This law shouldn?t pass and it probably won?t. However, I disagree with the user who said it is as stupid as the cell phone law - - the cell phone law passed because people were driving recklessly while on the cell and injuring other drivers - - it was needed - - almost as badly as drunk driving laws. But this law is stupid because it would, in essence, protect people that got injured after putting themselves in harms way. Although, they did pass the "must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle" law, so...
NYC is heading down the same path that's making most major British cities unlivable--criminalizing ordinary behavior while trivializing actual crime.
NYC is an entry point for the dreaded Euro-nanny state. Chicago is the Wild West where people take care of themselves and their friends. I prefer the latter.
Well, most of the posters here clearly don't get it. There has to be a law, otherwise when the owner of the damaged car (or his insurer) goes to sue the idiot who wasn't paying attention, the idiot gets to say he wasn't doing anything illegal (except possibly jaywalking). In general, traffic laws are designed (correctly I might add) to protect pedestrians.
This comes across to me as one of those laws that won't get enforced until you cause an accident by being an idiot with your phone, iPod, etc., and then the police have a clear and exact offense to charge you with.
You people who are saying the guy deserves to get hit and there doesn't need to be a law won't think it's so funny when the idiot with the iPod sues you for hitting him because he didn't do anything wrong and you're legally supposed to yield to pedestrians.
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.
You beat me to it too.
Knowing of someone who, while stopped at a red light, was rear-ended by a car in which a baby was killed, not only did it have a significant traumatic effect for the 'innocent' driver who go hit, but her family as well. Worse yet, she is being sued for wrongful death.
Would this proposed law be dumb? Quite possibly, but it only effects dumb, inconsiderate or selfish people. I do like Axis27's suggestion in part, i.e., "A $10,000 fine for any dumbarse who actually gets HIT by a car while crossing the street staring at their iPod."
I would add any other electronic device. In addition, make it progressive, i.e., a $1,000 fine if you get hit and no serious injuries incurred, $5000 fine and expenses if debilitating injuries result and a $10,000 fine if death ensues. With one caveat: the innocent driver to be awarded 75% of the fine.
This comes across to me as one of those laws that won't get enforced until you cause an accident by being an idiot with your phone, iPod, etc., and then the police have a clear and exact offense to charge you with.
Or when the city needs some more money, and the cops are told to start writing as many $100 tickets as they can.
yeah well three people got hit using there iPods while crossing the street. I'm pretty sure I've heard of more than three people falling out of a boat while taking a piss and drowning. So I wonder if there is a fine for that. but also how can you tell if some one is paying attention while using there iPod and crossing the street. Is there a fine for that? and finally I think they should have a law to fine people who aren't paying attention while pissing and using there iPods, because that is straight up dangerous too son. You could piss all over your leg. And that is just irresponsible government if they just sit by while people are listening to music and clueless pissing them selves. Something must be done. Won't anyone think of the children. Make your voices heard people BAN iPods!!! Carl Kruger should win the noble peace prize for his extremely mindful solution to an increasing "nationwide problem" of stupidity.
Well, most of the posters here clearly don't get it. There has to be a law, otherwise when the owner of the damaged car (or his insurer) goes to sue the idiot who wasn't paying attention, the idiot gets to say he wasn't doing anything illegal (except possibly jaywalking). In general, traffic laws are designed (correctly I might add) to protect pedestrians.
*Correction*
In the perfect world, laws are written to protect the common person, when in actuality, anyone rich enough and can afford a great team of lawyers will get away with "almost" anything.
Also will someone answer me, why it's automatically ASSUME pedestrian is at fault simply because him/her is using an ipod,phone, etc.??? DWI laws are written to protect pedestrians from drunk drivers, yet people still do it. What, are we going to banned people from iPods with 3 strikes policy now?
The fact this is all over the news now, tells me this senator is just another knee-jerking politician crying for attention. It's sad people actually voted this guy into office.
The fact this is all over the news now, tells me this senator is just another knee-jerking politician crying for attention. It's sad people actually voted this guy into office.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad that I was not the driver, the bystanders who watched the whole tragedy or the immediate families that had to arrange the burial, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad I was not the driver, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
I really don't understand how the fine would make a difference. If a bystander couldn't get the victim's attention, how will a cop? How strongly does a fine deter bad behavior?
