$50 Ticket - Texting while walking (Hope: renting, lawyer, buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again, the activity being legislated against doesn't just endanger the idiot doing the texting -- it endangers others and also involves them in your dangerous (and possibly fatal) decisions. And while you fret and wring your hands about incremental loss of freedoms, that wouldn't be happening so much if people would keep in mind the "responsibility" half of the "with freedom comes responsibility" equation. When you can't exercise your freedoms responsibly, expect them to be curbed.
I don't "fret and wring my hands" about incremental losses of freedom; I point out the damage they do.
You may not have intended it this way, but when I've had similar discussions in the past with other people it has been my experience that folks who use the phrase "with freedom comes responsibility" while arguing for a law or regulation that restricts an otherwise innocuous item or activity are implying that anyone who does not support their position is not only defending irresponsible conduct, but are themselves irresponsible for doing so. It's a veiled attack ad hominem.
I'd much rather discuss/debate this on the subjects own merits.
So, lets go over some points. We may not agree on all or any of them, but at least we'll be better able to define where (and hopefully why) we disagree.
#1-
I believe the person texting while walking has the right to endanger himself. It's not a course of action I'd choose, and I think it's foolish, but I don't see how I or society has any right to force him to be more attentive to his personal safety. It's his life, he owns it, and he can gamble with it as and how he so chooses.
#2-
I do not see how texting while walking is any more or less of a distraction from walking than reading while walking, arguing while walking, eating while walking, or thinking while walking. How many times have people "gone for a walk to cool down", ect.? How is that person less distracted than the person texting? Would you suggest those things, as well as any other distracting activities you can think of, be banned as well?
3#-
How many people have been injured by vehicles swerving to avoid a person who has walked into the road while texting? This is the scenario used to demonstrate danger of texting while walking to persons other than the texter himself.
So, how many have been injured? How much in property damage? Let's get some perspective on the issue.
#4-
"Freedom" means that neither you nor I get to curb anyone else's conduct unless it presents a great (large) chance of causing us harm.
It's supposed to be based on how likely the activity is to cause harm, balanced against how severe that harm is likely to be.
It's NOT based on how "important" or "necessary" the activity may be to the person in question. If it were, under that logic you could see simple activities like flying a kite, walking a dog, or playing baseball in a park banned. None of them are "necessary" yet all present risk to others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside-
Why is it that people always want to come up with and support laws against things other people do, yet those same people scream injustice if someone tries to fetter their activities?
Freedom doesn't equal safety. In fact the two are almost mutually exclusive.
Accept that there are risks in life, and that it's our responsibility to keep ourselves from being hurt....not the governments job, not out neighbors job. That we're responsible for any harm that WE cause, and that we should suffer the consequences if we fail in that responsibility.
THAT is the responsibility that comes with freedom. Not the "responsibility" to have our possible actions so tightly bound by laws, rules, and regulations in a futile attempt to legislate risk out of life.
EDITED TO ADD-
It really wasn't my intention to hop into a debate over this type of thing tonight
I've had a similar argument over laws banning texting while driving, which I also disagree with, and that has a FAR greater risk to others than texting while walking.
The laws wont stop someone from doing it (texting) as anyone doing it thinks they can get away with it. In the case of driving/texting, the laws may make it more hazardous as the driver adds a level of distraction to his activities by trying to conceal what he is doing.
Far better in my opinion is to pass a law that subpoenas your cell phone record for a 30 minute time frame around the time of the accident. If you were texting at the time of the wreck then hit them with a criminal penalty. It should achieve the same results (less texting while driving) without setting another precedent for restricting actions that in and of themselves do not cause harm.....it only punishes when harm has taken place. It also reduces the ease with which such a law could be abused as a source of revenue generation instead as a measure for "public safety".
Last edited by LowKey1969; 09-27-2011 at 12:05 PM..
Fine, whatever. The freedom is going to end because you're expected to pay attention to traffic when you cross the street. A Soviet-style state is right around the corner because we are now legislating what should be, and used to be, common sense, something you just did because it was what you're supposed to do to keep yourself and those around you out of harm's way. We really should have the inalienable right to walk out into traffic at any time of our choosing because after all, we have the inalienable right to endanger ourselves!
The problem with addressing the consequences of a risky behavior after the fact is that it's is no deterrent at all, for various reasons (illusory superiority, limited ability to internalize harm and risk, limited information to conduct risk/benefit assessment, etc.). At least enforcement of a rule before the fact provides some deterrent -- though I don't see how arguing that insufficient (in your view) deterrent effect favors a policy with zero deterrent at all. It's unfortunate that there are so many people who have little common sense or an understanding of how their actions can potentially harm themselves or others. But since there are, we need to have ways to deal with them.
What's more, even if it has no before-the-fact deterrent, having a statute or ordinance already in place means there is an established means to assign liability after the fact, so your preferred approach is enhanced by having an ordinance such as this in place.
Status:
"Hey Guys: "Remember they started it""
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Glen Mills
940 posts, read 1,232,382 times
Reputation: 617
Attention Idaho!!!!
Anyone know how far they have gone as far as enforcement. Fines Levied under this act - fines collected, hearings arranged, continuances effected, cost of hearings including the magisterial costs, mailings to enforce, etc., etc. I figure if its about 9K - it could educate a HS Student. - Tell me if the individual simply states I was checking on the time and not texting does the officer push him against a wall frisk him and charge him for resisting arrest? The law is too stupid for words.
Fine, whatever. The freedom is going to end because you're expected to pay attention to traffic when you cross the street.
By itself, no. It's a minuscule loss of freedom, much like a 5 cent surcharge on a business transaction. Of course, enough different surcharges and you start to notice that the cumulative total of all these tiny surcharges is no longer a tiny sum.
Nor am I suggesting that one shouldn't pay attention to traffic while crossing the street. I'm stating that this particular statute is not needed and likely motivated more by revenue generation and irritation with idiots, and that it will have little to no real word effect upon injuries and deaths. It's a useless feel-good-that-we're-doing-something-(useless and ineffective)-for-saftey law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
A Soviet-style state is right around the corner...
You've moved from ad hominem to ad absurdum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
...because we are now legislating what should be, and used to be, common sense, something you just did because it was what you're supposed to do to keep yourself and those around you out of harm's way.
I'm still trying to figure out where it says the government is responsible for ensuring I don't endanger myself. I do agree that it would be common sense to not place yourself at risk, but people still seem to do so fairly frequently. Some intentionally with activities like skydiving or hunting dangerous game, some unintentionally by not paying attention to their surroundings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
We really should have the inalienable right to walk out into traffic at any time of our choosing because after all, we have the inalienable right to endanger ourselves!
Once more, ad absurdum. You have a right to freedom of speech, but I'm not going to suggest that the best exercise of it would be to stand on a street corner with a sign proclaiming yourself to be the lost king of fairyland who was abducted by aliens. It would be well within your right to do so but likely not a common sense utilization of that right.
But yes, you do have an inalienable right to place yourself at risk. I don't think it's always a smart thing to do, but it is part of the fundamental right to self determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
The problem with addressing the consequences of a risky behavior after the fact is that it's is no deterrent at all, for various reasons (illusory superiority, limited ability to internalize harm and risk, limited information to conduct risk/benefit assessment, etc.).
This isn't just a problem enforcing such laws after the fact, it's the reason people do these things in the first place. If they think they can avoid or escape physical harm (pain, injury, death) due to risky behavior why would you believe that they wouldn't think they could avoid or escape a ticket?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
At least enforcement of a rule before the fact provides some deterrent -- though I don't see how arguing that insufficient (in your view) deterrent effect favors a policy with zero deterrent at all.
I'm not really interested in a deterrent. I'm interested in seeing responsibility and acceptance of the consequences of one's actions when one has cause harm to another. What I'm not interested in is trying to nanny adults because their foolish actions hold the potential for causing harm to themselves.
Frankly that's their problem, not ours. It only becomes our problem if they're harming others, and I've yet to see any evidence of a significant number of injuries or deaths to others being caused by texting while walking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
It's unfortunate that there are so many people who have little common sense or an understanding of how their actions can potentially harm themselves or others. But since there are, we need to have ways to deal with them.
Yup. Lot's of foolish people out there.
But before I started to jump up and down with the joy of having a way to "deal with them", I'd give a bit more consideration to the risks involved in passing laws based solely on potential harm without knowing what the likelihood of that harm actually occurring. Otherwise we could start banning all sorts of activities and behaviors because the might potentially harm someone.....many of our routine actions and behaviors have the potential to harm ourselves and others. Yet most of us seem to muddle through the day without doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
What's more, even if it has no before-the-fact deterrent, having a statute or ordinance already in place means there is an established means to assign liability after the fact, so your preferred approach is enhanced by having an ordinance such as this in place.
No, my preference is to have them held accoutable for their actions if those actions cause harm. That isn't "an ordinance such as this". "An ordinance such as this" is prior restraint. I favor consequences for actual, as opposed to potential, harm.
It's in vogue right now to target cell phone use for revenue generating laws. It seems to be this decades early addition to the "it's for the children" type legislation.
The simple solution to people who are texting while walking is to let the person suffer the consequences of their actions. Period. Such a solution doesn't need embellishment.
Last edited by LowKey1969; 09-28-2011 at 11:16 AM..
