Honolulu fines pedestrians for viewing phone while crossing street
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I just wanted to say that use of phones by pedestrians in certain situations is unsafe and problematic. However, use of phones by drivers is a much bigger problem that has much more serious consequences and is not addressed in any way.
(As I recall, there are many signs in Manhattan announcing large fines for the unnecessary use of an automobile's horn. There is also a lot of noise from horns. It could be that the horns one hears are prudently warning other drivers or pedestrians, but I suspect that they indicate drivers' levels of frustration.)
As somebody says farther down, such a law cannot possibly be enforced uniformly, and is open to selective enforcement.
A neighbor's car was totaled in a rear-end collision. He's pretty sure that the person who hit him was looking at a phone.
This is another law aimed at making pedestrians second-class citizens. Instead of protecting pedestrians, these laws protect drivers, because they put the onus of safety on the pedestrians, who are the actual victims of the drivers.
I like the other cities who actually put in signals to the pedestrians, like the lights on the floor, or signs in the way of the pedestrians who are crossing the street. But an even better protection would be bollards that emerge out of the street to prevent cars from running red lights and hitting pedestrians, or other cars when drunk driving. But that might shine a light on the actual cause of death - the vehicle - rather than the responsibility of a passenger to keep a seat belt on, or a pedestrian to not use their phone.
I wish more people knew about this. I've had a guy treat me like a tin-foil-hat wearer when I brought it up. It really pissed me off, "It's not a conspiracy theory you ignorant jerk."
I really wish NYC would have something like this.
I don't get it either. Either stop (and get out of the way) to look at your phone or walk. Don't walk an one-third pace. It's pointless and annoying.
Much like texting while driving I think the majority of offenders believe they can look at their phone without it impacting what they're doing. it's alsmot universally wrong.
I swear people here have no concept of what terrible walkers they are.. taking up the whole sidewalk, that _single_ guy walking up the left side when everyone else is coming the opposite way on the right, making all of them get out of the way, the people who just stop walking, turn around, and run into you.
It's really annoying, but I don't think you can just ad-hoc legislate it. We have tons of things that were made illegal in NYC and a tiny amount of the laws actually get enforced. As others have said, this can lead to laws only being enforced on people the police already want to harass, and everyone else doing it on a regular basis.
In addition, with our Vision Zero goals, there are so many other things to focus enforcement and government bandwidth on. Hundreds of people are still being killed by reckless drivers every year. If we can solve that, then we can focus on getting people to be less annoying when walking around.
The scale of it is like stopping on the freeway to take a photo of a billboard. It holds everyone up because you put yourself above the people around you. It's rude.
Phones are a large part of it, and they are affecting all kinds of things: At bus stops people now try to get on the bus without waiting for the people getting off to exit first. It doesn't make any sense but they do it. And on every single bus there's at least one person watching TV or listening to (invariable bad) music without headphones.
So it's not just cars but car traffic is bad too.
A huge factor is the Lyft/Uber drivers. You see a lot of weird maneuvers and crazy shit these days, and it's almost always one of them. Some one is driving slow and turning their turn signals on and off? It's an uber driver looking for their pickup. Car camped in a crosswalk with no signals or blinkers? Uber driver. Etc...
I believe there's a bleed-over effect where people see others doing stupid shit and then they start to think that's the way things are and do stupid shit themselves. It becomes the new norm. I was bummed out to see the other day a police officer roll through a stop sign looking at his phone. He glanced up as he entered the intersection, at least. ;-(
People don't want to drive well.
I hate when drivers "play chicken" with me at intersections. I've had drivers wave me forward to cross in front of them while they were still rolling. No thank you. You stop and I'll go, or you go and I'll wait (and to hell with right-of-way.)
More topically, anyone who crosses the street without paying attention has a bit of a death wish or something. I doubt a fine is going to help much.
