The Spin

Walking under the influence

Josh Stanfield

New New York City street signs.

In case you haven’t heard, there’s a new “major public safety crisis” in New York City. It has nothing to do with guns or drugs. The issue is people crossing the street while occupied by electronics. That means cell phones and iPods, the two necessities of college life.

New York State Senator Carl Kruger plans to introduce legislation banning the use of these products while in the split-second act of crossing a street, . The penalty would be a $100 fine.

The legislation stems from three recent deaths in Brooklyn — the victims were preoccupied by their electronics; their attention was diverted from incoming vehicles. Senator Kruger claims that “government has an obligation to protect its citizenry,” a broad attempt to justify the prospective law.

But this legislation is absurd.

What about other distractions? People walk and talk to each other all the time; I’ve nearly stepped into traffic while preoccupied by a conversation with a friend next to me. An attractive woman never fails to distract. Even our own thoughts, contemplation of the nuances of our lives, can steal our attention away from the street.

Moreover, if you still have headphones on, how would an officer know if you turned your iPod off before crossing the street? If you’re in the middle of a conversation and then tell the person to hold on while you cross the street, would you still be in violation by holding the phone while crossing — even if you’re not talking? This legislation makes no sense.

People have been killed recently — no doubt that’s tragic. But if you live in a city (or anywhere for that matter) you should understand that walking in front of a moving vehicle could kill you. If you want to talk on a cell phone or listen to music, it’s your responsibility to be sure you can do so without relinquishing your common sense. It’s basic self-preservation.

State Sen. Kruger is wasting his time. A city as active and complex as New York must have more important issues for a politician to address.

2 Responses to “Walking under the influence”

  1. Newspaper reader Says:

    In one of the deaths, onlookers called out to the person to stop but weren’t heard. I think that was probably what prompted the proposal. And the legislator is old - there’s no way he’ll ever really understand how people our age feel about the cell phones and iPods. If he got along for decades without listening to music while he was walking, why can’t we, is probably along the lines of his reasoning.

  2. vox populi Says:

    people getting killed for doing really stupid things is what some might call “natural selection.” yes the deaths are tragic, but if it’s their own fault, why does everyone else have to suffer for it?

Leave a Reply