Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"New York may ban iPods while crossing street"

Expand Messages
  • Matt Hohmeister
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html I m not sure which one is harder for me to stomach: this, or the Leon County Sheriff s Office
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html

      I'm not sure which one is harder for me to stomach: this, or the Leon
      County Sheriff's Office setting up shop outside my high school to
      write citations to students for jaywalking.

      I'm going to assume here that the city and police are going to
      continue doing absolutely nothing about the real problem, using this
      only as an excuse to harass people and to say "Well, we tried
      something..."

      By the way, if this ban is passed, I can almost guarantee that more
      citations will be written to people who are younger and/or more
      casually dressed. Or, dare I say, not white.

      I equate tricks like this to tackling a burglary problem by writing
      citations to residents for not arming their burglar alarms.
    • Todd Edelman
      Hi, What is the real problem? Cars, as you imply, or the larger issue of people cutting themselves off from the streets they move on using ANY type of
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        What is the "real" problem? Cars, as you imply, or the larger issue of
        people cutting themselves off from the streets they move on using ANY
        type of technology?

        A person so zoned out in iPodland wont hear bicycle bells, the engine of
        an approaching bus, their friend calling to them, or the cries of a
        person needing help.

        Obviously going after people "Operating electronic device above xdB
        whilst engaged in bipedal locomotion" before making any kind of phone
        use while driving illegal - and enforcing it - is a joke, but NYC has a
        history of going after the "little guy", e.g. cyclists, in recent
        activity against Critical Mass, and a few years before that against
        cyclists riding on the sidewalk, after one pedestrian was killed.

        By choice, I don't and never have used any kind of portable listening
        device on the street. I think it is an insult to the Street. I assume
        many people feel the same way. Why do we need to isolate ourselves while
        in public?

        I am not for a law making portable devices illegal while walking, and I
        recognize that their use brings pleasure on e.g. long commutes, but on
        the other hand I am very curious if many pedestrian-friendly and compact
        places also have low use of these devices. Personalised music doesn't
        make dangerous noise go away, it just covers it up.

        T



        Matt Hohmeister wrote:
        >
        > http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html
        > <http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod.reut/index.html>
        >
        > I'm not sure which one is harder for me to stomach: this, or the Leon
        > County Sheriff's Office setting up shop outside my high school to
        > write citations to students for jaywalking...
        >
        >


        --
        --------------------------------------------

        Todd Edelman
        Director
        Green Idea Factory

        Korunní 72
        CZ-10100 Praha 10
        Czech Republic

        ++420 605 915 970
        ++420 222 517 832
        Skype: toddedelman

        edelman@...
        http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

        Green Idea Factory,
        a member of World Carfree Network
      • c1ttad1no
        ... Exactly right. The use, while negotiating shared public space, of devices that distract one from the here and now, while deadening/blocking/overloading
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Todd Edelman <edelman@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > A person so zoned out in iPodland wont hear bicycle bells, the
          > engine of an approaching bus, their friend calling to them, or the
          > cries of a person needing help.


          Exactly right. The use, while negotiating shared public space, of
          devices that distract one from the here and now, while
          deadening/blocking/overloading physical senses that are required to
          maintain appropriate awareness of the environment and those with whom
          it is shared, is rude, dangerous, and dumb.

          Lose the iPods.


          -Doug (who mounted an air horn on his bicycle to penetrate
          gadget-induced obliviousness)
        • Elliot Schwartz
          ... I m not a big fan of iPods, but I d still argue against such a law. There is already not enough of an onus on those driving heavier, faster vehicles to be
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 7, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd Edelman <edelman@...> writes:
            > What is the "real" problem? Cars, as you imply, or the larger issue of
            > people cutting themselves off from the streets they move on using ANY
            > type of technology?

            I'm not a big fan of iPods, but I'd still argue against such a law.

            There is already not enough of an onus on those driving heavier, faster
            vehicles to be responsible for their larger momentum. It seems that drivers
            can often get away with excuse like "I didn't see them" or "they came out
            of nowhere," and this would just be another excuse.

            Drivers should bear the responsibility of conducting their inherently
            dangerous activity as safely as possible, even if pedestrians are
            deaf, hearing impared, or wearing an iPod.

            elliot
          • dawie_coetzee
            I would also oppose such a law, firstly for the reason Elliot gives. The very unpredictability of pedestrian movement is an important factor that determines a
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I would also oppose such a law, firstly for the reason Elliot gives.
              The very unpredictability of pedestrian movement is an important
              factor that determines a public space as a predominantly pedestrian
              space in which motor vehicles are rather awkward guests.

              But secondly, I would oppose such a law on the principle that
              endangering oneself is a basic human right. If iPod users are placing
              themselves at risk, I would go to great lengths to defend their right
              to do so. I mean in that way, not only by incurring state violence by
              resisting arrest...

              Thirdly, the absence of regulation (and the anonymity!) is one of the
              great appeals of the pedestrian mode of moving. What's next? Licence
              plates for pedestrians? Speed limits? Turn-signal epaulettes?

              There is an important cultural reason why pedestrians ought to be
              allowed to do pretty much whatever they bloody well like. In the
              West, we have little in the way of rites of initiation, except that
              one is an adult when one may cross the street unattended. Jaywalking
              laws are as insulting to Westerners as addressing him as "boy" is to
              an African man who has gone through agony to earn the right to be
              called "man".

              -Dawie


              --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Schwartz <es@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Todd Edelman <edelman@...> writes:
              > > What is the "real" problem? Cars, as you imply, or the larger
              issue of
              > > people cutting themselves off from the streets they move on using
              ANY
              > > type of technology?
              >
              > I'm not a big fan of iPods, but I'd still argue against such a law.
              >
              > There is already not enough of an onus on those driving heavier,
              faster
              > vehicles to be responsible for their larger momentum. It seems that
              drivers
              > can often get away with excuse like "I didn't see them" or "they
              came out
              > of nowhere," and this would just be another excuse.
              >
              > Drivers should bear the responsibility of conducting their
              inherently
              > dangerous activity as safely as possible, even if pedestrians are
              > deaf, hearing impared, or wearing an iPod.
              >
              > elliot
              >
            • Todd Edelman
              Hi again, I am totally against any laws regarding using portable electronic devices whilst walking... on public transport it is a little different as it is a
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi again,

                I am totally against any laws regarding using portable electronic
                devices whilst walking... on public transport it is a little different
                as it is a space in which you often cannot re-locate.

                It is also fine for people to be anonymous (you don't have to give your
                name if you help or smile at someone on the street...and so on...). The
                problem is being oblivious!

                The main reason for pedestrians to carry ID these days is so if a car
                hits them and they are killed or worse, their family members can be found.

                T

                dawie_coetzee wrote:
                >
                > I would also oppose such a law, firstly for the reason Elliot gives.
                > The very unpredictability of pedestrian movement is an important
                > factor that determines a public space as a predominantly pedestrian
                > space in which motor vehicles are rather awkward guests.
                >





                [...]

                --------------------------------------------

                Todd Edelman
                Director
                Green Idea Factory

                Korunní 72
                CZ-10100 Praha 10
                Czech Republic

                ++420 605 915 970
                ++420 222 517 832
                Skype: toddedelman

                edelman@...
                http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

                Green Idea Factory,
                a member of World Carfree Network
              • c1ttad1no
                ... I think all this protesting about the sacred right of pedestrians to be free and unfettered while wandering unpredictably through the shared environment
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "dawie_coetzee"
                  <dawie_coetzee@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I would also oppose such a law, firstly for the reason Elliot gives.
                  > The very unpredictability of pedestrian movement is an important
                  > factor that determines a public space as a predominantly pedestrian
                  > space in which motor vehicles are rather awkward guests.

                  I think all this protesting about the sacred right of pedestrians to
                  be free and unfettered while wandering unpredictably through the
                  shared environment is, essentially, anti-social.

                  At the very least, pedestrians, or others, involved in collisions
                  (with vehicles, cyclists, other pedestrians, stationary hazards, etc.)
                  while distracting themselves and deadening their senses should be
                  presumed responsible, as motorists are presumed responsible for
                  collisions with non-motorized traffic in some European nations.

                  > But secondly, I would oppose such a law on the principle that
                  > endangering oneself is a basic human right.

                  Perhaps, but endangering others, or even impeding or inconveniencing
                  them, for no better reason than entertainment or personal preference,
                  is neither a right nor a privilege. If one wants to endanger oneself,
                  it would be courteous to do so where others will not be affected,
                  including by the trauma of witnessing or disposing of one's mangled
                  corpse.


                  -Doug
                • Andrew Hitchcock
                  This is ridiculous. ... People have other senses besides there ears. If you are going to automatically blame people who have less-heightened senses, then you
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    This is ridiculous.

                    c1ttad1no wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:carfree_cities%40yahoogroups.com>, "dawie_coetzee"
                    > <dawie_coetzee@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I would also oppose such a law, firstly for the reason Elliot gives.
                    > > The very unpredictability of pedestrian movement is an important
                    > > factor that determines a public space as a predominantly pedestrian
                    > > space in which motor vehicles are rather awkward guests.
                    >
                    > I think all this protesting about the sacred right of pedestrians to
                    > be free and unfettered while wandering unpredictably through the
                    > shared environment is, essentially, anti-social.
                    >
                    > At the very least, pedestrians, or others, involved in collisions
                    > (with vehicles, cyclists, other pedestrians, stationary hazards, etc.)
                    > while distracting themselves and deadening their senses should be
                    > presumed responsible, as motorists are presumed responsible for
                    > collisions with non-motorized traffic in some European nations.

                    People have other senses besides there ears. If you are going to
                    automatically blame people who have less-heightened senses, then you are
                    placing blame on deaf people, blind people, and the elderly.

                    >
                    > > But secondly, I would oppose such a law on the principle that
                    > > endangering oneself is a basic human right.
                    >
                    > Perhaps, but endangering others, or even impeding or inconveniencing
                    > them, for no better reason than entertainment or personal preference,
                    > is neither a right nor a privilege. If one wants to endanger oneself,
                    > it would be courteous to do so where others will not be affected,
                    > including by the trauma of witnessing or disposing of one's mangled
                    > corpse.

                    I live near a college campus, the sidewalks are fairly crowded and many,
                    many people use iPods or other digital audio players. Despite this, I
                    have yet to see any 12 human pileups resulting in loss of life.
                    Amazingly, people still know how to walk while listening to music.

                    Meanwhile, people in my city are hit in crosswalks when they have the
                    right of way even without using headphones.

                    I used to wear headphones all the time when walking around. I don't now
                    because I know lots of people so I'm always saying hi or stopping to
                    chat. However, sometimes when I'm not feeling social (either deep in
                    thought or in a bad mood), I'll use my iPod.

                    If you want to ban all anti-social activities (such as listening to
                    headphones in public), well, I might as well unsubscribe from this list
                    now, because the carfree city you envision is very different than the
                    carfree city I envision, and one in which I would not want to live.

                    Andrew

                    >
                    > -Doug
                    >
                    >
                  • c1ttad1no
                    ... I don t think it is ridiculous at all. Indeed, I think that the angry, selfish insistence, by some here, on absolute freedom from responsibility for
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Hitchcock <mail@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > This is ridiculous.

                      I don't think it is ridiculous at all. Indeed, I think that the
                      angry, selfish insistence, by some here, on absolute freedom from
                      responsibility for behavior in shared space, is profoundly immature
                      (at least in a sociological sense).

                      > People have other senses besides there ears.

                      They do, indeed. Hearing, however, is comparatively omnidirectional,
                      and is thus especially important in maintaining awareness, and
                      exercising judgment, while traversing shared public spaces.

                      > If you are going to
                      > automatically blame people who have less-heightened senses,

                      Please re-read what I have written. It says nothing about "blame."
                      Rather, I have spoken about responsibility.

                      > then you are
                      > placing blame on deaf people, blind people, and the elderly.

                      Of course I am not. People whose hearing, or sight, or mobility, is
                      impaired or altered by illness (or otherwise) are 1) very few in
                      number by comparison with the hordes of plugged-in space cadets and
                      cellphone yakkers who clog our streets and sidewalks, and 2) typically
                      especially alert and careful to maintain awareness of the
                      environment, and often specifically trained in methods for doing so.

                      In fact, the very presence of fellow humans who may not see, hear or
                      move with as much facility as others makes it incumbent upon the rest
                      of us to proceed with special caution and awareness.

