WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP?
New York may ban iPods while crossing street
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.
New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.
Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games 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."
Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.
"I'm not trying to intrude on that," Kruger said. "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."
Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
5 Comments:
It's called Darwinism, aka, the 'thinning of the herd.' I like my iPod, but I'm also smart enough to know that there *might* be a big-ass bus coming my way when I choose to cross the street while listening to whatever might be blaring into my ears at an unsafe volume level!
exactly, Matt! Natural Selection.
iPods dont kill people, people kill people.
If music be the food of life, play on, play on.
There should be a ban on stupid people not electronic devices.
That's funny because this kinda falls in the middle between threat to others and threat to oneself.
The reason for laws regulating alcohol is mainly to protect others from the alcohol user.
However, laws regulating guns are allegedly to protect the gun user and the rest of us.
Then, drug laws supposedly protect everyone (user and non-user alike), because they make drugs completely illegal.
The iPod bill would only protect the user (from himself). That's probably why so many people think it's dumb. We don't need a politician "looking out" for our safety when it doesn't threaten the rest of society.
Just think about that seat belt bill from about 20 or so years ago. It's much the same thing. Really had very little to do with public safety, and a lot to do with medical expenses. I remember one politician, who was "looking out" for all of us, saying that he was tired of having to subsidize everyone's medical expenses by paying higher prices for health care, because certain people wouldn't use seat belts. The idea was that if everyone would use seat belts there would be fewer and less severe injuries, therefore a smaller amout of public expenditure for emergency medical costs. Oy vey!
Poor, poor New Yorkers! You can't listen to your iPod on the street, you can't eat foods with transfats, and you can't smoke cigarettes within 10 miles of another human being. To quote your favorite band (Rush): "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves."
Post a Comment
<< Home