Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting
from the why-don't-we-just-ban-moving dept
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.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?
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."
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bet you ain't gonna hear about that one...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Outrageous
~ 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 thread ]
Admissions from an unconventional doughnut lover
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In other news.
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 thread ]
Whose your daddy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Willful lack of situational awareness
Darwin needs help, and these self-involved wankers are happily stepping up to the plate as volunteers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Before banning head phones...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If they're not that's pretty twisted logic to support a law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Before banning head phones...
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 thread ]
Wrong approach...
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Before banning head phones...
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Politicians aren't some mythical beast
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Please protect me from myself, Darwin is doing too good a job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: In other news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Before banning head phones...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Tiger won't like that! Oh, that's "pencil", sorry!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Politicians aren't some mythical beast
Exactly!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: In other news.
Yes, this is sarcasm reflecting the idiocies of our gov. and society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isn't education a better solution than outright bans?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is regulating the regulators?
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*Rolls Eyes*
Numbnuts....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who is regulating the regulators?
If I had a web page, he would be posted on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will they also fine deaf people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"..Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its me! I'm the guilty one your honour.
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 thread ]
Finally
Ohh yea almost forgot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]