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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