Three people in four months is likely a statistical abberation anyway, there are likely a good number of other threats to life in NYC that are probably being ignored.
I'm glad I'm not the driver either, but as a driver, I'm just not seeing how this is an effective use of resources.
The increasing absurdity of NYC's laws is one reason neither Hillary Clinton nor former mayor Rudolph Guiliani will get my vote in 2008. I have an intense dislike of this sort of meddlesome 'nanny state' mindset with its accompanying attitude "we, the elite few, know more than you, the masses." NYC is heading down the same path that's making most major British cities unlivable--criminalizing ordinary behavior while trivializing actual crime.
...
NYC is an entry point for the dreaded Euro-nanny state. Chicago is the Wild West where people take care of themselves and their friends. I prefer the latter.
I really don't understand how the fine would make a difference. If a bystander couldn't get the victim's attention, how will a cop? How strongly does a fine deter bad behavior?
Three people in four months is likely a statistical abberation anyway, there are likely a good number of other threats to life in NYC that are probably being ignored.
I'm glad I'm not the driver either, but as a driver, I'm just not seeing how this is an effective use of resources.
JeffDM
If you read my previous comment, (47), I did suggest that the proposed law might be as dumb as the dumb action that it is intended to eradicate. My point to which you were referring was in regard to a comment that this proposal was a knee-jerk reaction. To which I would like to add, a number of other communities have been experiencing an upsurge in similar tragic happenings.
For law abiding citizens, most of our laws are somewhat ludicrous, outdated and often just the sign of the times. J-walking, for example, is a dumb law, if you as a parent has said it more than once to the children, "Cross at the corner, wait for the lights, don't run between parked cars, etc., etc." Only as most of us have witnessed somebody in the family gets struck by a car doing the things that we or our parents warned against.
If it ever comes into being, it will be a reflection on how well we can adhere to common sense. The problem is that we have so many dumb people that do dumb things and have more dumb people in a postion to do more dumb things to stop other dumb people from doing dumber things. Like answering you in this dumb manner.
Hopefully common sense will prevail. And they will pass a law that awards a $100 to anybody that gets struck wearing a Zune. Now that would be a very smart law for real dumb people! And a $500 fine for anybody that buys Vista.
I've seen people reading books crossing the street. Ban them too.
In addition to books and cell phones and iPods, we should also ban talking with anyone you are walking next to or see in passing.
If you cannot concentrate enough to look before crossing the road, with any form of small distraction such as listening to music, or talking with a friend (next to you or on a cell phone), then you are incapable of making a valuable contribution to society and should be systematically removed from the breeding population.
Trouble is that politicians need to save the stupid people so that they will get elected again.
Btw. During that same time period, how many pedestrians died in other traffic accidents in the same area of NYC?
If they do decide to ban iPods while crossing the street, is it illegal if you have your ear buds in but the iPod is off? With as many iPods and other music players as there are out there, I think they will have trouble enforcing the law. The death penalty sounds like a much simpler solution.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad that I was not the driver, the bystanders who watched the whole tragedy or the immediate families that had to arrange the burial, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
It's a knee-jerking reaction by the senator because he concluded after 2-3 fatal accidents in HIS area.
Quote:
"I think it's necessary if we just look at the statistics that bear out the argument that people while being too into their electronic gadgetry are tuning out the rest of the world. They are becoming a statistical fatality, they are being part of an accident scene. They are basically jeopardizing their well-being as well as the well-being of others around them," Kruger, a Democrat, said.
Well, where is this "statistic" data of his? If he is proposing a freakin law, show us this indisputable statistics of his.
This quote from monstersandcritics.com said it best...
Quote:
Instead of enforcing laws on the people who walk while listening to music, or talking on the phone, why not tighten laws on drivers who are not aware of what is around them. Walkmans and portable CD players were around long before the iPod, there were no laws then.
As JeffDM said, this is just an waste of resources and tax payers' money to propose such law.
BTW Abster2core, please stop using "dumb" as an excuse. People make mistakes on a daily basis. Some mistakes can get you kill and in the cases of crossing streets and not paying attention is one of those (with or without using ANY electronic devices). People know that, we don't need more useless laws because this senator wants attention.
Techboy, I just called a cop friend of mind and asked him for his opinion.
