Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Another completely unnecessary law. Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:48:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
Texting and walking made illegal in New Jersey town.

Avid texters beware: Fort Lee, N.J. police said they will begin issuing $85 jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who are caught texting while walking.

"It's a big distraction. Pedestrians aren't watching where they are going and they are not aware," said Thomas Ripoli, chief of the Fort Lee Police Department.

Ripoli said the borough, which is home to approximately 35,000 residents, has suffered three fatal pedestrian-involved accidents this year. He hopes his crackdown on people who display dangerous behavior while walking will make his town safer, but not everyone is on board with the idea of issuing $85 tickets.

"When I walk I still look around. I'm not like constantly looking down the whole time," said resident Sue Choe.

Another woman complained about the tickets were "a lot of money."

Officers handed out pamphlets during a short grace period in March before they began aggressively going after "dangerous walkers."

More than 117 tickets have been issued, according to the New Jersey Record.

Two professors at Stony Brook University in New York conducted a study on walking and texting. They found texters are 60 percent more likely to veer off line than non-texters.

"We want to raise awareness that a real disruption occurs because of texting," Eric Lamberg, co-author of the study, told Long Island Business News. "Texting disrupts your ability much more than does talking."






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:01:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
I dont think I ever said it here, but we should not make laws to protect people from themselves if people want to be stupid let them be stupid. Law against Driving and texting yes but not Walking and texting. These law that impement "saftey" over liberities are leading to something more sinister.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:34:46 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here and say why this law is a good thing

Ignoring the social darwinisim, then let's say that one of the "textwalkers" walk straight out into the road, get hit by a car and then it's over quicker than you can type LOL to your friend. The idiot is dead and won't be texting no more. But what about the driver? It's easy for us to sit here and say "Now now, it wasn't your fault", but newsflash; human phsyce doesn't work that way. How many soldiers haven't come home from war scarred by what they saw? No one suggests kicking veteran soldiers with PTSD in the ass and go "Too bad you didn't like it, son. That's war and all your friends died because they didn't remember their training or they just weren't good enough". So this law pretty much protects those who are innocent, which laws should do. Besides, add the pressure someone paralyzed puts on society in terms of loss of tax income, money spent on different things and so forth.

I'm not saying that it's a good law, but think about this; how many times have you been in such a hurry that you couldn't stop the necessary 30 seconds to type the text before walking on?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:06:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
You have a very valid point elitfromnorth. But I have nagging feeling it could snowball...
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:25:12 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Of course it gives a nagging feeling, and it's honestly quite retarded that such a law should be necessary. I disagree with it, but just playing the devil's advocate to point out it's not just removing your freedom one step at the time.

Hopefully it will be one of those laws that they don't go looking for infringers, but more the type where people become aware of it and don't walk while texting because they don't wanna get fined. Besides, idiots will always find a way to get themselves killed.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:25:13 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,774
I don't think your comparison is even close. Comparing someone who ran over a pedestrian to a combat vet is way over the top and nowhere close.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:52:17 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Is it really that far off? Explain why it's over the top, please.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Dirty_D
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:46:24 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,227
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Both are traumatic incidents to people. In the same way that we have to treat pain as what the person says it is(although it is difficult to respond to the complaint of a sore back to the same as, say, cancer), a traumatic incident can affect people differently.

That being said, I do think we need less government in our lives not more. Yes, it is awful to hit someone else. But it is NOT the responsibility of the government to protect us from stupidity.


Buz
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 8:00:49 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,834
Location: Atlanta, United States
HA I have had texting/walking people walk right into me before. I love their expression when I say, "Excuse YOU!"

Y'all already know I'm almost an anarchist! There are way too many laws already and most need to be abolished. So many of them are redundant anyhow.

People who endanger themselves texting and walking could be doing us all a favor by helping to reduce overpopulation. (Okay I am just kidding, but it ain't smart to text & walk out into traffic.)

The texting & driving idiots are the ones that piss me off. They not only are a endangering themselves but everyone else on the road.

NudistRob
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:20:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2010
Posts: 94
This is only the begining and you are allowing it all to happen. This is something I just posted on the thread titled - STUDENTS SUSPENDED FOR POST IT NOTE PRANK!!

