Top deals on CNET here
Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod
the publicity campaign is a GREAT alternative...
by shawnlin - 2/7/07 3:07 PM In reply to: I'm sort of for it. by udayan71
Just like movie theaters in the U.S. have a short message about turning off cell-phones, pagers, etc. a publicity campaign for people to be aware of their surroundings when their gadgets have the users attention is a great idea!
Personal rant
by MedicineHead - 2/8/07 4:54 AM In reply to: the publicity campaign is a GREAT alternative... by shawnlinI'm incredulous. I really don't understand how we've become so supportive of not taking responsibility for one's own actions that we have to be reminded on how to act in public.
Another poster here said that because the streets in New York City were so busy, he saw no problem in making a law that disallows listening to music while crossing the street. I not only see a problem in making the law, but in the mentality that could actually consider enacting it.
I have no responsibility, nor is it any of my business to protect other people from themselves. Again, we're ignoring personal responsibility, and we're allowing others to do the same. Ironically, we're actually ignoring our own responsibility, yet trying to force a sense of it on others, while not requiring any sense of it on others.
People get the idea that because the results of a law are the same as someone getting a clue and taking responsibility, that the law then becomes an acceptable form of character development. We're not a better people by making laws that force actions on others. We're instead diluting personal responsibility further and further by taking the real consequences of actions away from people.
Nice inciteful rant!
by hproductions - 2/8/07 8:20 AM In reply to: Personal rant by MedicineHeadCouldn't agree more MedicineHead! And isn't the dilution of personal responsibility going to create more people endangering their lives due to the culture of sheep mentality, where the individual EXPECTS the all-knowing authority to tell them how to live, down to the minutia.
I guess we see this attitude already in the litigous culture both in the US and a growing presence in the UK where we see people suing the nearest convenient owner of a premises or appropriate authority for not telling them to avoid walking on a wet surface or step over the broken flagstone, don't put your stoopid head out of the moving train etc...
There's an ad for a lawfirm in the uk where they have their bumbling clients explain how they came to incur their various injuries: in one ad it begins with the poor guy, who made thousands from his evil employer, explaining that he was on a job and was given the 'wrong type of ladder' - so I guess unless the US government doesn't protect people from the dangers of those nasty big heavy vehicles and a desire to ignore them and presumably enjoying the music or podcast so much that you also close your eyes, thus not seeing the incoming interruption to your day, unless the powers that be look after people and raise them proper, the people will be able to sue Apple for giving them the 'wrong type of headphones'. The swiiines!
H
It's election time, folks
by iggysnitx - 2/7/07 4:05 PM In reply to: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod by thriftyTWonder if this nutcase is running for re-election. What a doofus.
IMNSHO, this is another attempt to legislate behavior. Didn't work with Prohibition. Another case of not paying attention to history and being doomed to repeat it.
Reasons for Anti-Ipod Bill
by Darayz - 2/7/07 6:34 PM In reply to: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod by thriftyTA bill is often introduced in the House in order to spark a debate. I'm sure the Senator from my home state of New York knows that this is a dead bill in waiting. BUT, it gets the conversation started.
Look what's happening in this forum. Some of us are mentioning previous accidents due to Ipod use while crossing a street. Some of you guys are even bringing up alternatives to an anti-Ipod bill.
Regardless of how dumb the Bill is, it got the conversation started. And more importantly, got Senator Carl Kruger's name in the paper.
Ummm?
by butteredpopcorn - 2/7/07 7:57 PM In reply to: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod by thriftyTHow would that make NY better. I understand not being able to do that while driving; but walking? And why would he want to do that anyways?
BOGUS!
Walking and Chewing gum Simaltaneausoly
by matt02429 - 2/7/07 8:51 PM In reply to: Ummm? by butteredpopcornYou can legislate anything, enforcing it is a different story. I know that NYC cops have more important things to do than to than cite people for listening to an Ipod while crossing a street. I think that the law is a good idea though, because if you run someone over who isn't paying attention due to an ipod or blackberry, it puts some of the blame on them rather than the typical "Pedestrians are always right even when they walk in front of your car" bs. (I hope the law would work that way, but who knows...)
Yeah! Legislate Common Sense!
by hproductions - 2/8/07 1:45 AM In reply to: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod by thriftyTSo if it's deemed dangerous and unlawful to be unable to hear your surroundings should deaf people be banned from the streets? And blind people? How do they survive from one day to the next? We need to save them from themselves..!
I doubt there is any moral motivation behind raising this issue, as the morality of restricting the majority of people from listening to music and entertainment of their choosing, at a time and place of their choosing, that doesn't impact on anyone else, is highly questionable. This, to 'protect' against the few people who may not take much notice of their surroundings.
