What's Next, A Ban On Walking While Talking? Oh Wait...
from the how-about-chewing-gum dept
First there were bans on yakking while driving; then it was yakking while bicycling. So it's only logical that they'd go after yakking while walking.. That's right, a state senator in New York wants to ban the use of cell phones and iPods while crossing the street. The proposed legislation comes after two pedestrians in New York were recently killed, walking across the street while listening to their iPods. This is a really typical response from a lawmaker. As soon as something bad happens, their first inclination is to just ban whatever they think caused it. Certainly, these things could be distracting, and in rare instances, it might cause someone to not notice that the sign is no longer blinking "walk". But the majority of people who talk on the phone or listen to an iPod are able to navigate the task of crossing the street just fine, without having to stop what they're doing. Hopefully this law sounds as ludicrous to other lawmakers as it does to us, but at this point there's no telling what they'll do in the name of "public safety".
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time to start slapping libs upside the head and tell them to wake up to the reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banning iPods and cell phones crossing/sreet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell?
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walking Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walking Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walking Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the name of the blanket
So what they ought to do (in the name of the almighty blanket of protection) is just ban all cell phones and ipods.
That would simplify things greatly in terms of public awareness and enforcement.
(ok, so that might sound rediculous (!sp) but really its not much of an extension to the trends already face with micro managing our liberties in order to protect us from ourselves...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleaning the pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cleaning the pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cleaning the pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot!
Why not ban cars in NY too? Idiot!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this an example of blaming the victim?
Police officer on scene: "Why did you run over that pedestrian?"
Driver: "Look... he was listening to an iPod... He was just askin' for it, ferchrissakes!"
Policeman: "He wasn't listening to it. He didn't even have the ear buds on!"
Driver: "Yeah, but I saw that device on his belt. I tell ya, he was just beggin' for it. I just had to hit him."
Policeman: "I see. You crossed two lanes of traffic for the sole reason of killing this guy. Is that also why you backed over him afterward?"
Driver: "Yeah. I got out to make sure he was dead. I also took his wallet. And those boots... do you think they're my size?"
Policeman, filling out report: "Pedestrian insisted on getting killed. We need more pedestrian laws to handle this..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this an example of blaming the victim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this an example of blaming the victi
And if you are driving 40 MPH in the streets of NYC, then YOU are the mentally challenged one, sir.
It's a fact that there are a number of pedestrians out there. It's also a fact that it's the driver's responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not the other way around. Blaming the victim in this case is as absurd as my original posting in this topic. Listening to an iPod isn't the equivalent to asking to be hit by a car, no matter how you try to spin it.
Before iPods, there were other portable players, all the way back to the Walkmans in the 80s, and before that, there were those silly transistor radios with the thingamabob that you stuck in your ear in the 60s. In all that time, we never had a need for a law to ban their use by pedestrians. It's only now that some muck-raking politician wants to get on a soap box and make an ass of himself by proposing legislation that, in effect, makes being hit by a car the victim's fault.
The fact that somebody that reads this blog would actually consider that the proposed legislation has any conceivable merit is simply inconceivable. ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this an example of blaming the victim?
So who is the Victim now Oh yea the poor driver who Hit the person when they walked into the cross walk because they where on their cell phone not paying attention to the traffic light or signs that say STOP DO`NOT WALK!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
details
maybe they WERE paying attention, but there are some crazy people/drivers in NY - I should know, I've almost been hit before - and maybe it had NOTHING TO DO with the stupid gadget they were using.
maybe the ipod/cellphone wasn't even on, and the drivers in those situations decided "I'm just not going to stop"
we don't know, and not to mention how many people live in NY?? so if I go out and I kick two of you other New Yorker's, will we then ban feet??
how do we know it wasn't utter hatred for their iCrap device that made them run at the cars in a suicidal kamikaze attempt??
and, I mean... maybe it was an important call, dammit!!