When you place your children in a prison camp run by the State and the Federal Government and give them full control of your children, what do you expect? When you Registered your children with the STATE at birth you gave up ALL of your rights to that property. In return the State allows you to maintain the property in their interest. Unless of coarse you fail in that duty. The DYFSE and the gov step in and take the control you originally issued them.

Meet Your Strawman!

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

The Story of Your Enslavement
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:27:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,774
elitfromnorth wrote:
Is it really that far off? Explain why it's over the top, please.


Because I've known people in both circumstances and the reactions are completely different.
ArtMan
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:48:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
I can see laws preventing texting & driving but texting & walking goes way too far.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:53:42 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Because they're human, and humans react differently to situations. You can put two people in the same situation and they will react differently. It's not an absurd thought to put the two of them in the same category just because the situations are different and a few people's reactions are different. Who knows? Maybe the ones you know are the anomolies in their responses and reactions to the two situations. But odds are that in both situations the result will be the same; PTSD, even if it's a broad diagnosis.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:00:46 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,774
I agree with elitfromnorth. This law would hopefully spare drivers the trauma of running over morons! I want motorcyclists to wear helmets for the same reason. If I accidentally hit you with my car, please have the decency not to die!
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:54:02 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
I can see elitfromnorth's point. It's similar to how I feel if I were defending the law. What makes me want to fucking panic though is the fact that texting and walking is actually hard for some. That's a scary thing, that.

But the reason I don't give a shit about laws like this is because it's just some law that was brainstormed by a group of people to bring more money into the city. If they don't get you with laws like this they will with a different one. Or some other type of fine here or there. In the end a certain amount of money needs to come in from the population. I'm sure the tickets for texting while walking will come in waves when they are fundraising...err I mean taking a bite out of crime.



Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:38:40 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,774
Endlessly glad that I live in the UK....not least because here I only have to be 18 to be a legally drunken idiot.

Sure, this law might stop a few people walking into each other or tripping or whatever. But so would shit like tying your shoe laces or pulling up your fucking jeans so you can walk properly. Yeah, bit off point but...

What I'm driving at here is: where does it stop??

I mean, what petty little rulings come after this?

New Jersey would hate me....I'm always texting on the go, and walking is by far the safest thing I do whilst texting. I ride my bicycle whilst texting on a regular basis....and I also horse ride whilst texting on a regular basis - I can just see them flipping their over-anxious lids at that right now!

blah5


lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:47:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
LittleBambi wrote:
Endlessly glad that I live in the UK....not least because here I only have to be 18 to be a legally drunken idiot.

Sure, this law might stop a few people walking into each other or tripping or whatever. But so would shit like tying your shoe laces or pulling up your fucking jeans so you can walk properly. Yeah, bit off point but...

What I'm driving at here is: where does it stop??

I mean, what petty little rulings come after this?

New Jersey would hate me....I'm always texting on the go, and walking is by far the safest thing I do whilst texting. I ride my bicycle whilst texting on a regular basis....and I also horse ride whilst texting on a regular basis - I can just see them flipping their over-anxious lids at that right now!

blah5




Ding ding ding... EXACTLY!!!

What petty ruling will come after this, where does it stop! Each little insignificant freedom that's taken away, each little ruling makes it easier for the next ruling to happen. Sooner or later we'll be left with nothing.

A hundred years ago, a law like this may not have been as big a deal. A stupid law in New Jersey would have been a local controversy, doubtful the news would have made if far past the state border. Nowadays, it's on the internet immediately. So now some small town power hungry sheriff or police jury or city council in Idaho will see this and think, "Hey, why not here too." Then it will be walking and talking on your cell. Then walking and chewing gum. Then walking and talking to the person walking right beside you. Any law that restricts your legal movements is taking away your freedoms.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:24:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,774
The town of 35000 had 3 pedestrian deaths in one year, seems like a lot to me. I drive through a school zone every day with hordes of young people crossing *public* roads while texting, paying no attention to the world around them. Personal freedom IS important, but unfortunately some people have no common sense! I have run over a dog before and it was AWFUL. I can't imagine how much worse it would be to hit a human, even if it wasn't my fault.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:48:46 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
LittleBambi wrote:

Sure, this law might stop a few people walking into each other or tripping or whatever. But so would shit like tying your shoe laces or pulling up your fucking jeans so you can walk properly. Yeah, bit off point but...





This law would have my undying support, simply because the people walking around with their jeans around their knees look like complete and utter twats and should be punched in the face. Just my My 2 cents

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:18:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
jollylolly wrote:
The town of 35000 had 3 pedestrian deaths in one year, seems like a lot to me. I drive through a school zone every day with hordes of young people crossing *public* roads while texting, paying no attention to the world around them. Personal freedom IS important, but unfortunately some people have no common sense! I have run over a dog before and it was AWFUL. I can't imagine how much worse it would be to hit a human, even if it wasn't my fault.


I understand what you're saying. It would feel unimaginably awful to have hit a human being with a car. Even when it isn't any fault of the driver. As sad and unfortunate as that is, it doesn't rise to the level of governmental imposition. Legitimate feelings of sorrow or anger or remorse cannot be legislated away.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
DLizze
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:23:59 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
Why doi I think that law would not have passed if the punishment did not take the form of a fine (that adds money to coffers somewhere). Let's be honest; the only time texting while walking is truly dangerous to society as a whole is if someone else is the ultimate couse of harm to the texter, or if society has to in some way support the texter. In the first case, the most likely form of harm is being struck by an automobile. Therefore, make it illegal to text while walking in the cartway, and enforce all the existing laws against jaywalking. In the second case, simply pass a law that if you are harmed because you did something stupid, you cannot sue, nor may you collect any form of insurance. This will not happen, of course, because it automatically makes child car seat, seatbelt, and motorcycle helmet laws redundant, also. All of those things are serious money makers for local jurisdictions, as are speed limits.

Whenever you hear of or encounter what seems to be a bad or unnecesary law, follow the money.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:53:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
DLizze wrote:
Why doi I think that law would not have passed if the punishment did not take the form of a fine (that adds money to coffers somewhere). Let's be honest; the only time texting while walking is truly dangerous to society as a whole is if someone else is the ultimate couse of harm to the texter, or if society has to in some way support the texter. In the first case, the most likely form of harm is being struck by an automobile. Therefore, make it illegal to text while walking in the cartway, and enforce all the existing laws against jaywalking. In the second case, simply pass a law that if you are harmed because you did something stupid, you cannot sue, nor may you collect any form of insurance. This will not happen, of course, because it automatically makes child car seat, seatbelt, and motorcycle helmet laws redundant, also. All of those things are serious money makers for local jurisdictions, as are speed limits.

Whenever you hear of or encounter what seems to be a bad or unnecesary law, follow the money.


I actually believe these laws are unnecessary. If someone chooses to drive without a seatbelt, after all the information that proves how much safer it is to wear one, then they should suffer the consequences. Same with motorcycles helmets. The child seat/kid in seat belt law should stand, as it mandates that an adult make the responsible decision that a child cannot make for themselves. Just as you say, if you are injured for doing something stupid, your insurance won't pay. That could very easily be put in the insurance policy that is signed by the consumer.

"If you are injured in a vehicle accident while not wearing your seat-belt restraint system (helmet for motorcycle riders), this policy is null and void." If the goal is to make people wear and use these things, this would be FAR more effective than any law.

Those laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. They are in place soley to have another reason to fine drivers for local municipalities.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:36:33 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,227
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


I actually believe these laws are unnecessary. If someone chooses to drive without a seatbelt, after all the information that proves how much safer it is to wear one, then they should suffer the consequences. Same with motorcycles helmets. The child seat/kid in seat belt law should stand, as it mandates that an adult make the responsible decision that a child cannot make for themselves. Just as you say, if you are injured for doing something stupid, your insurance won't pay. That could very easily be put in the insurance policy that is signed by the consumer.

"If you are injured in a vehicle accident while not wearing your seat-belt restraint system (helmet for motorcycle riders), this policy is null and void." If the goal is to make people wear and use these things, this would be FAR more effective than any law.

Those laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. They are in place soley to have another reason to fine drivers for local municipalities.


hello1 hello1 hello1 hello1


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.