NJ Legislator Proposes Fine For Walking While Phone-Distracted (philly.com) 194
schwit1 writes: A bill proposed this week by Assemblywoman Pamela R. Lampitt (D., Camden) would impose a fine of up to $50 and possibly 15 days in jail for pedestrians caught using their cellphones without hands-free devices while walking on public sidewalks and along roadways. If the bill becomes law, 'petextrians' — people who text while walking — would face the same penalties as jaywalkers in New Jersey. From the article: Researchers say distracted walkers are more likely to ignore traffic lights or fail to look both ways before crossing the street. ... Lampitt said she wants that message to hit home in New Jersey for pedestrians and motorists who could easily be distracted while looking at mobile devices. Her bill, however, faces an uncertain future in the Legislature. It has not been posted for a vote and Lampitt acknowledged she might have a tough time getting it passed." Distracted pedestrians surely pose some risks, but they don't budge the needle compared to overbearing officialdom.
Another excuse . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
to give police to arrest someone for some other pretense.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you envisioning an Al Capone-style take down?
"It is true, Your Honor and the Jury, that we cannot prove Mugs Malone strangled forty three people, ran extortion rackets in the Tri-City Area, and regularly raped chimpanzees, but what we can prove is that this murdering monkey raping gangster did willfully and with ill intent cross Main Street on no less than three occasions while texting on his iPhone!"
Re:Another excuse . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
No, more like a "papers, please" kind of stop. "Texting while walking? Well now I'm going to stop and detain you, check your ID, immigration status, and frisk you for any contraband." I bet a good amount of money that the vast majority people cited for texting while walking are poor blacks and latinos.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how a bill which would give bad police another tool to harass poor minorities this way is coming from a Democrat. It all fits with the Party of Hillary: give lip service to poor minorities while screwing them over. And what's really bad is they're happily voting for her in the Primaries rather than the guy who would really help them.
Re: (Score:3)
He's assuming that only the poor ones will be stopped. Or possibly that only the poor ones will be walking.
No (Score:2)
Too many stupid people were hit by cars and ruined it, causing government to step in.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This should be resolved via natural selection.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was: people who prioritised ensuring they'd survive their stupid mistakes outcompeted people who prioritised making sure others wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, these people should be policed by their fellow pedestrians and/or natural selection via cars.
These police state scumbags are really getting out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
And walking down the sidewalk is a right not a privilege like driving.
Holding a phone to your ear is a matter of free speech, protected by the Constitution.
Details matter... right Mr Pedant?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the authors of the Constitution totally envisioned telephones, especially portable ones that people would have on them at all times.
Imagine someone reading a snail mail letter and walking into the path of a team of horses pulling a heavy wagon. Not much different.
Re: (Score:2)
It's another bullshit reason to lawfully stop you which could lead to an arrest if you are founf to have or be doing something else illegal.
Like resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe - and here's a revolutionary idea, I know - the cops should leave you the fuck alone if you aren't hurting anyone.
wrong solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Distracted pedestrians (and anyone else distracted while doing something else) just need to be properly assigned responsibility for the problems they cause.
If a distracted pedestrian, not obeying traffic laws gets mowed down, then that is on them, 100%. Driver walks away scot-free. If they cause an accident, they pay for damages, 100%. If they cause any financial hardship on anyone for their distractedness, they own it, 100%.
Oh, but wait. That requires a society that recognizes personal responsibility and this is the US we are talking about here. Never mind silly old me.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you got modded down for that, I guess a lot of slashdotters are iPhone zombies. Or maybe it was the unnecessary anti-USA comment at the end of an otherwise good point. I tend to agree, the people that tend to suffer most in distracted-pedestrian incidents are the people that caused the issue, so why not let natural selection take its course? Over time, we should be able to breed out the people that can't bring themselves to focus when stepping in to traffic, and the human race will be all t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> If a distracted pedestrian, not obeying traffic laws gets mowed down, then that is on them, 100%. Driver walks away scot-free.
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
> If they cause an accident, they pay for damages, 100%. If they cause any financial hardship on anyone for their distractedness, they own it, 100%.
Not clear what you mean. typically when there is an accident, you asses
Re: (Score:2)
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
Which law are you referring to, because I can't think of a single state that doesn't allow the particulars of the situation to be considered when determining the fault of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian? Nobody (except the police, apparently) have license to mow down pedestrians with impunity, but if a reasonably attentive drive could not avoid a collision with a pedestrian then they can be found not at fault for such a collision. I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm sure you can think of several examples that would fit that description
Agreed that the particulars of the edge cases will influence decisions on fault. But absent extreme circumstances (driver has a gun to his head? Pedestrian with rocket pack?), what could a pedestrian be possibly doing that would not be detected and avoided by a reasonably attentive driver? Even if you're walking distractedly, you're only doing so at 2MPH and there would be plenty of time for a reasonably attentive driver to notic
Re:wrong solution (Score:4, Informative)
The other responses in this thread list a few, including the classic: pedestrian steps out from between two parked vehicles into a stream of busy traffic moving at speed. An accident of some sort is extremely likely in that case and that's the sort of situation that inspired jaywalking laws to begin with. You don't need contrived gun-to-head scenarios unless you're being deliberately obtuse. A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to change the laws of physics when maneuvering or braking a car. (Legally, a reasonably attentive driver is even allowed to be looking the opposite way or checking their mirrors or gauges for the second that it would take such a jaywalker to enter the stream of traffic.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's unlikely that a reasonably attentive driver would hit a pedestrian stepping out between parked cars. On any road, there still needs to be room for somebody who just parked to open his door. if a driver is attentive for people who will open their door, then he's attentive for peds stepping out. if it's a really high speed road, then there will be plenty of buffer between the through lanes and the parked cars.
> A reasonably attentive driver doesn't have superhuman reflexes and the ability to c
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's unlikely that a reasonably attentive driver would hit a pedestrian stepping out between parked cars. On any road, there still needs to be room for somebody who just parked to open his door.
That's rich. In Boston, we have plenty of streets that are two-way in name only. You either familiarize yourself with the convention of which way people tend to drive down it or be prepared to play chicken. And that's before people start parking half on the sidewalk. On both sides of the street. And then dump a couple of feet of snow on top of it.
When you open the driver side door, you check your mirror, crack the door, look over your shoulder, and then make a break for the sidewalk (or Look, Latch, and
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, if a pedestrian strolls out from behind a van or SUV without peeking around the edge for traffic first, yes they will get flattened, no matter how attentive the driver or how hard they stand on the brake.
Then the driver is at fault for driving too fast. Shit, you've just described a congested highly pedestrianised area; driving at any speed needing more than a car length's worth of stopping distance sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
In the UK many residential streets are like that, with whole districts that way. People drive slowly and accidents are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
"Then the driver is at fault for driving too fast. "
Absolutely not. Pedestrians HAVE to be held accountable for their stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. If you open your door into traffic and someone driving by clips it, you have caused the accident.
Irrelevant, anyway - If someone steps out from between two large vehicles, you can't go from 25 to zero faster than that person can take two steps. Physics always wins.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You don't have a driver's license, do you?
How about a driver is driving, well within the speed limit, past a dense row of parked cars, and a pedestrian previously hidden behind one of the cars (say, a van) just absent-mindedly walks from between the cars right into the road, right in front of the driver's car with no way for the driver to react? Hell, what if the distracted pedestrian actually walks into the driver's car as it's passing by, hits its side and gets smacked by the rear view mirror? I've had a
Re: (Score:2)
or to drive at a walking pace in places like that.
This is exactly what the law requires that drivers do, and that's what the prosecution against the driver may very well say in court after the accident ---- they were driving too fast... even though it was below the speed limit; the driver of the vehicle was responsible to see the densely parked cars and operate their vehicle and a slow enough speed that the driver would be able to stop for any unexpected pedestrian emerging.
Re: (Score:2)
It requires no such thing. That situation describes any urban road, with speed limits between 25 and 35MPH, not 5MPH.
Re: (Score:2)
So do so.
Or how about you, a trained adult operating dangerous machinery on public places, stop blaming your own incompetence on others, especially kids?
Re: (Score:2)
what could a pedestrian be possibly doing that would not be detected and avoided by a reasonably attentive driver?
Jogging at night and running across an intersection against the light when the speed limit on the road is 45 mph. Standing behind a tall car or light pole and stepping into traffic. Standing behind other people and stepping into traffic. Standing behind nothing at all and stepping into traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
True story: We were on an arterial street, going the speed limit (going much less would have disrupted traffic), and the light was green. There was a bus pulled over to the curb.
Suddenly, a family of idiots walked out from behind the bus with no warning whatsoever. There was no possible way we could have seen them before they were in an active lane of traffic.
Fortunately, we were one lane over from the bus, which gave us a little maneuvering time, and we were able to avert a tragic accident. Had we
Re: (Score:2)
There are some scenarios where everyone pretty much relies on the other person being rational.
Yes, if you see someone texting that looks like they are about to step out in front of you, you stop or try to avoid them.
If some idiot suddenly steps out into an road from between two cars or something, and you don't see them in time, and they didn't register your presence because they were staring down at a phone... well that person is at fault.
You know, you'd think that people really aren't that stupid, but ever
Re: (Score:2)
This backwards walking woman...
How can you let that exist without asking why? I'd have to ask... "Excuse me, ma'am? I see you walking backwards frequently and I'm a curious person. Why are you walking backwards?"
I do, indeed, get some interesting conversations out of life. I could not just let that happen - I'd have to ask her why.
It's like the age-old question, "If you see a crazy person smashing their head against a wall, would you help them?" Nope. I most certainly would not. For starters, they're crazy
Re: (Score:2)
I would have to work far too hard to distract her from her headphones and phone to get her attention to even try and ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I was referring to the person walking as paying attention to the phone, not the driver. I suppose that could be ambiguous in retrospect.
While I agree that most situations can be prevented by the driver being attentive, there are definitely situations where a pedestrian can come out of nowhere. I don't for a second believe that all pedestrians can be avoided simply by being attentive.
When you are on a road or a pedestrian on a public road/sidewalk there is always the expectation that both sides w
Re: (Score:2)
Where is such a law? In NYS, for instance, the law says that a driver must give the right of way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. And there have been a few cases recently where a car hit a pedestrian and the pedestrian was cited and the driver was not. In one case the pedestrian was crossing the street and not in a crosswalk, and in the other case the pedestrian was walking on the wrong side of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably varies by state. In CA,
21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from
the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian
within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.
If a driver dashes onto the freeway and causes an unavoidable accident, the driver is not at fault. But if a pedestrian is walking distractedly, and causes an accident that the driver could have avoided, then the driver is at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read section (b) from the quoted passage? Because your bolded section (d) is only modifying that section "within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
Your posted example completely agrees with the parent's description of the NY law. The example you gave doesn't apply at all when the pedestrian is jaywalking.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah you're right. reading fail.
Re: (Score:2)
The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault.
Easy solution. Cite the pedestrian for jaywalking. Cite the driver for failing to yield. Have them both go to court and determine who's actions were most responsible for the accident, and have that person pay the damages/suffer the penalties. If they were exceedingly reckless, or made the accident unavoidable, cancel the other's citation (eg, car-on-sidewalk, pedestrian jumping from behind parked cars).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this makes sense. Here's an interesting twist: due to car insurance, drivers face no financial liability except in extreme circumstances where your insurer tells you to eff off. however, pedestrians don't have ped insurance.
All the regulations were written around the idea that every driver would have car insurance (it's the law!), and it's not a life or death financial situation when you assign fault for an accident. Nobody's going bankrupt from a crash. But in the scenario above, would the ped be
Re: (Score:2)
drivers face no financial liability except in extreme circumstances where your insurer tells you to eff off.
No... when drivers are at fault, they are liable, but it's insured liability. Drivers will pay for it in insurance premiums over time and more.
however, pedestrians don't have ped insurance.
This is their choice.... Generally, attention to their injuries would be covered by health insurance, and any liability would be covered by general liability insurance, homeowners' insurance, or an Umbre
Re: (Score:2)
"The law says that drivers yield to pedestrians, even jaywalkers. doesn't matter if they're distracted or not. In a pedestrian accident, the driver is at fault."
And that stupidity needs top come to an end.
Re: (Score:2)
Argh, can't trust spell check when the mis-typed word is actually a word itself...
