Last week, Carl Kruger, a Dem-ocratic state senator representing New York's 27th District in South Brooklyn, introduced a bill into the legislature that would, he said, tackle the pressing problem of "iPod oblivion."
This, the senator suggested, is a sort of walking catatonia suffered by the thousands of owners of not just the popular music device from Apple, but any number of electronic gadgets -- from Palm Pilots to cellphones.
The bill, which was referred to the transportation committee last Thursday, seeks to amend New York's traffic and vehicle statutes by making it a crime to "enter and cross a crosswalk while engaging in the use of an electronic device in a city with a population of 1 million or more."
Punishment for violators would include a court summons and a US$100 fine.
Kruger's justification for the bill, as submitted to the legislature, was this: "Since September, three pedestrians have been killed and one critically injured while crossing the street listening to electronic music devices. The use of electronic devices while crossing the street poses a threat to the public safety of pedestrians and motor-ists. It is impossible to be fully aware of one's own surroundings when occupied in using an electronic device. This legislation would eliminate this threat to public safety. This legislation is seeking that people take a few seconds of their time to stop using their electronic devices while crossing the street. A few seconds that can save a person's life."
Kruger pointed in particular to a 23-year-old man from the Bergen Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn who was killed last month while crossing the street at Avenue T and East 71st Street -- while jamming to his iPod.
Specific tragedies notwithstanding, a sampling of the comments around the Internet -- including those left behind by readers of The Lede blog at nytimes.com, where I mentioned the bill last week -- suggest that most people find the senator's bill a bit nanny-minded and intrusive.
"Perhaps we should ban deaf and blind people from public streets, as well, just in case," wrote Steve Consilvio, who added, "Who will protect us from the lawmakers?"
Another reader of The Lede, Peter Victor, noted: "I can't begin to imagine how enforcement of this law would be effected. Could one comply with the law by merely pausing the music while crossing, or would it be necessary to remove the earphones from the ears? How could police disprove pedestrians' claims that the device was off?"
(The senator had an answer for that one, Peter. The new bill states that "a user of an electronic device who holds such device to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear, is presumed to be engaging in the use of said device.")
Many people echoed the sentiments of a user named Allan at the ebassist.com forum, who titled his thread, somewhat snidely: "N.Y. senator proposes interfering with natural selection."
It's a typical legislative reaction, according to Michael Masnick, the president and chief executive of techdirt.com, the technology and business intelligence portal.
"First, there were bans on yak-king while driving; then it was yakking while bicycling. So it's only logical that they'd go after yakking while walking," Masnick wrote in the Techdirt blog last Wednesday.
"Certainly, these things could be distracting, and in rare instances, it might cause someone to not notice that the sign is no longer blinking `walk,'" he added. "But the majority of people who talk on the phone or listen to an iPod are able to navigate the task of crossing the street just fine, without having to stop what they're doing."
The "yakking while driving" that Masnick refers to is something that is increasingly familiar to people in the Northeast. As of December, handheld cellphone restrictions for most drivers have been passed by legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington -- and any cellphone use for public and school bus drivers in a handful of other states, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association.
This despite the fact that, even today, according to the same association, "there are few studies and little crash data available" on the topic. Many states are starting to gather cellphone-related crash data, but for the most part, the verdict is still out.
And "yakking while bicycling?" Well, New Jersey's legislature has been enterprising that bit of paternalism. The bill would require handsfree cellphones for people who want to talk while riding bicycles. Violators would receive fines from US$100 to US$250.
The bill was approved by a legislative committee last month, paving the way for consideration by the full state assembly, according to the Associated Press, which also noted that while National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data showed 784 people were killed -- including 17 in New Jersey -- and 45,000 were injured in bicycle accidents in the US in 2005, there was no accounting for collisions involving bicyclists using cellphones.
The most likely reason? It's not that big an issue. Which makes one wonder why "yakking and bicycling" is such a priority in New Jersey.
Reasoned Masnick last month: "The problem isn't cellphone use; it's stupid people who can't figure out when is and when isn't a good time to talk on the phone. Making the activity illegal won't alleviate the problems their stupidity will cause."
It is also worth noting that while a full 25 percent of bicycle deaths nationally in 2005 involved alcohol use, it is not illegal to ride a bike while drunk in New Jersey.
This might suggest that it's just somehow easier to demonize all of the gizmos -- the phones and PDAs and iPods -- that we've holstered ourselves with in the modern age, even if the science is still out on whether they're such a danger.
For decades, drivers have fiddled with the radio, chatted with friends, read maps and highway toll tickets, rifled through the glove compartment for CDs and cassette tapes, applied lipstick and shuffled through seat-side bags to find that last cigarette while driving.
Distractions all -- and sometimes tragically so. But as one legislator from New Jersey told the Bridgewater Courier-News, in reference to the bicycle phone ban, "You can't legislate common sense."
And more specifically to the issue at hand, why wouldn't New York's state Assembly assume that people would, without any legislative prompting, gravitate naturally toward a judicious mix of iPod get-down and personal safety on city streets? It actually happens pretty much every day, all day.
Sure, people will get hit by buses while listening to iPods. But then, they've been getting hit by buses for decades anyway -- while reading a newspaper, talking to companions or simply daydreaming about a better day.
Perhaps Kruger would like to outlaw daydreaming in cross-walks, too.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS