Ban Proposed On Walking While Talking, Listening To iPod

[seriousstan]

A state senator from Brooklyn said on Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would ban people from using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in either New York City or Buffalo.

NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.

"While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The proposed law would make talking on cell phones while crossing the street a comparable offense to jaywalking.

Some pedestrians said they were not worried about their safety while using their electronic devices while walking.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/10948106/detail.html

Mommy, my I wipe my own ass now??

[hobbit709]

1. There's always someone

who wants to pass a law against genetic self-cleansing.

[ixion]

2. exactly...

this is life: it is not a theme park. You simply cannot remove all the nasties. Pay attention when you cross the street. ;-)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. they should ban billboard advertising, true.

driving or walking and looking at signs? horrors.

also, remove all radios from cars.

[Bonobo]

4. Ban blue skies!

Too distracting!

[MamaBear]

21. Yes! And interesting looking cloud formations.

And be sure to put heavy fine on lightning and thunder. :eyes:

[Little Wing]

5. Yeah, and then some old dude gets tasered for wearing a hearing aid

some stupid cop thinks is a bluetooth phone.

[jody]

6. Ban "thinking while walking" and only Repugs could legally walk. n/t

[soleft]

7. Some people can't jog without an IPOD

If I ever jogged I know I would be one of them.

[pinniped]

8. They're tuning out jerks like this.

they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The

If they hear their phones ring while crossing the street, they might rush across the street in order to answer it and and get smacked.

[MrPrax]

9. Thank you Senator...

for introducing a bill that trivializes public safety.

The Right's Pundits love this stuff cause they can talk about batshit crazy 'mommy' gubbermint and lump things like restrictions on cellphone use in cars (actual problem and currently also being proposed in NY) with noxious unconstitutional time-wasters like this.

But it's good to see this State Senator out there defending those that apparently forgot that day in school when they were told to look both ways before crossing the street by 'big' gubbermint and mudding the waters of 'freedom'.

[devilgrrl]

10. How about bans on people hitting people with cars?

:wtf:

[Ezlivin]

11. What about the hearing impaired? Isn't the world "tuned out" for them?

They somehow manage to avoid getting hit by cars despite the fact that they can hear precious little (if at all).

Why not pass a law enforcing personal responsibility for one's actions?

[DuaneBidoux]

33. I guess if you're hearing impaired you shouldn't be allowed to cross at all.

[pitohui]

61. hearing impaired /are/ at greater risk of accident

i'm not saying ban them, but the reality is that the hearing impaired who didn't choose to be hearing impaired DO have a greater risk of being in accident than a person who can hear and who chooses to use his sense of hearing

my friend hit and severely hurt someone in an accident through no fault of his own, true, because it wasn't his fault the person couldn't hear and ignored the street sign, my friend suffered no legal or financial consequence, but still he has to live w. the fact that another man was severely injured while my friend was at the wheel

the less of this crap we have to deal with the better, i'd think

people who wear iPods, walkmans, etc. to deliberately impair themselves in public -- it would be wonderful if they could just remove themselves from the gene pool without hurting others, unfortunately the person who hits them in the accident can be emotionally and sometimes also physically harmed

if you cannot go out in public w.out having noise piped into your ears, get a mental health evaluation, there's something wrong w. you

we don't tolerate drunks deliberately impairing themselves on public streets, the same should be true of the iPod addicts -- impairment should be illegal in public period

[TlalocW]

12. What if I loudly hum or sing while I cross the street

Ignoring the disgusted looks of fellow pedestrians? Am I essentially not in my own little world then like iPod listeners? And if not, what would it take? Sing nothing but Bee Gees songs?

TlalocW

[Hard_Work]

47. ...Sing nothing but Bee Gees songs?

That would do it! :)

[Seabiscuit]

13. All 50 states should treat people who talk on the cell phone while driving

as drunk drivers - stiff fines and jail time for every last one of those selfish, greedy, mindless bastards and bitches who threaten the rest of us every day on the streets and highways with their irresponsible behavior.

After a third offense in 7 years, yank their licenses and impound their cars.

[treestar]

16. Listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio

Should be treated similarly!

[Seabiscuit]

25. LOL!!!! Agreed! n/t

[bikebloke]

27. And those watching DVD's.

A couple weeks ago, I pulled up beside a car at a light. He had a portable DVD player going and was alone in the car. Now these eejits should be yanked from their cars.

Not long ago, state legislators made it illegal to watch porn DVD's in your car. I guess if they're watching the Lucy Collection, it's alright to run pedestrians over.

[Seabiscuit]

29. You got that right! n/t

[GuillermoX71]

31. Should we also ban

eating, drinking, smoking, putting up makeup, chatting with a person in the backseat and changing the radio station while driving too?

Seems a bit draconian to virtually ruin somone because they're simply on their cel phone.

