Smartphones are getting smarter these days. Too bad we can't say the same about the users.
Avid texters beware: Fort Lee, N.J. police said they will begin issuing $85 jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who are caught texting while walking.
they will ticket folks who are chewing gum - the REAL danger!!!
I want to live in that town. Imagine a place where crime is so under control that these are the kind of things they have time to worry about.
The most ridiculous thing I've heard today! That police chief should be laughed out of town.
The Police Chief doesn't make the laws, you'll need to put that on the city council or whatever they call it there. Ultimately, it is the voter who is responsible for that silliness.
This is a good illustration of not believing everything you read until doing due diligence - just like reporters need to check their sources.
I believe that the fines in Fort Lee are for jaywalking - whether or not smartphones are involved.
Evidently, "More than 20 of their pedestrians have been hit by cars in 2012. In just six weeks, they've fined 117 texters."
Hey we're talking about New Jersey, a state that outlawed runny eggs a while back, no sunny side up eggs. It's since been rescinded but NJ is like a foreign country.
Good idea for drivers, but ridiculous for pedestrians.
Good idea for drivers, but ridiculous for pedestrians.
My guess is the idea is to try and protect people from themselves, if they are walking and not watching where they are going. I say let them be, if the wander out into the path of a moving vehicle so be it.
Maybe they are trying to break into the top ten Darwin Awards. I feel the same way about outlawing texting while driving. If you survive the wreck you cause then you should loose your license for 5 or 10 yrs plus a very hefty fine. 2nd wreck you loose it for life. But let folks do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Prior restraint only works in the mind of liberals.
Another revenue source for Fort Lee.
worst drivers in the country, the place that 50% of the adults surveyed said they'd leave if they could, knows what's best for you...Comraden!
Hmmmmm.... this revenue generating stuff is really getting ridiculous...REALLY? !!!
More revenue for sure.
To figure out what this thread has to do with GPSs but maybe they were texting their coordinates from the GPS on their smartphone !
People have not had much opportunity recently to rant about poor government, revenue grabbing, etc. This gives them the opportunity.
I'm trying hard To figure out what this thread has to do with GPSs but maybe they were texting their coordinates from the GPS on their smartphone !
That's why it's in Open Talk. As the Borg Queen once stated, it's for any topic not necessarily GPS related.
Since talking causes distracting to the brain processes required for safe driving, many locales are considering banning driving while talking on cell phone even if hands free. I wonder when they will try and pass laws banning all talking while driving? When they do, I guess we'll all have to install a system similar to Get Smart's cone of silence!
Thanks gosh we don't get all the government we pay for!
My error ! Didn't see that it was in Open Talk forum !
I work in Public Health and routinely deal with good ideas gone bad... like runny eggs (rooster juice ).
I feel it is important that people be aware of hazards (like eating runny eggs or texting while walking), and are able to do something to address those hazards to protect themselves. This is a good idea.
But then supporters of a "good idea" feel that the desired response is not happening quickly enough or broadly enough - so they make it a law. And then ENFORCEMENT of that law becomes more important than the good idea.
Then you have police officers chasing people staring at their smartphones or disguising themselves as bums on street corners to catch drivers eating a rotisserie chicken (another humourous story).
built in to our cell phones?
If you drive a car I'll tax the street ........
I'm sure someone, somewhere is working on a breathing tax.
Probably here in Maryland.
You cannot legislate stupidity.
All hail the Nanny State!
You should also get a ticket if you text in your house. You could knock over flowers or something.
This is awesome. Just a few more laws and everyone will be a criminal.
Too many politicians with too much time on their hands. They don't want to tackle the tough problems like deficits etc. so they punt to silly little stuff in a vein attempt to show the public that they are doing there job. It's our fault, if we keep voting these jokers in, we get what we deserve.
Besides coming up with lame ways to get into the citizen's pockets this shows that instead of tackling real pressing issues of the community/state, that politician's have way too much time on their hands. They have nothing else to do but come up with stupid laws too pass away their time and draw their paychecks.
Time to thin the herd.
If that's all they can do, do we really need that many useless politicians sucking the tax coffers dry?
No shocker, just home they keep the silly laws on the east coast...and not here.
here we have another example of how easily people will believe a far out claim that "confirms" their core beliefs - in spite of whether there was any truth to the claim.
At least one news service that leaped on the initial bandwagon has taken the step of correcting the misimpression.
When will they have tickets for texting while sitting?
Sounds like a screw loose conservative conclusion to me.
Prior restraint only works in the mind of liberals.
Not trying to be cute here, but I do not understand what is meant by "prior restraint".
Would you expand on this concept, please? Or, give some examples of other "prior restraint".
What happens if someone you know gets killed because they were texting while driving and lived. How will will feel then?
Every state has drunk driving laws. How is that working out? It is a much bigger problem than texting while walking or driving for that matter.
Nearly 11,000 deaths related to alcohol-impaired driving still occur each year in the United States, despite a three-decade surge in anti-drunken driving activism, stricter laws and clever slogans like “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” There are more than 110 million instances of impaired driving each year.
That is pretty funny
All hail the Nanny State!
I was born in Trenton...left in 1971 when my parents moved to Bucks...never looked back. Remember that huge controversy when Pennsy hung the signs "America Starts Here" on the PA side of all the bridges? LOL
if Anarchy would really be that bad
Thanks for the link, but I do not see how the issue of censorship relates in the context of either "texting while walking" or to "jaywalking"
I assumed that jackj180 meant "prevent a 'bad thing' from happening", as opposed to "let the 'bad thing' happen and then deal with it afterward".
As always, follow the money. You didn't think city street cleaning was about clean streets did you? LOL.
Probably not the best term for "Making an activity that is harmless illegal because it might hurt someone". We could expand on that concept and outlaw knives because someone could get hurt cutting their steak. Or we could outlaw pants because some folks fall when they try to put their pants on while standing. Come to think, we could solve that by making it illegal to put your pants on while standing.
"Mind of a liberal" - contradiction in terms. See above.
Passing a law doesn't eliminate the activity.
"Making an activity that is harmless illegal because it might hurt someone".
Thanks for the clarification. However, in an earlier post you also said
I feel the same way about outlawing texting while driving. If you survive the wreck you cause then you should loose your license for 5 or 10 yrs plus a very hefty fine. 2nd wreck you loose it for life. But let folks do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.
Without pre-emptive intervention, or "prior restraint", or whatever we choose to call it, the consequences of the [negligent] driver's first (and perhaps second) texting-while-driving offenses are likely to be borne by innocent third parties: the people he maims or kills in the "wrecks" that he himself manages to survive.
the renowned 20th century philosopher Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does."
Passing laws against stupidity drags the lawmaker down to the same level as the perpetrator. You can't legislate against stupidity and trying to do so is just as bad.
You can't legislate against stupidity and trying to do so is just as bad.
...but surely you can see the difference between something stupid I might do that could hurt me and something stupid I might do that could hurt (or kill) you, right?
And passing a law against stupidity stops the behavior in what way? Like I stated, passing laws against stupidity either elevates the stupidity to where it is acceptable or lowers the lawmaker to the level of the act.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2016