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.'"
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)
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.
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
Address the other factors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Logical fallacy (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.
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.
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.
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:Sounds like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people who have Corey Hart songs on their iPod should get two tickets.
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Insightful)
wouldn't it make more sense (Score:1, Insightful)
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......
Are you deaf!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why pause? (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforce existing traffic laws, now thats funny.
Re:Relevance? (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.
Re:government might want to step back (Score:2, Insightful)
Bzzt, wrong. We all share the roads, and we have to obey the traffic laws. But if a pedestrian doesn't obey them and steps out into traffic, he dies. If a motorist doesn't obey them and hits a pedestrian, he'll get stuck either having to fill out insurance paperwork or going to jail for a while.
So who should be looking out for whom?
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:Are you deaf!? (Score:3, Insightful)
The "newvo-deaf" ipodders haven't; they're supposedly not used to the idea of not hearing the outside world.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:2, Insightful)
And even if that's not really why, this kind of thinking certainly doesn't help the theory's public image.
Yes, but it's arguments like yours that make evolutionists think fundamentalist Christianity is a mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots. And even if that's not true, that kind of thikning certainly doesn't help the Christians' public image.
Re:Relevance? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, but if *you* were alert and attentive, you'd still be alive like me.
Who cares that you were right? You're dead. The guy in the car is still alive.
The lesson is: Don't trust other people to do the right thing.
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:Dodgem (Score:2, Insightful)
>
>There, the rule is... pedestrians run out into traffic and hope that cars stop (or at least
>slow) for them.
You misspelled "California."
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:government might want to step back (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: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:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (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 accident because of his lawfully-reckless driving, would you be annoyed if they had charged him for manslaughter?
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:2, Insightful)