Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the try-looking-up dept.

Honolulu, Hawaii police will begin to write tickets for people caught using their phones or other electronic devices while crossing at a crosswalk:

Police in Honolulu will begin writing tickets for people who get distracted by their cellphones while walking in a cross walk Wednesday. Honolulu is the first major city in the country to pass such a law, citing a high rate of pedestrians being hit in crosswalks.

"Starting today, texting while walking in a cross walk can get you a ticket," Hawaii Public Radio's Bill Dorman reports for our Newscast unit. "In fact, a downward glance at a screen of any kind will cost you—a phone, a tablet, a video game."

Under the new law, the only legal reason for a pedestrian to use a cellphone while crossing a street or highway would be to call 911 to report an emergency.

Minimum fines for breaking the new law start at $15; for repeat offenders, the penalty ranges from $75 to $99. Higher rates — up to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second, and $500 for a third — had been considered earlier this year.

Also at the City and County of Honolulu. Bill 6 (2017).


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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:21PM (#587505)

    If you try to protect people from their own stupidity, you'll just end up with Tyranny.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by stretch611 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:40PM (5 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:40PM (#587552)

      This is a stupid law. Just as the parent post said, they are trying to protect people from their own stupidity.

      Driving laws are different... those laws protect otherwise innocent people from your stupidity. If someone's walking is impaired, chances are the only person they are going to end up hurting is themself. What is next prohibiting drunk people from walking in a crosswalk?

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:00PM (4 children)

        by Bot (3902) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:00PM (#587586) Journal

        Consider that you might be driving a car, stupid kid with cellphone starts crossing, you swerve and crash into incoming truck. Or some other delicious meatbag mashing.

        Another aspect:
        One clever guy I know said: "I don't use smartphone nor headphones when I am walking. If I have to, I stop, shoulders to a wall, raise it to eye level so I can see what's beyond it, and look around often".
        The oblivious well dressed guy/gal looking down at the smartphone is "attack me" low hanging fruit.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:33PM (#587615)

          That's why it leads to tyranny.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:58PM

          by frojack (1554) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @11:58PM (#587620) Journal

          Attack me now, low hanging fruit?

          There are other possible meanings for "beatbag smashing":

                  https://goo.gl/NJSpk1 [goo.gl]

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:47AM (#587714)

          When driving, always go for the softest target. Kids are softer than trucks. The decision is obvious. Driver should be allowed to hit the kid with no liability incurred. In fact he shouldn't even have to wait around for the cops. The street cleaners can clean up the mess. Or just leave it there as a warning to the next idiot.

          Mamas, teach your children about situational awareness, and they might survive to adulthood.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:30PM

          by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:30PM (#587790)

          You realize that if you are a driver and hit a pedestrian, you generally are off the hook unless you are breaking the law in some aspect which makes you at fault. (driving impaired, excessive speed, failure to yield -- which usually includes crosswalks)

          Of course this does not mean that you will not be remorseful, but legally you are not held responsible if the pedestrian was an idiot.

          People should be held accountable for the problems they cause, but penalizing them for being stupid is just enriching the ticketing agency's revenue.

          IANAL... but I would say you have a good case to shift liability to a pedestrian if they act irresponsible and cause you to crash. Assuming you can prove it. (dash cam, multiple witnesses)

          --
          Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:05AM

      by captain normal (2205) on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:05AM (#587684)

      Hey hele hou! E mālama i kou mau maka a iʻoleʻoe e palahalaha.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Wootery on Thursday October 26 2017, @08:33AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Thursday October 26 2017, @08:33AM (#587742)

      Or, god forbid, the JVM.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:09PM (1 child)

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:09PM (#587863)

      We'll just pay to have their injuries repaired by the medical system. #SocialismWorks #It'sJustNeverBeenTried

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:24PM

        by Wootery (2341) on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:24PM (#587953)

        #It'sJustNeverBeenTried

        You're thinking of communism.

        Socialised medicine works fine.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:26PM (44 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:26PM (#587508)

    Do they have a similar law for people who text and drive, which is far, far more dangerous? And if they do, do they actually enforce it? (And how would they?)

