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.'"
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:Pedestrians (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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:government might want to step back (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:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:government might want to step back (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Natural Selection At Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:government might want to step back (Score:5, Interesting)
Very OT: Fundamentalism (Score:2, Interesting)
I really don't want to sidetrack this thread into a religious debate (I was more harping on the pseudo-social-darwinism of the OP than on Christians, but with a humorously over-the-top jab at the other extreme thrown in for good measure), but what the hell, I've been riding high on the Slashdot karma scales for my entire history here.
Fundamentalist Christianity is a "mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots". That's not meant to harp on Christians in general and say they're all fundamentalists, nor to say that ONLY Christians are fundamentalists; they're just the predominant religion in this culture and so a handy example. But fundamentalism of ANY sort is meant to stifle critical thought processes. That's what makes it fundamentalism: the belief they you somehow hold the absolute truth, that you are above close, critical inspection and reasoned examination of your beliefs, that there is no way in hell that you could possibly be wrong, because you say so, or your church/temple/mosque says so, or your holy book says so, and anyone who disagrees is obviously a heretic/infidel and must be converted or else destroyed by any means feasible.
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. I happen to agree to varying degrees with significant parts of most religions' teachings. I also happen to agree to varying degrees with significant parts of most secular philosophies out there too, even the ones which position themselves as opposed to each other. Of course I don't agree with the entirety of any of them; I agree with what parts accurately describe the world as it seems to me, or those parts which reason well from things which do seem so obviously true to me. So I wind up believing what I find to be true of my own independent thoughts, which overlaps with a lot of other people's thoughts in places; but never do I just blatantly concede "I believe in X-ism", for any complex value of "X" (i.e. any religious or philosophical system). Nor do I insist that I of my own accord have arrived at the absolute truth; I'm constantly refining my own beliefs, rethinking things, learning from experience, reading new things and getting new ideas, talking with people and testing my own ideas, and so forth. And not just because I'm easily persuaded or haven't got any strong beliefs myself - I've got some very strong, well-thought-out beliefs that I'm not willing to let go of easily, but I am willing to let go of them given good reason to do so, and I have done so repeatedly over the years.
It's when you stop doing that sort of thing and say "Ok, I know the absolute truth now; end of discussion" that you become a fundamentalist, and how is a social culture promoting that sort of thing NOT "a mass ineptitude movement designed to corrupt logical thought processes and turn people into non-thinking idiots"?
Re:Natural Selection At Work (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 without wearing a seat belt? Do we bill the ticket to his/her next of kin? It's only for their "protection".
The only people that really need protecting here are the innocent drivers that are subject to these whack-a-moles popping up in the middle of the street listening to their crappy music. Fines are a terrible idea; probably a moron policitian's idea for a new "revenue stream" for the government.
If anything, make the mobile-electronic-device user liable for the accident (as they should be). Fines and tickets aren't going to help anybody. At best, they'll probably just end up giving the money toward developing new crappy programs like this one.
Actually, check that. What do I care, I don't live in New York. Shoot yourself in the foot morons. At least you don't have to do it in the dark [slashdot.org].
Re:Very OT: Fundamentalism (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, anti-environmentalism, capitalism, and xenophobia (none of which the Bible supports), and you've got the average fundamentalist Christian.
Re:Natural Selection At Work (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" in the same way student loans are from bankruptcy. Make it so that the idiot that was irresponsible has to pay for his choices and cant weasel out of it.
Put some of the responsibility for self protection back on the individuals. If you wear your seatbelt and take other reasonable precautions, you will be covered by the insurance claim. Be reckless and you are responsible for yourself. This applies to both the insured, as well as the injured in other vehicles that normally would be covered. Dont make my rates go up because some idiot in the other car wasnt wearing his belt and now has massive brain damage and is now disabled because he was ejected from the vehicle and ended up wearing the sign post like a hat.
its time we started taking some responsibility for our actions.