New York looking to clamp down on walk-and-play gamers
Hey, watch where you're going! Reuters reports that New York State senator, Carl Kruger, plans to introduce legislation this week to ban the use of all manner of handheld gadgets while crossing the street. It seems that some inhabitants of the city become so embroiled in the contents of their musical pods, their dark electronic fruits and their portable Playstations, that they fail to notice things like four-wheeled hunks of metal coming to crush them."What's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or BlackBerry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles," says Kruger. "It's becoming a nationwide problem." Ignoring the proposed ban will not only place your fragile life in immediate danger, but also result in a decidedly unpleasant $100 fine.
In the coming weeks, New York State is expected to ban glitzy neon signs, second-rate street musicians and loudly gossiping girlfriends in a continued effort to keep the streets free of deadly distractions. You're not reading this on your smartphone, are you?
[Via Gamespot UK, thanks Gabe]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Marc @ Feb 8th 2007 4:56PM
"In the coming weeks, New York State is expected to ban glitzy neon signs, second-rate street musicians and loudly gossiping girlfriends in a continued effort to keep the streets free of deadly distractions. You're not reading this on your smartphone, are you?"
Alright, any idiot can tell you that was sarcasim, but let me get my point across. Removing all of those distractions would make NYC just like anyother city, a boring plot of land with high-rise buildings.
If people get hit while walking across the street without looking, they are probably too dumb to live anyway.
Tucker @ Feb 8th 2007 4:57PM
Thank god, hopefully soon motorists will have the right of way entirely and I won't have to worry about looking for people crossing the street. Now I can run out and buy that stainless steel grill I've been wanting for my Hummer so it won't be as hard to clean those walking bastards off the front of the truck.
Jonny @ Feb 8th 2007 4:58PM
I, for one, love our government's ability to keep us constantly distracted from the real issues. Way to go senator! Non-issues: 47582, Actual Problems: 0
Phil @ Feb 8th 2007 5:04PM
Why not ban everything? The only time I was in New York, I watched a man with a newspaper walk into the side of a tour bus.
And then, he proceeded to flip off the tour bus for being in his way.
I love NYC!
Intentless @ Feb 8th 2007 5:09PM
What happened to natural selection?
Sir Stank @ Feb 8th 2007 5:10PM
It can be terribly dangerous out there for pedestrians as well as people on bicycles. I drive but I walk in the heart of the city. Cell phone talking Drivers who commute to work in the morning completely ignore pedestrians when ever they can until you smack the hood of their SUV with a nice big backpack. “Oops sorry?!?”
bounchfx @ Feb 8th 2007 5:13PM
"If people get hit while walking across the street without looking, they are probably too dumb to live anyway."
"What happened to natural selection?"
qft
Ragnarok @ Feb 8th 2007 5:19PM
It is better to ban living, 100% of people who died was alive before, 100%!!
"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," from themselves? I don't think so, freedom is more important IMHO.
@1 "If people get hit while walking across the street without looking, they are probably too dumb to live anyway." They could even win a Darwin price!
carg0 @ Feb 8th 2007 5:32PM
since when did we live in communist N. Korea?
Derbeste @ Feb 8th 2007 5:36PM
"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said
(taken from CNN.com)
yes....but NOT from myself!
If you want to protect something, try protecting my FREEDOM!
It's amazing to me that 911 gave the government license to pass ANYTHING under the banner of "safety". And yet....amazingly enough......we still aren't safe. And now we're not free either.
"Those who would give up precious freedoms for a little bit of safety will find themselves with neither." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Looks like he was right.
Dan @ Feb 8th 2007 5:39PM
In america jaywalking is illegal, yes?
So if someone gets hit while crossing the road then there can be only two explanations:
1. the person was jaywalking, and thus jaywalking is to blame.
or
2.The person got hit by a driver who has gone through a stop light.
I can't imagine any other situation for someone crossing the road if jaywalking is illegal.
tcc3 @ Feb 8th 2007 5:42PM
This is only a danger if you piss off the Dharma Initiative.
Rootbeer @ Feb 8th 2007 5:44PM
Monday, 11:00AM: Senator Kruger introduces bill in New York State Senate.
Monday, 11:15AM: Senate votes to table discussion of Kruger bill, which is never spoken of again.
Flamebait @ Feb 8th 2007 5:50PM
Maybe if we just ban the use of the PSP altogether the world would be a better place?
arsenic @ Feb 8th 2007 5:50PM
I hate Bloomburg , hes a ****
Chrysee @ Feb 8th 2007 5:59PM
Um, wouldn't it be better to just ban people from using cell phones or such things while driving?