    In fact, why are pedestrians being hit at all in crosswalks? It shouldn't matter what they're doing there or if they're paying attention: if they're in the crosswalk, vehicles shouldn't be running into them. Ok, we can make allowances for crossing against the light of course (drivers can't help it if some idiot walks out in front of them, when they don't have permission to cross at that time), but that doesn't seem to be the problem here. It's the drivers they should be going after, not the pedestrians. The distractedness has only revealed a much bigger problem: the drivers were driving dangerously, and not looking for pedestrians, and before cellphones became a thing, the pedestrians were narrowly avoiding accidents caused by bad drivers. Now that some of the pedestrians are distracted, they're not avoiding the accidents, but the fault is still with the drivers.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:35PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:35PM (#587511) Journal

      Do they have a similar law for people who text and drive, which is far, far more dangerous?

      Look at the PDF. They edited their texting+driving law to encompass people crossing the street.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:42PM (3 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:42PM (#587514) Journal

        Look at the PDF. They edited their texting+driving law to encompass people crossing the street.

        Not quite right: They STRUCK down texting+driving. And replaced it with viewing+walking.
        And they further gave instructions to the maintainer of ordinances to STRIKE prohibition of mobile device use while driving from ordinances.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:47PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:47PM (#587516) Journal

          Oh yeah, I think I really read that wrong and somehow thought pedestrian was "person", covering both pedestrian and driver.

          I expect that another law still covers distracted driving.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:21PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:21PM (#587598) Journal

            This ∆ conversation reminds me of below ¥

            "Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
            Female announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
            Male announcer: [later] The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
            Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED zone.
            Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.
            Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping!
            Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.
            [Later]
            Male announcer: There's just no stopping in a white zone.
            Female announcer: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
            Male announcer: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved."

            ;)

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:31AM

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:31AM (#587749)

            Look out, they might introduce a law for distracted reading!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:00PM (#587525)

      Get appogle to issue fines whenever an active phone crosses a roadway. Can co-opt witnesses from other iot sensors in the vicinity.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by jcross on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:22PM (3 children)

      by jcross (4009) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:22PM (#587535)

      Anything to avoid talking about why we have corridors of death running right next to our homes and businesses. If roads were something like deep canyons, hell even just six feet deep, the builders would be required by law to put a wall or fence alongside. But obviously that would be expensive so in this one case we just say it's the pedestrian's lookout. It doesn't help that in most places pedestrians are as a group less numerous and less wealthy than drivers. I believe this creates a constant level of anxiety when near a road that becomes hard to notice. I only really notice it by its absence when I'm in the pedestrian district of an old European city.

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:06PM (2 children)

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:06PM (#587590) Homepage Journal

        For each road and highway, here and there dig deep pits that are one lane ways and about thirty feet long.

        Line the bottoms of each hole with pungee sticks.

        When DUI collisions tick back up, fill in the old holes then dig new ones.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jcross on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:18AM (1 child)

          by jcross (4009) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:18AM (#587670)

          Interesting, I'm thinking the inattentive drivers would fill the holes up for you. Just level with fill dirt and pave right over them. Add in a few solid headstones for alert drivers to dodge.

          Seriously though, I sometimes wonder what roads would look like if every traffic fatality had a marker of some kind. You do see little memorials here and there, but I would assume that's just a small sample of the total. Would it act as a memento mori or just another feature of the landscape? I'm not sure whether it's a thing elsewhere but around here we have "ghost bikes" which are bikes painted white and decorated with flowers, to show where a cyclist got killed by a car. There are quite a few of them.

          • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:15AM

            by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:15AM (#587723) Homepage Journal

            The speed limit of the road that goes the whole length of Baja California is 35 MPH. I was doing 90 most of the time.

            There is a large sign by the side of the road that says "This road was built for economic development, not for speed."

            Whenever a car wrecked on that highway, they would push it off the side of the road - patrol cars have robust front bumpers for that very purpose - then leave it there forever.

            Most of them were upside-down.

            --
            Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:29PM (25 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:29PM (#587541)

      Georgia has the text and drive law, I saw a quote from a Georgia officer who enforced it on people who texted while stopped at traffic lights, presumably because it's easier to enforce there and still technically against the letter of the law - though mostly missing the spirit.

      Many times, laws like these aren't about ticket based enforcement, they're more for establishment of fault in the event of an accident - though with Honolulu and a crosswalk law, I could see plenty of ticket based enforcement going on.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:43PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:43PM (#587554)

        I saw a quote from a Georgia officer who enforced it on people who texted while stopped at traffic lights, presumably because it's easier to enforce there and still technically against the letter of the law - though mostly missing the spirit.

        Motorists must maintain situational awareness at all times while they are in control of their vehicles.

        This includes when the vehicle is temporarily stopped at a traffic signal.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:05AM (7 children)

          by edIII (791) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:05AM (#587625)

          Ohh, bull fucking shit. The only thing they *need* to do is keep their feet on the brake. A vehicle can only move forward, unless you put it in reverse when you get to intersections. When the first at an intersection your only defensive response is to move forward, which may be the exact wrong thing to do, and problematic no matter which way you look at it. If you are not the first person, then you can move NOWHERE. If something happens, your only defensive response is to move *backward*, which is against the law. It's also pretty pointless if the danger is from directly behind. A T-Rex coming at you from the side does let you reverse, or go forward, but just how often how often do you visit Jurassic Park?

          Most of the time when at an intersection you are somewhat safer with vehicles surrounding you. There is no reasonable justification to make somebody concentrate on something other than the brake, unless they are FIRST in line, lest they sit there like idiots wasting the light. In that case I recommend a law that lets us take those people out of their cars and beat them with wiffle bats for 5 minutes.

          Everyone else realizes that sitting at an intersection for 90 seconds or more is the perfect time to check your messages or setup a phone call. There's nothing else you can do, and nowhere else you can go, and the only realistic and practical response to danger requiring immediate evacuation is to get out of the car and run. The people at the front and back of the queues may escape with a car, but the guy in the middle of line is going nowhere with his car.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:34AM (6 children)

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:34AM (#587751)

            Keep their foot on the brake? In our far away land we have this magic thing called a "handbrake". Lift the handbrake, put the gearbox in neutral, and you can be distracted to your heart's content.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:35PM (5 children)

              by edIII (791) on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:35PM (#587929)

              Some of us have automatics, and you don't want to put the handbrake on like that. All you have to do is forget once and you start killing your brakes. It would be one thing if the handbrake actually stopped all motion, but it doesn't. There should be a loud annoying buzzer when you're driving with it on.

              Putting it into neutral is an idea that helps, but it takes to long to shift the gears back. I know, the manual shift people are laughing, but I don't particularly enjoy nine million movements while driving. Keeping my foot on the brake isn't all that much effort really. I've got big heavy feet and boots on to the extent that if I relax my feet completely, my foot falls on the accelerator and I speed up. That's no joke, I passed out once and woke up at 130mph because my foot was heavy enough to do it. 11/10 on the pucker factor.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @08:36PM (#587982)

                Some of us have automatics, and you don't want to put the handbrake on like that. All you have to do is forget once and you start killing your brakes.

                And we think being distracted by smart-phones is the problem?

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 27 2017, @06:59PM

                  by edIII (791) on Friday October 27 2017, @06:59PM (#588365)

                  Oh fuck you.

                  People forget once in awhile, especially when you're doing this while in the middle of driving. Bit different when checking the emergency brake as part of a checklist when starting to drive, and suffering the distractions of a busy intersection. It's the number of selections you stupid fuck. I said, "All you to do is forget ONCE". Remember 999 times, you're fine. One the thousandth time you're damaging your fucking brakes and that's expensive.

                  The handbrake is for when you are parked and are going to get out of the car, or you want to do some crazy shit while driving. It's not for the intersections, certainly not in automatic transmissions.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday October 27 2017, @06:14AM (2 children)

                by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 27 2017, @06:14AM (#588130)

                Some of us have automatics, and you don't want to put the handbrake on like that. All you have to do is forget once and you start killing your brakes. It would be one thing if the handbrake actually stopped all motion, but it doesn't. There should be a loud annoying buzzer when you're driving with it on

                I live in the land of manual gearboxes, and all cars have an indicator on the dash to show the handbrake is engaged. My current car (13 years old) will also beep at me if I drive off with the handbrake still (partially) engaged. A fully engaged handbrake will stop a car from moving off.

