New York To Ban iPods While Crossing Street? 487
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.'"
Natural Selection At Work (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. FTA: "Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry,". So they're "protecting" them by charging them money. My buddy got in a car accident a while ago (he was driving "Vaay Too Fost"), and after getting injured and more or less totalling his car, he got a speeding ticket to top it all off. How is this protecting him? What's next? What if someone gets in a car crash
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What should they have done? Told him that they guess he's learnt his lesson, and that he should be more careful in the future? He broke the law, quite obviously according to your own account, and caused an accident as a result. Why shouldn't he get a ticket?
What if he had killed someone else in the
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Funny)
That's basically what I was getting at, perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why pause? (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:Why pause? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turning on red while there are pedestrians crossing is the rule, not the exception. Which brings us to the larger point; if they really cared about pedestrian safety, they would start by enforcing existing traffic laws.
Re:Why pause? (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforce existing traffic laws, now thats funny.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
You Just Don't Get It, Do You? (Score:5, Informative)
But yeah if you want kill yourself in other stupid ways go right ahead. Just don't get public transit involved in the equation.
No...ticket money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Yes, apparently I missed a joke. The poster sounded serious to me. Guess I are dumb today.
(2) No, I don't approve of such nanny-state legislation. But arguing that stupid people ought to die for the benefit of the gene pool is different from just arguing that people ought not to be prohibited from being stupid.
(3) My over-the-top rib on fundamentalist Christians was supposed to be funny itself. My apologies to the tamer Chr
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What a coincidence. Fundamentalist Christians and people who don't watch where they're going when they're crossing the street: two groups I would happily sweep into the skimmer of the ol' gene pool.
If they'd both have a problem with the idea, it must be good.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Funny)
Joke ---------> *whoosh*
O <--- You
--|--
|
/ \
(from SeenOnSlash [seenonslash.com], which is actually from here [slashdot.org])
His legs! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, a
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Lord...for a grown adult, for goodness sakes, leave us alone. If someone wants to take themselves out by whatever means, it is our body and our right...
And please at least on the motorcycle helmet law and the usual insurance argument. About 3 years ago...our helmet law was re-instated by our incompentent gov. (Blanc-stare), so now if you're on a bike you gotta wear a helmet now. That should save all the public from paying higher insurance rates because of increased safety and survivability right?
Funny...I've yet to see my insurance rates go down......
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Stuff like this is called the law of unintended consequences. You can see it in the price of corn tortillas tripling because of corn ethanol subsidies also.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Traffic would probably be a lot safer if the airbag in the steering wheel was replaced by a sharp steel spike.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I don't think people should be forced to wear one... however you would rarely, if ever, catch me without one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, there should be no helmet laws or seatbelt laws.
Instead there should be a legally protected status for insurance companies (including Healthcare, auto, and MAYBE life) to be able to COMPLETELY deny paying out to individuals that are in an accident and not wearing the appropriate safety gear. Oh, and add the gov't paid medical treatment to that as well... AND make the debts related to the accident treatment "protected" i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it, the state has one of two options:
1. Institute seat belt laws.
2. Make it so that even if you are at fault in an accident, if the other party wasn't wearing a seat belt, you don't have to pay a dime.
Of course, the second option has the problem that if the person who doesn't wear a belt gets rushed to the emergency room and doesn't pay their bill, then the hospital is left with it. Essentially, the general consumer will end up paying for it. Therefore, the only sensible option is the first option: prevention.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't someone please think of the emergency service workers who, thanks to helmet laws, don't have to scrape human grey-matter up off of the roads???
I think thats the main reason for those laws, not insurance, not saving lives; its saving the people who have to clean up after you from chucking their lunches quite so often.
government might want to step back (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Why even do that? If the pedestrian has the right of way, he has the right to wear headphones. If he doesn't, than the accident is his fault, headphones or no.
Anyway, the two groups of people I'd single out as particularly strong Darwin Award candidates are 1) bicyclists who wear headphones and 2) the Bostonians who walk down the street reading books.
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Funny)
Why even do that? If the pedestrian has the right of way, he has the right to wear headphones.
Hahaha. Right of way? Right of way in New York is for tourists and pansies. This thing happens in New York where we, as New Yorkers, walk out into the middle of traffic in a tourist-friendly area (like Rockefeller Center) and watch the tourists instinctually follow us because if we're doing it, it must be safe. Hilarity ensues.
Talking about right of way in New York is a waste of time.
--Triv
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:government might want to step back (Score:4, Funny)
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
personally, i think anyone who is walking/driving/biking/running wearing headphones is stupid. most of those people can't hear what's going on around them enough to react when necessary. people walkin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Being both pedestrian and driver, I've been feeling this way for a long time -- I know if I step out in front of a car when they're going down the street, I'm going to get hit. And yet I'm beset by hordes of jaywalkers (most without even headphones) who will just step blithely in front of me, even when I have the right of way.
Really, the ideal thing would be some sort of non-lethal punishment. An electric cow-catcher, perhaps?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Um... no. The bottom line is that motorists should be looking out for pedestrians, even if those pedestrians are doing stupid things. That's the responsibility you take on when you gain the privilege of shooting a 5000 lbs hunk of metal around our cities. Why the hell is it so hard for people to accept that driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity, for both the people inside the car and the people outside of the car, and take necessary precautions?
It's one thing if someone literally steps in front of your car and you have no possibility of dodging them-- but that's covered under the law anyhow. If someone jumps in front of your car, gets hit, and dies, you won't be charged with anything. But my your suggestion, motorists would be allowed to mow people down in intersections if they have an iPod. That's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
I think your point about other distractions is well-taken, from BOTH sides of the debate. If you're going to do it, why should the "traditional" forms of idiocy while walking be excluded? They're just as bad (or worse). But hey, if you're going to take the smaller distraction just because it's "new" then also take out the old.
From the "those with the sense to not walk out in traffic" side, walkman-like device (this is hardly limited to iPods, or even modern equivalents, since the ORIGINAL sony walkman w
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Insightful)
And right there should be the finishing move against such a law. People have been wandering around cities with reduced hearing while wearing headphones for over 20 years. What is it about the iPod that makes these pedestrians and drives dumber than they used to be. The answer, of course, is that it's not about the iPod (or similar). It's about people being dumbasses (pedestrians making stupid moves) and assholes (drivers who refuse to give the right-of-way to pedestrians, which they should even when the pedestrian is making a stupid move).
This proposal is a publicity grab, pure and simple. It won't make anyone any safer but it could seem to because the deaths in this guy's area were likely a statistical blip. I just wish that this kind of thing was limited to just New York. In my town of Portland, Oregon we had a similar dumb pedestrian problem when people were getting whacked by our light rail trains because the pedestrians were too damned stupid to look both ways before crossing a train track. So, they over-engineered things at these "dangerous" places so that lights would flash, noises would be made and gates would fall if there was a train anywhere nearby. Of course, the problem would have solved itself by people just learning that there were trains running, but still a bunch of money had to be spent to respond to the stupidity of the few.
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Blind? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would this man suggest that the deaf can't cross streets either?
Idiot Tax? (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems more like a tax for being stupid and/or irresponsible than a true 'safety' concern for citizens.
Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NYC isn't requiring all restaurants to provide a list of ingredients to those who ask. They're simply banning transfats. And they're not educating the public on the supposed dangers of using electronics while crossing the street. They're simply trying to ban them. Same problem.
Sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Laws not in yet (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people who have Corey Hart songs on their iPod should get two tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice one, brother!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To paradise?
Unless it's turrists! (Score:4, Insightful)
They all do it, because there are plenty of Americans on both sides of the coin who crave to be told what to do.
Bored politicians = bad (Score:2)
the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not outlaw talking while crossing the street. (Score:2)
How Many Killed Eating While Crossing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you... but just to play devil's advocate for a second here:
When someone creates a traffic accident, it endangers them, but it also endangers everyone else in the vicinity. A car swerving to miss an inattentive pedestrian may hit another (more attentive) pedestrian, or another car, or whatever. A traffic accident can quickly escalate and involve many people/cars. When people drive unsafely, for instance, they are not just
Odd (Score:5, Informative)
Address the other factors (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the death penalty (Score:2)
innocent iPods...phones.. (Score:2)
It's not the iPod's fault its owner is a moron.
Relevance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Say, those WALK signs are electronic gadgets that the pedestrians are using....
Re:Relevance? (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. I spend 1h every day walking to/from work and I see plenty of people taking stupid risks, no iPod needed. (Including a guy who walked right into the path of a motorbike -- he was hit but it was a glancing blow and he wasn't hurt).
Here in the UK society doesn't seem to care about pedestrians getting themselves into trouble -- I'm not sure if jaywalking is even illegal.
Anyway it's something I get annoyed about. Reason being, I was once a stupid pedestrian, and did get hit by a car. It was entirely my fault -- I didn't understand the road layout and walked out into a lane I thought was clear without looking. Concussion, a week in hospital -- the experience has nothing much to recommend it. Now I realise that most people have no conception of how much it's going to hurt when one of those things hits you. I certainly didn't. And when I see people taking stupid risks on the road I think: if they knew what they were risking, they wouldn't be doing that.
Ah well. I would love to see a society where the accepted thing to do is to cross sensibly. That said, I'd be even happier to see a society where cars and pedestrians are kept completely separate. Since neither of these is going to happen any time soon, I suppose I'll just carry on glaring at people who take stupid risks and hoping I don't see any serious accidents...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may not be your fault, but you still have a chance of avoiding an accident by being alert. Remember if you get hit by a car and die, even if it is not your fault you are still dead.
How many times?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but stupidity can legislate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just give them a Darwin Award (Score:2)
I suppose the real problem (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 3? (Score:2)
btw - joke
What about push-to-hear? (Score:2)
as one who walks all the time (Score:2)
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 ped
easy solution (Score:4, Funny)
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!!!"
Punishing the victim (Score:2)
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?
What about in cars? (Score:2)
God loves the marines, b/c we keep heaven.... FULL.
What's next? (Score:2)
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.
In Other News... (Score:2)
"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 mea
Are you deaf!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "newvo-deaf" ipodders haven't; they're supposedly not used to the idea of not hearing the outside world.
fuel for insurance companies (Score:2)
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.
In related news... (Score:2)
Don't say IPOD when you mean DIGITAL AUDIO PLAYER (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this law... well, if they were jaywalking & got hit, then they've already broken a law, and making another law seems silly. But if they were following the crossing signals, then it's the fault of the motorist. A new law seems unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, a gun is a piece of metal. That is it. It is absolutely nothing more. I could kill you with my finger if I wanted to, I sure as hell don't need a gun to do that.
All I say to those that are for gun control to look at Washington, DC...my hometown. It is illegal to own a handgun and we are the gun-murder capital of the USA.
Fuck I hate ignorance.