[Solon]

34. Considering I've been hit by someone eating a hamburger out of McDonald's...

while driving, and a lady trying to put on makeup while driving, I say, YES, BAN THAT SHIT! These types of people ARE DANGEROUS TO OTHERS, why the fuck should they put others in danger so they look good or to fill their stomachs?

Also, if you are irresponsible enough to put other in danger, doubly so if you KNOW about the danger, by using a cell phone while driving, then you should get the same amount of time as someone who was DUI.

[Seabiscuit]

48. "simply on their cel [sic] phone"????

Numerous studies both here and in Great Britain have shown that cell phone use while driving takes one's mind off the road and causes accidents. With so many people doing it here today, it's no wonder there are more accidents every day. While I'm on the road and see some driver driving recklessly, either on a back road, a main street, a freeway, or a parking lot, it seems that 90% of the time those reckless drivers are chatting away on their cell phones. Not only that, it seems that at any given time, almost half of the drivers on the road have cell phones held up to one ear. I sometimes wonder if the other drivers without them are simply between calls.

Great Britain has penalized cell phones in vehicles for years now, and after new studies came out this year about how hazardous they are, they just upped the penalties to DUI type status. Time will tell how much effect the new legislation has, but I deem it a step in the right direction.

The other activities you mention are somewhat distracting, but not nearly as much so as talking on a cell phone while driving, which places your mind and your concentration *away* from the vehicle and the road to a place you imagine the person you're talking with is. That's why they're so dangerous.

[Dulcinea]

45. Agreed.

I've nearly been annihilated several times by dumbasses yapping on their stupid phones rather than paying attention to the road. They're just as dangerous as drunk drivers & should be treated as such.

I want to see a law making it legal to hit the idiots who walk into oncoming traffic, nowhere near a crosswalk. (People do this regularly in Atlanta.)

That said, this proposal about walking & IPods is asinine, unless they walk into incoming traffic, & then they deserve what they get!

[Thor_MN]

62. better yet, a wire embeded in the traffic lanes that blocks cell phone reception.

As long as it works from the break down lane.

[msongs]

14. government cannot overturn survival of the fittest - it's evolution at work nt

[jakem]

15. at night the moon is somwhat distracting while driving...

...please have it removed.

[treestar]

17. Also driving in rain or snow/ice

And if my mother is in the car, forget it. That ought to be illegal too. She is one of those nervous ninnies who does that sharp intake of breath where there is no threat sufficient to warrant it, in im opinion. This distracts me.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. How about a ban on legislating while stupid? nt

[Seabiscuit]

30. Or voting while your brain's infected with Foxitis?

[leftofthedial]

19. In a related story:

Sen. Kruger also is proposing a ban on sleeping in beds. In 2005 alone, over 15,000 people died in NY state while lying in bed. People are apparently not "alive" enough when recumbent and must be protected by the nanny state.

Sen. Kruger also is considering a ban on female orgasm, which is known to some as "the little death."

[fla nocount]

20. Sounds like the law of natural selection to me.

The good senator needs to leave Darwin alone.

[TommyO]

22. Ban tall buildings - I've seen tourists gape at them

from the middle of NYC intersections. Nothing taller than a five floor building, IMHO!

[BayCityProgressive]

23. Is this senator a Dem?

of all the important issues out there right now...why are there some Dems who insist on pushing the "nanny state" crap?!?!

[NaturalHigh]

24. Two words...

nanny state.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

26. Next law up: Illegal to shit and wind watch at same time.

Gotta keep the playing field level for the coordination-challenged.... :evilgrin:

[maxsolomon]

28. typical thinking for an auto-addicted nation

blame the pedestrian.

driving while talking on the freaking phone seems the larger threat.

[NashVegas]

32. We Have Darwin Awards, People

For good reason.

[DinahMoeHum]

35. Here's the State Senator's website. . .

http://www.nyssenate27.com/


You know what to do.


:evilgrin:

[MissMillie]

36. I guess deaf people should be banned from x-ing the street too

ya know, if they're crossing legally, at the light, and with the light, whether or not they have iPods wouldn't matter.

[Megahurtz]

37. Yeah Right. It's that Guy's fault that some Asshole

ran into him with his car. After all, he was wearing his IPod! :sarcasm:

The Idiocy of this Country ceases to amaze me.

[BadGimp]

38. Why not let Darwin decide?

Nothing wrong with culling the herd a bit right?

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Nah. I say let the ignorant fucks die.

If they're dumb enough to wear iPods and other distracting shit while dodging traffic, let 'em die.

And then let the person who hit them sue the estate of the deceased for its full value for "trauma and suffering."

[stonecoldsober]

40. It must be true

I don't own either, and I'm still alive!

We have to save these people from themselves!!

[theaudacity]

41. N.Y. Lawmaker to ban use of Ipods and Blackberries in crosswalks.

A New York state senator has announced his plan to introduce legislation that would ban the use of electronic devices such as iPods, BlackBerrys and cell phones while crossing streets in major cities.

