New York City Now Wants To Stop You From Using iPods, Cellphones and BlackBerrys

surferdude

http://tech.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2853562&GT1=9132

New York City is at it again. Now they want to help you to live longer by curbing your use of iPods, cellphones and blackberrys. For those who applauded the trans fat ban you only encouraged them to take away more freedoms from us all.

norm

"he referred to the January death of a 23-year-old Brooklyn man who, tuned into his iPod headphones, walked into the path of a city bus."

How exactly did the iPod cause this? A person not aware of his surroundings is gonna get hit by a bus. In this case this is simply thinning the herd.

thankyougrandma

...and fuck New York too.

Jeanwah

cutback wrote:

"he referred to the January death of a 23-year-old Brooklyn man who, tuned into his iPod headphones, walked into the path of a city bus."

How exactly did the iPod cause this? A person not aware of his surroundings is gonna get hit by a bus. In this case this is simply thinning the herd.

He was unaware of his surroundings. While I don't agree w/ the guy banning them, there is a point. It's like wearing headphones while driving, which is illegal.

RockinInCanada

surferdude wrote:

http://tech.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2853562&GT1=9132

New York City is at it again. Now they want to help you to live longer by curbing your use of iPods, cellphones and blackberrys. For those who applauded the trans fat ban you only encouraged them to take away more freedoms from us all.

Totally different issues.....I agree with this latest proposal as absurd and I did applaud the trans fat ban...but again two totally different topics IMHO....

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

He was unaware of his surroundings. While I don't agree w/ the guy banning them, there is a point. It's like wearing headphones while driving, which is illegal.

You mean to tell me when you cross the street you don't look? How does an iPod prevent one from seeing?

thankyougrandma

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Totally different issues.....I agree with this latest proposal as absurd and I did applaud the trans fat ban...but again two totally different topics IMHO....

I disapprove both, maybe a legislation that makes restaurant or food producers label the amount of fat and trans fat, but not banning them.

Jeanwah

cutback wrote:

You mean to tell me when you cross the street you don't look? How does an iPod prevent one from seeing?

How many people walk out in the street without bothering to look to see if anything's coming? Plenty. People are so trained to watch the walking signs that they don't look for traffic. I see it all the time, and there are plenty of times I get the finger because I'm not stopping for them (the pedestrians).

hippiemom

The difference, as I see it, is that in the case of the trans-fats, people were unknowingly affected by them. I would have preferred mandatory labeling, but I couldn't get too worked up about the ban. No one is sneaking up on people and slapping headphones over their ears, unbeknownst to them. If people are walking about unable to hear, and they don't even look where they're going and they get hit .... well, that's Darwinism for ya.

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

How many people walk out in the street without bothering to look to see if anything's coming? Plenty. People are so trained to watch the walking signs that they don't look for traffic. I see it all the time, and there are plenty of times I get the finger because I'm not stopping for them (the pedestrians).

I'm confused. How does not listening to an iPod change that?

trappedinmyradio

it's e.e. cummings...anyway

it's similar to the cell phone use while driving ban...

if someone hits you while you're legally in a crosswalk then it's the drive's fault and not the pedestrian's...if you walk on the walk signal then this shouldnd't be a problem - if you walk on a don't walk signal then, i say, you deserve to fucking die.

chopitdown

hippiemom wrote:

The difference, as I see it, is that in the case of the trans-fats, people were unknowingly affected by them. I would have preferred mandatory labeling, but I couldn't get too worked up about the ban. No one is sneaking up on people and slapping headphones over their ears, unbeknownst to them. If people are walking about unable to hear, and they don't even look where they're going and they get hit .... well, that's Darwinism for ya.

well said.

trappedinmyradio

hippiemom wrote:

The difference, as I see it, is that in the case of the trans-fats, people were unknowingly affected by them. I would have preferred mandatory labeling, but I couldn't get too worked up about the ban. No one is sneaking up on people and slapping headphones over their ears, unbeknownst to them. If people are walking about unable to hear, and they don't even look where they're going and they get hit .... well, that's Darwinism for ya.

...EXACTLY...

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

http://tech.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2853562&GT1=9132

New York City is at it again. Now they want to help you to live longer by curbing your use of iPods, cellphones and blackberrys. For those who applauded the trans fat ban you only encouraged them to take away more freedoms from us all.

he is only planning to introduce the legislation. you really think it's going to pass? i don't. and the transfat thing is different.

and anyway, don't move here if you disagree so much.

Gary Carter

trappedinmyradio wrote:

if you walk on a don't walk signal then, i say, you deserve to fucking die.

true and its cause people really dont give a shit bout the laws and cause there on the cell-phones not paying attenton.worst invention to mankind was the cell-phone

floyd1975

VictoryGin wrote:

he is only planning to introduce the legislation. you really think it's going to pass? i don't. and the transfat thing is different.

and anyway, don't move here if you disagree so much.

My fear is that their little followers (otherwise known as the DC city council) will just have to be as cool as the kids up north and do the same thing. I am already on the verge of moving. Something like this would make me finally cross the river.

VictoryGin

zstillings wrote:

My fear is that their little followers (otherwise known as the DC city council) will just have to be as cool as the kids up north and do the same thing. I am already on the verge of moving. Something like this would make me finally cross the river.

yeah i heard about the smoking thing. *sorry*

but could you imagine trying to enforce this thing on sidewalks (and remember it hasn't been introduced yet)? ha. i don't know if dc sidewalks ever get like nyc's but i just can't see this happening.

floyd1975

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah i heard about the smoking thing. *sorry*

but could you imagine trying to enforce this thing on sidewalks (and remember it hasn't been introduced yet)? ha. i don't know if dc sidewalks ever get like nyc's but i just can't see this happening.

Thanks for the condolences. At least, if I really want to smoke, I can still go to Virginia.

I can't imagine enforcing this either. Both cities seem to be somewhat lax on jaywalking. Could you imagine the cops actually trying to get people on this? Enforcement would last a week until they found easier tickets to write and place on parked cars.

surferdude

delete.

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

So we should only comment or act on legislation once it passes. Interesting approach you adopt. Why act pro-actively??? Why be part of the solution when you can be a bystander to the problem.

that's not what i was saying. although it does make me wonder why you would be so upset about local legislation in nyc that would never affect you. i mean if it's what the people here want, then so be it, right? federalism!

Ebizzie

VictoryGin wrote:

although it does make me wonder why you would be so upset about local legislation in nyc that would never affect you.

if it passes, it becomes a precedent.