Honolulu Targets 'Smartphone Zombies' With Crosswalk Ban (reuters.com) 170
Templer421 shares news from Reuters:
A ban on pedestrians looking at mobile phones or texting while crossing the street will take effect in Hawaii's largest city in late October, as Honolulu becomes the first major U.S. city to pass legislation aimed at reducing injuries and deaths from "distracted walking." The ban comes as cities around the world grapple with how to protect phone-obsessed "smartphone zombies" from injuring themselves by stepping into traffic or running into stationary objects. Starting Oct. 25, Honolulu pedestrians can be fined between $15 and $99, depending on the number of times police catch them looking at a phone or tablet device as they cross the street, Mayor Kirk Caldwell told reporters gathered near one of the city's busiest downtown intersections on Thursday... People making calls for emergency services are exempt from the ban... Opponents of the Honolulu law argued it infringes on personal freedom and amounts to government overreach.
Meanwhile, the city of London has tried putting pads on their lamp posts "to soften the blow for distracted walkers."
Meanwhile, the city of London has tried putting pads on their lamp posts "to soften the blow for distracted walkers."
Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't pull your eyes away from your phone long enough to safely cross a street... whoever hits you is helping Darwin and they're the one and only person getting my sympathy.
Legislation SHOULD be passed... freeing the motorist from liability.
Re:Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with laws like this is that they're useless and backwards. Pedestrians looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem. They cross the street, and they're done. The problem is people unintentionally crossing a street while looking at their phones. It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
Re: Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So your concern is that increasing publicity decreases the likelihood of scoring points in the future? :D
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. Inattentive pedestrians are the problem here. If you need to check the phone, STOP FOR A GODDAMN SECOND! If you walk without looking where the fuck you're going, whatever happens, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what kind of cities those people live in, but around here the streets are black and the sidewalks aren't. If that big of a difference doesn't register in your peripheral vision when you're looking down at your phone while walking, I don't know what will.
Re:Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:4, Informative)
(people) looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem. .
the problem is people crossing a street while looking at their phones
. Wait. What?
It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
Our council has installed flashing red lights embedded into the road right on the kerbside [smh.com.au] specifically to target screen zombies. It still doesn't help.
The problem is absolutely people concentrating on their devices instead of the potential danger around them. I ride a motorbike and I almost hit these people every_single_day. I've actually broken my horn button from using it so much to get these fuckwits to pay attention.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The mayor of a local suburban city nearly mowed down a pedestrian who just stepped out
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is people unintentionally crossing a street while looking at their phones. It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
That's called natural selection.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do we have to create new laws that contain the words "phone" and "tablet"?
Sadly because that's just how litigious our society has become. Look no further than our patent system. How may obvious/previously done patents are there that add "on a computer/phone/tablet"?
I'm thinking that someone will eventually turn this around and use it as a defense at some point. I can see the defense lawyer now:
Yes your honor, my client agrees, he did kill the victim. However my client was on his phone at the time, which the phone records clearly show in defense exhibit B. The infraction which m
Re:Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
It's worth noting the fault tends to the get directed at the driver as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to protect the motorist. Even if the pedestrian completely deserved to be removed from the gene pool, accidentally killing someone who walks into the street is quite traumatic and the idiots looking at their phones shouldn't have the right to inflict that on a random stranger.
Not to mention my insurance. If they cant get money from the other party because they're dead or permanently disabled and unable to work... I have to pay and possibly lose my NCD.
Beyond that, most pedestrians wont die, rather they'll have a debilitating injury or disability that will make them a burden on the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to look at it is if someone staring at their phone walks off a cliff, is it the cliffs fault for being there? Is it the property owners fault because the phone zombie ignored multiple signs and possibly walked over a rope fence?
Re: (Score:2)
The cliff and the rope aren't actively dangerous. Motor vehicles are. It's the driver's responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and act accordingly. If there's a lot of people around, such as in a downtown setting, then a very low speed is appropriate, despite what the speed limit might be.
More comparable situations would be someone throwing darts or knives in their front lawn, and some kit wanders by and gets struck. "I feel terrible" isn't going to get you out of being prosecuted. Same for s
Re: (Score:1)
They should leave it legal to use cross-walks like they do but deny E.R. services to anyone injured while doing it. And of course have that person or their estate automatically be held responsible for paying for any damages done to any vehicle/passengers that hits them while they do it.
Ok, you're an asshole (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I find that in my suburbs along the major roads that there are a lot of people who don't expect there to be pedestrians using the crosswalks with the lights. At least a couple of times a year I'll nearly get hit by some person turning right as I'm going to go straight across. Sometimes the ones that see me in time to stop get upset because I interrupted their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's depressing the number of people who are on here that think people should die just because they are doing something stupid. I wish I could believe that they are making a stupid remark but given the changes in the world the last five years there have some truly awful people crawling out from the stones they were living.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of posters who actually think people should die (for doing something stupid) is, in reality, probably very small. The number of posters who think the aforementioned people should stop doing the something stupid is much much higher, because if those people don't stop they will end up dying, and it will be their own fault.
Furthermore, in carrying out their stupid suicides they may well 'cause' serious emotional trauma in the other person(s) involved. Nobody in their right mind wants to run someone
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you may have the right of way, which only helps you if you file
Re: (Score:2)
i see these sort of people all the time.. so focused on their phone they are not paying attention to what is going on around them.
Be it busy downtown streets, train stations.. places you might want to pay some attention to avoid personal injury.
I've always been curious as to just what is so interesting that it cant wait 30 seconds for them to cross the street safely??
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't pull your eyes away from your phone long enough to safely cross a street... whoever hits you is helping Darwin and they're the one and only person getting my sympathy.
Legislation SHOULD be passed... freeing the motorist from liability.
As a man who has just picked up a new 2 series (and paid his insurance) Darwin wont help me when a careless zombie embeds themself in my engine bay. You cant really get money from a dead person (who probably has more debts than savings by an order of magnitude).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:4, Insightful)
all of which cars do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, how about everybody obey the law and we crack down on those who don't, regardless of their mode of transportation.
But bike very rarely kills (I am sure somebody can fish out a few cases) whereas cars kills by the ten thousands per years, not counting heavy casualty.
Uh...in 2016, the number was 6,000 (which is up from around 4,500 in 2010). Not "by the tens of thousands."
And while you're right that cyclists kill significantly fewer, keep in mind that there also significantly fewer bicyclists. For example, based on a study in England, while vehicles kill or seriously injure 5x the number that cyclists do, they're actually right around the same p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, read the fine print.
National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes last year.
That's not 40,000 pedestrians.
If I was driving too fast on wet pavement, lost control of my car, slammed into a tree and died, I would have been one of those 40,000. If I had a hit a pedestrian on the way, we would be 2 of those 40,000.
Those 40,000 people include pedestrians hit by cars (around 6,000) and cyclists hit by cars (818 in 2015), accounting for about 18%. The other 33,000 or so people were driving a car or riding in a car when they were killed.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
How many of those accidents were caused by bikers not following the rules of the road? I ride a motorcycle daily (it's my only transport). Including riding up from Ventura to San Francisco 2-3 times a month; I average 3500 miles a month on my motorcycle - 65% of that in urban situations, in LA, SF, and Ventura. I see dozens of near-collisions monthly, and 90% of them are the biker not following the rules of the road. And they regularly blast through crosswalks (illegally - when peds are still in the cro
Re: (Score:3)
The first thing that needs to happen is the conflict between cyclists and motorists has to go away. Each side blames the other. For the most part I'm a pedestrian but I cycle a bit too. I'm one of those few cyclists that obey the traffic laws. I probably ride my bike better than most people drive and the reason I don't drive is because I would follow the rules too closely and it would cause me too much frustration dealing with other drivers.
There are plenty of bad drivers of both sides and they need to shap
Re:Maybe I am an asshole but (Score:4, Informative)
But I would be willing to gamble that 90% or more of cyclists who are killed by cars are actually in the wrong, per traffic laws. .
I'll take that bet. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/... [adelaidenow.com.au] Sure this is from my neck of the woods, but I'm sure road user behaviour in your location isn't that much different.
Re: (Score:1)
But I would be willing to gamble that 90% or more of cyclists who are killed by cars are actually in the wrong, per traffic laws
Reading comprehension needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution might be to build a nice solid wall around every pedestrian.
Re: (Score:2)
And make Mexico pay for it!
Re: (Score:2)
>this is getting me more and more wanting a front and back viewing camera for my car.
They're dirt cheap (compared to the price of a car, insurance, or even a dozen tanks of gas) if you buy one from China. It's a pain to wire them in, but worth it.
Just make sure you get one with a good, low lux rating and a wide viewing angle. GPS tagging is also nice, as is an inertial sensor so it can detect an impact and protect the recording. And you're going to want to look into how easy it is to export a particul
I see these dumb motherfuckers all over Boston (Score:1)
If you're not smart enough to pay attention to what's going on around you in a BUSY GODDAMN CITY LIKE BOSTON, then you don't belong in the gene pool.
Re: I see these dumb motherfuckers all over Boston (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to break it to you, but pedestrians always have the right of way
No they don't.
Re:I see these dumb motherfuckers all over Boston (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
a defining cultural shift of recent times (Score:1)
So I grew up in the 1950's, when there was one phone company in the whole of the United States, and phones were large, heavy, corded objects.
I'm all for the mobile revolution, except in certain particulars. Of course not all phone users do these things, but plenty enough to instill what I see as a significant negative cultural impact:
- People go out to socialize with others, but they don't. They are all heads-down in their phones, ignoring the people they are with, or at best, Facebooking back and forth
Re: (Score:2)
This is deeply offensive. According to this well-respected source [quora.com], gnats have the deliberate-continuity advantage at 3.4 seconds. So, take your comment back, bzzzzzzz!
Re: (Score:2)
And someone forgot to take their Ritalin this morning. I'm guessing you didn't even read his whole post.
Football CTE effect (Score:5, Insightful)
In response to American football players being injured, they developed better helmet technology to soften the blow. This resulted in football players hitting each other harder, which we now suspect has led to endemic CTE among football players [wikipedia.org].
The more effective solution would be to electrify the lamp posts so they give you a safe but unpleasant shock if you walk into them (since apparently the blow isn't enough to discourage people from not watching where they are going). OTOH, if you wish to accept that people are going to text while on the sidewalk but wish to avoid collisions, the better solution is a moving walkway [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
if you wish to accept that people are going to text while on the sidewalk
TFS says this fine is imposed on people crossing the street. Text/talk all you want up on the sidewalk.
Re: (Score:3)
The more effective solution would be to electrify the lamp posts so they give you a safe but unpleasant shock if you walk into them (since apparently the blow isn't enough to discourage people from not watching where they are going).
Since the electronic device is the root of the problem, the voltage should be high enough to damage the device. This would eliminate the problem of repeat offender devices. It is not sufficient to simply electrocute the operator of the device, as some other operator could pick up the device and continue to cause problems.
Re: (Score:1)
lol
Re: (Score:3)
How can people still be foolish enough to include this in news articles without checking the facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the BS fed to people during the last elections in the UK and the US and the Brexit referendum and you have to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the city of London has tried putting pads on their lamp posts "to soften the blow for distracted walkers."
There is an ICD-10 diagnosis code for designating injuries as having been caused by walking into a lamp post:
ICD-10 diagnosis W22.02XA: Walked into lamppost, initial encounter.
ICD-10 diagnosis W22.02XD: Walked into lamppost, subsequent encounter.
For those people who get up and bump into it again.
Re: (Score:2)
In response to American football players being injured, they developed better helmet technology to soften the blow. This resulted in football players hitting each other harder,
I always wondered why American football was so obsessed with pads and helmets. Being a Rugby player I'd be interested in watching an NFL game with all the same rules but no protection. I think it would make the game more interesting because it requires more technique to execute a big hit on the other guy without injuring yourself.
I'm guessing it would also lead to a net reduction in serious injuries since self preservation would now become a concern (maybe?)
"...looking at mobile phones OR texting..." (Score:2)
Better idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of a monetary penalty, just close their most active social media account each time they get caught. ;)
Wrong Penalty (Score:2)
Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be celebrating the death of the low-I.Q. members of our societies [darwinawards.com], not protect them!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get the popcorn for the word of yours.
This Legislation Paid for by: Auto Insureres Union (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
what? those 350 lbs+ land whales brushing both sides of the aisle as they clutch their cookies and snack cakes on the way to checkout with their food stamps don't?
So, I guess I get to feel old today (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was a kid, before pre-teens had cell phones, I read books while walking home from school. I had a number of close calls with vehicles when crossing streets while reading Asimov or Clarke. I almost want to take a trip to Honolulu with a few paperbacks just to publicly mock the fact that this legislation doesn't actually fix the problem it tries to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. We all know that the smartphone created the concept of inattentiveness and is what broke down social structures. Certainly people never did things like read books or newspapers. /sarcasm
That's not the City of London (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never heard of an entire metro area being colloquially referred to by the name of the central city?
Of course if you were looking closely, they did not capitalize city, meaning it was used descriptively rather than nominatively.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say an American does tend to write in American form. If you're referring to a city, you might often say "city of xxx" and it's not based on where the city is but rather where the speaker is from. Whether it's in the article or not, it wasn't incorrect unless you assume the summary was written by a British person - and even then it's more difficult to understand, not incorrect.
Sounds like a video game (Score:5, Funny)
Smartphone Zombies
Drivers get points added for hitting pedestrians on phones, points subtracted for hitting those without.
Only one part of the problem (Score:3)
I live in Honolulu and I walk all the time. I am careful about obeying crosswalk laws and I pay attention when crossing because my life depends on it.
Certainly I agree pedestrians shouldn't be texting, etc., while crossing, and Honolulu has a terrible problem with pedestrian fatalities (highest in the nation for senior citizen pedestrians).
But the city consistently fails to do anything about cars running lights. At any major intersection, when the 'walk' light comes on, I don't dare start to cross right away because there are always one or more cars racing through the intersection, running the red light. And the walk light stays on for exactly seven seconds at most intersections; it's illegal to start crossing once the white light goes off and the red countdown light starts.
The city considered red light cameras but rejected the idea. Of course, they bring in a host of other problems and abuses, but pedestrians won't be safe as long as drivers run lights and ignore crosswalks. Texting while crossing is just one part of the problem. But in a city that favors cars over every other mode of transportation, legislating against pedestrians will be what you see happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
I'll admit to staring at my phone and the "Walk" light. When the "Walk" light comes on, I step out because cars are supposed to stop. I shouldn't have to look left or right.
Re: (Score:2)
The car is a ton of speeding metal. The fact that you were in the right won't be much consolation.
Fuck wasting money on this. (Score:2)
As cities struggle to figure out how much taxpayer money will be wasted protecting the stupid, I struggle as to how this will run counter to the concept of survival of the fittest.
In short, fuck those who are smart enough to operate a phone and yet too dumb and ignorant to grasp the dangers of the world around them. Let Darwin do his work already.
Goddamit. (Score:2)
I personally believe that this ongoing mission to eliminate all forms of natural selection and safeguard more and more stupid people is actually a bad thing for the human race going forward..
Re: (Score:1)
You make it sound like this is a bad thing.
It's important for the survival of democracy in its current form that it should be easy to drown out every objection voiced by directing the unified zombie horde to chant 'braaaaaaaiiiiiiins' at the appropriate moment. This kind of facility doesn't just appear without planning!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I think you hit the nail well and truly on the head my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
a human seated in a couple tons or more of steel, plastic and glass going tens of kilometers per hour or more isn't natural, nor is having to watch out for such. Maybe making pedestrians and humans driving vehicles share the same pavement is bad engineering and dangerous to human life even before phones are brought into the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
>> nor is having to watch out for such.
Of course it is.
The common sense to not step into place of potentially fatal danger without first at least checking is basic survival as old as life itself.