His comments in short:
Pedestrians listening to their iPod or talking on their cell phones are not the problem. But he didn't think that the proposed Senator's law was a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is not listening or talking on your iPod or cell phone. It is the ever increasing number of people that are text-messaging, dialing, but more concerning now, watching videos as they meander in and out of traffic. In some cases, they just as well be blind-folded.
As to what he would do if such a law was enacted. His response: Like he does with j-walking, i.e., only lay a charge if it was deemed that the offender dangerously impeded the flow of traffic by putting himself or others in harms way. He really didn't care if that particular pedestrian got hurt, it was the effect that they can cause by a driver having to swerve out of the way and injure or kill an innocent bystander by an inconsiderate but preventable action.
To him and to me, we all make mistakes. However, walking down the street watching TV is just plain dumb. And if we don't watch it, we may just end up with another 'dumb' law.
Look buddy, don't make this too hard for yourself. Bring a cop friend in this argument won't help you win nor make your opinion more valid.
1) Where is this senator's data he used for his "valid" conclusion and hence wasting tax-payer's money to propose such a useless law?
2) J-walking law is useless. Anyone who has walk the streets of NYC should know this, I don't think you need to ask your cop friend. He is "authorize" by law to hand out a ticket, but I'm sure he would rather not waste his time going to court and WASTE a judge's time on such trivial matter.
3) All these so-called laws that "protects the people" is nothing more than to help reaching verdicts easier in a court of law. Laws are not written without bias nor 100% true. I obey existing laws to avoid legal troubles not because I agree with them all.
4) "However, walking down the street watching TV is just plain dumb." Who in this thread ever mention that? Sure, you are not making up things now? For the sake of argument, crossing streets with an AK-47 is "dumb" and "dangerous"... iPod, headphones, etc is not even close to being toy guns. You can argue it's a "distraction" and hence putting others around you in danger... but why does a driver need to "swerve out of the way" considering most NYC streets has a speed limit of 30MPH? IF the car breaks aren't good enough to stop a car traveling at the speed limit or IF the driver was driving too fast to stop... can you REALLY still claim it's the ipod user or any electronic device users' fault for the CAUSE of the accident?
To each of their own... it doesn't look like you'll change your views on this matter nor mine. In any case, I know this law won't fall through. It's nothing more than an attention grabber fed by the senator. The media chews this stuff up like trash, which is exactly just that.
i think that this idea would be stupid. many business people travel to NYC and i doubt that some foreign person (non-new yorker) will know not to listen to an ipod while crossing the street.
Where in this forum did I propose to make my "opinion more valid". I only commented on what others said and basically offered two points of view.
1) "Where is this senator's data he used for his "valid" conclusion," three pedestrians were confirmed killed in the past 3 months doing what is already unlawful but exacerbated by new technology.
2) "J-walking law is useless," actually there is no such law. And accordingly, most jurisdictions have pedestrian laws, e.g., NYs Vehicle & Traffic Law, Section 1150(b)(2) which event the Supreme Court would recognize their importance and legality.
3) "All these so-called laws that "protects the people" is nothing more than to help reaching verdicts easier in a court of law." I doubt that that would side with any court.
4) "?crossing streets with an AK-47 is "dumb", no it isn't, it is just plain criminal.
"?can you REALLY still claim it's the ipod user or any electronic device users' fault for the CAUSE of the accident?" No, and I never did. I took it that 3 people were killed in the past 3 months in one borough by walking into traffic without sole regard to anything around them. Now, according to most state traffic laws that action is in itself is illegal, i.e., for example as referenced by the above, "No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impractical for the driver to yield."
Right now, it was not unlawful that the deceased were wearing, viewing or playing with their iPods, or any other electronic device. However, if the same problems (included with death is serious injuries) persists and escalates, it will no doubt, draw attention and efforts will be called to curtail them. In most cases, this may be as simple as adding pedestrians to that section of the existing traffic laws that stipulate that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle or bicylce wearing more than one earphone attached to a radio, tape player or other audio device while on a public road, i.e., you stray off the sidewalk.
"?it doesn't look like you'll change your views on this matter nor mine." I didn't ask you to!
But I would suggest that since you have made such judgements that you do a Harry S Truman did after he was elected as a judge, i.e., take a law course.
Comments
The Nanny State never misses an opportunity to benefit financially.
IMHO iPod users getting knocked down as they cross the street is simply just another facet of natural selection.
As I have always said:
"If you don't want to be hit by a moving vehicle, don't step in front of a car."
