crime, but then cars came and ruined the streets for everyone.

      Streets would've been dirt lanes or similar without cars to drive the infrastructure demand.

    7. Re:I wonder... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea it's like taxing natural selection ... i'm still wondering when the five Hellgian governments will finally vote on the law to tax co-for-breathing-out

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. In other news... by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, Amazon reports that shipments of paperback books to Hawaii have increased by 80%.

  3. why did the texter cross the road? by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    road? what road?

  4. Faces in phones by al0ha · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Interesting that a government is having to go to these drastic lengths to try and get people to live in the real world.

    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, when in fact they likely pass decent and interesting people all the time, but nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed. What a shame. Instead they rely on dating apps where as we know, everyone exaggerates, poses, lies, whatever. A really really odd way to live, giving up the real world for that which is completely fake.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Faces in phones by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny
    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).

    3. Re:Faces in phones by geoscodin · · Score: 2

      I lived in Kailua (Oahu) from 2000-2001 and worked in Honolulu. More than once I grabbed somebody by the arm to keep them from obliviously walking out in front of The Bus. I didn't understand it then, but it seems like it's probably much more common in the age of texting.

    4. Re:Faces in phones by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Interesting that a government is having to go to these drastic lengths to try and get people to live in the real world.

      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, when in fact they likely pass decent and interesting people all the time, but nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed.

      People have always found it hard to meet potential dates, but I found it much easier to meet people when online dating became mainstream than before. Without technology, it's harder to meet people outside of your social circle, online dating opens up a much wider circle. So yeah, you need to weed out the liars and fakes, but you have a much wider pool to choose from.

    5. Re:Faces in phones by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.

      I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem. I don't dare step off the curb when the walk light first comes on, at least at most intersections, because there is always someone running the light.

      Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.

    6. Re:Faces in phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed. What a shame.

      Because anything so much as "hi" to some stranger is considered sexual harrassment

      Hi.

    7. Re:Faces in phones by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I didn't think dating was that bad though I do get approached more when I wear my ring. I don't know if that's something you have experienced or not but it was like the wedding ring suddenly made me more attractive. My wife doesn't mind that I don't wear the ring she understands that it's a signal for gold diggin bitches as she puts it. By the way the best line I ever used was to be only mildly interested and noncommittal, "sure".

    8. Re: Faces in phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rape!!

    9. Re:Faces in phones by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.

      When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.

      running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem

      Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.

      Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.

      Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.

      What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Faces in phones by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      I am soooo glad I found my soulmate and married her before the PC Police went full retard.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Faces in phones by tattood · · Score: 1

      I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem

      That is good for you, and you won't have to worry about getting a ticket. But for the rest of the pedestrians that are not as cautious as you, these laws might make them realize that they also need to be more aware of their surroundings while crossing the street.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    12. Re:Faces in phones by torkus · · Score: 1

      Well those laws aren't working obviously...and what does a politician do when a law isn't working? Why you just make another one!!!

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    13. Re:Faces in phones by Altus · · Score: 2

      Yeah its ridiculous for someone to cross the street without looking. Thats why blind people aren't allowed to walk around in Honolulu.

      Look, if you have the light it shouldn't matter if you are looking at your phone or the news paper or a book or the back the the head of the guy in front of you.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    14. Re: Faces in phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It might be a "protected" turn, and you can see the lines, but it doesn't mean someone is going to actually stop or even slow down while making a right turn, stop for the light, or even actually stay around if they hit someone.

      Maybe Honolulu is different, but in Austin, I've had to call EMS for people more than once in the past month, (and give license plates of the offending vehicle to the local police due to the hit and run) who assumed they were able to cross at a crosswalk and got struck by a car who blew the light, or just decided to turn even with the pedestrian already there. Hit and runs are extremely common, so looking to see if the way is actually clear isn't just common sense, it is a must. Sure beats getting disability due to one's back being shattered in multiple places due to someone texting while driving (or just plain drunk while on the road.)

    15. Re:Faces in phones by jittles · · Score: 1

      I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.

      When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.

      running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem

      Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.

      Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.

      Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.

      What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?

      I think he's advocating that you enforce the rules against the people in the 1500kg death machine over those who are walking and at most might give someone a bruise if they aren't being careful. My personal experience is pretty similar to the GP. I have to actively prevent motorists from hitting me, even when there is a law enforcement officer. I was in a cross walk, with a walk signal, when someone ran a light that had been red for 10+ seconds and narrowly missed me. I yelled angrily. A cop there looked up at me and then did absolutely nothing to the driver. Not even a warning. I walk in a highly metropolitan area with hundreds of pedestrians. Cops are everywhere and the traffic is slow enough that I generally outpace cars when you take into consideration red lights. But these idiots slam on the gas and fly through pedestrians only to brake hard at the red light where I proceed to catch up to them. And what does law enforcement do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    16. Re:Faces in phones by chipschap · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to argue here, anyway?

      I am trying to argue that while it's correct to insist that pedestrians toe the line, a major factor, namely drivers who could care less about pedestrians, is being ignored, not through lack of laws but through lack of enforcement.

      The white "walk" symbol is on (at most major intersections) for only seven seconds, several of which are lost waiting for drivers to run the yellow/red, because as I said, I risk my life trying to cross right away when the light changes in my favor. After seven seconds blinking red comes on and you're not allowed to start to cross (and I don't). Kind of makes it difficult as you've only got a few seconds to truly start a safe crossing.

    17. Re:Faces in phones by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you don't look up from your phone, how do you know if you have the light?

      I've had people walk blithely out in front of me when I was exiting a parking garage, meaning (1) I had no way to see them, (2) there were warning lights flashing, and (3) there was a very loud annunciator warning that a car was coming. Some people just ignore their environment entirely, between headphones and eyes on screen.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Faces in phones by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >I didn't think dating was that bad though I do get approached more when I wear my ring.

      Very little attention prior to marriage... three opportunities for affairs after marriage. Of course, there's a social comfort factor at play, too, since I'm a lot more casual with women when I'm not trying to decide if I want to start a serious relationship with them and how to go about that without a hard rejection or other problems.

    19. Re:Faces in phones by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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

      I think it's kind of interesting that {Insert older generation} have some idea based entirely on prejudice and observer bias about {insert younger generation}.

      Newsflash: Millennials are living in a shit-storm from the previous generation, yet on the whole are incredibly happy with their lives. The only negative relationship statistic for millennials is that marriage rates are down. Mind you so are divorce rates, and the overall marriage rate is about on par when correlated to the belief that marriage is a goal in life.

      Instead they rely on dating apps

      Very few people use dating apps to "meet decent people", actually it's usually quite the opposite.

    20. Re:Faces in phones by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I had a women at work that was 10 years younger than me who followed me around the office and was clearly infatuated with me. I did my best not to encourage her but I think the unattainable and married co-worker made her feel safe from getting into a serious relationship and ultimately being hurt. She worked there for about three months and then abruptly moved out of state to go back to college.

    21. Re:Faces in phones by al0ha · · Score: 1

      I love how I am constantly on the cutting edge of thought around here, but trolls always mod me down or make stupid comments like yours

      Let's see, what was I saying, oh yeah, repeated in a new post quoting TechCrunch, "Forget about your phone for a minute, look around and talk with people next to you." https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  5. Darwin at play? by Mr.No · · Score: 2

    How about letting idiots disappear?

    1. Re:Darwin at play? by tattood · · Score: 1

      Pedestrians have right of way in all 50 states.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    2. Re:Darwin at play? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      so if you have a dash cam in your car proving what happened - how the fuck are you liable??

      oh wait - sorry - this is online - lets make shit up as fact

      Killing someone even if you did it by accident and it was totally the victims fault, is a crime called accidental manslaughter. The punishment is usually low, but it is a crime.

    3. Re:Darwin at play? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The laws of physics don't care who has the right of way. It's small comfort to you next of kin that the driver was in the wrong. Just look before you step off the curb - very low effort.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Darwin at play? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      In a marked crosswalk, or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection without traffic controls, yes. Otherwise, not really. A jaywalker really can be cited for failure to yield to a vehicle in many states.

    5. Re:Darwin at play? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      No, we have to fund the train some way...

      Mahalo.

  6. Fines don't work by hackel · · Score: 1

    Just look at all of the criminals constantly speeding on the road, not to mention using phones while driving. These minor infractions need to come with a penalty that really impacts people's lives... One night in jail would be perfect. It needs to keep them from getting to work, picking up their kids, their friend's party... *something* that is really going to have a lasting impact besides just money. Monetary penalties are also extremely regressive and hurt poor people the most. That's not okay.

    I'm glad they're doing *something*, but this is not an ideal solution.

    1. Re:Fines don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I learned in Psych class that likelihood of getting caught is much more of a deterrent than the extremity of the punishment.

      Even if the punishment was just being rudely spoken-to by a cop...people would hugely amend their behavior if there were cops watching for it on every street corner.

    2. Re:Fines don't work by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      If the top faggot had his skull squished flat on the pavement I think that would be an excellent lesson for all the little up and comer faggots who looked up to him.

      Wow, you sound like you have a bit of a road rage problem...
      Around here the law is if you see someone near the sidewalk you have to stop and let them jaywalk, seems to work out fine.

  7. people don't have walking licenses and will this p by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    people don't have walking licenses and will this points to your drivers license.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. better than fining them... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...simply legislate that any such action makes it impossible to sue.

    Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop. Americans don't go where they don't have lawyer-armor.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:better than fining them... by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      That literally is at the bottom of the list of criteria I use to make my daily decisions.

    2. Re:better than fining them... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop.

      That's not enough. These people clearly don't believe they'll get hit, which means they either believe they have magical invulnerability or because they believe that drivers will take responsibility for avoiding hitting them. If they believed that drivers only avoided hitting them because the drivers were afraid of the ensuing lawsuit, you might have a point. But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.

      So to make your plan work you'd need to remove both civil and criminal liabilities for drivers who injure or kill texting pedestrians. It would be effective at convincing pedestrians to avoid texting, but, much like my proposal to reduce vehicular accidents by removing all driver seat belts and air bags and affixing a razor-sharp spear point to the center of the steering wheel, aimed directly at the driver's chest, there would be some down sides.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:better than fining them... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I nearly hit a jaywalker with his face buried in his cell phone maybe a week or two ago. He walked out into the street from behind an SUV and I hit the horn and slammed on the brakes. I would have expected him to look up and then crap himself but he didn't look up or even miss a step.

    4. Re:better than fining them... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you're supposed to be driving such that you can stop

      That has never been a reasonable expectation, and certainly isn't the law where I live. Where do people come up with that shit? No matter how slow a car is going, it's possible to jump out in front of it with little enough visibility that there's nothing the driver can do.

      Also, where I live, pedestrians only have the right of way in a marked crosswalk (and, in a controlled crosswalk, only when they have the light), not just anywhere they wander into traffic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:better than fining them... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop.

      Stop what? Stop texting? Like the J-walking laws have stopped people crossing at red lights?

      Or maybe we are looking to stopping fatal crashes, in which case you could take the opposite approach like the Netherlands where if a driver hits a pedestrian (even a texting inattentive one) they get royally fucked. That reduced injuries quite well and as a side effect drivers seem to be far more sensible there than in most other countries.

    6. Re: better than fining them... by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      We already drive cars with bombs attached to the steering wheel (airbags) and it hasn't helped.

    7. Re: better than fining them... by swillden · · Score: 1

      We already drive cars with bombs attached to the steering wheel (airbags) and it hasn't helped.

      Those make us safer, and therefore more likely to get in an accident.

      I get that you're disagreeing that they make us safer but (a) perception is what matters and (b) the facts actually do show that they make us safer, so perception is even correct.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:better than fining them... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I nearly hit a jaywalker with his face buried in his cell phone maybe a week or two ago. He walked out into the street from behind an SUV and I hit the horn and slammed on the brakes. I would have expected him to look up and then crap himself but he didn't look up or even miss a step.

