a website has been started in opposition to the ban on ipods. Please go over there and voice your opinions on this issue - www.ipodban.com. Check it out.

Well i am fron NYC, and almost everybody hear have some type of mp3 players , and if you ride the subway, you are bound to find atleast 10 people on a car subway if is crowded, maybe more, I have one with me and i walk all over the city with it, how about enforcing the speed limit and adding more lights, i think that will help, if you are from nyc, then you know that almost everyday in NYC in the news someone always getting hit by cars or big cars accidents..

if they do pass it that i hope they dont, i dont think is something NYPD will be enforcing a lot, If they dont enforce jailwalking, what make everyone think they will enforce the ipod /mp3 player new laws..

If this bill passes what is the point in using an Ipod or other gadgets, You would have to turn on and off your ipod every 2 seconds, there is a cross walk everywhere in NYC.

Plus it would cost them to much because, they would probably get the people who check the meter or volunteer police to fine them, which means they have to give them a salary.

this would be a waste of money. Pointless...

You don't have pause buttons on IPods?

You can't hang the buds over your shoulder like everyone else?

OH-MY-GAWD! How dare you inconvenience me!

MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA!!

Thanks.

how about drivers/pedestrians who wear sunglasses when its cloudy? An obvious danger... OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

How about we just mandate the personal electronics industry to promote better safety through education? If we can have anti-smoking campaigns why not a few billboards and public service announcments that keep people tuned to the potential dangers of walking without thinking.

I think we can say that the Nanny State is now completely alive and fully functional in the U.S.

This is a non-issue. It will never pass. The NYPD doesn't have the time to police something like this. They've got more important things to do. I'd be willing to be the NYPD themselves gets this bill killed before it goes to a vote.

So, how long is it until Carl Kruger propose we outlaw the blind, deaf and mute citizens of America from crossing the street?

Most blind or deaf people have the common sense to listen or look for when they have the right of way to cross at a designated location. I am not sure exactly why mute people would have a problem doing anything other than yelling at the car or a person about to get hit. If a person if deaf and blind, I seriously doubt they wanna go anywhere near a road unless they have a death wish.

Most blind or deaf people have the common sense to listen or look for when they have the right of way to cross at a designated location

Along these same lines...most iPod users know to do the same.

Apparently not enough of them though ;)

(Note: I agree with you ever since I realized the behavior this attempts to make illegal is already discouraged by other laws.

I'm sorry...

I agree with you know.

illegalizes

Did a truck run into your head over lunch? :p

Sorry, couldn't resist. You're just usually so very intelligable. Caught me off-gaurd.

That's the problem with posting before you have even smelled a caffeine containing substance in the morning. (fixed)

Perhaps they need to outlaw posting sans caffiene? :p

No way, half the amusing stuff we see here is probably due to that.

This is the second stupidest thing I've heard this week. If you ask me it's just Darwinism in action and should be left to take its course.

haha - couldn't agree more. How about some personal responsibility that if you get hit by a bus, then its your own dumb fault for not watching what you are doing.

The only way this could work is if they only fined you if you caused an accident resulting in bodily injury to someone else, damage to public property, or to someone's vehicle. If you are the only person who was injured then I think your broken bones/death is probably punishment enough.

this law is so stupid. first off if u have ever been to NY u will know how f-ing crazy the drivers are.

technology has made us into bumbling retards. back in the caveman days if u where just plain stupid u didnt last long. today half the world is just plain stupid and it being an easy life stupid people live long procreative lives.

and when the stupid survive they go on to make more stupid people and contaminate the gene-pool. so if ur hoestly stupid enough to have death by ipod in ur obituary im saying a sweet farewell and good riddense to you.

the world is SOOOO overpopulated i say let the idiots die off and save us all the trouble. i know for a fact im not goin down cause im listening to music in the street!!

"technology has made us into bumbling retards"

I agree, like spelling "you" as "u" and "your" as "ur"...what is this world coming to when we can't spell check or use capital letters were needed?

I am glad you pointed that out!

*giggle*

Let's see enforcement on the ban on non-handsfree cellphone usage in a car first.

After seeing someone die from being hit by a car while talking on the phone crossing a street (without looking obviously) I'm all for this law.