I mean, it's technically their responsibility to not run someone over with a metric ton of speeding metal.
bubbacrosbysucks @ Feb 8th 2007 6:07PM
that sign is like something that Anna Nicole Smith would've say-- yeah, that's right, eat me ghost-pig
Steve @ Feb 8th 2007 6:22PM
I could tell that Carl Kruger was a democrat (i.e. The National Socialist party of America) because the article does not mention party affiliation.
When an article omits or buries the party affilication of a politician who's proposing ridiculous legislation or has been caught doing something illegal, the person is a democrat. When a Republican is caught doing either, the party affiliation is prominately displayed and often appears in the title.
That's just the way things work in the "unbiased" media. :)
Tucker @ Feb 8th 2007 6:29PM
Derbeste, do you mean "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin? Quote right or don't qoute, yeesh.
AnimalTaglits @ Feb 8th 2007 6:30PM
If only they had started this campaign before this weeks episode of Lost...
fawazr @ Feb 8th 2007 6:45PM
Thing is, when you hit an idiot pedestrian, you're the one who's fucked, especially if they manage to survive the collision. A law could actually help soften the driver's liability.
NeverSage @ Feb 8th 2007 6:51PM
Steve, you're a republican fanboy
Rare Hare @ Feb 8th 2007 6:52PM
Ever hear of natural selection?
If passed, this law would be completely ridiculous. It's not the handheld gadgets' faults that these people are complete oblivous morons.
Let's just hope these people getting hit didn't breed before they died.
Avinash_Tyagi @ Feb 8th 2007 6:53PM
If Natural Selection was still around there wouldn't be any more Republicans :P
VanGogh @ Feb 8th 2007 7:04PM
hmm you're right, if it were survival of the fittest, people who believe in punishing criminals, right to defend oneself, and personal responsibility would all be dead... while the welfare moms and white elitist californians would survive...
that makes sense...
LanceVDZ @ Feb 8th 2007 7:10PM
That's why I'm pro-abortion...
removes liberals from the genepool :D
calviin @ Feb 8th 2007 7:12PM
Don't they know that when someone gets hit by a car because they were too busy being distracted, it's just natural selection weeding out the population?
NeverSage @ Feb 8th 2007 7:23PM
VanGogh... I don't get your point. If it was survival of the fittest the welfare moms wouldn't be getting any money... there would be no welfare.
Jon @ Feb 8th 2007 8:11PM
Hmm, interesting.
When they talk about "handheld devices" are they also including books? I quite often get engrossed in a good book or newspaper article on the train, and wind up reading it on the walk home... I probably wouldn't do it in a busy city, but I would be interested to know whether or not the law is specifically targeted at electronic distractions.
There's really no need to be specific about it... How about a more general law parallel to the "due care and attention" law for motorists (in the UK at least)?
Steve @ Feb 8th 2007 8:41PM
On the issue itself, it's very silly. Walking across a street playing Pokemon or fooling with an iPod is utterly stupid. It sounds like these accidents have two great benefits to New Yorkers:
1) Organ donations are probably increased
2) The stupid are being depleted from the gene pool
(Ah, now it makes sense; Carl Kruger is just scared that his support base is being slaughtered left and right on the streets!)
Dan Seitz @ Feb 8th 2007 10:14PM
A) If idiots don't want to pay attention...let the idiots die.
B) Isn't that a photo of Park Street in Boston?
Questworld @ Feb 8th 2007 10:59PM
You people sound like hypocrites. It's always about your freedom and yet you lack the capacity to be responsible. People smoke like crazy, eat like pigs, drink (alcohol) to irrationality, use drugs (apparently now called "recreational drugs" - huh?) for "fun",etc. and then go about suing those who make the cigarettes, the burgers and fries, and the doctors and hospitals whose jobs are hard enough without having to deal with the other varying chemicals people "recreationally" ingest.
I think this is a reasonable law, but it obviously applies to both pedestrian and motorists. Obviously common sense isn't common enough to some people but hey, let's just laugh at them and point out how stupid they are and how "it would never happen to me," until it does, then you'll sue, or you'll die, and then somebody else will sue for you for them. Or something like that.
"since when did we live in communist N. Korea?"