Re: (Score:2)
why? ever hear of responsibility? taking responsibility for their actions? drivers have all the power in any driver/ped interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like the pedestrian taking responsibility for paying attention to the world around them,
When a human/car collision occurs, guess which suffers the most damage? Maybe if stupid people paid more attention and were more cautious, it wouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately blame needs to be applied to the party actually at fault, and if the pedestrian is disobeying traffic laws (only cross on green at a designated crosswalk, for example), then the PEDESTRIAN is 100% at fault
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, the p
Re: (Score:2)
The law makes it pretty clear that pedestrians have the right of way. Just because you're jaywalking does not give drivers carte-blanche to mow you down.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when the diver was texting and the pedestrian was texting, who is at greater fault. Especially as legally speaking the pedestrian did not agree to laws bound to accepting a drivers licence, that the driver accepted. Perhaps a simple rider needs to be added being "which resulted in an accident occurring", so no harm, no fowl ie what happened to the chicken that crossed the road while texting ;).
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when the diver was texting and the pedestrian was texting, who is at greater fault.
If the driver was texting and ran into the pedestrian, then the driver is 100% at fault, full stop.
As a pedestrian; there is generally no hazard from texting, and all the danger is caused by the fact there are cars, and the distracted driving cannot be overcome by any action of the pedestrian.
Re: (Score:2)
Man 'walks off cliff and plummets 60 feet to his death on Christmas Day while distracted by his cell phone' [dailymail.co.uk]
Girl Falls Into Manhole While Texting, Parents Sue [wired.com]
Bonnie Miller, Woman Who Fell Off Pier While Texting, Saved By Teen Rebecca Van Zant [huffingtonpost.com]
Texting While Walking Causes More Accidents Than Texting and Driving [healthline.com]
Want to rethink that stance?
Re: (Score:2)
Want to rethink that stance?
These are not general hazards of texting; these are extreme situations which can sometimes occur.
Also, a reasonable person --- even if texting while walking, is going to look up occassionally, to make sure they still see where they are going.
Texting While Walking Causes More Accidents Than Texting and Driving
However, they are smaller accidents, and they tend to only affect the person texting. Also, there can be varying levels of distraction while texting while walking
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see "walking 15 feet away from a continuous stream of rapidly moving multi-ton objects" as one of those areas?
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that there are very few 60 foot cliffs near the sidewalks in my area. Or even open manholes. There are, however, telephone/light poles all over the place, and I have seen texters walk right into them. Ouch!
"Also, a reasonable person --- even if texting while walking, is going to look up occassionally, to make sure they still see where they are going."
The word is "reasonable". Many of the walking texters don't qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
This will lead to the same problem as with "stand your ground" laws: it's typically not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pedestrian obeyed traffick laws, so the driver will walk away.
Wall Street will veto a law like that.
What these carbon-copy stories mean (Score:5, Insightful)
In a state where everything is legislated, the people in it are assumed by the state to be mindless slaves who would stop functioning without constant instruction in minute details of life. And they are probably correct in that judgement.
You should take these stories personally. I think it would be difficult to over react. You can see countless examples of such laws already enacted.
You think you're so intelligent that such laws would never affect you. But there are such laws that affect you.
Instead of making excuses for the signs of your government's tyranny, you should inventory the examples.
I think most anyone who has the discipline to do this will come to the conclusion that they are not a respected citizen of the state.
Maybe if enough people were to harden themselves in this way there could be an opportunity for freedom for those who deserve it.
Seems to be its own reward (Score:3)
If you're not jaywalking, what's the problem? If you are jaywalking, then you can already be cited for jaywalking.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the idiots who can't look up from their phone while crossing the street. I suppose you could view it as "evolution in action" that they are eventually going to get hit, but as a driver, I really don't want to hit anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws of physics disagree with you. There's just no speed slow enough to avoid hitting someone who jumps out from behind an obstacle you can't see over. And the laws reflect that - if you step out into the street, not in a crosswalk, a driver is only required to exercise reasonable care. That does not include Superman's X-ray vision, or Superman's ability to stop a car in motion in 3 feet.
Normal flow of traffic is about 30 MPH on the roads around where I live (dense area), and there's street parking e
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Zero accidents that I've been responsible for in 30 years... well what do you know I DO drive responsibly. But at 20 miles per hour, you cover 30 feet in a second. If someone wanders out behind a van right in front of me, I won't be responsible for hitting him, but I'm still going to feel awful about it.