~first post, EVER. *bow* *bow*
Darn right!!!
Welcome to the club!
NYC is heading down the same path that's making most major British cities unlivable--criminalizing ordinary behavior while trivializing actual crime.
NYC is an entry point for the dreaded Euro-nanny state. Chicago is the Wild West where people take care of themselves and their friends. I prefer the latter.
Have you lived in the former? I do and I love it.
"Wild West" as heralded by reality or Hollywood?
This comes across to me as one of those laws that won't get enforced until you cause an accident by being an idiot with your phone, iPod, etc., and then the police have a clear and exact offense to charge you with.
You people who are saying the guy deserves to get hit and there doesn't need to be a law won't think it's so funny when the idiot with the iPod sues you for hitting him because he didn't do anything wrong and you're legally supposed to yield to pedestrians.
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.
You beat me to it too.
Knowing of someone who, while stopped at a red light, was rear-ended by a car in which a baby was killed, not only did it have a significant traumatic effect for the 'innocent' driver who go hit, but her family as well. Worse yet, she is being sued for wrongful death.
Would this proposed law be dumb? Quite possibly, but it only effects dumb, inconsiderate or selfish people. I do like Axis27's suggestion in part, i.e., "A $10,000 fine for any dumbarse who actually gets HIT by a car while crossing the street staring at their iPod."
I would add any other electronic device. In addition, make it progressive, i.e., a $1,000 fine if you get hit and no serious injuries incurred, $5000 fine and expenses if debilitating injuries result and a $10,000 fine if death ensues. With one caveat: the innocent driver to be awarded 75% of the fine.
This comes across to me as one of those laws that won't get enforced until you cause an accident by being an idiot with your phone, iPod, etc., and then the police have a clear and exact offense to charge you with.
Or when the city needs some more money, and the cops are told to start writing as many $100 tickets as they can.
Well, most of the posters here clearly don't get it. There has to be a law, otherwise when the owner of the damaged car (or his insurer) goes to sue the idiot who wasn't paying attention, the idiot gets to say he wasn't doing anything illegal (except possibly jaywalking). In general, traffic laws are designed (correctly I might add) to protect pedestrians.
*Correction*
In the perfect world, laws are written to protect the common person, when in actuality, anyone rich enough and can afford a great team of lawyers will get away with "almost" anything.
Also will someone answer me, why it's automatically ASSUME pedestrian is at fault simply because him/her is using an ipod,phone, etc.??? DWI laws are written to protect pedestrians from drunk drivers, yet people still do it. What, are we going to banned people from iPods with 3 strikes policy now?
The fact this is all over the news now, tells me this senator is just another knee-jerking politician crying for attention. It's sad people actually voted this guy into office.
[B]
The fact this is all over the news now, tells me this senator is just another knee-jerking politician crying for attention. It's sad people actually voted this guy into office.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad that I was not the driver, the bystanders who watched the whole tragedy or the immediate families that had to arrange the burial, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad I was not the driver, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
I really don't understand how the fine would make a difference. If a bystander couldn't get the victim's attention, how will a cop? How strongly does a fine deter bad behavior?
Three people in four months is likely a statistical abberation anyway, there are likely a good number of other threats to life in NYC that are probably being ignored.
I'm glad I'm not the driver either, but as a driver, I'm just not seeing how this is an effective use of resources.
The increasing absurdity of NYC's laws is one reason neither Hillary Clinton nor former mayor Rudolph Guiliani will get my vote in 2008. I have an intense dislike of this sort of meddlesome 'nanny state' mindset with its accompanying attitude "we, the elite few, know more than you, the masses." NYC is heading down the same path that's making most major British cities unlivable--criminalizing ordinary behavior while trivializing actual crime.
...
NYC is an entry point for the dreaded Euro-nanny state. Chicago is the Wild West where people take care of themselves and their friends. I prefer the latter.
What laws are you citing in the UK and Europe?
I really don't understand how the fine would make a difference. If a bystander couldn't get the victim's attention, how will a cop? How strongly does a fine deter bad behavior?
Three people in four months is likely a statistical abberation anyway, there are likely a good number of other threats to life in NYC that are probably being ignored.
I'm glad I'm not the driver either, but as a driver, I'm just not seeing how this is an effective use of resources.