                      > Amazingly, people still know how to walk while listening to music.

                      I believe that the evidence strongly suggests that they generally do
                      *not* walk safely, or with courtesy and respect for others, while
                      absorbed in an altered reality generated by recorded music, cellphone
                      conversations with distant people, peripatetic text messaging, etc.

                      Walk (or pedal, drive, skate, etc.) now. Chat and entertain yourself
                      later.


                      -Doug
                    • J.H. Crawford
                      Hi All, Time to turn down the heat in this discussion. Your moderator, ... J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi All,

                        Time to turn down the heat in this discussion.

                        Your moderator,




                        ----- ### -----
                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                      • dawie_coetzee
                        ... list ... Thanks, Andrew. There is a disturbing tendency to associate urban social life with abject servility. I see an opposite potential -D
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 8, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Hitchcock <mail@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > If you want to ban all anti-social activities (such as listening to
                          > headphones in public), well, I might as well unsubscribe from this
                          list
                          > now, because the carfree city you envision is very different than the
                          > carfree city I envision, and one in which I would not want to live.
                          >
                          > Andrew
                          >
                          Thanks, Andrew. There is a disturbing tendency to associate urban
                          social life with abject servility. I see an opposite potential -D
                        • Carlos F. Pardo SUTP
                          If an iPod is dangerous for a person moving along the street, what about a car? What about an SUV? -- Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 9, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            If an iPod is dangerous for a person moving along the street, what about
                            a car? What about an SUV?

                            --
                            Carlos F. Pardo
                            Coordinador de Proyecto
                            GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
                            Cl 126 # 52A-28 of 404
                            Bogotá D.C., Colombia
                            Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812
                            Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
                            e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
                            Página: www.sutp.org
                          • eileen
                            Or what the TV in the SUV? e ... From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:33 AM Subject:
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 9, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Or what the TV in the SUV?

                              e
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP
                              To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:33 AM
                              Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: "New York may ban iPods while crossing street"


                              If an iPod is dangerous for a person moving along the street, what about
                              a car? What about an SUV?

                              --
                              Carlos F. Pardo
                              Coordinador de Proyecto
                              GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
                              Cl 126 # 52A-28 of 404
                              Bogotá D.C., Colombia
                              Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812
                              Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
                              e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
                              Página: www.sutp.org





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • kerstin heinrich
                              what is an Ipod , i am from a tri....you would call it third world, but we love bikes... eileen schrieb:
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 9, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                what is an Ipod , i am from a tri....you would call it third world, but we love bikes...

                                eileen <eileenbyrnes@...> schrieb: Or what the TV in the SUV?

                                e
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP
                                To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:33 AM
                                Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: "New York may ban iPods while crossing street"

                                If an iPod is dangerous for a person moving along the street, what about
                                a car? What about an SUV?

                                --
                                Carlos F. Pardo
                                Coordinador de Proyecto
                                GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
                                Cl 126 # 52A-28 of 404
                                Bogotá D.C., Colombia
                                Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812
                                Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
                                e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
                                Página: www.sutp.org

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                ---------------------------------
                                Was ist Glück? Schlafen Fische überhaupt? Die Antworten gibt’s auf Yahoo! Clever.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Robert J. Matter
                                ... I used to listen to books on tape/CD while cycling in Chicago. I stopped because the street noise blared out too much of the material; sirens, construction
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 9, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Todd Edelman wrote:

                                  > By choice, I don't and never have used any kind of portable listening
                                  > device on the street. I think it is an insult to the Street. I assume
                                  > many people feel the same way. Why do we need to isolate ourselves while
                                  > in public?
                                  >
                                  > I am not for a law making portable devices illegal while walking, and I
                                  > recognize that their use brings pleasure on e.g. long commutes, but on
                                  > the other hand I am very curious if many pedestrian-friendly and compact
                                  > places also have low use of these devices. Personalised music doesn't
                                  > make dangerous noise go away, it just covers it up.