Got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just how close are you passing this van? Six foot gap, 3 foot gap, 4 inches? If you're passing vans at 20mph with less than a six foot gap you're going too fast.
If you're six foot or more away from the van then any pedestrian has to step out and cover six foot before you can hit them. That gives you time to see them and time to react.
If you're so close to the end of the van that you wont have time to react anyway, you'll be past it before they can cover those six feet. They may walk into the side of your ve
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to avoid hitting pedestrians who aren't paying attention is not drive. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in that area the speed limit is 25 MPH, in most States, and the speed limit is the maximum speed you are allowed to travel under optimal conditions - that includes weather, pedestrians, obstructed vision, and traffic.
I'm not sure you're qualified to determine who is and who is not a bad driver. Almost every single accident that occurs is because someone was driving too fast for the conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in that area the speed limit is 25 MPH, in most States, and the speed limit is the maximum speed you are allowed to travel under optimal conditions - that includes weather, pedestrians, obstructed vision, and traffic.
That's funny. The impression I got in some places that the speed limit was a threshold such that if you get down to within 5mph of it, you have justifiable grounds for extreme anger and horn usage.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast, vast majority of drivers are incompetent and should not have the privilege of driving until they've demonstrated an actual ability to drive properly. This is not unique to the US.
I've not only driven all over the world but I've taken a whole bunch of lessons, advanced driving courses, and even drove as my MOS for quite a while. I not only drove heavy vehicles but I also went to school to learn defensive and asset protection (I drove staff cars for a while and then escorted prisoners). I've taken c
Re: (Score:2)
I remember one time I was on a residential street. I don't think 25 would have been safe in any case, but that particular time, not only were there more parked cars than usual, but there were a bunch of kids just out of the street. I had a feeling about it, and slowed to maybe 5 MPH, and sure enough a ball shot into the street between the cars, closely followed by one of the kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Where there's one, there's two.
Some old dude taught me that, a long time ago. It's usually true. If you see one kid, there's another one around somewhere. If you see one animal, there's another one. If you see one car, there's another one.
It's not always true but it's a good indicator.
Re: (Score:2)
sidewalks are for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
Re: (Score:2)
I even once saw a hooligan dancing on the sidewalk!!!1!!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the legislator chafes under the "hand up and drive" rules, and wants to "push back" against pedestrians to "level the playing field."
He'd love it in my State, where every intersection has implied cross walks, and the pedestrian has the right of way at all of them. :) :) :)
The funny thing is, I see way more drivers using a phone than pedestrians.
Re: (Score:2)
"literal fascism"
Hmm... Define for me, if you will, fascism? For bonus points, what has jaywalking got to do with fascism?
It might be all sorts of things but I'm having a hard time seeing why you'd say it is "literal fascism." Unless, of course, you're using your own definition of the word that we're not privy to.
We need more lawyers (Score:2)
I propose a fine for distracted lawmakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the american people who end up paying the fine.
Car Lobbies at Work (Score:2)
Wow! Lobbying really works, doesn't it.
On natural rights and laws (Score:3)
It's worth noting here that all laws are, by their very definition, "evil". If such a term truly exists, then surely it applies to the deprivation of natural rights by a foreign body.
Now, in some cases the alternative is worse than the law; it's a necessary evil. We can all agree that a law prohibiting the taking of a human life for sport to be a better evil than the alternative. However, it doesn't diminish the threat laws impose upon the governed.
I wish more people understood this. At the very least, I wish our law makers understood this rather basic concept. If they did, we might never have to deal with idiotic laws like the one proposed.
Dear Assemblywoman Pamela R. Lampitt, I propose a new law; No legislating while drunk, which you so clearly are if you think this is a good use of the public's energy.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of things change once you mandate publicly funded health care. Now when the idiot is hit by a car at the intersection because he was texting instead of watching for traffic, his medical costs are borne by society instead of by only himself. Society has an interest in reducing overall medical costs. Thus it has a justification to pass laws prohibiting risky behaviors like texting while walking.