I'm normally anti-new-law-for-every-problem but this is a good one.

Gotta say I disagree with you. Why punish those who can responsibly use an IPod and walk because some cannot. Is it the IPods fault they don't look both ways across the street? How is this different from Cell phones, CD Players, Tape Players etc? Should we ban walking and cell phone use as well? While the government should protect us from from some things in life (terrorism, medication that kills, etc) it should not be in the job of protecting us from ourselves.

Why punish those who might be driving on the road and put in a situation where they have to live with killing someone who walked out in the street because they were off in la-la land with their ear buds on.

Is taking them off in a crosswalk really so tough that it has a higher value than someone's life?

Wow, what kind of person would actually think that taking earbuds out of their ears for 60 seconds is more of a punishment than someone elses death.

What a bunch of f*ed up people.

H*ll, y'all aren't even people.

Bunch-of-animals.

Thanks.

Coincidence aside, the fact is a driver should be responsible for striking and killing a human being regardless of his ability to hear. This having been said, the drivers who hit the oblivious tech-users were to blame for these accidents, as much they would be had these pedestrians been blind or deaf or in some other way unable to fend for themselves. That a person endangers his own life by utilizing earplugs in public space is a non-issue. What we are all forgetting is the assumption of risk we tke in doing all of the things we find pleasurable: driving and singing, listening and walking. Too bad.

That's not a fact, there are many cases a driver is not responsible.

No matter how well you drive, someone walks out in front of you the odds are good they will get hit.

There is always risk for sure, that's not being debated here. If you can't use headphones driving a car, then why should you be able to when walking across a road?

If a blind man walks out in front of a car, that's not the drivers fault unless they are on a crosswalk.

Thanks.

How is it that you are able to listen to music at high volumes while driving? Does this alter the level of responsibility. And I realize I had not mentioned in the previous post that personal responsibility applies just as strongly to the pedestrian - e.g. don't jump in front of moving cars, don;t gauge your eyes out before stepping off the curb. What place, though, does the state legislator have in realizing this responsibility? Shouldn't it behoove the population to strive for survival?

How is it that you are able to listen to music at high volumes while driving? Does this alter the level of responsibility.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few cases on the books where drivers were found guilty due to their own conduct within the vehicle. In most places, it is illegal to engage in "distracting behavior" while driving. This means you can get a ticket for having your radio/music so loud you cannot hear other cars honking or police/ambulance/etc sirens blaring. It also means it is illegal to talk on your cellphone while driving. How much are these laws enforced? About as much as jaywalking laws.

Lack of enforcement is probably the real issue.

Even if a good law like this is passed, it won't be enforced or if it is only the cops won't have to follow it.

Does this include Zune, too? Oh right, my bad; nobody would be caught dead with a Zune.

ZING! :)

Sux to be in NY...

Not the gov's job.

Not to sound too terribly inconsiderate to those idiots who can't walk and listen to music at the same time, but the *rest* of us can.

Perhaps if enough of them get themselves perished, they'll start looking around them instead of at their iPod.

Common sense can solve this problem. This is not the job of the government. Their job is to balance the budget and protect the country from foreign threats.

Not breed a nation of senseless morons.

More personal common sense and responsibility and LESS government involvement.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment; but...
When I don't have to worry about being sued for not paying attention to someone not paying attention crossing the road at an unexpected spot, then I will agree with you wholeheartedly.

Part of the problem is that the majority of our nation is already senseless morons. I think George Carlin said in one of his acts, although I am sure I will hack the elegance out of how he said it, "Think of the intelligence of the average person. Now think about the fact that half the planet is dumber than that."

I hate to see you sugar coat it, but I agree...

"Not the gov's job."

Ah, but this is New York City, where EVERYTHING is the government's job.

People get the government they deserve. In this case, they've got a nanny city council and a cigarette-grabbing mayor.

You can't fix stupid, but you can keep those that aren't from feeling like crap for killin'em.

Then again, sounds like they are all willing to risk it for their music.

Hope that $.99 is worth it.

Sorry. If they feel like crap, that's their deal. For me, I couldn't care less.

