Legislating Common Sense - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SirSeymour · 02-07-2007, 11:37 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070207/...ewyork_ipod_dc

Quote:

New York may ban iPods while crossing street

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street.

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital. "This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand."

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

"I'm not trying to intrude on that," Kruger said. "But 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. It's becoming a nationwide problem."

Sorry but I have a real problem with this. The government should not be in the business of protecting the terminally stupid. If you are brain dead enough to run out into traffic without paying attention then you really should not be protected from doing the world a favor and removing yourself from the gene pool.

You could make the argument that the law is to protect those who would be emotionally harmed by hitting/killing the stupid person or that the law is protect the rest of society from the inconvenience that this sort of accident causes and I would be willing to listen. However, this law maker is trying to protect these folks from themselves and frankly I have an issue with it. I think the roll of the government is to protect the citizenry from threats that it cannot control. This is a threat that just a bit of common sense negates.

This is just one more law for an already over worked law enforcement community to try to enforce when they have much more important things to do.

pan6467 · 02-07-2007, 12:09 PM

Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed.

It's a joke to believe we have freedom to do anything. I heard the newest thing coming down the pike are health insurance companies telling you that you have to belong to a health club and attend several times a month, PLUS, not have alcohol or nicotine in your system plus your cholestrol cannot rise more than a certain number. IF you want to be insured by them....

And it's legal, because they are a private business and can insure who they want.

Now wait a minute..... a company can do this but not decide if they want their patrons to smoke? And the citizenry of this country smile, claim it's for the betterment of everyone else and accept getting ass fucked and have rights taken away, because they feel a tad bit safer now.

Death is inevitable, accidents are inevitable.... we cannot prevent either and to pass legislation taking away people's rights is fucked up.

It amazes me..... you think if we have a true war or problem in this country you're going to worry about whether the guy next to is smoking a cigarette? Or talking on a cellphone or listening to an IPod as they walk down the road?

People wait for extremes.... until then they don't give a damn about what rights they are losing.

FoolThemAll · 02-07-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed.

I agree with your sentiments on all of those issues, but it's possible for people to agree with certain restrictions on freedom while eschewing others. It's possible to move closer to an extreme without succumbing to it.

It's best, as I see it, to argue for/against these restrictions on a case-by-case basis. Slippery slopes are only really useful when someone makes an oversimplistic generalization (like, for instance, "the government should/shouldn't legislate morality") to show the consequences of taking that generalization seriously (like, for instance, tyranny/anarchy). Or maybe I'm missing some other valid uses... but that's what comes to mind right now.

Back to the OP.

For this case: it's dumb. Primarily because it's possible to walk across a street with an iPod without being a danger to yourself or others.

If actual damage is caused by a careless pedestrian, iPod or not, they should be held responsible. Of course.

The law's superfluous at best and needlessly intrusive at worst.

The_Jazz · 02-07-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I heard the newest thing coming down the pike are health insurance companies telling you that you have to belong to a health club and attend several times a month, PLUS, not have alcohol or nicotine in your system plus your cholestrol cannot rise more than a certain number. IF you want to be insured by them....

And it's legal, because they are a private business and can insure who they want.

First, this was discussed and discarded by the health insurance industry about 5 years ago because it's unworkable. There's no way that an insurance company can reasonably track this kind of information or make individual insureds do the exercises correctly. The cost to do the tests for alcohol and nicotine and cholestrol were deemed far too expensive to be worth it.

Second, the majority of Americans get their health insurance through group plans, and it's currently illegal in all 50 states for any health insurance company to exclude an individual from group coverage without consent of that individual. Sometimes prior issues may be excluded, but that's more of an example of an employer buying a cheap plan than anything else.

Third, insurance companies are private businesses and should be allowed to refuse any risk that they don't want. They should also be allowed to charge whatever rate they think is necessary. If you don't like it, find another insurance company. There are hundreds out there.

Finally, Pan, all of your other examples involve the health of people other than the individual (with the exception of transfat). That means they're public health hazards, and those have always been legislatable. As for transfat, it's been recently shown to be a very unhealthy substance, and there's a long tradition of legislating away unhealthy things (asbestos and lead, anybody?).

SirSeymour · 02-07-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed.