...(can go on forever).....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay -- not flamebaiting... just using the protracted logic to resolve what appears to be a really stupid cure for the perceived problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary Clinton. Enough said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well... from a NY'ers standpoint
It's funny because there are lights and crosswalks at just about every intersection in the city, well, at least for midtown, and if you wait for the marked time at a crosswalk, odds are in your favor that you WON'T be hit by a 2000+ lb. piece of steel.
Truth of the matter is that accidents happen. People are careless, and walk out into traffic. The car on the street is usually going somewhere between 15-30mph, and can't stop on a dime. It's simply unavoidable. Suck it up and deal with it. We don't need legislation, we need common sense!
I walk through the city every friday, with my trusty iPod playing the whole time. I am observant of my surroundings and haven't been hit by a car. Not even once!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ban cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning Labels
After a generation or two of no warning labels we'd all have our flying cars, jet packs and moon vacations because humanity would be filled with geniuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
besides you are assuming that stupid people actually read the warning labels. Not likely.
But I still want my flying car!!! And I'm going to drive it with out reading the owners manual. MMMMHHHAAAAA (evil laugh)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't pay attention?
I love this quote from the article. It's basically saying "we need this law because drivers don't pay attention and we're tired of telling them to be more careful." I'm so glad I don't live in New York.
Besides, two people killed? How many other pedestrians get whacked by cars in New York everyday? I want to see the numbers since I believe it's more than two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walking and Talking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummmm...
In California, nobody does it because cops actually will enforce those laws. Maybe that is actually the cause? you know, as opposed to assuming it's some random device that you happen to have a vendetta against because "it's new and unknown" and therefore you find it scary...
Don't get me wrong...California has plenty of "dumb moments in legislature" But this sounds more like you need to tell cops to enforce the pedestrian laws, not create a new and pointless one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: W
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps we need an obvious study to show how much people think stupid bans are stupid first.
Let me call my congressman to get a special ear-mark in the next totally unrelated bill so I can get a $Mil for my study about how stupid bans are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support the above stated ban on bans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many people were killed by guns during the same time period?
I'll bet this same gumby would put a stop to any law trying to ban those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incidentally, if you die as a result of having your iPod so loud and subsequently not paying attention as you cross the street, you probably deserved what you got. Harsh, I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
natural selection at work?
ok for grades 1 to 8 schools this makes sense with the little kids there, but come on .. if by the time you graduate out to the higher schooling, if you don't have the brains to look both ways before crossing a street.. that is natural selection at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
natural selection at work?
ok for grades 1 to 8 schools this makes sense with the little kids there, but come on .. if by the time you graduate out to the higher schooling, if you don't have the brains to look both ways before crossing a street.. that is natural selection at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't
I don't know how one would even enforce such a rule. Would cops have to stop and ticket everyone that was doing such activity?
It was obviously a tragic accident. It was obviously an issue of poor driving, not an issue of someone yakking/listening to a portable device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Annonymous Coward is useless
What a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ban this ban that
We'll i'm not from NY but even in my state, a high school kid ran into the road on his bike wo looking and directly into a semi. Now, I felt bad for the parents and it is tragic for any parent or relative, however, where was the common sense? Now there is also a 30 mph speed reduction and police men busting everyone 12 mile over the limit. $$ hmmmm.
Isn't it funny how in this day and age, we can blame inanimate objects for our lack of grey matter? This isn't new, it's been happening for quite some time, we keep losing small freedoms due to idiots.
We had headphones back in the 80's with cassette players and wore them all the time, never did I hear someone getting crammed because of it.
I make it a point to keep in touch with my kids and what the do, they are the most important thing in life over anything and I will make time to teach them common sense, to take out those buds when crossing a street with an ipod, to look both ways, to NOT assume a car will stop....Yeah , those little things that may save their life.
People this is the reason we still need instructions on shampoo bottles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
^_^
No, we'll ban whatever electronic devices the other two NYers were using at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ipods dont kill people, people do...
Cars dont kill people, people do...
Guns dont kill people, people do...
Correlation?