State Sen. Carl Krueger, a Democrat who represents New York's 27th district in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, claimed that the phenomenon of "iPod oblivion" has led to a number of fatal accidents on urban streets. While he did not cite any statistical studies that have indicated a rise in such incidents, he referred to the January death of a 23-year-old Brooklyn man who, tuned into his iPod headphones, walked into the path of a city bus.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6157109.html

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. Nah. I say let the ignorant fucks die.

If they're dumb enough to wear iPods and other distracting shit while dodging traffic, let 'em die.

And then let the person who hit them sue the estate of the deceased for its full value for "trauma and suffering."

[TommyO]

43. Already posted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2720570&mesg_id=2720570

[HereSince1628]

44. This is all about litigation...giving insurance companies a loophole

to avoid payment on suites of people who are struck by vehicles while in the crosswalk.

It's always a good thing to be situationally aware when crossing a street on foot. And I'll admit that ANY sort of multi-tasking can interfere with that. But you can't legislate STUPIDITY out of human behavior.

It's always a driver's responsibility to drive responsibly. If they don't, they should be liable, if drivers are responsible and a pedestrian is reckless THAT is a matter for litigation.

There is no need to create a situation wherein wearing earphones means you have no recourse from irresponible drivers. No need unless you want to limit the liability of insurance companies.

[MGKrebs]

46. So if you have one of those iPod phones, do you get two tickets?

[Nihil]

49. Nah ...

.. the car just gets to reverse over you as well!
:evilgrin:

[MGKrebs]

51. I think those things automatically diall 911 if they detect a large

mass of metal coming dangerously close with little chance of stopping in time. It's like a built-in mass x velocity analyzer. The screen shows some cool graph... not that you'd ever get to see it.

[Megahurtz]

53. Lol! n/t

[kestrel91316]

50. Pedestrians aren't the problem. DRIVERS NOT PAYING

ATTENTION are the problem.

But NOOOOOOO, we don't dare crack down on the Holy Vehicle Drivers.

[Jonathan50]

54. I'm not in favor of banning Ipod use

But if a pedestrian just steps out right in front of your car there is nothing you can do about it even if you are Mario Andretti and are paying perfect attention.

Not to say that pedestrians are always at fault, but neither are drivers always at fault too.

[kestrel91316]

56. When was the last time a pedestrian killed a driver?

There is a greater responsibility for drivers, because they are the ones operating lethal machines.

[sakabatou]

52. I wonder how this will be upheld

if ever.

[politicat]

55. Dangit, we can't make the world safe for idiots.

The problem with foolproof is we make better fools all the time.

Crossing the street while on the phone and getting hit by the Big HONKING Bus is natural selection in action, folks.

I feel bad for the families of those dead, but we learn to cross streets safely in kindergarten. If you didn't get the memo about looking both ways, then I must say I'm sorry.

Now making driving while phoning illegal makes sense.... pedestrians can rarely harm others by not paying attention to their surroundings while distracted. Drivers can frequently harm others by not paying attention to their surroundings.

[NYC]

57. Drivers frequently turn corners through crosswalks while

on the cell phone. I see this almost everyday. I think we have a law against it, but those drivers don't pay any more attention to the law than they do to the pedestrians.

There was also the SUV driver on the cell phone who turned downtown on Third Avenue (which goes uptown) through a crosswalk, drove for about 1/4 of a block (Sunday, less traffic), laughed, told her friend on the phone, turned around, then headed uptown, never putting down the phone, never stopping her conversation.

Being a pedestrian can be difficult.

[politicat]

59. Oh, believe me, I know....

Colorado has some serious pedestrian protection laws, but going for a walk is still risky, and even in a place as pedestrian and bike friendly as here, we have our share of idiots (including the ones who have hurt me...)

BUT... it is still my responsibility when I'm walking to be aware of my environment. Drivers who aren't paying attention get cited with failure to control because if they aren't in control, they can kill someone. Pedestrians aren't cited because they can do far less damage to others by not paying attention.

The difference for me between your SUV driver and the Podhead is that the SUV driver can hurt others; the Podhead really only hurts him/herself by not being aware of the environment.

Going after the bad drivers would make pedestrians a lot safer than fining pedestrians for not being aware of the bad drivers. Putting the onus of responsibility where it really belongs is where I'd prefer the law live. (That and I refuse to be responsible for someone else who won't be responsible for themselves in terms of the law. It's not my job to make others take care of themselves.)

[progressivebydesign]

58. 2 teens here were killed by a train... they were wearing ipods

couldn't hear the train behind them. killed instantly.

[WindRavenX]

60. if they're dumb enough to wear iPods and not pay attention to their surroundings...

...then they're dumb as a pile of rocks and no asinine law would save them from themselves.

All this talk of banning cell phones/iPods is fucking stupid.