New York may ban iPods while crossing city streets
Reply 21 of 60
February 7, 2007 1:46PM
Fellow New Yorkers, we have been called to action! Let's give Senator Kruger some company on his daily excursions about the city. Be sure to keep your video cell phones at the ready! Hmmm, I wonder... does Senator Kruger always wait for that darned crosswalk light to blink "walk." Would Senator Kruger's busy schedule force him to cut corners, literally, to ... GASP ... jaywalk?! Alas, should such lawbreaking committed by an elected official be captured on video, well, I think as law abiding citizens it's our duty to promptly post such horrendous illegalities committed by Senator Kruger on YouTube. Poor Senator Kruger, his travels around the city are... about... to... slowwww... downnnn...
Reply 22 of 60
February 7, 2007 1:51PM
It's really a tax on Darwin Award candidates. There's plenty of free money to be had since there's so many of them around.
Reply 23 of 60
February 7, 2007 1:55PM
Please lets just keep up a standard of dialogue concerning common sense. You cant legislate morality nor general use practice of common sense. Dont: follow (these) leaders, watch (mind preoccupying activity) parking meters.
Reply 24 of 60
February 7, 2007 2:03PM
Originally Posted by
I dont see how implementing a $100 penalty on crossing streets while using electronic devices will make a huge difference over the current "you will get killed" penalty
My sentiments exactly. Let Darwin do his thing.
As someone else alluded to, the law will be more likely to help in the case of a motorist who is in the right of way (has a green light) and hits a distracted pedestrian who is jaywalking while pecking away at their BlackBerry, etc. instead of paying attention to their surroundings...which is a silly thing to do in a busy place like NYC in the first place...which goes back to the Darwin thing.
Perhaps if we did away with all the laws trying to protect stupid people, we'd see a turnaround in the average level of intelligence in this country in a few generations.
Reply 25 of 60
February 7, 2007 2:33PM
Originally Posted by
People who walk in NY are ridiculous. I mean, are they color blind? Green means GO, red means STOP, but pedestrians fail to notice that, and they get pissy when you honk at them. Idiots like that deserve to be hit.
--A $100 fine its fair. Stupidity has its price. Should be more cause its not the device's fault. Its the users--
While I agree that there a lot more stupid people in New York City, That is only the case because we have so many people jammed together. I've worked in the southern states for 3 years and let's just say I no longer complain the NYC public school system.
The thing about New York City that out of towners don't understand is that here, time really is money. I work at an ad agency, I run a website and I have various side gigs. New York is a city where people can hustle and make money or do nothing and get by. People leave all the time because this city chews them up and spits them out.
Shooting off that e-mail while trying to catch a cab may make the difference between a deal and going home empty-handed. I don't condone talking on a phone while driving and I agree that common sense should dictate that looking both ways while crossing the street is more important than IMming your buddy asking who's bringing the beer.
I don't think it's the government's place to impose stupidity to alleviate stupidity. The police have enough trouble out here trying to keep up with real crime. If the city wants to collect more revenue, the officials should just say so. This is nothing more than a ploy to draw attention to an otherwise unknown Senator.
If you want to do something about it, e-mail this pompous fool and tell him how you feel or just shut your trap and don't make any pissy comments about New Yorkers.
Thank you for your time and have a pleasant day.
Reply 26 of 60
February 7, 2007 2:35PM
"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," he said in a telephone interview with the AP. "This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand."
Kruger said Tuesday that three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district were killed in recent months upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device.
How in the world did this idiot become a lawmaker? Is he high on crack?
Let's disect the problem here:
1) Three pedestrians were killed in
Did he bother surveying what is the pedestrain traffic in his area on a daily basis? If we are talking about 3 accidents out of 1 million... wow, do the math senator! It must be electronic devices fault!
2) Cars are driven by people too, how did senator conclude it's the pedestrians listening to music that are crossing the street recklessly and not the drivers??? Surely, it's the driver who isn't paying too much attention that kills... let's kill car radios? You got my vote on that senator!
3) Um.. yes... our public police has nothing better to do than giving people tickets for crossing the streets while listening to music devices. Oh yea baby, our tax money at it's best!
Reply 27 of 60
February 7, 2007 2:53PM
This law is unenforceable. Especially if you are wearing a hood in the winter.
Reply 28 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:00PM
Although the article is not very clear on this, I would assume that the law will only forbid to operate/manipulate your iPod, i.e. selecting a new song while crossing the street.
And I second a previous poster in that such laws will matter mostly only in case of an accident by making the attribution of guilt less ambiguous.
Reply 29 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:01PM
Is this just people who are looking at their iPods? Because deaf people don't get fines and they can't hear traffic either.
Reply 30 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:07PM
This sounds too retarded. They are actually putting me in danger now.
Instead of just walking while I have my ipod in my ears and crossing the street normally (like any sensible person do I have the ipod at a safe volume) without fussing with my ipod, I now have to spend the effort stopping the player and taking it off everytime I cross the street? This is inconvient and takes more effort, where I didn't have to pay look at the player and just cross the street, I now have to focus on the player to put it away each and everytime I cross a road.
This actually makes it
dangerous for me, distracting me from the road. Now thousands of people will no longer be walking and listening they'll be walking and putting away. Tons of people will be putting away their devices
the road and
crossing the road, no one will do it before.
And just pausing it isn't enough because it will still
like your breaking the ban.
Reply 31 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:08PM
Originally Posted by
I agree, if they are dumb enough to get hit by NOT paying attention, then Darwinism is at work and doing good for human kind. Why does government continue to legislate everything we do in this life? Must they continue to "protect" us from everything? This law is a BAD idea!
I'm not crazy about living in a "nanny state" either. But I can see good reasons for a law like this... protecting drivers and innocent by-standers.
Hitting a person with your car, even if you're ultimately found not to be at fault, would not be a pleasant experience. It would be an ugly and traumatic experience even if no other consequences whatsoever ensued. And quite often those other consequences would ensue.
You might end up involved in long criminal and civil proceedings before you're cleared of guilt and liability. Your vehicle may be damaged. You might hurt yourself or an innocent by-stander when you try to react quickly to avoid hitting the distracted person, or by having the person you hit fly through your windshield into your face at high speed.
It's a mistake to immediately write off this kind of law as protecting people from their own stupidity when these people are in fact subjecting others to major risks as well.
Reply 32 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:22PM
You beat me to it, shetline. All these knee-jerk "let 'em die" reactions are just so narrow-minded.
But the proposed law itself will do nothing. People who don't care really don't need gadgets to distract them.
Reply 33 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:31PM
So, are they also going to write tickets to school children who don't look both ways before crossing?
Why not? That's just as dangerous.
Maybe for an encore, they'll issue tickets for not wearing a warm enough coat (as defined by a bunch of suits that never set foot outdoors, of course.)
This whole thing is just a lame excuse to write lots of $100 tickets and make some extra cash.
Reply 34 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:34PM
does this mean it will be illegal to be fiddling with the controls while walking or listening as well?
Reply 35 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:42PM
No different than looking at a sexy woman and getting run over by a cab. Should we ban females from crossing our streets!?
Reply 36 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:52PM
If people (term used loosely) weren't JAYWALKING when using their devices they wouldn't have been hit by anything. So, if anything enforce the jaywalking if it could be enforced at all. I am a native NYer from the lower east side... people are getting run over because they don't cross when the WALK sign is green it's because they're running through traffic in and out of crosswalks!
Reply 37 of 60
February 7, 2007 3:55PM
Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers... also wanting a piece of Apple like everyone else suing them. Swine that they are (for the most part).
Reply 38 of 60
February 7, 2007 4:14PM
Originally Posted by
....criminalizing ordinary behavior while trivializing actual crime.......
Wow. That is a GREAT line.
Reply 39 of 60
February 7, 2007 4:27PM
I've seen people reading books crossing the street. Ban them too.
Reply 40 of 60
February 7, 2007 4:47PM
As a New Yorker, I have a better suggestion. A $10,000 fine for any dumbarse who actually gets HIT by a car while crossing the street staring at their iPod. 'Cause most of us here can multi-task just fine.
BTW he's a "State Senator" (i.e. the New York State legislature, not Washington) for yous dat was confused.