[Gerribase]

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street.

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital.

"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."

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

"I'm not trying to intrude on that," Kruger said. "But what's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/0...eut/index.html Not sure which is worse - the Senator believing that the state must think for those who fail to think for themselves, or the fact that he has a point in that there are some truly stupid people out there.

Matt

[Seiblybiozy]

IMO, if they are that stupid....Then oh well.
I have no problem in educating people, but to make laws is another factor.

The drivers that are talking on their cell phones while drinking coffee, smoking a cig and maybe putting on lipstick (all at the same time) are the ones they need to crack down on....Not only do they risk their lives, they risk others.

[meridiasas]

The "Nanny State" comment implies that the proposed law is only to protect the inattentive street-crossers. Everyone in the area is in danger when an accident takes place.

(To drift a little.) That's what struck me about the Princess Di thing. Yeah, the paparazzi are mean, but does that give the idle rich the right to drive a hundred miles an hour? They might have injured a productive person, like a plumber or waitress.

[Gerribase]

I picked the "nanny state" moniker for it's impact.

On the one hand, many oppose the "nanny" mentality.
On the other hand, we see that some need a "nanny".

Matt

[regfortruegoo]

Not sure which is worse - the Senator believing that the state must think for those who fail to think for themselves, or the fact that he has a point in that there are some truly stupid people out there.

Matt

Maybe this law is truly meant to prevent vehicles from damage rather than protecting stupid people?

[Seiblybiozy]

Maybe this law is truly meant to prevent vehicles from damage rather than protecting stupid people?

Yes, I can see the vehicle insurance companies being behind this.

[StitsVobsaith]

I have no problem with a "Nanny" law like this, if the purpose is to try and spare the people, who might hit idiots crossing the streets with all their attention diverted at a damn iPod. I don't really care or feel anything specific for the guy/girl getting hit... they're just stupid... however, I feel for the person doing the actual hitting. I can't imagine what it must feel like to hit someone, due to no fault of your own. Must be terrible and if this law can prevent some of these cases, go for it!

[gkruCRi1]

This is nannyism and the logic of it sets a bad precedent for a lousy society. What is next to this legislator? No looking at miniskirts whilst walking? I don't think anyone deserves to die at all for common carelessness and inattentiveness, but it happens all the time. Car radio and stereo systems and conversations inside vehicles whether by mobile phone or between occupants cause alot of accidents. Even then, any movement still involves an imperfect gauge of risk. A pedestrian crossing the street needs to look around before and whilst crossing, but even when they do that, they can't look both left and right as well as both forward and behind at the same time. It's also miserably impractical if not impossible to expect people to always be 100 percent overly attentive to all things at all times. Trying to legislatively require it would add leaps and bounds to the misery index of daily life.

[casinobonusa]

I have no problem with a "Nanny" law like this, if the purpose is to try and spare the people, who might hit idiots crossing the streets with all their attention diverted at a damn iPod. I don't really care or feel anything specific for the guy/girl getting hit... they're just stupid... however, I feel for the person doing the actual hitting. I can't imagine what it must feel like to hit someone, due to no fault of your own. Must be terrible and if this law can prevent some of these cases, go for it!

You know, I agree with this, BUT I think that depending on whose fault it is, the person at fault should be prosecuted for the act in court. Banning ipods and cell phones aren't going to solve anything. People do it anyway.

[roundman]

How many ipods have been sold? Isn't it close to 30 million? How many people have cell phones? Nearly everyone. So why is it that because three people got hit by a car we now have to punish everyone. Most people can walk and listen to something at the same time.

Now I understand that all laws punish the majority because of a few people, but that is ridiculous.

[casinobonusa]

The more we have; the less we have

[RooldpalApata]

But in a far left state like New York, a bet the inattentive pedestrian could sue the person who hit them and win. It's a law that's not necesary in all states but in NY it definetly needs to be done to protect the driver.

[WeestDype]

Another case where responsible people are under-represented.
In other words, the minority (brainless dolts) are basically creating these laws restricting responsible peoples freedoms.

But, I guess people are forced to listen to traffic?

IN that case, the new york people should mandate traffic noise be repackaged into something of a symphony to be enjoyed. Otherwise, this is forcing people to listen to traffic. Booring.

[StitsVobsaith]

Another case where responsible people are under-represented.
In other words, the minority (brainless dolts) are basically creating these laws restricting responsible peoples freedoms.

But, I guess people are forced to listen to traffic?

IN that case, the new york people should mandate traffic noise be repackaged into something of a symphony to be enjoyed. Otherwise, this is forcing people to listen to traffic. Booring.

But a hell of a lot safer than strutting along to your favorite Village People song and then getting hit by a car. Nothing annoys me more than people, who have absolute no idea what's going on around them, due to a crappy song playing on 100% volume, annoying everyone around them as well.

As I said, I don't care if they get hit... my feelings goes out to those, who actually do the hitting, which must be a terrible thing.

[Abedgebeefs]

I think it is part of an anti-iPOD conspiracy. Next they will be declaring Wal-Marts illegal because the greeters tend to have higher rates of heart attacks....

/chuckle

[funnyPasds]

This is nannyism and the logic of it sets a bad precedent for a lousy society. What is next to this legislator? No looking at miniskirts whilst walking? I don't think anyone deserves to die at all for common carelessness and inattentiveness, but it happens all the time. Car radio and stereo systems and conversations inside vehicles whether by mobile phone or between occupants cause alot of accidents. Even then, any movement still involves an imperfect gauge of risk. A pedestrian crossing the street needs to look around before and whilst crossing, but even when they do that, they can't look both left and right as well as both forward and behind at the same time. It's also miserably impractical if not impossible to expect people to always be 100 percent overly attentive to all things at all times. Trying to legislatively require it would add leaps and bounds to the misery index of daily life.

I agree. The sad thing is that we are seeing more and more of this nanny crap on every level of society. It starts in school and it never ends. Pathetic. "I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid." - Jerry Seinfeld.

[Abedgebeefs]

Yup.

Suzie had a plastic butter knife with her peanut butter sandwich. She must be expelled....she could have thrown it, you know...

[DoctorDeryOne]

I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban alcohol yet...oh wait. Anyway, yeah, that city is going to hell and fast. The way I see it is they are trying to transform the city inhabitants into machines that work at the industrial city. The government owns the people. How sad.

[Susanleech]

Yes, this is a nanny law. Its stupid. Its cannot possibly be enforced in places like Manhattan during work hours.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Maybe the state ran out of money and decided to scrape some more from its citizens by making bullshit laws like this. Could be that, too.