      Consider yourself lucky then. A local mayor was cycling, nearly hit a jaywalker, and was scolded by said jaywaker (who was texting) for not looking where he was going..

      Yes, the jaywalker stepped out right in front of a cyclist who nearly hit her. She didn't consider how lucky she was that at worst, it was only a cyclist instead of 2 tons of metal (injuries would be far lower) or perhaps she should return back to the days of her youth and remember when she was taught to look both ways before crossing the street.

      You know it's bad when the texters really do think they own the road.

    9. Re:better than fining them... by dmatos · · Score: 1

      But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.

      Let's not forget that most people legitimately _don't_ want to cause the death of strangers.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    10. Re:better than fining them... by swillden · · Score: 1

      But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.

      Let's not forget that most people legitimately _don't_ want to cause the death of strangers.

      Apparently I needed sarcasm tags :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  9. But by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    But how will I fulfill my government mandated continuous Telescreen viewing obligation?

  10. Re:Gotta have to make up for lost revenue somehow! by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Hard to give tickets to self-driving cars, so they gotta find a new way to fill the coffers.

    Self driving cars are not the problem, texting drivers are, but it's also hard to ticket texting drivers, so it's much easier to target texting pedestrians even though the drivers are the ones killing people.

  11. Photography by darkain · · Score: 2

    As someone who dabbles in urban photography as a hobby... *FUCK*THEM*

    Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?

    1. Re:Photography by Teun · · Score: 2

      No problem, don't use a digital camera but one with film because they are not on the list :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:Photography by jittles · · Score: 1

      As someone who dabbles in urban photography as a hobby... *FUCK*THEM*

      Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?

      Ahh but if you stop walking, you're no longer crossing the street ;)

    3. Re:Photography by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      J-walking is also illegal in many places. That hasn't stopped anyone, even those people who have been fined in the past. It is just a tax on the unlucky.

    4. Re:Photography by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?

      You're making the assumption that just because the WALK sign is lit, you're not holding anybody up while you're on the street. What about cars that are waiting to turn? Not all roads have a green left-turn signal, and very few have a right turn arrow, so cars wanting to turn have to wait for pedestrians to clear the intersection before they can complete their turn. And, if there's no turning lane, cars waiting to turn can hold up cars behind them wanting to go straight on a green light. During heavy traffic times, this can be a major hold up. Should all those cars have to wait while you stop and take a picture, even if there's a WALK sign lit?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  12. Best quote ever... by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 1

    You can't legislate intelligence and common sense into people. - Will Rogers

    1. Re:Best quote ever... by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      There's always been dumb people. They just didn't seem to revel so unashamedly in their vapidity as they do today.

  13. Why use commercial pricing schemes? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

    Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?

    I get why stores would want to price products at $99.95, but since when did Law Enforcement need incentive for fines? Are they trying to reach a quota by having a sale? Is it this week only and then back to $129.95 a pop?

    1. Re:Why use commercial pricing schemes? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is some rule/law/guideline these kind of offenses must have a fine "less than $100" ?

    2. Re:Why use commercial pricing schemes? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?

      Fines in many places in the world are graded in ranges which can be applied to specific offences. I would bet you that spare $1 that the reason it is $99 is that the next range starts at $100 and the crime isn't serious enough to fit in that next range. Likely they simply applied the maximum whole dollar amount.

      Read the law and look for words "up to and not exceeding".

  14. come on by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Let Darwin do his work. Stop interfering with gene pool cleansing.

  15. Do not fight Charles Darwin by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Make it decriminalized to cross a road while texting, but indemnify any driver who hits someone crossing the road while texting.

    In this way, natural selection will pare from among us the clueless people who are unable to self-entertain or stay alert to reality around them for even thirty seconds.

    Attention spans will rise, as will average IQs. The many bodies that pave the streets will serve as a warning for others. Gradually, society will become more thoughtful and concentration will improve.

    Too many of our laws try to protect the stupid, clueless, vapid and deceptive from themselves. We cannot do this, and it is not to our benefit to do so. Let them perish and have sensible people take their places.