JeffDM
If you read my previous comment, (47), I did suggest that the proposed law might be as dumb as the dumb action that it is intended to eradicate. My point to which you were referring was in regard to a comment that this proposal was a knee-jerk reaction. To which I would like to add, a number of other communities have been experiencing an upsurge in similar tragic happenings.
For law abiding citizens, most of our laws are somewhat ludicrous, outdated and often just the sign of the times. J-walking, for example, is a dumb law, if you as a parent has said it more than once to the children, "Cross at the corner, wait for the lights, don't run between parked cars, etc., etc." Only as most of us have witnessed somebody in the family gets struck by a car doing the things that we or our parents warned against.
If it ever comes into being, it will be a reflection on how well we can adhere to common sense. The problem is that we have so many dumb people that do dumb things and have more dumb people in a postion to do more dumb things to stop other dumb people from doing dumber things. Like answering you in this dumb manner.
Hopefully common sense will prevail. And they will pass a law that awards a $100 to anybody that gets struck wearing a Zune. Now that would be a very smart law for real dumb people! And a $500 fine for anybody that buys Vista.
I've seen people reading books crossing the street. Ban them too.
In addition to books and cell phones and iPods, we should also ban talking with anyone you are walking next to or see in passing.
If you cannot concentrate enough to look before crossing the road, with any form of small distraction such as listening to music, or talking with a friend (next to you or on a cell phone), then you are incapable of making a valuable contribution to society and should be systematically removed from the breeding population.
Trouble is that politicians need to save the stupid people so that they will get elected again.
Btw. During that same time period, how many pedestrians died in other traffic accidents in the same area of NYC?
If they do decide to ban iPods while crossing the street, is it illegal if you have your ear buds in but the iPod is off? With as many iPods and other music players as there are out there, I think they will have trouble enforcing the law. The death penalty sounds like a much simpler solution.
My understanding is that this is not another knee-jerk reaction. In the cases cited, the three pedestrians that were killed in just the past 4 months in his Brooklyn district had been positively shown to have been distracted by their use of an electronic device at the time.
In one case, bystanders were screaming to watch out; but to no avail, as the pedestrian without thought or regard just stepped into oncoming traffic.
I am certainly glad that I was not the driver, the bystanders who watched the whole tragedy or the immediate families that had to arrange the burial, no matter who's at fault. And I'll bet that the deceased would be glad to pay $100 to be alive today.
It's a knee-jerking reaction by the senator because he concluded after 2-3 fatal accidents in HIS area.
"I think it's necessary if we just look at the statistics that bear out the argument that people while being too into their electronic gadgetry are tuning out the rest of the world. They are becoming a statistical fatality, they are being part of an accident scene. They are basically jeopardizing their well-being as well as the well-being of others around them," Kruger, a Democrat, said.
Well, where is this "statistic" data of his? If he is proposing a freakin law, show us this indisputable statistics of his.
http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/n...ndheld_devices
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250644,00.html
This quote from monstersandcritics.com said it best...
Instead of enforcing laws on the people who walk while listening to music, or talking on the phone, why not tighten laws on drivers who are not aware of what is around them. Walkmans and portable CD players were around long before the iPod, there were no laws then.
As JeffDM said, this is just an waste of resources and tax payers' money to propose such law.
BTW Abster2core, please stop using "dumb" as an excuse. People make mistakes on a daily basis. Some mistakes can get you kill and in the cases of crossing streets and not paying attention is one of those (with or without using ANY electronic devices). People know that, we don't need more useless laws because this senator wants attention.
His comments in short:
Pedestrians listening to their iPod or talking on their cell phones are not the problem. But he didn't think that the proposed Senator's law was a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is not listening or talking on your iPod or cell phone. It is the ever increasing number of people that are text-messaging, dialing, but more concerning now, watching videos as they meander in and out of traffic. In some cases, they just as well be blind-folded.
As to what he would do if such a law was enacted. His response: Like he does with j-walking, i.e., only lay a charge if it was deemed that the offender dangerously impeded the flow of traffic by putting himself or others in harms way. He really didn't care if that particular pedestrian got hurt, it was the effect that they can cause by a driver having to swerve out of the way and injure or kill an innocent bystander by an inconsiderate but preventable action.
To him and to me, we all make mistakes. However, walking down the street watching TV is just plain dumb. And if we don't watch it, we may just end up with another 'dumb' law.
