Skip to comments.New York Lawmaker Moves to Ban Use of Distracting Gadgets While Walking
Posted on 01/25/2011 3:29:33 PM PST by Baladas
New York state Sen. Carl Kruger wants to make his states streets safer.
To do that, he's not proposing a tough new gun law or advocating for broader police search powers.
No, Sen. Kruger sees a greater danger out there.
He hopes to ban the use of mobile phones, iPods and other gadgets by pedestrians in major cities while crossing the street.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
the end of chewing gum for many......
explains a lot. a difficult childhood...a face only a mother could love.....
His first name isn't Freddie by any chance is it?
This happened at my university at about the same time that Heinlein wrote this. A girl stepped out from behind a shrub, directly in front of a moving car. She knew that the car had to stop (even though there was no crosswalk there), and was too stupid to figure out that it would not do so if it was impossible.
There was a fuss about whether the car might have violated the 20 MPH campus speed limit, and have been going as fast as 25 MPH. However, a car going 15 MPH would have still hit her.
Yeah, like beautiful women in tight tops and mini’s.
I had a guy save my @$$ from walking right out in front of a car while I was just talking on a cell phone - not texting or anything. He reached out and put a gentle hand on my shoulder to stop me from stepping into the street.
The last generation has seen the rise of the total nanny-state.
I hope at some point people begin to think that there are SOME things gov’t shouldn’t be involved in.
Wow! Let me guess. 24 D cells?
His constituents should call and tell him how they feel about this just like people in NJ called and told an assemblywomen what they thought of her bike licensing bill last week. She announced it in the morning and by evening, it was withdrawn.
I agree, Darwin the Darwinists.
Mine required 12 D Cells and that one is twice as big.
Chewing Gum, Cigarettes, Cigars, Soft Drinks, Left or Right Arms (if engaged in Scratching) and if we are going to include our Elected Officials “Breathing” might be too much for them to handle.
Probably why he has reserved the “Growing Hair on His Head” Brain Cell for other activities.
for the nanny state ping list
I always thought a bus would get him but the way he finally got it was horrific, it made the news. The driver of the streetsweeper did not even know what happened and momentarily stopped at the corner with all the blood trailed behind. A passerby notified him about it. The family got a large settlement from the city.
We had a 20 something young lady last fall who was walking at night, in the rain, wearing her I-Pod headphones with a hoodie pulled over her head, and strolled right around the activated warning gates, lights and bells and into the path of an oncoming light rail train.
There is nothing you can do for someone like that.
Well, yeah; and entirely apart from any criticism of Darwin.
My focus is on this question: must we not all face the consequences of our worldview at some point? If the answer is "no," then why all the conflict between worldviews? If there are no consequences to bear, then why care who thinks what? But if we care enough about who thinks what to debate about it, and we care enough about what truths really are accurately descriptive of reality to continue arguing over them, then we implicitly assert that the consequences of the truths we embrace not only exist, but cannot be avoided. And, manifestly, we DO care, and so the answer is NOT "no," but "yes"; we MUST face the consequences of what we believe.
Beyond that, though, there is a level at which we are forced to face the consequences of things we DON'T believe.
It's a ludicrous example, but indulge me:
Gravity IS. Without regard to whether you believe it, or what truths you embrace, gravity IS, and if you decide that it ISN'T, and that you are, therefore, exempt from it, and you further decide to act in concert with your dearly-held belief in the non-existence of gravity, depending upon where you choose to demonstrate your faith in your worldview, you will have a distance exactly equal to 1/2 X at^2 over which to repent.
Can we just get over ourselves long enough to confess that SOMETIMES the old, white, European men — guys like Sir Isaac Newton, for example — were, and still are, RIGHT?
So, Natural Selection? Yeah, fine, survival of the fittest? Yeah, it's a demonstrable fact in nature, and arguably the singular mechanism by which all of nature has come to this present state. Yet, these marble-heads want to turn around and try to mitigate its operation legislatively?
"Oh, yes, natural selection is an inexorable force in nature, so we're going to enact this law so people can escape its consequences."
If that not an expression of deep psychopathy, then the very existence of psychopathy is in question.