  16. Still reading my book by torkus · · Score: 1

    ...because apparently this is a stupid, targeted law to "do something" because a politician is bored or someone's idiot child got hit crossing the street because they weren't looking.

    Hint: there's an unlimited number of distractions in life. This doesn't address the actual problem that people are easily ... oh look, shiny....

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  17. The usual response by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Laws are born when common sense fails.

  18. let's punish the victims by spoggle · · Score: 2

    Honolulu has had a problem with inattentive drivers hitting and killing people in the crosswalks.

    Many of these fatalities are people legitimately in crosswalks, a few not, but in most cases the driver claims to have never seen the pedestrian.

    Rather than deal with distracted driving, and as a driver and a pedestrian in Honolulu I can tell you it's rampant, they've taken to punishing the victims. As with most political moves in Hawaii, this appeases the mass of drivers who can't be bothered to look up from their cellphones (Hawaii has more cars than licensed drivers). I can't think of a pedestrian fatality that was caused by a pedestrian lost in their cellphone. Yeah, they're annoying, but not the root cause of Honolulu's problem.

  19. Re:Gotta have to make up for lost revenue somehow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honolulu is a small but traffic-congested city, with lots of crosswalks over the streets that get busy during the rush-hours. Making idiots pay attention to crossing signs rather than their phones probably helps relieve some of that congestion.

  20. Well, by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    I suppose on the bright side; it seems people are reclaiming the roads from motor vehicles.

  21. why did the texter cross the light rail line? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    texter? what texter?

  22. Re:Gotta have to make up for lost revenue somehow! by lgw · · Score: 1

    More drunk pedestrians are killed by sober drivers (by far) than sober pedestrians killed by drunk drivers. (At one point it was something like 40% of pedestrians killed in crosswalks were drunk.) I'd expect texting to be the same.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  23. Hans Guck-in-die-Luft by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 1

    Obviously, more Americans need to be raised with Der Struwwelpeter.

  24. Re:How about... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    How about we pay people to text while crossing the street? The whole point is you can't fix stupid, so let's be done with these people as soon as possible.

    https://www.youtube.com/result...

  25. What if I am simply using the GPS? by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    How do they know I am not trying to find my way?

  26. Cutting down on tax payer expense? by thogard · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago I noticed someone with her phone up to her face but had a white cane. She was obviously legally blind but was using the phone to be able to see where she was going. Perhaps they should add an exception.

    I've wondered why countries that have universal medical coverage don't have the types of laws. As the 24x7 phone users start to get old enough that falls results in broken bones, walking while using a phone could be very dangerous and expensive.

    I've also noticed that people using their phones while walking tend to walk much slower than others which increases congestion which results in more expense.

  27. Re:What if I am simply using the GPS? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    How do they know I am not trying to find my way?

    Presumably you can do that before or after crossing the street. Since you are supposedly walking between two white crosswalk lines when you are crossing, you don't have a lot of choices as to where to go while crossing!

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  28. Jaywalking in Honolulu ripoff. by lindseyp · · Score: 1

    Jaywalking is illegal in Honolulu, and usually carries a fine of $150

    Fucking HPD only enforce it when they've got nothing else to do. I got ticketed for crossing on red at night when there was no traffic in sight. And for some goddamned reason my ticket was $300, which would normally be for a repeat offender (I'm not). I only realized when I got the demand in the mail and I was overseas so couldn't contest it.

    Fuck Honolulu PD.

    --
    j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  29. How much do you want to bet nobody gets fined by sabbede · · Score: 1

    because the cops are too busy staring at their phones to notice. I'm pretty sure that's why I've never seen anyone get pulled over for texting while driving.

  30. Wonderful. Now, how about the rest of the US? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I lived with a true alcoholic for about six years. There is NO DIFFERENCE between zombiephone addicts and an alcoholic. They *can't* stop looking at it, never mind they're in a crowd, and blocking people, they act like it's a matter of life and death that they respond to every text immediately, if not sooner.

    They're all fucking drug addicts. They're another opioid crisis.

    But won't admit it, any more than any other addict.

  31. including wearables by Meski · · Score: 1

    Like Google Glass (heh) watches, etc?