                I know many in North America think of the handbrake as an automotive appendix. A family relative learned to drive manuals in the UK, and having moved to Canada they borrowed their parent's automatic car for a while. Following “good practice”, they used the “parking brake” when leaving the car (but just used the foot brake when stopped at lights). That parking brake hadn't been used often and it seized up on the drive. A mechanic came round to fix it, and gave her the advice “just don't use the thing”!

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 27 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)

                  by edIII (791) on Friday October 27 2017, @07:05PM (#588368)

                  The car I have doesn't have the buzzer. That light doesn't help you in times of severe distraction either. I've driven with the handbrake for an extended period maybe twice in my life. The last time was maybe six months ago during some rather stressful and intense events, but it was for like 10 fucking miles. You don't even feel it on either, which was really surprising to me. I think it was mostly disengaged and only down enough to make the light go on, because there was very little damage and it was new brakes.

                  You're somewhat right about the appendix, but I've religiously used mine my whole life while parked. Never even considered using it while at an intersection. Thought it was a bizarre suggestion really.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday October 28 2017, @12:17PM

                    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28 2017, @12:17PM (#588649)

                    In the UK, standard practice (as taught by driving instructors) is that if you're going to be stationary for more than a few seconds, then you should engage the handbrake. When you're ready to move off, engage gear, press lightly on the accelerator, raise the clutch to biting point, then release the handbrake as you finish raising the clutch.

                    In practice some drivers will just hold their foot on the brake the whole time instead. If they're on level grown or a downward slope they can just release the foot brake and head off, but if you're on a slight incline, with one foot on the clutch and the other on the foot brake, there's no way you're not going to get your foot from the brake to the accelerator and then raise the clutch before the car starts to roll backwards! So you'll see some cars where the brake lights are on (foot brake) until a few seconds before they move off, when the driver has engaged the hand brake instead to release their foot for the accelerator.

                    (Most people in the UK pass their driving test in the UK on a manual vehicle. You can take your test on an automatic, but that then only entitles you to drive automatics. Automatic sales are rising, but 75% of new cars sold in the UK are still manuals.)

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:08AM (#587630) Journal

          The motorist stopped in traffic at a stop sign is fully aware of roughly how long they will be there, and is fully aware of the fact that being stopped in bumper to bumper traffic there isn't a goddamned thing they can do even about anything that might happen until traffic starts to flow. Having the foot on the brake is all the control they need.

          This is a perfect case of law enforcement extending the law simply because they want to.

          You probably heard while growing up that it was against the law to drive barefoot, because you didn't have control of the vehicle when barefoot. The thing is, that was never the law in any state, and the idea that you didn't have control of the vehicle was just something the cops CLAIMED without a shred of evidence. No state tries to enforce the barefoot nonsense anymore.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:42AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:42AM (#587677)

            The barefoot thing was a law in Florida, may still be... had a trooper quote it to me once when I stepped out with no shoes on, but that was a "friendly" verbal warning only stop.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:01PM (#587562)

        A cop in chicago told me that they use the cell or belt laws to stop people when they believe they'll find something else by looking at the vehicle/license.
        It's a legal justification to stop someone who doesn't look quite right (insert your own profiling bias here).
        If you turn out to be clean and polite, you're typically not worth the paperwork and get a warning.

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:14PM (2 children)

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:14PM (#587592) Homepage Journal

          Except for yours truly wanting to know when the light rail started running again in the morning.

          A patrol car suddenly materialized out of nowhere.

          "I looked both ways!" failed to satisfy.

          One of the cops requested my ID. I gave them an expired passport. "Do you have a state issued ID?" "No." so they didn't get my home address. I was telling the truth.

          A couple of minutes later that same cop accused me of failing to register as a sex offender. That one flummoxed me. "Ma'am, I've never even been _accused_ of a sex crime!"

          that seemed to satisfy her, but I looked into it later: there was once another Michael David Crawford who resided in Washington state. He was a registered sex offender who did time in Walla Walla commencing in 2005.

          In 2012, he put on a homemade bullet proof vest - sort of anyway - and a helmet that had metal plates taped to it. He then stole a car, led the Lakewood police in a high speed chase, crashed the car then fired a pistol at a cop.