While I understand where you are going here I disagree with your examples. There is enough evidence now on second hand smoke to support legislation restricting where people can and cannot smoke so I really don't have an issue with is (of course, I am not a smoker either). You can make a similar arguement with cars. If a driver loses control or is not paying attention it is not just his/her life they are playing with but the lives all those driving or walking around them.

This proposed law just protects morons from themselves though.

While I am concerned about the whole "loss of freedom" issue I see this as more of a "drain on the system" issue. The legislature will have to take time to investigate this proposal, run it through the proper channels and vote on it. Then law enforcement will have to train their officers on what is and is not legal under the new law and how to most properly and effectively enforce it. All of this will be going on while the homeless are ignored, while the health care system continues to fall apart, while the public education system continues its decline, etc.

It just seems to me that lawmakers would rather mess with BS like this than actually work on the issues that are really defining this country today.

pan6467 · 02-07-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

First, this was discussed and discarded by the health insurance industry about 5 years ago because it's unworkable. There's no way that an insurance company can reasonably track this kind of information or make individual insureds do the exercises correctly. The cost to do the tests for alcohol and nicotine and cholestrol were deemed far too expensive to be worth it.

Second, the majority of Americans get their health insurance through group plans, and it's currently illegal in all 50 states for any health insurance company to exclude an individual from group coverage without consent of that individual. Sometimes prior issues may be excluded, but that's more of an example of an employer buying a cheap plan than anything else.

Third, insurance companies are private businesses and should be allowed to refuse any risk that they don't want. They should also be allowed to charge whatever rate they think is necessary. If you don't like it, find another insurance company. There are hundreds out there.

Finally, Pan, all of your other examples involve the health of people other than the individual (with the exception of transfat). That means they're public health hazards, and those have always been legislatable. As for transfat, it's been recently shown to be a very unhealthy substance, and there's a long tradition of legislating away unhealthy things (asbestos and lead, anybody?).

There is a nationally known insurance company right now that basically has told the company they insure they WILL NOT cover tobacco users (perhaps they will but they would charge more than the company could afford, IDK), they run nicotine tests every time the person visits their doctor.

The company itself tests for nicotine use on all applicants and will not hire those who test positive. (In Ohio, as are many states, it is a right to work state, the employer can hire or fire you for any reason they deem, provided it is not age, race, ethnic background, religion or handicap..... but then they can simply say, "you aren't a good fit in the position.")

This company also had their smoking employees go to mandatory stop smoking classes for 1 month.... after which anyone testing positive for tobacco was fired.

There was a newspaper article recently that stated more insurers in the state of Ohio are going to require nicotine tests on new hires and double or triple company rates for those companies that hire those people.

Same with fitness, companies in this area are now finding rates increased by 50-75% if their employees are not members of fitness clubs. Thus the employers are giving memberships to employees BUT they require employees to be there at least once a week.

EXCUSE ME. Nicotine is legal, ok, they don't do it in public now but at home.... the government is allowing industry to dictate what people can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes now. I have a choice to exercise or not, IT IS MY BODY.

It isn't the government we have to fear taking away our rights, it is the corporations and the people who turn blind eyes and "don't care because they get cheaper rates.... or the rule doesn't affect them."

Where and when does it stop???? We are allowing the corporations more rights and to dictate to the people what the people can do privately. IT IS WRONG. If the government made up any of the above, people would be crying foul.... but when your job is on the line.... you better not say a word.

Guess what people are going to die and get sick. You can claim these laws and rules are to keep insurance down... but that doesn't gibe because more people are on prescription drugs than ever before, more sick time is used than ever before, more people (and it is even harder than it was 10 years ago) are filing for medical disability and if you keep people alive longer that's more Social Security you'll be paying out.....

And you make all these hoops the people have to go through to just enjoy their life.... while industry can dump carcinogens into groundwater supplies, while industry can chug out all kinds of carcinogenic smokes.... and that's ok.... people won't get sick from industry.... but that cigarette 5 tables down, look out..... that guy driving and talking on his cellphone, look out....

Corporate America and the government have you so blinded in fear, hatred and follow the leader... it's truly scary what the future holds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirSeymour

While I understand where you are going here I disagree with your examples. There is enough evidence now on second hand smoke to support legislation restricting where people can and cannot smoke so I really don't have an issue with is (of course, I am not a smoker either). You can make a similar arguement with cars. If a driver loses control or is not paying attention it is not just his/her life they are playing with but the lives all those driving or walking around them.

This proposed law just protects morons from themselves though.

While I am concerned about the whole "loss of freedom" issue I see this as more of a "drain on the system" issue. The legislature will have to take time to investigate this proposal, run it through the proper channels and vote on it. Then law enforcement will have to train their officers on what is and is not legal under the new law and how to most properly and effectively enforce it. All of this will be going on while the homeless are ignored, while the health care system continues to fall apart, while the public education system continues its decline, etc.

It just seems to me that lawmakers would rather mess with BS like this than actually work on the issues that are really defining this country today.

I'm so to the point I truly don't care anymore. People vote for laws to take rights away, vote for legislators to sell this great new law that will take some rights away but it's ok because.... (insert promise and bullshit rationalization here)..... Fuck enforcing the laws we have....we need tax money so we'll not put these people in jail, we'll just fine the fuck out of them.

And the rights (AND YES THEY ARE RIGHTS..... NOT "PRIVELEGES") of small business owners and people that government doesn't want to legislate yet... they leave to insurance companies and lawsuits.

I am sick of the self righteous assholes who want to pick and choose other people's rights..... it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong and the fucks that allow it to happen sit there and smile until all of a sudden they lose a right.

I'm sorry if I am going off on a tangent, but in all honesty..... this law doesn't affect me.... so why should I care??????

Paq · 02-08-2007, 01:16 PM

While i think this is pretty stupid, i can see where they are coming from. While most of you say that someone who walks out in the street in a stupid manner is only hurting himself...well, you forget that there is a driver who has now killed someone and is facing manslaughter charges...and has to live with that trauma. i think they are just trying to cut down on stupid deaths.

however, you could extend that to say they are punishing the ones that survive the stupid act while nature takes care of the rest...so, in effect, punishing the ones who are intelligent enough to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time....

Then again, its' stupid and isn't going to help anything and is pretty pricey and just more ammo for people to use against the politicians involved.

just my quick thoughts on it. in short, i think it's stupid, but i can actually see why they would try to enact something.

as for the smoking thing...what happened to people's rights to breathe fresh air when in a restaurant or just in public? i know its' been discussed ad nauseum, but it's just my simpleminded take on that. Now, in someone's home, i really don't care at all unless there are kids involved, but still, even then, if someone wants to smoke, great. i think it's stupid, but i'i don't think anything should stand in their way...then again, i feel that way about most drugs. at that point, it doesn't affect me or the public at large.

as for corporations...bottom like is $$$, nothing else and i don't see how anyone can trust them any farther than that. i think they would run over anyone if the gov't didn't restrict some activities.

and as for health insurance..heck, there are millions without it...

I think that testing for nicotine is very risky bc of the public smoking sphere. I have never smoked in my life, but i'm exposed to enough that i'm sure i would fail a test to detect nicotine. i can honestly see why an insurance company would raise premiums for people who smoke. i mean, i know they raise them if you engage in risky behaviors, have a risky job, etc, so i don't think it's unreasonable for them to raise rates for smokers. heck, mine went up just bc i got a year older.

then again, this si all slippery slope stuff to me. I mean, if smoking is bad enough for rate increases, what about sugar, carbs, protein, lack of veggies, soft drinks, spicy foods, breathing within 50 miles of arizona, having sharp objects, running with scissors, having clumsy feet..well, you get the point.

so i'm obviously conflicted here, but i can see both sides of the issue. I do think, however, that there is an agenda against electronics in general. Early cars almost banned radios, cell phones are always under attack, in dash tvs have many laws against where they can be placed, and it's just the sheer number of distractions. I would hope common sense would take care of this in the long run.

Willravel · 02-08-2007, 01:51 PM

How many iPod related deaths and injuries per year? I don't see that addressed in the article. I'd guess little to none. Sorry, NY, that's stupid. At least smoking kills 1200 a day, so that warrants attention.

I think this is a case of bad prioritizing. Another distratcion tactic away from actual important stuff?

Paq · 02-08-2007, 02:15 PM

i forgot to mention that, will..

i saw 3 deaths mentioned in the article...i'm pretty sure more people die daily from more pressing issues..

actually, i think that's why i am confused that this is even up for debate.

Willravel · 02-08-2007, 02:38 PM

While those deaths are unfortunate to say the least, they don't represent as much a danger as, say, deaths from lightning strikes or shark attacks, which are incredibly rare. I'm with you, paq, why is this even being considered?

flstf · 02-08-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

and as for health insurance..heck, there are millions without it...

I think that testing for nicotine is very risky bc of the public smoking sphere. I have never smoked in my life, but i'm exposed to enough that i'm sure i would fail a test to detect nicotine. i can honestly see why an insurance company would raise premiums for people who smoke. i mean, i know they raise them if you engage in risky behaviors, have a risky job, etc, so i don't think it's unreasonable for them to raise rates for smokers. heck, mine went up just bc i got a year older.

I'm also conficted by these kinds of lifestyle choices being denied insurance, employment, etc.. It is not too hard to imagine being denied a job or insurance because you tested positive for nicotine even if you don't smoke. Perhaps those who live in polluted cities or down wind from power stations will also test positive for some harmful substances.

I wonder how many would be acceptable for insurance and employment if they are available only those who are healthy, exersize regularly, have no harmful substances in their body and live in a pollution free environment. I also imagine your genes can be tested to determine if you are likely to come down with any number of ailments. While companies have the right to deny employment and/or insurance for any reason, I hope they do not go too far with this thinking.

As far as the OP goes, I believe this to be a bad law. Not everything that is a good idea has to be enforced by laws.

seretogis · 02-09-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed.

It's a joke to believe we have freedom to do anything. I heard the newest thing coming down the pike are health insurance companies telling you that you have to belong to a health club and attend several times a month, PLUS, not have alcohol or nicotine in your system plus your cholestrol cannot rise more than a certain number. IF you want to be insured by them....

And it's legal, because they are a private business and can insure who they want.

Now wait a minute..... a company can do this but not decide if they want their patrons to smoke? And the citizenry of this country smile, claim it's for the betterment of everyone else and accept getting ass fucked and have rights taken away, because they feel a tad bit safer now.

Death is inevitable, accidents are inevitable.... we cannot prevent either and to pass legislation taking away people's rights is fucked up.

It amazes me..... you think if we have a true war or problem in this country you're going to worry about whether the guy next to is smoking a cigarette? Or talking on a cellphone or listening to an IPod as they walk down the road?

People wait for extremes.... until then they don't give a damn about what rights they are losing.

I agree 100% with everything in this post.

I want to expand upon one of pan's points a little though -- the last line. People wait for extremes, they do not expect them as they should. The government forming a nanny-state to wall in its citizenry is accepted up to the point where its idiocy is finally made undeniably apparent. This is why principles are important. People need to think long and hard about the purpose of government and object when government powers are overreaching, even if it benefits them. If people remain blissfully ignorant or shortsightedly selfish (in a bad way) they -- we -- are giving up ALL of our individual rights.

SirSeymour · 02-09-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I agree 100% with everything in this post.

I want to expand upon one of pan's points a little though -- the last line. People wait for extremes, they do not expect them as they should. The government forming a nanny-state to wall in its citizenry is accepted up to the point where its idiocy is finally made undeniably apparent. This is why principles are important. People need to think long and hard about the purpose of government and object when government powers are overreaching, even if it benefits them. If people remain blissfully ignorant or shortsightedly selfish (in a bad way) they -- we -- are giving up ALL of our individual rights.

I think the problem here is that the citizenry, not all but a vocal enough minority, is calling for the "nanny-state". We want someone to protect us from everything and we are training the following generations to be just like us. School districts won't fail students because they need to be protected from failure. CA is or was trying to pass a law that would make it illegal for parents to spank their children because apparently kids need to be protected from even legitimate corporal punishment. We learn early that government will protect us from whatever we want.

We have reached a point with our society that rather than face an issue and do something about it ourselves, it is easier to have government pass a law. Even if that law infringes on the rights or freedoms of many citizens. We would rather cede responsibilty for ourselves to some higher power while trading in our rights and freedoms in exchange.

Very sad, actually but I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. Personal responsibility is just not something most citizens understand or want today.

flstf · 02-10-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

There is a nationally known insurance company right now that basically has told the company they insure they WILL NOT cover tobacco users (perhaps they will but they would charge more than the company could afford, IDK), they run nicotine tests every time the person visits their doctor.

