Version: 2008

Comments on: N.Y. lawmaker hopes to ban iPod use in crosswalks

State senator's bill would make it illegal to cross the street tuned into portable electronic devices such as MP3 players and BlackBerrys.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 2 of 2 pages (48 Comments)
How about Talking?
by rurth24 February 7, 2007 2:22 PM PST
Lets ban that... lets all walk in a straight line like a bunch of lemmings with our mouths shut. HEY Carl Krueger NO SOUP FOR YOU... ONE YEAR... New Yorkers don't play those reindeer games.
Reply to this comment
Car Drivers
by handshop February 7, 2007 2:37 PM PST
Car drivers should be more responsible and aware on the "city" road than pedestrians and cyclists.
Reply to this comment
Car Drivers
by handshop February 7, 2007 2:37 PM PST
Car drivers should be more responsible and aware on the "city" road than pedestrians and cyclists.
Reply to this comment
You guys don't get it.
by ralfthedog February 7, 2007 2:50 PM PST
It is about legal responsibility and law suits. If some dwesil jumps out and gets smacked by your car while you are driving, you will be held with less responsibility if you can show he or she was breaking this law, and you were doing nothing wrong.

call it 80/20 vs 50/50
Reply to this comment
Already exists
by subgenius83 February 7, 2007 5:52 PM PST
Already exists..it's called jaywalking.
What's next, ban on deaf people?
by rednecktube.com February 7, 2007 2:50 PM PST
How can law makers punish the many for the results of the few? I mean do we really need to ban people listening to something when the cross the street? Does this mean that they will fine you if you are talking while crossing the street? What if you are deaf? I know we should all hold hands, walk in a single file line and not talk when we cross the street. This is crazy! I personally believe that living in a free country means that I can walk down the street and tune everything around me out.
Reply to this comment
I think you missed the point.
by RShea78 February 8, 2007 2:20 AM PST
Problem is out of hand with many people focusing on their toys to the point, if they would walk into you and they probably could care less.

Some time back rarely ever got bumped walking on the sidewalk. Now I get bounced and elbowed around so much, I feel like inserting their cell phone or their mp3 player right up their anus.

BTW, the deaf people I know are very well alert of their surroundings. Unlike some idiot that really needs 220 volts ran through their eardrums for some wake up call to put their toys away.

I have to applaud the Senator for this toy (cell phones / mp3 players) legislation of which needs passed like pronto.
View reply
Socialists being socialists
by nulife02 February 7, 2007 4:23 PM PST
New Yorkers have elected left wing liberal socialists to Federal, State and Local governments for decades - then they are surprised when they want to take away basic rights, raise their taxes and seize their assets. I thought Dems were supposed to be "for the little guy." Wake up New York, vote conservative for a change.
Reply to this comment
Do you even know what socialism IS?
by DeusExMachina February 8, 2007 8:11 AM PST
First, this law would NOT be an example of socialism, if anything it
would be (far right) fascism. You might want to SERIOUSLY consider
investing in a dictionary (or at least bother to use Google) before
you post idiotic comments.
Just for show
by bknowledge February 7, 2007 7:17 PM PST
This is just this ***** attempt to get into the headlines, there's no way that this BS will get passed but it did get his name in the media. So I second this call to arms, lets see if the good Senator follows the rules that are already on the books.
Reply to this comment
Ban Lawsuits
by jbelkin February 7, 2007 7:50 PM PST
Instead of trying to ban people's choices in doing something dumb, just outlaw their ability to sue. If you get hit in a crosswalk wearing headphones, the state can still file charges against the driver but you cannot sue the driver or the state because by wearing headphones, you waived that right - VERY SIMPLE. You as a person can decide what is in YOUR best interest - whether you care or not by wearing or not wearing phonephones or talking on a phone ... this is EXACTLY what should've been done with helmet laws. If you do not wear a helmet, you waive the right to sue anyone beyond what your insurance covers you - VERY SIMPLE. If you don't care, don;t wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. That saves us all a lot of time and lawsuits. Personal Responsbility.
Reply to this comment
helmet laws
by ralfthedog February 9, 2007 7:15 AM PST
I would agree with your helmet laws comment if you also were to outlaw all lifesaving medical treatment for people who are injured on a motorcycle who do not have a helmet.

Most of the expense from people who do not have a helmet is taking care of them for the rest of their lives while they look up at the sealing of a nursing home.

If you want to get your self killed that is cool. Just don't make us pay for you to vedge out.
I suggest a law . . .
by K.P.C. February 7, 2007 8:45 PM PST
Banning moronic New York politicians.
Reply to this comment
Go figure
by The Tominator February 8, 2007 7:13 AM PST
Another NYC liberal with nothing to do but draft a law that will benefit no one and cost everyone!
Reply to this comment
How do we legislate away obliviousness?
by bluemist9999 February 8, 2007 9:25 AM PST
People who don't want to be aware of the world around them will always find a way to do it. Today it may be iPods, handhelds, cell phones, but there will always be distractions available.

If nothing else, those who choose to will be "lost in thought".

That's also true of people who do any activity that requires focusing on the world around them---driving, flying, etc.

Put another way--how can we legislate away obliviousness?
Reply to this comment
Why was my post about banning DEAF people eliminated??!
by baswwe February 8, 2007 11:42 AM PST
It was meant to show how stupid the law is.

The premise is IPOD users can not hear what is going on around them, so why not extend this to people who can NOT hear a thing (Deaf).

What if a deaf person was wearing an IPOD? Would the law apply to that person as well even though it has no effect on him?
Reply to this comment
This is a perfect example...
by macdaddy3 February 8, 2007 4:30 PM PST
of how we are less and less free as people in this country and the country is becoming more and more like a socialist country or dictatorship. Yes, we're making more stupid laws for stupid people.
Reply to this comment
Off topic but ...
by NoVista February 10, 2007 6:43 AM PST
an obligatory reference to Yet Another Stupid Politician.

Anyway ... re previous commentary:

Helmet laws are designed to sell helmets. If you're really worried about the 'vegies' society would have to support, do some research on how inadequate the helmet specifications are.

It's statistically likely the survivors did so because of helmets! As paraplegiacs, quadraplegiacs. Check out the Boston surgeon who's fought Yet Another Stupid Law and rides his bike without a helmet. He'd rather be dead from an accident than a 'veg' due to a law and a device that does not really protect him.

Btw, I don't own a motorcycle. If I did, I'd not likely ride it in NYC unless I was Max Guevara. Maybe not even then.

As for iPod ~victims~ ... if Herbert Spencer were alive today, he' surely say it was a case of 'urban survival of the fittest'.

And for all of you who favour more laws and regulations, remember: you are paying for them.
Reply to this comment
Showing 2 of 2 pages (48 Comments)
advertisement
Click Here

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement