New York may ban Electronic Devices while crossing street

New Yorkers who use any electronic device, be it an mp3 player, a cell phone or a portable gaming device, while crossing the street could soon be charged a $100 fine. The reasoning behind the ban is the concern for distracted users who cannot be warned of oncoming danger. New York State Sen. Carl Kruger plans to introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets while crossing the street. "Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry. 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. It's becoming a nationwide problem," Kruger said in a telephone interview.

News source: CNN

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Tivo, Amazon unveil Download Deal

Next Story

5 Million Pirated Discs in Asia-Pacific Sting

53 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What, well, this would make sense if the people crossing the street were blind.
Sure, there ARE people being blind crossing the street, but I doubt they wear mp3 players.

Ah, but how will you know just from glancing at them that the device you thought was a MP3 player was actually some enhanced hearing aid? According to this law ANY electronic device appears to be in breach, therefore any hearing aid falls under this category.

this is really not a big deal, this is entirely this guy making publicity for himself by 'trying to protect the people.' to me it doesnt even merit discussion

so before crossing the street i'll have to pull out my mp3 player stop it and take off my earbuds put them away cross the street and put everything back on on the other side only to do that all over again at the end of the next block.... that is so stupid

i was born and raised in Quebec city dodging cars is almost a living there

Idiots aren't bothered to pay attention.
That's why most US states put the blame for vehicle / pedestrian accidents on the vehicle operator.
If you are driving a car and hit a person you are automatically at fault regardless of what the person was doing.

This is why the law is stupid to begin with and will only end up with more laws against vehicle drivers.

Good point(s). If this passes then I guess lawmakers are doing their part to find alternative fuel by forcing us to use bicycles.

If idiots can't be bothered to pay attention to strips of asphalt that are known to carry tons of metal moving at certain feet per second, we should just let Darwin work. I don't know how the city thinks it can enforce this. They don't need to be spending effort on fining people with gadgets.

slowly but surely, the rights of the average person are being revoked. i absolutely hope this idea of banning people to use an electronic device in a public place doesn't spread to western canada anytime soon. then again, new york has a higher population than almost all of canada.

Quote - [hxc
said,#22]slowly but surely, the rights of the average person are being revoked. i absolutely hope this idea of banning people to use an electronic device in a public place doesn't spread to western canada anytime soon. then again, new york has a higher population than almost all of canada.

Yes! Big Brother society brought to you by the liberal, 'all caring- all providing' network of people who are supposedly against government.

That's one thing I never really got about America... In every movie, in every series, someone gets on a street and the cars start honking even though they're miles away and DON'T BRAKE until they hit the person or the vehicle... Seriously, what's up with that?

Maybe it would be a wise idea to LOOK both ways before crossing the road, I have NO idea why everyone's bitching about "not hearing the cars". If you would continue with this thought no deaf person would ever be allowed to cross a street, and I'm pretty sure the law (which is stupid, indeed) is about the distraction, by playing with the device.

Of course not. They're above the law remember? If they pass this law I'm going to New York and waiting for an officer to walk across the street while on the radio and walk up and cite him myself... prolly get thrown in jail for it but it'll be worth it...

Here we go again trying to legislate stupidity... there's a reason Darwin came up with the idea of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! If you are too ****ing stupid to pay attention when crossing a street and get hit by a car you deserve to die... Plain, brutal and simple. We do not need laws to protect people from their own idiocy, just let them die off already... the last thing we want is for them to live and breed.

Jeez... You know, I was in New York here recently and I have to say, most New Yorkers tend to look up and down the street constantly to see if they can make a mad dash from one side to the other. The absurd thing here is that they actually are going to try to make a law about this. I was all about the Cell Phone laws. I can't stand those stupid ignoramaces on the highway that can't seem to get up to 60mph because they're to busy holding the phone to their ear. yeah I use a phone in my car, but it's a hands free wireless. People are stupid, the first lesson every parent, well most parents teach their kids is to look both ways before crossing the street. The same thing applies here. There's seems to be a lack of understanding for Darwin in this country. If someone is to frackin stupid to stop at a curb and look both ways before crossing the street then I say let that garbage truck run 'em over. It's called natural selection. Unfortuneatly, we have no predators, we have mechanical contraptions. They're bigger and tougher. Let 'em weed off the idiots infecting the germ pool and maybe we'll start seeing intelligence again and maybe the government will learn it's place. Fat chance...

I don't see much difference between this and listening to the stereo in the car while driving. And if they're willing to take this away from slow moving people, when will they do it to faster moving cars? How will they enforce this? Just let the police 'catch' you? Probably not. They'll need camera surveillance and face recognition technology.
Also, I thought that pedestrians had the right of way when crossing the street, meaning people in cars are supposed to watch for pedestrians and are at fault if they hit one. So what's the point of the law other than to create more revenue without raising taxes?

Why does it seem like all the liberal leaders are taking things away from people and creating a "Big Brother" society?

Liberal ideas:
Ethanol Fuel: I've got three cars I won't be able to drive if they mandate ethanol fuels, (one of which is an '89 Celica and passes new car smog requirements on the original engine), since the fuel systems are not compatible with ethanol. If they make me have to use a certain fuel, they should pay to modify my cars to operate on it WITHOUT increasing my taxes to pay for programs like that.

Smoking: Sometimes I go to bars to play pool and hang out and EVERYONE in the bar steps outside at the same time to smoke. Personally, I would have no problem not smoking in a bar or other establishment if someone in the bar complained. But if no one complains what is the problem?

Volatile Organic Compounds: If I want to spray automotive paint, I have to apply a clear coat. This means spraying more solvents. I can't just spray the base coat and polish it, I HAVE to spray a clear on top. When I buy paint, I have to buy equal amounts of both regardless of whether I need it or not. Does that make sense?
(I must add that this was my experience doing body work on travel trailers [previous job]. PPG would not sell base without selling clear coat stating 'California Air Resource Board regulations'. They admitted it sounded stupid since even people who apply clear coats usually don't spray as much clear as base- usually 3-5 base coats and 2-3 clear coats.)

Yep- the Democrats are bringing in Big Brother... one step at a time.

Personally, some of these things are good, but they're going overboard. Taking away people's rights to being morons is BS. If someone wants to be a dummy and step into oncoming traffic then let them. This is all due to people crying all the time. People have forgotten what freedom is and if they don't remember here soon, we're going to find ourselves in a police state.

vlsi0n said,
LOL! All of the liberal ideas that you're complaining about are GOOD things. Geez, it's embarrassing to read that crap.

I am not disagreeing with the philosophy behind the ideas. Yes it is good to cut down on vehicle emissions, it is good to keep people from suffering the effects of second-hand smoke, it is good to cut down on VOC emissions from paint.
I am complaining about the way they do it.

If my car meats smog requirements and fuel efficiency standards, why should I have to change 100% of the fuel system in order to accomodate a new fuel (which, ironically enough, creates more pollution making ethanol than is released burning gasoline)?

If everyone in the bar wants to smoke, why can't they smoke in the bar until someone voices concern? Why can't we smoke in the bar until then?

If I have to spray more VOC containing components than I need to just because I have to 'clear-coat' paint... that just doesn't make sense. Cutting back on VOC means either not spraying as much, or changing the paint formulae in order to affect the VOC output. Neither one is met by the legislation. I have to spray more VOC substances to meet the regualations than I would have to spray if they would just let me paint. 4 coats base and polish, or 4 coats base and 2 coats clear and polish. I don't know if you understand basic math but 4+0 is not the same as 4+2.
4 does not equal 6.
If I could do it my way, there would be less VOC released than the law mandates.

Pay attention.

Agt. Smith said,
I don't see much difference between this and listening to the stereo in the car while driving. And if they're willing to take this away from slow moving people, when will they do it to faster moving cars? How will they enforce this? Just let the police 'catch' you? Probably not. They'll need camera surveillance and face recognition technology.

there is a law. you can't drive with headphones / earbuds on your head (at least in california)

the difference is earbuds create a sealed pressure vacuum in your ears dramatically reducing your hearing. add the loud music on top of that and it's practically impossible to hear anything

a stereo on the other hand is playing in the open air waves and mixes with all other sounds. if you can hear the music, you can pick out other sounds as well

the concern for distracted users who cannot be warned of oncoming danger.

we call these people morons, and they will get whats coming to em. im so tired of having my politicians think i need to have laws like this to keep me safe. its absolutely appalling. people have been listening to walkmans and cd players for decades.

I think the law is great, because all these punks have there mp3 player playing in there ear, all that rap and rock crap blasted at full volume and they can't hear the horn of some guy who is about to hit them, not i'm not saying its bad that those idiots get run over, i'm just saying its a good law

Congorats to NY! First the banning of trans fats in NYC eateries. Now this. What's next, no talking while crossing the street? I hope that this doesn't become a disease that spreads to the other states. If it does, all the states will be passing equally as stupid laws.

In their credit, getting rid of trans fats wasn't such a bad idea. Sure, it won't stop people from treating McDonalds and KFC as their 24/7 meal source, but every small bit helps.

Just take your headphones out of your ears when you cross the street, are they still gonna charge you $100? Seems a bit much to me (though I'm from England), I think $30-$50 should be used.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I always avoid talking on the phone while crossing the street (or typing messages! that's even worse), and if I'm listening to music I always take out a headphone ... fining people for that is kinda silly.

It's simple. If you are listening to music with both headphones you may not hear a car coming or something. If you are distracted with a phone and don't pay enough to the cars .. that's dangerous too.
It's common sense!

bfoos said,
Same as everywhere else in NY State. Saftey belts are required by law.

Good stuff. But it's not law across all of america, is it?

Hardly. You've conveniently forgotten countries where the volume level is locked on iPods. There's enough ridiculousness to go around.

If people are too stupid to look before crossing the street, having the music off isn't gonna freaking help. Some people are destined to be offed for their own stupidity, so be it.

Is America being next Iraq? I am not bashing or anything but here in California no spanking the kids, can't even smoke outside some restaurants (not that I mind), and now can't even use any devise while crossing the street. What's next can't have sex until you receive permission from the court.

And being "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." issue if they all want to throw themself in the front of the car it's there own business. Also is the Senetor trying to say that we american's are so dumb that now we need a legislation to protect ourselfs for our own dumb doings.

Also is the Senetor trying to say that we american's are so dumb that now we need a legislation to protect ourselfs for our own dumb doings.

I'm pretty sure you just proved that yourself x)

Another test to American legislative idiocy is the Connecticut law that you cannot use a cell phone while driving, unless you're using a hands-free device...I'm sure most people with half a brain can conclude that it's the act of carrying a conversation while driving, not holding the phone, that causes accidents.

Seriously, there really should be I.Q. requirements to run for office rather than age requirements. This is just getting ridiculous.

The point of the hand-free kit while driving law is so drivers don't fiddle around getting the phone out while it's ringing in their pocket... and taking the seatbelt of could make doing that easier which I'm sure people have done this.

niel19_us said,
...if they all want to throw themself in the front of the car it's there own business.

True, but you have to protect drivers: hitting a distracted pedestrian can cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to a vehicle!

spacer said,

I'm pretty sure you just proved that yourself x)

Another test to American legislative idiocy is the Connecticut law that you cannot use a cell phone while driving, unless you're using a hands-free device...I'm sure most people with half a brain can conclude that it's the act of carrying a conversation while driving, not holding the phone, that causes accidents.

Seriously, there really should be I.Q. requirements to run for office rather than age requirements. This is just getting ridiculous.


It's not just CT, i lived there and i'm now in MD and it's the same here too as well as DC and VA and FL i think too. I don't know where else but i'm sure it's not just the USA. The problem of having a conversation is just as bad as talking to a passenger in the car so since they can't ban that the safer thing to do is to make sure you at least you have both hands on the wheel or can if you need to vs:

"oh crap, don't wanna drop my nice shiny phone but don't wanna hit that pole either... hmm.. dilemma."

LOL Only i could laugh at that joke, i was in that position once :nuts: LOL

I thought this WAS a free country, I can hit anyone I want anywhere I want it's my choice not government’s. This is same as any dictatorship; in those countries one man decides what to do and in our country 300 overpaid blue-collar suits decides what to do.

Neo003 said,
I thought this WAS a free country, I can hit anyone I want anywhere I want it's my choice not government’s. This is same as any dictatorship; in those countries one man decides what to do and in our country 300 overpaid blue-collar suits decides what to do.

They aren't technically stopping you. All they're saying is that if you do want to go round playing the Points Game on the roads, you are gonna get slammed for it.

It is certainly true that trying to dig your phone out of your pocket or hold the phone while driving is a distraction but it's more than just that.
Humans have sensory correlation between their audio and visual stimuli. Driving while talking to someone on the phone is far more distracting than talking to someone in the car even if they are in your peripheral vision.

Try it out, you'll see what I mean.