$100 Fine for Listening to Ipod While Crossing the Street
Talk about backwards logic. State Senator Carl Kruger is proposing a ban on using any sort of electronic device (ipods, cell phones, etc.) 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.”
“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.”
Way to blame the victim, Carl. While people should pay attention on the street they should always have the right of way, whether they’re listening to music, jaywalking or on a flaneur stroll. Put more clearly and to the point:
“iPods don’t kill pedestrians. Cars and trucks kill pedestrians. So instead of blaming the victim, our elected officials should be passing tougher laws for reckless driving,” said Paul Steely White of Transportation Alternatives.
Right on. 3 iPod-wearing pedestrians is a “public health crisis,” but 43,000 killed every year on American roads is business as usual.
Kruger just wants the walkers out of the way so he can drive faster.
By Fritz on February 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm” While people should pay attention on the street they always have the right of way, whether they’re listening to music, jaywalking or on a flaneur stroll.”
Try reading some law. This is blatantly untrue. Your assumption that the burden rests entirely upon vehicle drivers makes an ass of you. Morality may dictate responsible drivers keep their eyes open for dumb ass pedestrians, this does not obviate pedestrians from accepting responsibility for their own stupid actions. And if you bother to investigate pedestrian deaths and serious injuries you’ll find almost all result from foolish pedestrian actions with few exceptions.
No driver should feel guilty after hitting a pedestrian crossing the street against a red traffic light, or after darting out between parked cars or trucks, or pushing a child in a stroller into traffic. All of which can be construed as suicide, attempted suicide or placing a minor in harm’s way.
While Kruger’s proposal is another typical example of fascistic paternal liberalism, try arguing with facts rather than gut reaction.
By Burt on February 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pmI inserted ’should’ above to correct the overstatement of driver’s legal responsibility. To pull some facts: Section 1151 of NYS V&T law states drivers must yield the right of way to all pedestrians using a marked or unmarked crosswalk and Section 1146 requires drivers to exercise due care to avoid collision with any bicyclist or pedestrian on a roadway. Also, pedestrians must yield to vehicles when not using a crosswalk.
By Will on February 7th, 2007 at 10:09 pmI didn’t know iPods got that loud. Mine at max volume still doesn’t drown out the bitching from NY.
By RndPwn on February 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pm“To pull some facts: Section 1151 of NYS V&T law states drivers must yield the right of way to all pedestrians using a marked or unmarked crosswalk and Section 1146 requires drivers to exercise due care to avoid collision with any bicyclist or pedestrian on a roadway. Also, pedestrians must yield to vehicles when not using a crosswalk.”
Now look at some case law. When a pedestrian ignores a traffic light when entering a crosswalk (the definition of Jay walking) there have been no convictions or judgments of liability against drivers subsequent to an injury or death of the pedestrian, with exemption of drivers under the influence, or during the commission of another crime and so forth for similar extenuating circumstances. Legislated law alone is not the law.
A bicyclist is not a pedestrian, and cyclists are subject to the same traffic control laws as other vehicle operators with exemption for licensing and mandatory insurance, the right to use bicycle only traffic lanes. To introduce cyclists into the equation merely obfuscates the pertinent issue.
There are no laws against a pedestrian crossing a street outside a crosswalk, a hole in the law which prevents police from issuing a summons for doing so in NYS. More case law here. This again does not obviate the responsibilities of the pedestrian to protect oneself and not cause harm to others. Nor does it justify Kruger’s 15 minutes of fame for wasting valuable legislative time.
By Burt on February 8th, 2007 at 12:38 amHopefully that will include those dangerous pedestrians armed with hearing aids.
By veg on February 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm