Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 21 2019, @08:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the darwin-award dept.

CNet:

New York state Sen. John Liu introduced a bill last week that would ban texting while walking. Pedestrians could be fined between $25 and $250 if they're seen "using any portable device" while crossing a roadway, according to a copy of the bill obtained by The Guardian.

"Using" a device means looking at it, playing games, being online, sending emails, texting and more, according to the bill. The legislation makes exceptions for emergency first-responders and those trying to contact hospitals, fire departments, police and other emergency services.

The penalties for people who don't look up from their phones while crossing are already pretty high, aren't they?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 22 2019, @11:40PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @11:40PM (#846431) Journal
    You forgot decision zero: does the law either already exist or is worse than what it's trying to solve? Yes to the latter, such as in this case, then "there shouldn't be a law".
  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:56PM (5 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:56PM (#846655) Journal

    The page attempts to describe a fundamentally correct approach for evaluating both existing law, and proposed law.

    I have reasonable confidence that it is complete as it stands, at least on this issue. If you'll read the text that adjoins the post, I specifically pointed out that it can be applied to existing law.

    --
    It's not really how I look that reveals my age.
    It's using complete sentences when I text.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 24 2019, @04:46AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 24 2019, @04:46AM (#846952) Journal

      The page attempts to describe a fundamentally correct approach for evaluating both existing law, and proposed law.

      And I fix the problems with that attempt.

      I have reasonable confidence that it is complete as it stand

      And I already showed how that confidence is misplaced. Regulation is not zero cost - it can impose considerable costs well above that of intrusion on liberties (which let us note are enormous in this case).

      Even if we take the chart at face value, we still end up with the situation that we're now regulating normal pedestrian behavior on very tenuous safety grounds. That intrusion on liberties thing, remember? What's next on that old slippery slope? Will you be prohibited from walking in public without a license?

      One can always invent costs and downplay intrusions on liberty to rationalize a bit of tyranny. Perhaps, we should resist that by not doing it here?

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday May 24 2019, @08:57PM (3 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday May 24 2019, @08:57PM (#847355) Journal

        And I fix the problems with that attempt.

        Must have been in some other thread. Not in this one, you didn't.

        And I already showed how that confidence is misplaced.

        No, you didn't. You said something was missing, which you were incorrect about. The chart applies to both existing and proposed legislation, as specifically explained in the supporting text on the page. The question it answers is "should there be a law", which applies perfectly well to both existing laws or proposed laws. I provided specific examples of how to do both.

        Regulation is not zero cost

        You know what a straw man is, right? That's where you beat on something your respondent didn't say, imply, or refer to. Specifically, I never claimed — ever, anywhere — that:

        • Regulation is zero cost
        • We should not invest funds in generating regulation
        • We don't waste funds on poor regulation
        • We don't ever get good regulation from the in-place process
        • We don't ever get poor regulation from the in-place process
        • We shouldn't waste less funds on regulation
        • We don't spend enough on regulation

        Even if we take the chart at face value, we still end up with the situation that we're now regulating normal pedestrian behavior on very tenuous safety grounds.

        If you're trying to say that the chart leads to this, you'll have to provide a specific example of this; that claim, without anything to back it up, is meaningless. What pedestrian behavior, exactly? I'm all ears. Well, eye. :)

        If you're just saying we have bad law / regulation now WRT personal liberty, well yes, of course. The chart is an attempt to help us identify bad law, existing or proposed, WRT personal liberty.

        If you're trying to say something other than those two... well, you're being very unclear.

        One can always invent costs and downplay intrusions on liberty to rationalize a bit of tyranny. Perhaps, we should resist that by not doing it here?

        ...you're still dealing with your excess straw inventory, I see. I suggest you find a grazer. I'm not in need of any straw, thanks.

        --
        No one said the joke would be funny.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 24 2019, @11:54PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 24 2019, @11:54PM (#847422) Journal
          The obvious rebuttal is that nowhere in your flowchart did you consider costs of regulation beyond its impact on human freedom.
          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:44PM (1 child)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:44PM (#847566) Journal

            The obvious rebuttal is that nowhere in your flowchart did you consider costs of regulation beyond its impact on human freedom.

            Rebuttal? No. That's because the flowchart isn't about costs of regulation, nor is it relevant to the ideas presented.

            Nor is it about, or does it incorporate: corruption; racism; misogyny; misandry; xenophobia; ignorance; classism; wealth/poverty; intelligence; jingoism; superstition; healthcare; homelessness; regulatory capture; pollution; urban congestion; banking of highway curves; false flags; espionage; dishonesty; contracts; intellectual property; food safety; etc.

            All of these things, and many more, are factors in making, enforcing, and breaking laws, and all may incur effects on the validity of a law depending on what a particular law addresses. All should be considered when a law that would have any effect upon the relevant factors is looked at, again regardless if the law exists already, is a modification to an existing law, or is a proposal for a new law. Which is not to say that there aren't other things to consider as well, any one of which might make or break a decision that a law is appropriate, valid, etc. There may be — or there may not.

            Every relevant factor deserves a similar decision making process to the one I outline for triaging law by its relationship to personal liberty. Any one of the relevant triaging processes could rule a law out, presuming it was considered honestly and with due diligence.

            Personal liberty is one factor. The chart is obviously about that one factor. That's all. It would be nearly impossible to work out every matter needing consideration for any law in general in this chart, or any chart that wasn't about as large as the state of Alaska. However, when personal liberty is involved, the chart provides a reasonable means of triage; at least thus far, no one has pointed out any holes in the reasoning. Including you — you're distracted by another factor, and confused about its relevance. I can clear that up for you (again): It's not relevant to considering personal liberty.

            I'm sorry you're been unable to understand what the page is trying to tell you. However, I've used up more than enough time attempting to explain this to you, and so I am done here.

            --
            Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit
            amet, consectetur, adipisci velit...
            Well, Cicero clearly didn't know some of the women I've known.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:19PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 25 2019, @09:19PM (#847711) Journal

              That's because the flowchart isn't about costs of regulation

              Point is, that should be in there and it's not.

              nor is it relevant to the ideas presented.

              Then your ideas as presented aren't relevant to the discussion. One also wonders if you could be bothered to due diligence on the criteria you claim to care about like intrusions on liberties.

              Nor is it about, or does it incorporate: corruption; racism; misogyny; misandry; xenophobia; ignorance; classism; wealth/poverty; intelligence; jingoism; superstition; healthcare; homelessness; regulatory capture; pollution; urban congestion; banking of highway curves; false flags; espionage; dishonesty; contracts; intellectual property; food safety; etc.

              Apparently, your ideas involve attempts to create large schools of red herring. The great irony here is that a consideration of cost of regulation, as I proposed, automatically includes all these factors as they become relevant.

              What I find remarkable is that you present, apparently without much effort, a variety of criteria, some of considerable importance, that should be included in any consideration of creation or increase in law and regulation, and yet you haven't backtracked on your claim that you have "a fundamentally correct approach". Sorry, it's quite obvious you do not when you are poking holes in your own arguments.

              Personal liberty is one factor. The chart is obviously about that one factor.

              Then it is useless. Because there are other factors.