1) Where is this senator's data he used for his "valid" conclusion and hence wasting tax-payer's money to propose such a useless law?
2) J-walking law is useless. Anyone who has walk the streets of NYC should know this, I don't think you need to ask your cop friend. He is "authorize" by law to hand out a ticket, but I'm sure he would rather not waste his time going to court and WASTE a judge's time on such trivial matter.
3) All these so-called laws that "protects the people" is nothing more than to help reaching verdicts easier in a court of law. Laws are not written without bias nor 100% true. I obey existing laws to avoid legal troubles not because I agree with them all.
4) "However, walking down the street watching TV is just plain dumb." Who in this thread ever mention that? Sure, you are not making up things now? For the sake of argument, crossing streets with an AK-47 is "dumb" and "dangerous"... iPod, headphones, etc is not even close to being toy guns. You can argue it's a "distraction" and hence putting others around you in danger... but why does a driver need to "swerve out of the way" considering most NYC streets has a speed limit of 30MPH? IF the car breaks aren't good enough to stop a car traveling at the speed limit or IF the driver was driving too fast to stop... can you REALLY still claim it's the ipod user or any electronic device users' fault for the CAUSE of the accident?
To each of their own... it doesn't look like you'll change your views on this matter nor mine. In any case, I know this law won't fall through. It's nothing more than an attention grabber fed by the senator. The media chews this stuff up like trash, which is exactly just that.
Where in this forum did I propose to make my "opinion more valid". I only commented on what others said and basically offered two points of view.
1) "Where is this senator's data he used for his "valid" conclusion," three pedestrians were confirmed killed in the past 3 months doing what is already unlawful but exacerbated by new technology.
2) "J-walking law is useless," actually there is no such law. And accordingly, most jurisdictions have pedestrian laws, e.g., NYs Vehicle & Traffic Law, Section 1150(b)(2) which event the Supreme Court would recognize their importance and legality.
3) "All these so-called laws that "protects the people" is nothing more than to help reaching verdicts easier in a court of law." I doubt that that would side with any court.
4) "?crossing streets with an AK-47 is "dumb", no it isn't, it is just plain criminal.
"?can you REALLY still claim it's the ipod user or any electronic device users' fault for the CAUSE of the accident?" No, and I never did. I took it that 3 people were killed in the past 3 months in one borough by walking into traffic without sole regard to anything around them. Now, according to most state traffic laws that action is in itself is illegal, i.e., for example as referenced by the above, "No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impractical for the driver to yield."
Right now, it was not unlawful that the deceased were wearing, viewing or playing with their iPods, or any other electronic device. However, if the same problems (included with death is serious injuries) persists and escalates, it will no doubt, draw attention and efforts will be called to curtail them. In most cases, this may be as simple as adding pedestrians to that section of the existing traffic laws that stipulate that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle or bicylce wearing more than one earphone attached to a radio, tape player or other audio device while on a public road, i.e., you stray off the sidewalk.
"?it doesn't look like you'll change your views on this matter nor mine." I didn't ask you to!
But I would suggest that since you have made such judgements that you do a Harry S Truman did after he was elected as a judge, i.e., take a law course.
offence no.283 -- walking with ipod while crossing a public street
(honking and traffic sounds in the background)
beep! beep! i am crossing the street
bane of cab drivers, a music dare devil
up to harlem down to brooklyn
with my white earbuds i go
the homeless i am not afraid
the boutique i frequent
but when it comes to crossing the street
i will continue (beep) continue (beeeep) continue (whoosh) to wear my music!
(chorus)
up to harlem down to brooklyn
with my white earbuds i go
beep! beep! i am crossing the street
and i will wear my music if i want!
beep! beep! i am crossing the street
you'd better watch out, that crosstown bus
you run me over and i'll sue you outta a job
calling my lawyer on my iphone
life in the city im not afraid
cuz i got my ipod, cuz i got, i got my ipod
crossing the street i'll never get lost
i will continue (beep) continue (beeeep) continue (whoosh) to wear my GPS iphone!
(repeat chorus)
beep! beep! i am crossing the street
(sirens) here comes the nypd blue
which robbers (beep) are you chasing now,
that one that tried to take my ipod last week? (freeze don't move)
no, sir, i am afraid,
you've violated new york state code no.283
wearing an ipod while crossing the street
i will write you a ticket and a fine, for your own safety!