                                  I used to listen to books on tape/CD while cycling in Chicago. I stopped
                                  because the street noise blared out too much of the material; sirens,
                                  construction equipment, accelerating trucks, honking horns, L trains
                                  passing overhead, etc. I just listen to music now (when the weather is
                                  warmer) where such interruptions aren't critical. I don't think I could
                                  tolerate listening to music at the volume it would require to block out
                                  Chicago's street noise. As a matter of fact, I sort of consider my
                                  headphones as personal safety equipment to protect my hearing. One time
                                  a Chicago cop drove by me when I didn't have my headphones on and
                                  sounded his buzzer (probably because I was riding outside the door
                                  zone). It knocked out my hearing in my left ear for about 10 minutes and
                                  my ears rang for about half an hour after that. When angry cagers honk
                                  at me for taking a lane my headphones help muffle their loud, shrill
                                  horns. I am less inclined to respond to their screaming at me to get off
                                  the road, get on the sidewalk, etc. when I have headphones on too. I
                                  always ride with a mirror so I know what's going on around me 360
                                  degrees. Even with headphones I can still hear enough traffic noise to
                                  not jeopardize my safety. I don't need to hear that traffic noise at
                                  full volume.

                                  --Bob Matter
                                • Todd Edelman
                                  ... I WOULD imagine that using headphones while cycling is illegal in Chicago, but of course using a Bluetooth etc device in one ear while driving is not...
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 10, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Robert J. Matter wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I used to listen to books on tape/CD while cycling in Chicago.
                                    >



                                    I WOULD imagine that using headphones while cycling is illegal in
                                    Chicago, but of course using a Bluetooth etc device in one ear while
                                    driving is not...

                                    > I stopped
                                    > because the street noise blared out too much of the material; sirens,
                                    > construction equipment, accelerating trucks, honking horns, L trains
                                    > passing overhead, etc.
                                    >




                                    GOOD point.

                                    > I just listen to music now (when the weather is
                                    > warmer) where such interruptions aren't critical. I don't think I could
                                    > tolerate listening to music at the volume it would require to block out
                                    > Chicago's street noise.
                                    >




                                    THERE is just too much noise in general.


                                    > As a matter of fact, I sort of consider my
                                    > headphones as personal safety equipment to protect my hearing. One time
                                    > a Chicago cop drove by me when I didn't have my headphones on and
                                    > sounded his buzzer (probably because I was riding outside the door
                                    > zone). It knocked out my hearing in my left ear for about 10 minutes and
                                    > my ears rang for about half an hour after that. When angry cagers honk
                                    > at me for taking a lane my headphones help muffle their loud, shrill
                                    > horns. I am less inclined to respond to their screaming at me to get off
                                    > the road, get on the sidewalk, etc. when I have headphones on too.
                                    >








                                    I HAVE heard before on this list or elsewhere that emergency vehicles of
                                    all sorts have actually had to increase the volume of their sirens and
                                    things to compensate for automobiles being better insulated against
                                    external noise and also because air conditioning is standard equipment,
                                    so car windows are closed all the time. It might also be because drivers
                                    are doing so many other things in their cars.

                                    > I
                                    > always ride with a mirror so I know what's going on around me 360
                                    > degrees. Even with headphones I can still hear enough traffic noise to
                                    > not jeopardize my safety. I don't need to hear that traffic noise at
                                    > full volume.
                                    >





                                    HOW about the safety of others? Okay, I don't want to dwell on the issue
                                    of cyclists saying they still hear enough with headphones on, but while
                                    cycling I hear lots of important things which are barely audible above
                                    the din, which tells me I should not wear headphones, even if I had
                                    mirrors.

                                    So it seems the situation we have is one where everyone is passing the
                                    buck with their/of their habits, and it is going in a circle and we are
                                    all suffering.

                                    When there is almost no background noise EXTERNAL to my body, I hear a
                                    ringing caused in part by exposure to some very loud music and other
                                    sounds in the past. So even silence is not ideal.

                                    T


                                    >
                                    > --Bob Matter
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > _._,___


                                    --
                                    --------------------------------------------

                                    Todd Edelman
                                    Director
                                    Green Idea Factory

                                    Korunní 72
                                    CZ-10100 Praha 10
                                    Czech Republic

                                    ++420 605 915 970
                                    ++420 222 517 832
                                    Skype: toddedelman

                                    edelman@...
                                    http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

                                    Green Idea Factory,
                                    a member of World Carfree Network
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.