(In case you're wondering, I don't cons
Re: (Score:2)
Does society also have a justification to knock everybody out with drugs, feed them intravenously, and hold them all under restraint 24x7? Because that is the full expression if we follow that bizarre line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting here that all laws are, by their very definition, "evil".
No, that's not the definition of laws. The only way it's a definition is if you personally define it as such. At that point you're just stating "I believe laws are evil therefore laws are evil". If you believe all laws are evil merely by being laws, then that's your very silly perogative.
We can all agree that a law prohibiting the taking of a human life for sport to be a better evil than the alternative.
No we can't all agree that, mo
Re: (Score:2)
Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It is instructive to add ", obstinacy, and arrogance" to the end.
If we are confronted by evil (malice), then we are morally justified in wiping out that evil without a moment's hesitation or remorse. If we believe what is far more likely - that we are confronted by smug, stupid, self-satisfie
Fascism: (Score:3)
dictating your lives since you had lives to dictate.
Fuck A Lawmaker (Score:2)
New Jersey's lunatic Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
An earlier proposal — from Ms. Lampitt's fellow female Democrat from Essex — would've made it mandatory for bicycles to be registered [nj.com] in the State.
Kinda reflects badly on the national Party trying to portray itself as the defender of personal freedoms and individual rights.
Hit and Walk Pedestrian! (Score:2)
I guess Lampitt is planning her next bill to be the Drunken Walker Bill where if you have an blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.08 you get a an expensive ticket for drunk walking. The
Re: (Score:2)
Most States already have that law, but they call it "drunken in public" rather than "drunk walking." But note that drunk drivers are not also changed with public drunkenness; it is exclusively for drunk walkers. Well, and people passed out after having walked some distance.
Crossing streets, yes; walking on sidewalks, no! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like this. The pedestrian crossing the road is sharing the public highway with motorized vehicles; the pedestrian on the side walk is not.
Could it be also a fine for smoking (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
First phones. Next, chewing gum.
Just wondering... (Score:2)
Without knowing any details... would this have anything to do with the fact that private prison companies pouer a lot of money into politicians? Because it make sense to make ridiculous tough laws if you get money from for-profit prisons...
Re: (Score:2)
drivers have a responsibility to not hit pedestrians, even jaywalkers.
Re: (Score:3)
Same penalty for jaywalkers, as in a law that cops would never enforce
In California a few weeks back work colleagues kept dragging me back to stop me crossing empty roads in case the police stopped me for jaywalking.
It really is an asinine and pointless law. It also slowed down drivers as I had to wait on an empty road for a light to turn red, by which time a car had arrived and had to stop for me to cross. If I'd just walked over when I reached the road I'd have been across and gone with no delay to myself or the car.
Re: (Score:3)
+1. It's virtually impossible for a "distracted" pedestrian to injure a driver, but very easy for a driver to kill a pedestrian. Responsibility should fall on those who are creating the most risk for others.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, physics tends to disagree.
Suppose I'm driving a train and a motorist decides that those gates don't apply to them. It's not like the train stops on a dime. Does this mean that I'm at fault? Does this mean that we should lower all train speeds to a tenth of a mile per hour so that they could reasonably stop in the event that a pedestrian enters their path?
Re: (Score:2)
But, we already have laws against Jay walking? How does this law fix jaywalkers?
Re: (Score:3)
Because jaywalking laws aren't enforced, so we totally need another law. /s
It's like all of the "State Law: Keep right except to pass" signs on the highway here that work soooo well. Nobody keeps right except to pass because it's not enforced, so a new law was passed that mandated these signs being placed on the highway (instead of mandating that the actual law be enforced). Obviously, nobody's driving habits changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws don't, by themselves, "fix" much of anything. Even though there are laws against it, people still murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians need to be aware of other pedestrians.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely nothing modern about individual legislators introducing stupid, often unConstitutional, bills. Or, for that matter, getting them passed. This doesn't depend on party, although Republican idiots and Democrat idiots do tend to introduce different bills.
lol. Hilariously true (Score:2)
That's great.
Re: Got more government (Score:2)
No, we want better government not just throwing the baby out with bathwater thinking that will fix everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it could be worse for drivers, because they need their both hands to drive in some situations, while a pedestrian can walk without using its hands
That said, when it comes to attention, I fail to see why a hands-free kit would be of any help for a pedestrian.