Gee, I wonder what they would do with guys like Obama, although I read he is trying to quit since running for President.

02-07-2007, 12:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Ah but you have been legislating smoking, cell phone use in cars, now you are starting trans fats and the worst part...... people keep voting for these laws to be passed. It's a joke to believe we have freedom to do anything. I heard the newest thing coming down the pike are health insurance companies telling you that you have to belong to a health club and attend several times a month, PLUS, not have alcohol or nicotine in your system plus your cholestrol cannot rise more than a certain number. IF you want to be insured by them.... And it's legal, because they are a private business and can insure who they want. Now wait a minute..... a company can do this but not decide if they want their patrons to smoke? And the citizenry of this country smile, claim it's for the betterment of everyone else and accept getting ass fucked and have rights taken away, because they feel a tad bit safer now. Death is inevitable, accidents are inevitable.... we cannot prevent either and to pass legislation taking away people's rights is fucked up. It amazes me..... you think if we have a true war or problem in this country you're going to worry about whether the guy next to is smoking a cigarette? Or talking on a cellphone or listening to an IPod as they walk down the road? People wait for extremes.... until then they don't give a damn about what rights they are losing. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-08-2007, 01:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	While i think this is pretty stupid, i can see where they are coming from. While most of you say that someone who walks out in the street in a stupid manner is only hurting himself...well, you forget that there is a driver who has now killed someone and is facing manslaughter charges...and has to live with that trauma. i think they are just trying to cut down on stupid deaths. however, you could extend that to say they are punishing the ones that survive the stupid act while nature takes care of the rest...so, in effect, punishing the ones who are intelligent enough to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.... Then again, its' stupid and isn't going to help anything and is pretty pricey and just more ammo for people to use against the politicians involved. just my quick thoughts on it. in short, i think it's stupid, but i can actually see why they would try to enact something. as for the smoking thing...what happened to people's rights to breathe fresh air when in a restaurant or just in public? i know its' been discussed ad nauseum, but it's just my simpleminded take on that. Now, in someone's home, i really don't care at all unless there are kids involved, but still, even then, if someone wants to smoke, great. i think it's stupid, but i'i don't think anything should stand in their way...then again, i feel that way about most drugs. at that point, it doesn't affect me or the public at large. as for corporations...bottom like is $$$, nothing else and i don't see how anyone can trust them any farther than that. i think they would run over anyone if the gov't didn't restrict some activities. and as for health insurance..heck, there are millions without it... I think that testing for nicotine is very risky bc of the public smoking sphere. I have never smoked in my life, but i'm exposed to enough that i'm sure i would fail a test to detect nicotine. i can honestly see why an insurance company would raise premiums for people who smoke. i mean, i know they raise them if you engage in risky behaviors, have a risky job, etc, so i don't think it's unreasonable for them to raise rates for smokers. heck, mine went up just bc i got a year older. then again, this si all slippery slope stuff to me. I mean, if smoking is bad enough for rate increases, what about sugar, carbs, protein, lack of veggies, soft drinks, spicy foods, breathing within 50 miles of arizona, having sharp objects, running with scissors, having clumsy feet..well, you get the point. so i'm obviously conflicted here, but i can see both sides of the issue. I do think, however, that there is an agenda against electronics in general. Early cars almost banned radios, cell phones are always under attack, in dash tvs have many laws against where they can be placed, and it's just the sheer number of distractions. I would hope common sense would take care of this in the long run. __________________ Live. Chris

02-08-2007, 02:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i forgot to mention that, will.. i saw 3 deaths mentioned in the article...i'm pretty sure more people die daily from more pressing issues.. actually, i think that's why i am confused that this is even up for debate. __________________ Live. Chris

02-08-2007, 01:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How many iPod related deaths and injuries per year? I don't see that addressed in the article. I'd guess little to none. Sorry, NY, that's stupid. At least smoking kills 1200 a day, so that warrants attention. I think this is a case of bad prioritizing. Another distratcion tactic away from actual important stuff?

02-08-2007, 02:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	While those deaths are unfortunate to say the least, they don't represent as much a danger as, say, deaths from lightning strikes or shark attacks, which are incredibly rare. I'm with you, paq, why is this even being considered?