Call me a heartless bas****. (It's been done)

I really don't feel like paying for laws who's only reason for existance is because someone else is too stupid to watch where they're going.

Did you spend your youth killing a lot of woodland creatures?

heh

Are yo ukidding me? First NYC bans trans fats, now this? What is next, making it illegal to cross the street while talking or touching any part of another person? I thought NY was screwed up before, this really ices the cake. :-)

New York City is trying to tell people what kinds of food they can and cannot eat?

I vote we outlaw walking while chewing gum. These people must be protected from themselves!!!

Sadly enough....

...yes.

Can you buy rat poision in the "spices" section?

No, why because someone realized it was bad and made stuff like that illegal.

Thanks.

Well, rat poison is obviously not a food now is it?

If there is no law forcing food manufacturers to label ingredients how would you know that it wasn't in your next meal somewhere?

That's the point, thanks for missing it.

Anything in excess is poisonous. Have you heard about the "Hold your wee for a Wii" contest?

Ah - here's the key:
New York State Senator Carl Kruger is spearheading the effort after at least three pedestrians were struck and killed in his Brooklyn distict(sic) because they weren't paying attention while crossing the street.

Mr. Kruger is in every news outlet. He is looking out for people. And lawmakers only make laws. There's no anti-congress repealing silly laws, though I think there should be. A PR campaign? Spending ad dollars? Nah. This is much cheaper. His bill won't pass, but he's manipulating the media to get the word out, and his name.

Surely is someone is dumb enough to cross the street with a iPod on, then let them do so, it's called natural selection, survival of the smartest..

I don't see why NY city has the legislate this...

>>I don't see why NY city has the legislate this...

Because NY is run by liberals. They think they are smarter than everyone else and they think we need the government to protect us from our dumb selves.

I suppose you think there shouldn't be laws requiring seat belt use in cars, or helmet use on motorcycles. Should people just be able to do anything they want as long as they are only passively making themselves a self-involved nuisance to the rest of the world? Lets legalize jaywalking while we're at it. While I kind of see it as good for saving lives, it seems more for improving driving conditions to me.

I do happen to believe that way. What gives you (or the Government) a right to dictate to me what is best for me? I DO believe ther should be laws where minors are involved as they don't have the option to choose for themselves but when my choices only affect me, you should not have the right to make my choices for me.

Except your choice *doesn't* only affect you. What about the person who hits you because you weren't paying attention? They're now liable, even if not legally so, surely someone will sue. Not to mention, in the glibbest terms, damage to their car if they hit you fast enough. ;)

And let's not forget state disability compensation, etc. making you a potential burden on the government and your fellow tax payers. Yes this is due to social programs that may or may not be a good idea, but essentially you are saying that rather than put in place this law that could decrease accidents, instead all social programs should be removed, our legal system should be revamped (to offset the increased likelihood of lawsuits), etc.

Is this a worst-case analysis of your perspective? Maybe. But the important thing is that you don't exist in a vacuum and although you may *think* your choices don't affect others, they almost always do. Accounting for that is the difficult job of our legal system. It does not do a perfect job by any means, but short of a total revamping of our entire approach to personal responsibility and the legal perspective on it, I think we're stuck dealing with things like this as a necessary evil.

Sorry.

Some jackass walks in front of my moving vehicle in traffic, He ain't getting nothing from me but dead, and insurance will cover the damage.

Been there, done that. Worked just fine.

I was driving through Minneapolis on the way to a concert and some dip%#!7 walked against a red while cars were blowing by at 40MPH. I was in the second lane. The guy in the first screeched to halt, I nailed the ped (because he was stupid enough to ignore the screeching tires of the car in the first lane).

Guy's lying twitching in the road and I call the cops. They show up and take info from the folks around, idiot dies as they load him into the ambulance, and the cops tell me I'm good to go.

Not the least bit sorry. I later heard he was stoned and the tox. report indicated LSD.

*shrug*

Got what was coming to him. AFAIAC, I'm no more responsible for the well-being of the guy with the iPod. I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay more taxes so the police can enforce common sense.

"Lets legalize jaywalking while we're at it."

It's legal here in the UK.

Existing laws indicate that he was at fault in crossing the street in a manner which caused the accident. If he had survived and tried to sue you, those laws would've protected you; and most likely did protect you from other legal liabilities such as involuntary manslaughter (which is what, in some places in the US, a driver can be charged with when running a stop sign causes a death).

How much tax money do you think is really spent on enforcing things like anti-jaywalking laws? Slim to none, most often the law is there to set a precedent for blame. People stay in crosswalks, and drivers yield on crosswalks.

And in the most callous terms, the moron you hit caused a great deal of inconvenience to you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Since when do we need laws to outlaw inconvenience?

Are we a bunch of pansies now?

That's what it's starting to look like from here.

Stop signs are great. Crosswalks are great. Using taxpayer money (and even without enforcement, passing a law is no cheap thing) to dictate common sense is not.

Perhaps why they give up on using roads for automobiles altogether in busier shopping areas is because the roads become useless due to unfettered pedestrian traffic. I spent a few years in England when I was real young. I remember a lot of commerce centers had pedestrian only traffic, complete with barriers to keep cars out.

It just occurred to me...if jaywalking and reckless driving are already illegal, it really doesn't make sense to have this law anyway. If a person is listening to music and using crosswalks properly, it is already the driver's fault for an accident. If the driver neglects the crosswalk, speeds, runs a red light/stop sign, whatever; then it is their fault. If a pedestrian crosses at an unexpected place, or against the "DONT WALK" sign, then it is their fault, irregardless of the cause of their misstep.

Be be honest, I think it's a great idea to have a pedestrian roads in busy shopping area. I don't understand why US don't follow it. The first time I saw something like this was when I went to China few years ago. You can just do you shopping and forget about everything else.

Check out Franklin road in Tampa. There are some streets that cross it, but for the most part it's a pedestrian road downtown Tampa.

Not very "nice" but it's GREAT for getting across town fast on foot.

Yep - I have a bumper sticker which says:

"I think, therefore I'm liberal."

um Boston has roads blocked off most of the time near downtown where all the shops are.

Seems to me our bloated legal system is pretty inconvenient. We should pass a law to outlaw inconvenient laws.

Unless you're a lawyer of course, in which case it's a convenient source of steady income.

I'm not saying they are a bad idea, but my point was that most of those pedestrian roads were probably not originally intended or designed for that purpose...and if we keep autos off pedestrian paths, why not keep pedestrians of those for autos.

No, you force us all to pay the government to think *for* you.

Isn't in fact what Bush has been doing since 2000 is attempting to "think" (at least as much as he is capable of such an action) for everyone?

Personally, I think the iPod law is stupid, but then, that's just me thinking for myself!

No. In fact, he's done the opposite. he doesn't care what you think, he'll do what *he* thinks is right for the country, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else think.

Big difference.

While I agree with you, that's a problem.

His job is to figure out what the majority of you and I think, and do that.

What he thinks is right is irrelevant.

The problem is that we have so many stupid laws that no one can see any value at-all in laws that may actually do some good. (see my rat poison post above as an example of a good law, if it weren't for laws like that lots of smart people c(w)ould be dead because no law made x manufacturer not use rat poison in the next coke wanna-be (cocaine anyone)).

But he is the decider!

Bush has shown through his 6 years in office that he cares not about consensus, compassionate conservatism, or anything else having to do with what Americans want. Look at the only veto he has ever used in office, on a bipartisan-passed piece of legislation on stem cell research. He felt it wasn't morally right so he vetoed it.

And look at his blatant disregard for the Iraq Study Group, even though they were put together to come up with a new strategy.

Unfortunately that is neither here nor there until 2008, when surely the democrats will find a way to lose and we get a new decider.

Same thing
-->he doesn't care what you think

Worng.

In a true democracy, that would be the case. The US has *never* been a true democracy.

This is a representative democracy, and his only charter is to vote and make his decisions based on the core values that got him elected.

What he thinks is right is what got him (kind of) elected.

Compasisionate conservatism is another way of saying "bleeding heart liberal".

Sorry.

cocaine anyone

Are you offering? :p

I thought it would imply a more centrist view; but I suppose that perspective is long gone from politics, as has any sense of using words that mean what they are supposed.

lol

LOL