Personally I wear 'in-ear' headphones which completely restrict my hearing. Despite this I manage to cross busy roads, work, surf (the internet - don't recommend the other type) and generally live my life immersed in pleasant sounds whilst NOT being hit by anything.
I agree that there is a need to 're-train' your awareness when you first start wearing headphones as audio cues your brain is unconsciously reliant upon are removed and therefore your visual awareness needs to include a heightened awareness of visual cues for danger. But that's no different to learning any new skill.
To take away the responsibility for your actions by legislating against your opportunity to do so is going to further increase the likelihood of a person becoming less responsible, and consequently at more risk.
I wouldn't expect Senator Carl Kruger to understand this because in focussing on raising his profile he doubtless will have not had time to think through how best he can improve the safety of the people he represents.
Wow, my first post was a little heavy!
Love the show.
Right I'm off to reap my karmic reward and get run over whilst listening to Buzz Out Loud's rants against this bill!
Deaf people actually pay attention
by dro0001 - 2/8/07 2:52 AM In reply to: Yeah! Legislate Common Sense! by hproductions...when crossing the street. Hello people, this isn't a total ban on walking with an electronic device, it is simply crossing the street while listening to one (similar to having to get off a bike when crossing the street). And this is being brought up because obviously people are stupid enough to not be able to do this safely on their own.
I can drive while talking on a cell phone without hitting anyone, so why is it illegal?? Ahhh I love those kind of arguments.
It's not the same argument
by hproductions - 2/8/07 4:17 AM In reply to: Deaf people actually pay attention by dro0001The cellphone argument is different for 2 reasons.
1. The 'tools' you need to drive are semi-incapacitated when holding a cellphone. This is demonstrated in the UK by hands free devices being perfectly legal to use whilst driving. I'm not sure about the States. There is no assertion in UK law that drivers cannot be trusted to avoid the distraction of having a conversation with someone on the phone, something I imagine most people would consider acceptable to do with a person in the vehicle.
2. The danger introduced by reducing your driving ability by physically holding a phone is a danger to others as well as yourself. Being hit by a truck because you somehow failed to see it because you had your hearing diminished is of little consequence to anyone but yourself.
A deaf person does not magically regain their hearing when they cross a road - why are we so mistrusting of individuals to adapt to their circumstances. Let's not legislate out of a negative attitude towards our ability to adapt or think for ourselves - most people are familiar with what happens when a child is excessively molly coddled 'for it's own good' - their development is stunted. You may argue that some discipline is required and I would agree - but excess in our interference and fear for our child's ability to cope with everyday life won't promote a self-motivated, self-confident adult. I strongly believe this is the same dynamic as excessive legislation .
If you want to be told what to do in every area of your life then go for it - because virtually any law can be passed on the premise that someone, somewhere is incapable of looking after themselves in a given situation, and therefore everyone should be prevented from that activity by law. Hey, in time we could be compelled by law literally to wrap our kids in cotton wool. With holes for their ears so they can hear the traffic coming...
H
P.S. How would the police know whether you were actually listening to anything - will you have to remove the headphones and hold them above your head to prove your not listening to your ipod?
Speaking of Deaf...
by milkky - 2/8/07 4:44 AM In reply to: It's not the same argument by hproductionsThis approaches the question/comment I was going to make--during the discussion, Molly said, approximately, "that is why it's illegal to wear headphones while driving". She then said something about noise-cancelling headphones.
I've actually been wondering about this since I started listening to my player in the car. While I don't use noise-canceling ones (that seems pretty stupid!) and can hear horns and siren--I have had people tell me it was not legal. My answer each time is that deaf people are allowed to drive so how could they make a law like that? (My crack about noise-canceling ones aside--I know that semi-equates to deaf, but why would you reduce your awarenes to that degree voluntarily?)
So my question is: does anyone KNOW if a law had actually been passed anywhere regarding headphones while driving? If so, do thay also have a law making it illegal to have your stereo up so loud that you can't hear anything else inside the car, much less outside it?
So, I checked...
by milkky - 2/9/07 5:02 AM In reply to: Speaking of Deaf... by milkkyIn Michigan, headphones are legal. In California, it is legal to use one ear bud, but you have to keep the other ear open. Oddly enough, if you go to the CA DMV, they say it's illegal, but if you go to the actual referenced law, you get the above re: one ear at a time! How's that for quality control?
iFoughtthelaw
by punterjoe - 2/8/07 4:39 AM In reply to: Banned: Walking while listening to iPod by thriftyTI can see the new ad now: a sillhouette cavorting in a crosswalk to a punk version of "I fought the law" when suddenly a sillhouette copcar - siren & lights going, bursts onto the screen & SPLAT! Maybe with a Frogger sfx as a tidy punctuator.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
