February 7th, 2007
Ban Proposed on iPod Listening While Crossing Streets
By Michael Santo
Executive Editor, RealTechNews
This will probably go over like a lead balloon. This ban would not only apply to iPods, but to any electronic devices … yes, Blackberrys, MP3 players, cell phones.
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. Source: WNBC
We Say: I understand the reasons for this, but while walking? On the other hand, I am all for a requirement for hands-free for cell phones while driving as I see far too many near-misses with people using cell phones in cars (I only use a Bluetooth headset and voice dialing, myself).
Son says:
What’s the point of using an mp3 players when you can’t use it while walking, jogging outside the gym. I’m a student myself walking to school everyday with my mp3s.
I bet Mr. Sen. Carl Kruger doesn’t use mp3s or has to walk to work or to school himself, while sitting in his limo or a nice car using cellphone, listening to nice sounds from nice speakers, without having to drive because he has his own private driver.
I just can’t believe they ban this because a few “idiots” were too ignorant of their lives to cross the streets without looking, why do we have to care when they don’t even care for themselves?
Now if you’re walking legally on the sidewalk and still got ran over by a car then probably that’s not your “ipod” fault.
How about Mr. Sen. Carl Kruger got ran over while walking without using “portable” devices? Then he’s the biggest ignorance…lol
February 7th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Son says:
By saying “can’t use it while walking, jogging outside the gym” as above I meant what’s the point of listening when you have to take off your headphones everytime you cross the streets, when living downtown, in winter with head-cover hat for every few feets of walking, crossing, walking, crossings………………..
February 7th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Charles says:
How is it that this hasn’t been a problem for the last 3 decades, and two people get run over and now we need a law?
Some days I think about how easily I could be killed while walking through the SF Financial District if I stepped off the curb without paying attention.
That said, it’s natural selection at work.
Oh Michael, it’s been known for quite some time that cell phones are not the top distraction among drivers. They are ranked #4 or #6 according to CSAA studies. Believe it or not, eating is the #1 distaction…
banning cell phones is low hanging fruit, but maybe banning drive-thrus would save many more lives, eh?
Also, I fail to see how a bluetooth headset makes a more attentive driver.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Udoni says:
Bergen Beach — that’s Brooklyn, NY, isn’t it? An offense comparable to jaywalking? Does anyone in NY consider jaywalking an offense?
But seriously, I think it’s more important to make sure _drivers_ are not distracted. A car is a lot more dangerous to a pedestrian than the other way around.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
MarcosV says:
Personally I’m in favor of the law. That way when a pedestrian gets hit by a car while wearing headphones or talking on the phone, it’ll be easier to prove he was at fault because he disobeyed a law. Same thing with laws requiring drivers to use hands free devices when talking on cell phones. Right now it’s not illegal to hold a phone to your ear; that fact helps the cell phone driver in court.
I also agree distracted drivers is a bigger problem. But, a pedestrian who’s distraction directly contributed being hit (i.e., the pedestrian jaywalks or didn’t look before entering the crosswalk) should have a harder time to prove in court that distraction didn’t matter when trying to sue the driver in court.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
John B says:
Gee Senator, ever hear of natural selection?
February 8th, 2007 at 6:18 am
MarcosV says:
“Gee Senator, ever hear of natural selection?”
Natural selection works if the idiot dies. It works better if there’s minimal impact on others.
If the idiot survives and sues, I’d like to see the one being sued have an easier time of defending himself/herself (assuming of course the idiot was in the wrong).
Same thing with seat belt laws. If you don’t wear a seatbelt and you die, it’s your fault (unless you’re too young). But, society still gets to pay for your stupid death or worse, you didn’t die and are permanently disabled (e.g., you leave kids/family behind, etc.)
On the other hand if we had laws like the ones in New Zealand that limits liability when someone knowing does something stupid, at least the lawsuit angles go away.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:54 am