          Hilarity ensued.

          I speculate he's the reason I had no luck finding a job for five years.

          He left behind a child and a mother.

          There just has to be some reason he did that, but doubtlessly history will never know.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:14PM (8 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:14PM (#587571)

        The problem with that is that you can't really tell if someone is texting or adjusting their GPS system. It's not illegal to use GPS navigation.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:14AM (6 children)

          by edIII (791) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:14AM (#587631)

          Yep. If a cop ever pulls me over that is what I will tell him. Along with it's so easily provable that I will be bringing the proof to court.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:37AM (5 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 26 2017, @02:37AM (#587675)

            Your word against the cop's - he'll read off from his notes how he saw you entering text into a messaging application, and how you seemed generally unattentive to your surroundings.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:02AM (3 children)

              by edIII (791) on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:02AM (#587683)

              I don't give a fuck. I've not let lying cops abuse me before, it ain't going to start now. Also, I've won against the lying dumb fuckers.

              My story will be backed up by information subpoena'd by the court to my carrier showing SMS & voice activity absent (cop is lying sumbitch) , and that Google Maps was being predominately accessed in the foreground (I'm telling the truth).

              Surely you've seen in the news lately when cops say something demonstrably false and stupid and are called out on it? I'm pretty sure by me telling the cop right there and then what information can be had, that they might back down.

              In any case, I'm not afraid of being in court to fight for principles.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:12PM (2 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:12PM (#587772)

                So, 2/3 lying cops I've taken to court didn't show, but in the other 1/3 cases they did show, they did lie, and the judge took their side.

                What your dumbf lawyers can tell you is which way the judge will lean, and they can postpone and reschedule the hearing until you get a judge who will take your side. In my cases, apparently about 2/3 of the judges don't take the cops' side, the cops know this just like the lawyers do - from spending a lot of time in court - and that's why they don't bother to show when they know they're going to lose. As for me vs traffic infractions, it's just a piddly little fine - I'd rather pay it than spend more of my time fighting.

                It's not about how well you argue, it's about the prejudices of the situation - just like in jury trials where they try not to pick prejudiced people, but in the end it's the hidden prejudices that decide most cases.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:46PM (1 child)

                  by edIII (791) on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:46PM (#587936)

                  Well, I'm a pretty good driver. No accidents whole lifetime. Some minor fender benders in parking lots, but that is not on the road. I've not been in too many situations with cops. Less than a handful to be honest, but they're memorable because I'd rather spend my whole life fighting for principles than let bad man win. Letting the bad men win is why our planet sucks ass, and humanity will never live long enough to start exploring the universe. I'm serious. If everybody fought for principles tooth and nail, refused to give up to the last dying breath, maybe, just maybe, the world might be better. I never appreciate that argument to give up when you're in the right, simply because of the effort to defend yourself.

                  The arguments I get into cops with are the exceptionally stupid kind too. Remember Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny rolling out the measuring tape for the old lady that couldn't see well? That kind of stupid. The kind of stupid that science settles in seconds. On another note, I've never contested the tickets that I deserved. You can, but I just pay them. Interestingly, in the cases I've been wrong, sincerely apologizing to the officer seems to help get you warnings.

                  Never give up, never surrender. That's the only speed I have when it comes to my principles and my defense of them.

                  --
                  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:35PM

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:35PM (#588007)

                    For your sake, hope nobody ever drags you into small claims court with a lawyer. We had a $100 difference of opinion with a therapist who was coloring far outside the lines of her license - rather than give us the $100, she lawyered up and sued us. Would have cost us $3000 to take it into court and maybe win, maybe not - and if we won a judgement against her, well step in line behind her other credit default claimants to wish that you can get payment on that judgement.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:09AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:09AM (#587686)

              Until the prosecutor subpoenas the phone records and finds text messages at and around the time that the officer pulled the car over.

              Really, people should just put that damned phones away before they kill somebody. Nothing is so important that it can't wait for you to pull over.

        • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday October 28 2017, @12:22PM

          by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28 2017, @12:22PM (#588651)

          Legal distinction in the UK is whether the device is handheld or not. (Originally to allow taxi drivers to continue to use wired-in radio handsets.) If your GPS phone is in your hand, it's illegal to touch it while driving. If it's in a hands-free dash mount, then that's fine. You could equally send a text message on one in a mount, then the charge of driving without due care and attention may still be applicable, depending on how you're doing it.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:24PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:24PM (#587600) Journal

        though with Honolulu and a crosswalk law, I could see plenty of ticket based enforcement going on.

        *citation needed!* (Sorry, could not help myself.)

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by driven on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:43PM (3 children)

      by driven (6295) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:43PM (#587555)

      Funny, you can ride a motorcycle in Hawaii without a helmet.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:55PM (#587585)

        you can ride a motorcycle in Hawaii without a helmet.

        Hey, organ donors don't grow on trees, you know.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:20PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:20PM (#587597)

          Confusingly, you do occasionally have to peel them off a tree.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:57AM (#587715)
        Helmets should only be required once the motorcyclists have children.
    • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:22PM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:22PM (#587599) Journal

      Well, there are a lot of places with some pretty strict laws around what you can do while driving. Here's an example of a great ad that ran in Australia about texting or being distracted while driving:

      https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/07/this-new-australian-no-texting-while-driving-ad-is-intense/ [gizmodo.com.au]

      Having said that, I'm all for laws that state when on a road you need to pay attention to your surroundings. Just makes sense, sure, a pedestrian might have right of way, but that doesn't mean they can be totally oblivious to everything else.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:05AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:05AM (#587731)

      You are an idiot. It's the walkers they should be going after. A car has lot less changes to stop than a pedestrian. And ultimately, it's the pedestrian that gets hurt. It does not really help you or anyone else to get some money for being in wheelchair your whole life. The drivers life could be ruined aswell and the society as a whole loses. This is not about whose "right"it is to go first, it's simple fucking logic.

      Pedestrians and cyclists need to watch where they are going, they have the power and they are the ones getting physically hurt.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @01:41PM (#587794)

        I suppose it's simple fucking logic from the viewpoint that a car is a perfectly natural method of conveyance that has been in use throughout all of recorded history.

        Why would anybody ever walk anywhere? Only homeless people walk.

    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:34AM

      by theluggage (1797) on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:34AM (#587763)

      In fact, why are pedestrians being hit at all in crosswalks? It shouldn't matter what they're doing there or if they're paying attention

      Yes it should - assuming that your motivation is to actually save lives rather than keep some anal-retentive after-the-fact ledger in which every incident is assigned precisely one victim and one culprit.

      A few years ago I was using a pedestrian crossing. I pressed the button, the traffic lights turned red, the green man lit up (that's British for "WALK" signal)... and a second later a bloody great truck blew through the lights at about 30 mph. If I'd crossed when the lights changed, do you know how much it would have helped to know that, legally, it was entirely the truck driver's liability? Ans: not one fucking bit because I'd still have been dead. I doubt the truck driver was some sort of evil sociopath, either - just some poor schmuck under pressure to work long hours and stick to silly timetables if he wanted to sleep indoors and eat hot meals, who had a 1-second brainfart and who's life would have been screwed up badly by the accident.

      Fortunately, in this case I was still standing on the path giving the evil eye to the driver as he barrelled past - because although I'm as fallible as the next person, when I cross the road, generally, I actually take some personal fucking responsibility and look at the traffic before crossing, whatever the lights say. I know that some drivers are idiots while others simply don't have 360 degree X-ray vision and fighter-pilot reflexes, and 100% of them (until Tesla and Google get their way) are fallible human beings.

      ...and, yes, there have always been pedestrian accidents, sometimes entirely the driver's fault, sometimes with contributory negligence from the pedestrians, but smartphone zombies are a new and growing problem - both on foot and behind the wheel. Safe driving speed along a road lined with shambling Cloudheads is approximately 1 mph (which will cause a white Audi to materialise spontaneously 10mm behind your rear bumper and start flashing its laser-pointer headlights at you).

