SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New York Might Fine You for Texting While Crossing the Street
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 23 2019, @01:02AM (9 children)
Why is your perception relevant? We could just not have the law and be better off for it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @01:16AM (8 children)
Until you're the victim of a chain reaction caused by one of these morons, who then successfully argues in court that he wasn't breaking any law, leaving you with all the liabilities and costs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:19AM (7 children)
You were driving unsafely then. Plus, what liabilities and costs is he going to take on? It's a $200 fine, right? And it doesn't go to the alleged victims, right? In other words, it's no different liability-wise than what you had in the absence of the law.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:57PM (6 children)
> You were driving unsafely then.
Who said the "victim" caused it, or was even driving ? My neighbor got pinned against a wall by a car which got hit by someone else. He was on the sidewalk, and someone lost control. That wasn't because of a cellphone, but his shattered legs and months or rehab didn't really care.
A rule against texting allows to clearly assign blame to the person who causes an accident, when they would normally try to hide behind a pedestrian-is-always-right, blaming a driver whose actual responsibility will vary on a case-by-case basis.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 24 2019, @04:53AM (5 children)
Once again, I go back to my original point. Why are we harming millions of people (half who don't even live near NYC!) just because there are stupid people in NYC?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @07:19PM (4 children)
What is the harm ? "Don't be stupid!" isn't harmful. Nanny-state, but not harmful.
Unless it's an excuse for facial discrimination, or the department's budget is tight, the cops always have the choice to let people off with a warning,
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 24 2019, @11:55PM
Well, there you go. If your undesirable happens to have a smart phone when you frisk them, you can get them on this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:08AM (2 children)
Nanny-state is pretty harmful. First, it's yet another case where someone imposes on the rights of millions because there are stupid people in the world. Notice how no one has even bothered to quantify how bad texting while crossing roads is.
Second, it creates yet more avenues for authorities to bully us. As I noted elsewhere, if police frisk me and find a smart phone, they now can claim I was attempting to cross a road while distracted and apply the appropriate fine. It's my word against theirs.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:36AM (1 child)
You know, in the Soviet Union and in East Germany, the people who were worried about the abuse of the state were either doing illegal stuff, or suspecting their neighbors would invent charges to get rid of them. It took major purges for ordinary people to worry that the cops would make up stuff to round up a quota, because otherwise there were enough of the previous two categories to keep them busy.
Even North Korea these days seems to round up anyone who steps sideways, but the good obedient people just live their lives
The land of the free, in khallow's mind, is a hellscape of people trying to get you regardless of your behavior.
You're either sadly right, warranting immediate radical action to defend your precious constitution, or highly paranoid.
Pick one, and act swiftly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 27 2019, @01:02AM
Sounds like a valid reason to be concerned about nanny state creep, doesn't it?
I don't think you get the point of this exercise. The authorities would make sure to occasionally pick up the ordinary people in order to maintain fear - hence, the point of the quota even in the absence of targets to enforce the quota on. Perhaps they would choose not to jail you this time... but the threat would always be there. That keeps the ordinary people in line. They always have something to hide.
And yet, this very story is documentation that the land of the free is under assault by people who want to govern our behavior merely because stupid people might get hurt with little to no concern over the actual risks and benefits. Meanwhile we have a number of stories here where law enforcement has outright faked evidence in order to secure a conviction. It's not some paranoid delusion, but fact that this is going on to some degree.
Let us keep in mind the two things that a tyranny needs: 1) a common enemy, and 2) fear. The best common enemies are the ones that can't go away, such as imaginary enemies of the state in the case of 20th Century Communism. Here, that common enemy is stupid people. No matter how many nanny laws are passed, there will continue to be stupid people doing stupid things. Hence, an eternal reason to pass more nanny laws.
And this growing plethora of nanny laws makes it likely that one will have to break a few of them in order to function. That's where the fear comes in. The police have the power to arbitrarily enforce these laws. After all, they're not going to enforce the cell phone law in the first place unless they feel like it. Hence, we have the fear that a budding tyranny needs to keep ordinary people in line.
Finally, what does "act swiftly" mean? Why am I not doing that right now?