OPINION & EDITORIAL
Phone, music ban when walking silly
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
- ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Cell phone etiquette checkup (April 26, 2005)
- Bikers should follow rules, too (September 16, 2002)
- Assaults out of control (September 23, 2004)
- Understanding diversity in colorblind terms (September 3, 2004)
- The Laws of Common Decency (February 1, 2002)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, February 9, 2007
Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk to class and listening to your MP3 player. After all, this is a pretty common sight. Now imagine you reach a street corner and a police car is sitting at the stop sign. Unthinkingly, you forget to take off your iPod and step out to cross the street. The policeman tackles you, explains how you are endangering your life by listening to your iPod, and gives you a $100 fine. Do you think this imaginary episode sounds like a farfetched scenario? Unfortunately, this scene may soon be a common occurrence in New York City, at least if a proposal by New York Sen. Carl Kruger becomes actual legislation.
Before tearing apart this plan, here is another important fact about the proposed legislation — Kruger's proposal goes far beyond banning MP3 players from crossing the street. Whether talking on a cell phone or poking at a PDA, all of this would become illegal under the legislation. According to a Reuters wire report, the deaths of three people who walked into traffic and died while using electronic devices spurred the legislation. The same report also quotes Kruger saying that electronic devices are "creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand." Clearly there are a number of problems with Kruger's legislation.
First, this legislation lacks any sense of practicality. How many people are going to stop at an intersection, turn off their iPod, look both ways, listen for the warning sign of a revving car engine and then cross the street? In my mind, I try to imagine a law such as this in effect in Madison. That sort of law probably would be completely ignored by most students. Then try thinking about a New Yorker talking to a business client and saying, "Hey, I'm crossing the street — can I call you back?" It's simply not going to happen. Despite my best efforts, I keep attaching the description "worse than useless" to this legislation. The only thing this proposal will do is create another useless law that will be flouted by most of the populace.
Beyond the fact that this legislation will be ignored by just about everyone, look back at Kruger's earlier statement. I find it completely ridiculous to say that electronic devices are harming public safety. I don't have any statistics, but I can only imagine how many lives have been saved by the proliferation of cell phones and other devices to rapidly transmit information.
However, the biggest problem behind this legislation is the idea that the government has the right to intervene in the personal lives of citizens. Kruger also states, "Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry." Yes, he is technically right. The government has an obligation to protect the citizenry from other members of the citizenry and from external threats. Government does not have the right to prosecute and fine citizens on the slim chance that while crossing the street and talking on a cell phone they will step in front of a moving vehicle. The obligation to exercise responsibility over their own lives rests with the individuals, not the police officer standing on the street corner looking for illicit iPod listeners crossing a street. Just like mandatory seatbelt and bike-helmet laws, this piece of legislation unnecessarily involves government in private decision-making.
Whether you look at the practicality of enforcing this legislation or whether government has the right to do so, Carl Kruger's proposal begins to look much less attractive. In the abstract, of course it is wise to try to minimize the harm people do. However, when the issue comes to personal actions that do not harm others, the government needs to butt out of issues that are best left to personal choice. After all, the job of a government is to maintain order and security, not act as a nanny to its citizens.
Andrew Wagner (awagner@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 2:21am):
can we ban SLAC and the Green party from winning elections on campus? No more Kumar, no more extremists
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 6:53am):
1) Walking in NYC requires that you pay attention. It's not like walking along State Street, it's like playing dodge ball with tons of slow moving, unpredictable metal.
2) Steve Jobs did a wonderful job marketing his product. He got half of America to believe that they need to give him $200 or more, then download and pay for his songs, just so they can keep a continuous loop of pop rock pumped into their tiny reptilian brains.
Raaarrr, I need constant stimulation from sound and light. I hope I don't have any of those pesky human thoughts today.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 9:21am):
We would also have to make it illegal to be talking to someone next to you while you cross the street. And no eating, drinking, keep your hands in the ride at all times.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 10:27am):
I definitely don't think pedestrians should have to do this, but the column does serve as a reminder for pedestrian safety. Many students here don't have cars, so they have no idea what it is like to drive with irresponsible pedestrians, especially on slippery roads this time of year. Without fail, every time I get in my car, there will be students running across the street without looking for cars, crossing when a crosswalk says not to, and mainly, just not using any common sense.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 10:30am):
If there was only some way for Madison to pass a law requiring mandatory street crossing education for all students.
Seriously, I have never lived in a place where so many "adults" were literally unable to safely cross the street, with or without mp3 players.
Get your heads out of your asses kids, it's not complicated.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 10:53am):
For Anonymous 6:53, I don't know about you, but I can talk on a phone or listen to music and pay attention at the same time. People who get run over because they aren't paying attention to the road in NYC for any reason are very simply just Darwin Award winners.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 11:26am):
9:21, that person talking with you could push you from the path of an oncoming bus. That person also, considering 6:53, could tell you that you're a wonderful conversationalist; after which, if of the appropriate sex, could be inclined to have passionate intercourse with you. Let's see the iPod do that.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 12:51pm):
The good Senator would seem to have brilliant press instincts. Throw out some meaningless twaddle with faint appeal to the 'Why don't THEY do something?' set and come next election the issue will be forgotten but it will be remembered that there was something bad and he tried to make it better. In the meantime he's had more free press than he would ever be able to pay for in a lifetime of campaigning.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 1:13pm):
andrew, you are right this is stupid legislation that will do nothing but waste tax-payers money. walking in NYC does require attention, but half the people who have posted ignorant comments (as usual) have most likely never even gone to new york city. anyone who gets hit by a car in the city is either extremely intoxicated or never learned the phrase "look both ways before crossing". NYPD has enough on their plates, they don't need to waste their time policing ridiculous legislation proposed by absurd senators that should have never won the election in the first place.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 1:52pm):
There are entirely too few ways for stupid people to die already, especially before they breed.
I say let anyone stupid enough not to pay attention crossing the street die in peace. Maybe the person running them over could use some finacial help with the damages or some counselling to realize that they've done a good thing.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 7:39pm):
Counseling. The poor distraught driver that hit one of these distracted kids needs counseling. As long as they are not wearing headphones or talking on the phone as well.
If that's the case, they should be required to listen to Mariah Carey's last album for several weekends straight on the same headphones.
Anonymous (February 9, 2007 @ 10:05pm):
I'm 110% for people to continue to wear iPods and talking on cell phones when crossing the street. That way there will be fewer stupid genes in the gene pool when their squishy bodies get ground into hamburger by heavy metal machines. Reminds me of the time when, locally to me, several h.s. kids got drunk and decided to take a nap on the railroad tracks and were all killed when a thoughtless train rumbled along. Did their parents or friends get take the rap for that one, or even the dead kids themselves? Nope. The train tracks got fences and warning signs, and heavy fines were levied.
Anonymous (February 11, 2007 @ 1:48pm):
Let's ban farting outdoors when within ten feet of a group of three or more persons. It's bad enough when one person has to suffer the stench of someone else's burrito supreme, but when a whole bunch of us have to bear it...YAAAAAGH!!!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