      Now, obviously, the same standards should be applied to drivers and I don't get why the Honolulu bill has bits about using devices while driving crossed out - maybe there are some shenanigans there, maybe there's already a texting-and-driving law, maybe its covered by state law.... However, most jurisdictions already have laws requiring drivers to remain in control of their vehicles and pay attention (in the UK it's "driving without due care and attention") than can be - and are - applied to all sorts of distracted driving (e.g. people get done for eating chocolate bars while driving, although for some bizarre reason, rolling up small cylindrical bundles of leaves and using a naked flame to set them smouldering seems to get a free pass - as long as they're the right sort of leaves).

      (Also, I spend most of the day sitting down in front of a screen, so when I do have an opportunity to walk from A to B, I see it as an opportunity to "look up", rest my eyes and get some exercise and maybe do some thinking - whereas the iZombies/Zomdroids seem to be showing symptoms of addiction and obsessive-compulsive behaviour and really need professional help )

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:39PM (4 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @07:39PM (#587512) Journal

    Its clear this was never meant to pass, it was a hack job on an existing bill to outlaw texting while driving, and someone struck out all those provisions and inserted anti-walking provisions.

    http://www4.honolulu.gov/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-196183/DOC007%20(14).PDF [honolulu.gov]

    Further, it does not outlaw talking on the phone, only "viewing" the phone, and it mentions nothing about crosswalks.
    ...

    Worse than that it gives directions to the maintainer of ordinances: Ordinance material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken.
    And the first thing bracketed and stricken will be:

    [No person shall operate a motor vehicle whilo using a mobile electronic device.]

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:34PM (2 children)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:34PM (#587546) Homepage Journal

      Legal publishers print books that have the diffs applied.

      It is damn near impossible to make sense of a complex bill. The revised code books only appear quite a long time after bills are passed.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyper on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)

        by Hyper (1525) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:47PM (#587583) Journal

        Then all law changes need to be managed like code changes. If the file is changed then it can be viewed as a diff of just the lines changed, the old version, the new version and with the option of the new version diff showing changes from the old.

        Source control management systems have had this functionary for years. How are laws so different that existing software could not be used to manage changes.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:03PM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:03PM (#587589) Homepage Journal

          Some other politician's understanding was that "The Internet is a series of tubes."

          Happily, Lawrence Lessig set SCOTUS up with WordPerfect. Before that they used typewriters. IIRC they eventually started using Word, but had to - quite publicly - beg Microsoft to include footnotes in its word count.

          Some of the documents that can be sent to the court have a specific limit on their word count. Hilarity ensued.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:37PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:37PM (#587550)

      It is Hawaii, after all, I've noticed they take the whole English Law concept half-heartedly.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:33PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:33PM (#587544) Homepage Journal

    For quite a while now, the Portland TriMet has placed ads on its busses urging the public not to talk on the phone while walking in front of busses.

    That actually happened a few years ago in Vancouver, Washington. Someone was killed.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)

    by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:00PM (#587561)

    You know "jaywalking" was what they called it when they made a law to not cross at crossings. It's because "Jay" meant something like "Fool" in the early 1900's, but uh... less politely. I kind of thought something like this might get a similar term.

    • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:06PM

      by Zinho (759) on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:06PM (#587836)

      Per the Cambridge Dictionary: [cambridge.org]

      dumbwalking
      noun [ U ] uk ​ /ˈdʌmˌwɔː.kɪŋ/ /ˈdʌmˌwɑː.kɪŋ/ informal humorous
      ​the practice of walking slowly and without looking where you are going, because you are looking at your mobile phone

      Lots of hits for this if you search for it, [google.com] it's been in use for a while.

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @09:03PM (#587564)

    At what point do you cross that line from just trying to help, into Dystopian Thriller?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:59PM

      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:59PM (#587607) Journal

      Maybe when the enforcement measure is worse than the (worst) outcome of the (outlawed) behaviour?

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:48PM

    by Hartree (195) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @10:48PM (#587606)

    If they enforced such a law at the university I work at, they could make a lot off it. We have hoards of cell phone zombies that walk into traffic, into fixed objects and ram into others with abandon.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by i286NiNJA on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:07AM

    by i286NiNJA (2768) on Thursday October 26 2017, @12:07AM (#587629)

    These people make a complete clusterfuck anywhere that tourists congregate, obliviously waddling down the sidewalk at a snails pace.
    Most of them are moving so slowly it'd be better if they sat down and then walked at a normal pace when they finished.

(1)