The simple solution to people who are texting while walking is to let the person suffer the consequences of their actions. Period. Such a solution doesn't need embellishment.
Except, once again, your "simple solution" involves the involuntary participation of people in the great bodily injury or even death of others without their consent to such participation. If you want to do that, join a boxing gym, jump out of an airplane, join a football team or something else where everyone else around you is in on it.
Honest to God, how fkin' hard is it to pay attention to your surroundings when you cross the bloody street? The utter foolishness of defending the proposition that you have an inalienable right to walk out in front of traffic without a care on Earth is just breathtakingly asinine.
Except, once again, your "simple solution" involves the involuntary participation of people in the great bodily injury or even death of others without their consent to such participation. If you want to do that, join a boxing gym, jump out of an airplane, join a football team or something else where everyone else around you is in on it.
Honest to God, how fkin' hard is it to pay attention to your surroundings when you cross the bloody street? The utter foolishness of defending the proposition that you have an inalienable right to walk out in front of traffic without a care on Earth is just breathtakingly asinine.
Nice opening statement, but without data to back it up it's simply an emotionally charged assertion on your part.
Cite data showing that texting while walking has caused a significant number of injuries or deaths to persons other than the one texting. Then show that such activity has caused a higher percentage of injures and deaths to the pedestrian compared to eating, talking, or other normal yet distracting activities.
Until you have such data your assertion that it's placing others at a great risk is spurious.
As far as my defense of peoples right to take whatever risks to themselves they might choose, it's not asinine. It's a defense of a persons right to exercise self determination. Before you attempt to take that out of context please note that I've said self determination, and that I have NOT stated or inferred that it is within a persons rights to place another at undue risk without their consent. Hence my statement that verifiable and creditable data showing that persons other that the texting pedestrian are in fact being physically harmed as a result, and that the number of persons/injuries from this particular action is disproportionate to accidents cause by other routine distractions.
Now, go back to class and practice your verbal fencing skills, destructive crosses, ect with your fellow law students.
You're good at them and your skill at trying to twist words is impressive (far far better than mine), but I doubt anyone else reading this thread has confused my defense and support of an individual's right to engage in behavior risky to themselves with the idea that I'm suggesting that risky behavior is a good idea.
I can, for example, defend someones right attempt politics as a career. It does not necessarily mean that I believe it to be a good idea nor would it be an endorsement of their platform.
Nice opening statement, but without data to back it up it's simply an emotionally charged assertion on your part. .
If you don't even understand the basic risk being addressed by this ordinance, I don't see why it's even worth the bother to continue discussing it. It's not to keep people from walking off of cliffs or into trees. It's to mitigate a specific type of incident that involves people other than the idiot who can't pay attention to anything around him.
Status:
"Hey Guys: "Remember they started it""
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Glen Mills
940 posts, read 1,232,382 times
Reputation: 617
Texting while walking!!!!
In Idaho today a committee has been formed to determine the impact of "texting and walking" on the day to day lives of their citizens. The committee will meet monthly and discuss its impact on the safety of its citizenry. Meanwhile in the state house it has been determined that in order to balance the budget several hundred police and fire personnel will be laid off. Absurdity should be admired and sensibility once recalled.
If you don't even understand the basic risk being addressed by this ordinance, I don't see why it's even worth the bother to continue discussing it. It's not to keep people from walking off of cliffs or into trees. It's to mitigate a specific type of incident that involves people other than the idiot who can't pay attention to anything around him.
Show me data on how many people are physically injured as a result of others texitng while walking. If it can be show to be a significant number I'd concede that doing so would be a greater danger to the public. Without that data this is nothing more than over regulation of peoples conduct.
Show me actual data on the incidence of injuries caused to others by people walking and texting, and if it's higher than those caused by other "normal" activities that no one wants to see banned I'll change my stance.
As it is the rational people are using to support this is an assumption that it must be dangerous....after all, it's dangerous to do while driving, right?
Texting while walking is going to be quiet different than texting while driving.
Better peripheral fields of view, better ability to hear, better sensory input, ect, not to mention that the speed of the pedestrian is quite a bit slower.
The only real risk is walking into a hazard (holes, traffic).
That may have greatly increased the number of pedestrians injured while texting, but without data showing otherwise I doubt a significant number of others have been injured as a result of such behavior.
So, where is the actual data to support the assumption that this activity greatly endangers anyone other than the idiot texting on his/her phone while walking?
If data supports this, it's a safety measure.
If these is no data to support this, it's likely one of the following (take your pick):
1- Appeasement of cranky citizens (just because something irritates you doesn't mean it should be illegal)
2- Revenue generation for the municipality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attention Idaho!!!!