Nah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York is almost as insane/inane as the UK, with Mass and California not far behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When we're done slapping some reality into the liberals, let's slap some conservatives around. They need a reality check as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so one day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Senators!
This was taken from CNN's article, so how is this a major public safety issue? How many people in NY use phones or music players and how many live in NY? So because of two morons everyone in NY must be subjected to BS laws like this.
As some people have posted, if guns kill people how come we don't ban that or what about booze? I remember a college freshman killed here in Colorado because he drank too much. Lets go back to the prohibition days!!! YIPPIE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Who?
I'd e-mail them a list of other things that should be baned, like capitalism and rampant consumerism.
Following senate reasoning, if people couldn't buy all these cell phones, and music devices, and cars, and shoes, then no one would be in danger of anything because we'd all be at home reading.... wait, then we might get eye strain, better ban that too. damnit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everyone shares the blame in this
why people feel the need to be constantly plugged into something is amazing...
people need to realize that not everybody can or know how to multitask and this can create some dangerous problems in performing normal daily tasks like crossing the street (remember your mother telling you to look both ways for cars before crossing the street).
perhaps the driver of the car was on the cell phone immediately before the accident.
i am not defending politicians, however, when people refuse to use common sense it can be really frustrating for everyone involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: everyone shares the blame in this
Yeah its frustrating that people have to deal with these BS proposals! There is no way you could justify banning a device like this. What is the person was reading a newspaper while walking? It seems to me that a newspaper blocks the persons vision and he could step out into the traffic. You mention common sense, then tell me why there is a label on top of lawn mowers to turn it off before sticking your hands by the blades??? This was most likely because some moron said "Oh I'm supposed to turn it off first, where was my warning!" and sued the company.
If people can't multitask then why do they continue to do it. This is such a multi-tasking issue then maybe that should be the ban. I for one can multi-task very well and I talk to people while listening to music all the time. Its when I have to focus on the conversation that I'll turn off the music. I believe our politicians should have an age limit. After a certain age they aren't allowed to write any technology laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
name
i'm not complaining that you should, i'm saying that you should do it youself before yelling at someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
A more appropriate change would be to include inquires into whether any involved individuals were distracted during the accident. So if GTA a pedestrian that walks into traffic because they were flapping on the phone or jamming to some mp3, it can be used to help determine fault. Impaired individual are usually noted and tested if necessary, with the advent of gadgets there influence on the situation should be noted as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Letter to Fat-Ass State Senator Kruger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumbest city in America?
Boston and New York are doing well, but it's hard to beat cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
should be a good year for stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jusrt another way for the city to make money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
What I don't have sympathies with is the use of legislation to make any of the above a specific offence itself. They should be regarded as contributory factors in cases brought for other reasons, and courts should have the balls to expect people to exhibit personal responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legislating Behavior and Stopping Crime
That said, if you want to put yourself in danger, pierce your nipples, bungee jump, or risk your life by crossing the street with your iPod blaring, that should be your own right as a free person.
This disturbing trend starts with the attempt to "stop crime before it happens" or "protect you from yourselves" but in reality it is nothing less than fascism by other means. It is based in the arrogant belief that I as a person know better than all others, so therefore my own morality should erveryone else's.
Those who would decree what behavior is to be start out by saying they are trying to "protect" us from crimes about to be committed, or legislate behaviors that have the effect of say, reducing a neighborhood's property values, thus damaging another person.
But then they start taking away our rights to be and to do as we will as free people. This is therefore nothing less than the destruction of Liberty itself. Following this trend to the logical extreme no one will be permitted to say anything, do anything, or be anything. We might as well just be honest and rip up the Constitution, throw away our Liberty willfully and consciously, and bow down before those who know better than us about everything.
Look, at MOST, if you cross a street with your iPod, the driver of said car that creamed your butt should be given a "get out of vehicular manslaughter" card. But if I'm smart enough to use an iPod and not get creamed crossing the street, great.
If there's NO HARM, there should be NO FOUL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
english
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
woop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
woop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]