Re: (Score:2)
of course you're wrong
nothing in human evolution for situation of vehicles at full speed with engine noise masked by city environment approaching. just as the myriads of animals killed by vehicles attest
your level of obtuseness is appalling
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because then you get blood on the posters and new posters have to be put up. It's a waste of paper. Think of the trees! Why won't anyone think of the trees! /s
This is good! (Score:2)
This is a good thing and a logical progression with regulating new technologies. Just as when cars were invented, there were very few laws, and lots of injuries and accidents, so too with any new technology society must develop new norms. Having almost run down an iPod zombie years ago, this law can't be adopted fast enough across all 50 states. At the very least, it will make the entire population aware that before crossing the street, they must disengage from their technology and then "look both ways"
Up next (Score:1)
Plans to target road zombies and supermarket zombies are afoot.
"All drivers will be required by law to be conscious whilst driving or face stiff penalties! How is that reasonable? I mean, if I've got a licence, I should be able to <looks away to play with phone, motions with hand to indicate this is a temporary interruption, never re-connects with the current arc of continuity>" a disgruntled driver responded after news of the draconian laws broke last week in California.
Glad to hear only phones and tablets. (Score:2)
stats for U.S. phone distraction accidents (Score:2)
68% of the victims are male
67% under the age of 30
Apple needs to step up here (Score:2)
In iOS 11, Apple is implementing Do Not Disturb For Driving, in which your iPhone will stop sending and receiving texts if you are in your car and it's moving.
I propose Do Not Disturb For Pedestrians, in which your GPS location while in urban areas is continually checked against Apple Maps. When you're in a street, your display is replaced by a big red LOOK UP banner.
Don't pad poles. (Score:2)
It's an addiction (Score:2)
Need I say more?
Here's one: how 'bout zombiephones keep track of where you are, and pause when you're in the street?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's because it's expensive for everyone when a motorist runs one of them down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet you've made it this far. You have the compassion and IQ of a hockey puck. I hope that if you are ever in need of help that the people around you are better than you are because you will be in serious trouble if they are anything like you.
Re: (Score:2)
The average person won't run someone down in the street with their car if they can avoid it 99.9% of the time, but that doesn't mean they give a rats ass about people other than maybe abstractly. The only difference is I don't pretend to I care. I also go out of my way to not to have to rely on other people, because frankly most people are not very reliable. If you live your life waiting for everyone else to bail you out/rescue you when it counts
Re:More not fewer ways for these idots to get hurt (Score:4, Interesting)
No it's expensive if there is socialized medicine. Otherwise it's just a little bit of body work and a good wash for the car and the street and things are good as new. The world in general is better off minus one moron.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the broken window fallacy as a human being. Kind of.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more about not socializing the costs of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
random people walking around minding their own business.
You mean endangering others around them.
Justification for theft. (Score:2)
That's the justification given, but in reality Honolulu PD already gives out $300 tickets for jaywalking. Not during the day when town is busy and plenty of people are crossing the street on red when they can do so safely. No... HPD gives out tickets at quiet times, when there's little to no traffic, hence zero justification for safety, and it's easy to single out the few pedestrians who are around.
Re: (Score:2)
Government jerks found a new excuse to steal $15 to $99 from random people walking around minding their own business.
So whats the cost to public services if someone gets run down?
Re: (Score:2)
Government jerks found a new excuse to steal $15 to $99 from random people walking around minding their own business.
"The government" here is you and me. They simply represent us. And since "we" (as a society) need revenue to function, "we" need to decide where best to get this income.
Personally I am happy for it to be taken from stupid people rather than myself. And they are not "minding their own business" they are being injured and negatively impacting the lives of others. This is the best type of reason for taking money off citizens and into the public purse.
Re: (Score:2)
Government jerks found a new excuse to steal $15 to $99 from random people walking around minding their own business.
Yes, but they're stealing it from careless, inconsiderate, phone addled jerks.
This reduces their requirement to extract money from me, being perfectly capable of not stupidly walking out in front of cars because I've stupidly buried my head in my phone.
This is a tax on stupid jerks... I'm in no way unhappy with that.
Re: (Score:1)
The phone's screen should be disabled when a walking gait is detected via the phone's accelerometer.
ProTip: send 15% of revenue generated from this idea to me at <sound of pedestrian being run down and screeching tires>.