Do you even know what communism is or do you just think it's some kind of Nazi society? I'm not saying it's a (currently) good government system overall (I mean the Matrix 1.0 was said to be design to be quite a utopia, but it simply wasn't compatible with human nature which includes such things as watching out for numero uno, oneself, and then there's greed, persuit of wealth, etc.) but I think any system is flawed depending on who sits at the head table. For example, a great and wise king that creates a flourishing kingdom is still better than a, say, democratic government that operates in a self-serving, manipulative manner (no I'm not saying anything with regards to Bush or whether or not he's manipulating the media to manipulate the voice of the people). But then I'm talking to a community of computer users and videogamers and let's face it, there's big chunk of you who constantly argue and debate about PCs vs. Mac, Nintendo vs. Sony vs. Microsoft. God forbid the world holds different government "operating systems" (among other things, y'know, like religion, race, genders, etc.) and actually live in good harmony.
NeverSage @ Feb 8th 2007 11:52PM
Questworld,
That was a good rant with valid points. But I got a different meaning out of carg0's statement. I think he was referring to the many laws in N. Korea that apply to aspects of people's lives that the government has no right to regulate.
reppy @ Feb 9th 2007 2:34AM
Guess what? It costs money to peel your carcass of the street. The city is sick and tired of doing it. Don't act like when you die no one is responsible for picking up your mangled body.
People are so insane sometimes. Something somehow "infringes" on their right to be dumb and they get upset about it. Go be dumb where no one has to worry if you end up being grill food.
darkbhudda @ Feb 9th 2007 2:40AM
Maybe if drivers would stop playing with their mobile phones and painting their toenails with the feet up on the steering wheel, they would actually see the red light and stop.
Stop driving through red lights retarded drivers.
reppy @ Feb 9th 2007 2:48AM
@35
I blame Grand Theft Auto. People forget that they're not playing a game and just plow through crowds of people.
h8GWB @ Feb 9th 2007 3:32AM
This is actually old news to me. One of the few benefits of living near NYC.
Also, damn Lostaways! I guess it goes to show how disseminative and generic the gaming community has gotten recently...
Avinash_Tyagi @ Feb 9th 2007 9:53AM
"hmm you're right, if it were survival of the fittest, people who believe in punishing criminals, right to defend oneself, and personal responsibility would all be dead... while the welfare moms and white elitist californians would survive..."
Yeah right, Republicans are only about Tax cuts, Bible thumping, and overspending on pointless wars
Field Anony-mouse @ Feb 9th 2007 10:04AM
"B) Isn't that a photo of Park Street in Boston?"
Yes actually it is. I pass that sign on a regular basis. Both by jaywalking, and terrorizing drivers on my bike.
Mic @ Feb 9th 2007 10:11AM
@11
Actually, there is a third option. Cars hit pedestrians when they are turning. The car has a green light but the pedestrian has the right of way. I see a lot more close calls of this variety than close calls from jaywalking, although I see a fair amount of those too. Can't find any statistics....
ackmondual @ Feb 9th 2007 4:00PM
@ #16
""Um, wouldn't it be better to just ban people from using cell phones or such things while driving?
I mean, it's technically their responsibility to not run someone over with a metric ton of speeding metal.""
@ #35
""Maybe if drivers would stop playing with their mobile phones and painting their toenails with the feet up on the steering wheel, they would actually see the red light and stop.
Stop driving through red lights retarded drivers""
every1 needs to obey the rules. While drivers shouldn't be eating a garden salad, dressing themselves, doing makeup, shaving, cell phone chatting, BB using, or PSP playing while driving, pedestrians need to keep their heads out of their books, magazines, music, etc. as well.
In a place like NYC, I see peds just walking across a streeet even though they have the red and forcing a car going at 25mph to slow down even that car has the green. Peds walking onto the street from a row of parked parallel cars, only to get beeped at quickly and jump back onto the sidewalk b/c he almost walked right into traffic. That ped should've crossed at a crosswalk or intersection b/c if the ped was coming out from behind a large SUV or other blocky vehicle and the moving car happened to be closer to the ped as he was stepping out, that ped would've been killed. It really would've have been the driver's fault since there's no way to react to someone coming out from an area not visible by the driver and giving the driver only 5ft of distance stop from 20mph of velocity. At the very least, in that situation, the ped could've at least poked his head out to make sure it was safe before stepping onto active traffic
Phil Foleen @ Feb 11th 2007 1:11AM
stupid. obviously the only way Kruger has found to get his name in the media. i hate stupid publicity bills. how about we focus on running the state? no no, the safety of pedestrians too stupid to pass Darwin 101 and notice an oncommong bus is MUCH more important.
Sidepocket @ Feb 13th 2007 3:26AM
Ok, before NYC passes this, they need to fix two major problems:
1) Force Taxi's to not drive like maniacs on meth.
2) Ban those Bicycles Fags that have no concept of stopping.
Boom. Problems solved! :D