Posted on 04/03/2008 8:03:20 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
CHICAGO - As Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White's usual domain consists of licensing drivers, registering corporations and publishing the state's blue book manual.
But he recently turned his attention to people walking across the street in addition to those in automobiles. According to an article on WBBM Radio's Web site, White wants the state to pass a law prohibiting people from walking across the street while using a cell phone. A bill along those lines has already been introduced in the Illinois House.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
State Rep. Ken Dunkin introduced House Bill 4520 on Jan. 17, which would make it a petty offense for a person crossing any street in the state to use a cell phone at the same time. If the bill is passed, a person caught could be fined up to $25. The bill is currently in committee.
Nanny State alert.
Wouldn’t a few people getting hit by cars serve as enough of an example for everyone else?
They should be executed for this horrific crime.
Maybe setting up cameras on every street corner would help to catch these “offenders”.
Our Founding Fathers would give hearty approval to a law like this. This fits perfectly into the idea of an informed citizenry of self governing people living with a limited government.
So, what are they going to do, suspend my Walking License?
Next, will come walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Unbelievable...someone should tape a cellphone to each of his ears and throw the SOB in front of a fricken’ truck...stupid worthless legislator alert...LEAVE US ALONE YOU CLOWNS! Get the hell out of our lives...
Mark my words, they are going to ban listening to the radio before they are done.
What about walking and chewing gum at the same time?.......
The trouble is that the idiot yakking on the phone or texting in the middle of a busy street often isn’t the one to take the hit. Cars swerve or slam on brakes to avoid these idiots, and may end up hitting other cars or pedestrians or causing another car to rear-end them.
Just relieve drivers of liability if they hit someone who is listening while walking and steps into traffic since in most places pedestrians have ROW.
So what? There will never be a way to make life risk free, and it is not government’s business to do so.
It sounds like a civil action would be more applicable,
but then again, that would be more (small l) libertarian of me.
Physics is a harsh mistress.
}:-)4
HF
Yes it is.
At least we are seeing a whole lot of it lately.....
Need a Monty Python “Ministry of Silly Walks” update right about here....
They'll probably confiscate your cell phone and make you teach inner city yutes how to spell.
Nanny State Ping.............
“Next, will come walking and chewing gum at the same time.”
At least they’re leaving yo-yo’s out. When your really good with one you can brain anybody at 6 feet.
Agreed. Way too much.
ping
Nanny knows best.
To some extent, it’s government’s business to make it safer for people who are not inclined to do stupid things to avoid being harmed by those who are. A law against phone yakking or text messaging while walking across streets strikes me as not too different from government installing traffic lights and making a law saying drivers have to stop when the light is red. The benefits to the public at large are far greater than the costs in individual freedom.
The government (taxpayers) doesn’t even have to pay to install or maintain anything with this proposed ban, and since it only takes a few seconds to cross a street, there is no significant infringement on anyone’s freedom — stop texting or yakking for a few seconds and resume when you get to the other side. It’s not hard and costs nothing to tell someone you’re talking to “Hold on a minute, I’m crossing a street”. Public streets are PUBLIC, and as such are reasonably subjected to some regulation to make them safer and more useful to the general public.
Sounds to me that if they already enforced the existing JAY WALKING laws, then this issue would not need further LAWS.
From a legislative perspective, this bill is win win. It calls for more control of the subjects and creates another source of revenue to be dooled out for votes. The only place it falls short is the $25 penalty. I'm sure that by the time it makes it's way in to law, the rulers will correct that and make it $250 for the first offense.
You'd think, but sadly no.
People talking on cell phones are so clueless and so oblivious. I have to watch out for idiots like this in the grocery store, too. Should they make that illegal, too? Can't steer a shopping cart and talk on the cell phone at the same time?
Just the other day, I saw someone pulled over to the side of the road using their phone. One in a hundred.....
Thanks for the ping!
In general, if it’s not enough of an incentive to change behavior, it isn’t painful enough.
A few injured, a few sued, word would get out. No need for legislation.
Sounds like a good law to me. I know that I’m not paying much attention when I walk across the street on the phone.
We have all sorts of laws to coerce people into using the roads safely, most of which I appreciate as a driver/pedestrian who wants to stay alive.
I got rear ended because I pulled over to use my cell phone. I was on an off ramp and planned on going into a parking lot and calling back. I was waiting for traffic and got rear ended. Which reminds me, I need to find out my appointment for my repairs.
“Sounds like a good law to me. I know that I’m not paying much attention when I walk across the street on the phone.”
You seriously need the government to care for you?
How many more must die?
Are you then going to prohibit people from drinking soft drinks, reading, smoking, eating, talking to others, or any one of numerous other distractions while walking? How do you enforce such laws to begin with, unless you have a cop at every corner to write tickets? Most towns have anti-jaywalking laws that are seldom enforced. The last thing we need is yet another law that is noted more by its breach than its observance, such as the old 55 mph national speed limit or alcohol prohibition.
Finally! A BAN by Nanny Staters that I can get behind!
(Just kiddin’, of course!)
(Meant to mail out your “goodies” today, but got swamped. Soon, my FRiend. Soon!)
That's a pretty sad state of affairs. And unfortunately so very true.
I've got a cell phone, but I hate using it. I find it to be a necessary evil though because I often find myself out driving after dark in the rather rural county I live in.
But I guarantee you, the only way another driver is going to pass me while I'm on it is if I am pulled off to the side of the road. If it rings while I'm driving it will keep ringing until I can pull off in order to answer it. With all of that said, I still oppose stuff like this proposal on principle. Common sense can not be legislated.
You're kidding here, right?
I know that I’m not paying much attention when I walk across the street on the phone.
So you believe a law to protect you from your own stupidity is the answer?
We have all sorts of laws to coerce people into using the roads safely, most of which I appreciate as a driver/pedestrian who wants to stay alive.
Most rules of the road laws make some semblance of sense, this does not.
I know what you mean...........and I knew you were kiddin', of course :)
This kind of stuff just drives me nuts because people that support these idiocies just do not understand where they are going to lead.
I'll be hoeing/tilling my freshly plowed field this weekend because it's been raining just enough to keep me out of it, but not enough to keep the weeds from starting to sprout.
Any package from you is always appreciated, the anticipation of it's arrival just makes it that much more...........
And stupidity cannot be cured.
The problem is, the people the laws are directed to will not change just because it's illegal. If they had any common courtesy, they wouldn't be doing it any way.
What about playing brick-breaker on my blackberry?
Can I still do that?
You said a mouthful there lady!!!! A mouthful I totally agree with.
These are the same as the anti 2nd Amendment laws, the only people who will abide them are already law abiders.
Considered autism in "The Land of Lincoln."
It’s true of any laws.
Democrats in Barry's home state have been mobilized and already responding to the small town backlash voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.