Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting

from the why-don't-we-just-ban-moving dept

Thu, Jan 27th 2011 11:00am — Mike Masnick

Four years ago, we wrote about some of the first attempts to ban using mobile phones or digital music players while crossing the street. Most of the bans simply focused on making it illegal to either text, talk into a mobile phone or have headphones on while in a crosswalk. Apparently, a bunch of local politicians are now pushing similar laws for both pedestrians and cyclists.

In California, State Sen. Joe Simitian has reintroduced a bill that would fine cyclists $20 for texting. In Oregon, State Rep. Michael Schaufler wants to fine cyclists $90 for wearing headphones or earbuds. In Virginia, lawmakers are considering whether to broaden such a ban to include any handheld communication device.

And in New York, a bill before the legislature's transportation committee would ban the use of electronic devices while crossing streets.
This is the second time State Sen. Carl Kruger has introduced this legislation to stem what he calls "tuning in and tuning out."

It's become so ridiculous, that one Arkansas state senator actually wanted to outlaw pedestrians from wearing headphones in both ears while on a street or sidewalk. The ridicule over that proposal, at least, caused the sponsor of the bill to drop it. However, it seems that many politicians are jumping on this kind of nanny state bandwagon, often citing claims that pedestrian accidents increased for the first time in four years in the first half of 2010. Of course, there could be plenty of reasons why that happened that have little to do with headphone usage (after all, it's not like there was a sudden influx of new headphone wearing pedestrians last year). On top of that, though, isn't education a better solution than outright bans?

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

Filed Under: headphones, laws, nanny state, pedestrians

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:10am

My headphones often double as earplugs from the noisy traffic. Maybe the earplug lobbyists are at work here so they can sell me a separate pair of earplugs that don't have visible strings attached to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  A few companies out there make very nice compact Bluetooth earbuds...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 29 Jan 2011 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ive seen mp3 players that size as well
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:16am

Well now if we're going to a Nanny state, I wanna know who is in charge of giving out lunch money to those legislatures. I would like to talk to that Nanny about a reduction in their lunch money so they can't go to the candy store so often when it comes to spending money while making bills. It's hazardous to the nation's financial health.

Bet you ain't gonna hear about that one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:16am

Can we just get this over with and have one long bill that tells us exactly how we should live our lives from the moment of conception, if even that is allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  Not allowed. Too many dangers in the dating process, let alone the process of conceiving!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Over the centuries there has been a direct correlation of the number of births and the number of deaths because of accidents, murders and natural causes. It is obvious that we should stop the cause of these deaths, an outright ban on conception is the only way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:16am

The law might also make the perfect pretext for law enforcement to warrantlessly search your device given that recent ruling in california.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:19am

These laws are sorely needed.

While people walking out in front of a school bus and ending their miserable existence can be argued to be a net good for society, the unintended consequences, especially the psychological trauma to the children on said bus, demand swift and universal implementation, and zealous enforcement of these laws.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  Wait, er, are you being sarcastic? I thought you were serious at first but nobody uses "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" un-ironically...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fairly certain they are joking around..
    
    If they're not that's pretty twisted logic to support a law
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:22am

Outrageous
Not hearing what's going on around you is only limiting one of your senses. If you're not paying attention and/or not looking, you're ignoring basic survival instincts, in which case, good luck. I'm more weary of driveways than street crossings.

~ When I went to school, we were taught to look all ways before crossing a street. Didn't matter if we were listening or not. ~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:24am

Admissions from an unconventional doughnut lover
Perhaps I am being slightly naive, but this seems to be yet an additional fine illustration of Government meeting the needs of its taxpaying citizens.

I await the day when those elected advocate enactment of a statute that renders it illegal to sucking the custard out of a Berliner doughnut. Then, and only then, can I stand up and say "Guilty, Your Honour" with the level of conceited vain that you all have come to love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:25am

Apropos ad at the top of the page for some Shure SE535 ear buds...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:27am

In other news.
Anybody seen the stats showing that deaf people suffer fewer accidents driving and walking?

Proof perhaps that hearing is not the end-all-be-all of urban survival, and paying attention to one's surroundings is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re: In other news.
  I wonder how they can really enforce this law, what about deaf people, can they never cross the street since they can't hear whats around them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AR (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:42pm
    
    Re: Re: In other news.
    No, deaf people cant cross streets, blind people cant walk the streets, and people in wheelchairs, on crutches, or other physical impairments should be scrutinized because they cant jump out of the way fast enough. Its for their own good you know. If they cant look out for their own safety, we are obligated to do it for them. Just lock them in a room so they cant harm themselves or others.
    
    Yes, this is sarcasm reflecting the idiocies of our gov. and society.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:28am

Whose your daddy?
I don't understand why We the People are looking for the government to be our daddy. I am at least as intelligent as any of our governmental leaders so I don't need them telling me what I can do, when I can do it and where I can do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:31am

$20 for cycling while texting? Isn't the hospital bill they get if they crash punishment enough?

Also, ban stoves because kids may burn their hands on them. Ban looking at the sun because kids could go blind staring into it. Ban breathing because kids may inhale toxins or allergens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kiwini, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am

Willful lack of situational awareness
I say: let them do as they please. These idiots who insist on being in public while only being aware of what's going on between their earbuds will be removed from the gene pool that much sooner. On a good day, that'll happen BEFORE they have a chance to breed.

Darwin needs help, and these self-involved wankers are happily stepping up to the plate as volunteers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:33am

Regardless of how silly this is, it's incredibly shortsighted. Technology continues to advance; wireless earbuds will become more popular and get smaller. Then tiny devices we can stick behind our ears, and/or implants... how do they think they're going to legislate that?

Lawmakers should be required to read Snow Crash and The Diamond Age before trying coming up with tech laws that will be nearly instantly obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jared (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:39am

Politicians: legislating against natural selection since 1776.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:39am

One must only listen to headphones or text whilst seated at a inspected and approved workstation after proper government mandated training and with OSHA approved safety devices in place.

Brings to mind the old OSHA cowboy Cartoon:
http://www.msubillings.edu/BusinessFaculty/larsen/MGMT452/OSHA%20humor/OSHA_Cowboy_files/i mage001.gif
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bdhoro (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:44am

Before banning head phones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:45am

These fines should apply to deaf people and blind people as well then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:48am

It is now illegal to be deaf and or blind while in public!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bdhoro (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:52am

Before banning head phones...
Ummm... hearing isn't a prerequisite for being allowed to cross the street.

Shouldn't we do hearing tests on all pedestrians to make sure they can hear at all if its so important?

You don't even need to pass a hearing test in order to get a driver's licence.

And isn't walking around bumping into things and looking silly punishment enough for the text-walkers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: Before banning head phones...
  Or falling into mall fountains.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rob, 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Before banning head phones...
    Let's put fountains at all crossings to attract the sheeple..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:56am

Wrong approach...
The issue is not whether it's dangerous for these people to wear headphones in situations in which they can get themselves run over. The issue is to see that it happens before they pass on their stupid genes to future generations.

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:57am

They arleady have tiny earbuds - they are called hearing aiides and YES they have blue tooth as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MissingFrame, 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:57am

Politicians aren't some mythical beast
This is something at least as old as Walkmans and there were probably laws about reading newspapers while driving stagecoaches. Politicians are elected, chances are these have been elected by idiots who believe in these sorts of laws. I cringe every time someone blames "politicians" as often as I cringe when someone blames "technology".

BTW, "Isn't education a better solution than outright bans?" is a great question, but education is considered a cost and fines are an income, we don't hear a lot of public outcry for the government to spend more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: Politicians aren't some mythical beast
  Not sure that there was a need for laws about distracted stagecoach driving. Horses are generally smart enough to pay attention themselves, regardless of their oblivious rider/driver.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: Politicians aren't some mythical beast
  "BTW, "Isn't education a better solution than outright bans?" is a great question, but education is considered a cost and fines are an income, we don't hear a lot of public outcry for the government to spend more money."
  
  Exactly!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RikuoAmero (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:02pm

I read a book while out walking. In fact last week, I went on a nine hour walk. I read my book while walking, put it down while waiting to cross a road, and read it again while I continued walking. I've mastered the art of paying attention to the sounds around me, and of peripheral vision. Oh, and of knowing every square inch of my area, so then I don't need to look every second.
Wanna know how much this law being talked about helped? Diddly Squat! If I do hurt myself, well, I have only myself to blame. Having a law there won't stop me from hurting myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:08pm

Dear Government.
Please protect me from myself, Darwin is doing too good a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:15pm

Those who follow professional cycling are aware that people who choose the sport as a livelihood rely on earbuds, music, and such are instrumental in the sport. It's like telling a plumber that they can't use a wrench.

To regulate something as absurd as this will ultimately have effects on "The Tour Of California" as well as many cycling clubs (both professional and amateur).

I recall a large tourism advertising effort which included Professional Bodybuilder and outgoing Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger which featured a professional cyclists going rogue and using said headphones-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md69zCJKD1c

So within time, Sen. Joe Simitian will probably also work to outlaw pencil usage on the golf course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  "So within time, Sen. Joe Simitian will probably also work to outlaw pencil usage on the golf course."
  
  Tiger won't like that! Oh, that's "pencil", sorry!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
keyboard, 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:25pm

Remember: you cannot control a free man. Therefore you have to invent laws and subject the free man to enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
glen (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:59pm

isn't education a better solution than outright bans?
Actually, isn't natural selection a better solution than outright bans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:00pm

Who is regulating the regulators?
Somewhat related...

I don't know if you saw the recent news about the FCIC's recent 500 page publication or read punters cardinal synopsis, but both are definitely good reads.

For those not too keen on spending a week plowing through the tautological version, this good Irish Man, who was apparently affected by Ireland's Banking Crisis has some good insight-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo

So while we scrutinize the ability of cyclists and pedestrians to operate such machinery, I also encourage we have stricter leash laws designed for the populace that have retractable leashes while walking pets.

For example, retractable leashes should be restricted to non-trophy-wifes, wifes who have no immediate family holding public servant positions. Additionally, people using retractable leashes should not also operate telephone or electronic devices until they are aware of the effects of using the two in a combined manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AR (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re: Who is regulating the regulators?
  OMG!!! I nominate that Irish guy for world President LOLOLOL
  If I had a web page, he would be posted on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AW, 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:09pm

You know while I agree there shouldn't be laws regulating behavior, there should be laws protecting people from the consequences of others bad behavior. If your carelssness with wearing earbuds gets you injured or killed you shouldn't be able to sue the person driving unless they were being negligent as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:22pm

*Rolls Eyes*
Cause there is SOOOOOOO much traffic in Arkansas, right?

Numbnuts....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AR (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:35pm

What, did you get a new hood ornament recently?
JUST KIDDING!!

Actually I partially agree with you. BUT, the reason some want earbuds banned is to take responsibility off of themselves. an example: If someone wearing earbuds is in a crosswalk, a driver, late for work, runs the light and hits them. they can then say it wasnt their fault. It was the pedestrians fault for not hearing them coming and not jumping out of their way.

Kind of like seatbelt laws. if you are not wearing one and someone hits you, its automatically your fault. Even if you are parked in a parking lot.

You know how lawyers twist things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AR (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re:
  oops this is a reply for AW
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RobShaver (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 2:31pm

Will they also fine deaf people?
Isn't this similar to being deaf? Will they outlaw deafness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:07pm

I like how it's fine to listen to music while mowing down pedestrians in the crosswalk, but not while crossing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AR (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:34pm
  
  Re:
  But, without the car radio blasting, the driver might have to hear the screams.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    When I die, I want to go like my great-grandfather. Peacefully, sleeping. Not like the pedestrians screaming and moaning after he ran them down in the crosswalk.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjamin, 27 Jan 2011 @ 4:00pm

I remember when this came up a little more than a year ago in Brooklyn. A headphone-wearing pedestrian was hit and killed while crossing the street.

I thought then, and I think now that we should ask how many pedestrians are killed every year while NOT wearing headphones/earbuds. I'd be willing to bet that if we look at the numbers, those iPods will start to look like safety devices. Where's Apple's marketing department on this issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 5:55pm

"..Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting"
If a pedestrian or cyclist wants to risk being nominated for The Darwin Awards, then that's their own personal choice. Me? I prefer music at a reasonable volume when cycling. Just be aware of your environment, that's all. So if any of this utter nonsense somehow becomes law, then this would be one of the few laws I would take great pleasure in breaking. ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 28 Jan 2011 @ 4:40am

Its me! I'm the guilty one your honour.
Yes it's true, I'm the criminal, the dangerous loose cannon on the streets. I've been wantonly wearing earphones both walking and on a bike since the early 80's when I got my first Walkman. It's a miracle I'm alive really. How did I manage such an amazing feat you may ask?

Well it turns out that there's this invention called Eyes(tm). Get a pair (don't get just the one - it's an option but limits functionality), I thoroughly recommend them. Though it's true their use can prove tricky for some I've always found them a godsend. Eyes(tm) work over quite some distance - further in fact in a straight line than the mandated Ears(tm) and even a novice user can easily identify hazards in the field of vision. Eyes(tm) are stereoscopic and with practice allow you to judge the distance of an object enhancing he hazard detecting functionality.

I know doubters will say that Ears(tm) offer constant 360 degree coverage, which is true. However, in most outlets Eyes(tm) come with a free add-on called Neck(tm). Using both in tandem allows Eyes(tm) a far wider coverage (there is also the optional Waist(tm) but many consider this overkill).

If you wish to try these fantastic products please be aware of the following recommended method of use: While travelling, use Eyes(tm) in General Scanning Mode along desired path of motion to identify potential hazards. It is advised you occasionally use Neck(tm) for wider coverage. When approaching an identified area, switch Eyes(tm) to their enhanced PayingCloseAttention mode and use Neck(tm) extensively. With proper use you will be fully satisfied with your journey and may even find ehnacements over Ears(tm) such as the SilentCycle Detection(r) mode.

This advertisment was brought to you by Eyes Ltd. a wholly owned subsidiary of BloodyStupidLaws Inc. (www.bloodystupidlaws.gov.local)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 5:15am

Finally
I am 100% in support of this new ban. I am sick and tired of Scraping and squeegeeing these people's bodies off my truck. Yea, Darwin and natural selection is a good thing, but having to buff out an ear mark in my hood every weekend gets kinda old. Not to mention the earbuds themselves can leave scratches. I'm with Rob, Lets put out some body catching fountain's or leave a few manhole covers off, people fall in, crack their head open and then are conveniently washed down to a central treatment plant for disposal.

Ohh yea almost forgot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 5:16am
  
  Re: Finally
  Whoops it processed my as an html tag :-\
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 28 Jan 2011 @ 5:17am
    
    Re: Re: Finally
    ohh i give up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]