In Australia it's socially acceptable to barge into people doing this, same with people two abreast on the escalator. Not everyone has the build to do it, but there are enough to largely keep those people in check. The music thing doesn't seem to happen much, but sometimes the TV thing does with kids. There is a plague of people constantly having conversations on their phones though, I don't feel bad about any music leaking from my headphones because it's needed to drown out their conversations.
> I hate when drivers "play chicken" with me at intersections. I've had drivers wave me forward to cross in front of them while they were still rolling. No thank you. You stop and I'll go, or you go and I'll wait (and to hell with right-of-way.)
I see this more on my push bike, I'm not waiting for them to stop, just to slow down a bit as an indication that they've seen me (a lesson learned the hard way). They're failure to do this slows both of us down.
I've been tempted.
That in and of itself should signal that we aren't quite as "democratic" as we are told. We are allowed to vote on people who vote on things on our behalf - we are never allowed to vote on laws such as this one(otherwise, it would likely fail).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
As opposed to the form where voters vote on laws and policies directly:
It's another to regularly use that camera footage for petty crimes like j-walking or cell-phone-walking.
It's not just an argument though -- it's a real struggle that impacts people (often minorities) daily.
1) Proof of the officers initial training with the device
2) Proof of the officers required continued training with the device
3) Proof of device's regular scheduled maintenance
4) Proof of training(initial and continued) of the person(s) who performed said maintenance
They got as far as item #2, couldn't provide it, and folded. I paid my attorney roughly the same cost I would have paid the court. Any "savings" would be the increase in my insurance costs that never happened.
If you can't afford an attorney, you are screwed. The "system" is about generating municipal income, not keeping anyone safe on the roads.
But presumably you were actually speeding?
> ”Yet the article barely addressed what laws currently address this in Hawaii, if any.”
I think this is a bit unfair. Articles are not exhaustive dissertations on a topic. They have some scope that the writer and editor determines is appropriate for the context. That may or may not match the scope you expect. Then again, the article may just be poorly written. If you were to look into this more deeply yourself and put together a piece yourself, I’m sure there are others (even on HN), that would find it interesting.
However I don't think fines are the right way to go. Signs and advertising campaigns would be better. Fines just violate the social contract. You're also not really hurting anyone else but yourself. In the fight or car vs person, the car is going to win .. I mean, unless you get hit by a cyclist.
In several states, if you're above a certain age (to exempt children) and walk into the path of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk, fault will be assigned to you and the driver in equal amounts (unless the driver is speeding, in which case they accumulate more fault).
At least in Britain, roughly the first driving lesson begins with looking all around for other road users. Speed must be reduced if there's an increased risk of inattentive pedestrians, such as near parked cars around a school or houses.
A lot of the time people are looking at their phones, and look as if they aren't intending to cross, and in the midst of looking at a screen, suddenly out of nowhere, step into the street and start crossing, eyes still glued to the screen.
I do fear there will be an uptick in problems with EVs, though, that don't have pedestrian warning sounds added and people not looking because they hear nothing and expect to hear an engine (experienced this a little bit in parking lots during my time driving a Leaf). But we'll see what happens I guess.
Slowing other pedestrians, endangering bicyclists and yourself, and putting drivers at risk of a traumatic experience due to your recklessness violates the social contract, not fines for anti-social/rude/unsafe or otherwise reckless behavior.
EDIT: Walking while texting or using your phone not held up to your ear? Receive a fine. Doing the same while driving? Lose your driver's license. These are the only ways to fix behaviors that show no regard for others causing a safety hazard.
- I was just checking the time
- Well check this ticket out
Joking aside. You have in your hand a device that is designed to be addictive, you have spent years nurturing that addiction, in fact society praises you for using the device. If you use it you get a ticket.
Yes I think it is super annoying when people are not looking where they are going, it can even be dangerous, but this rule does not solve the problem.
I think even a just in time reminder is more effective. We have these traffic lights that have audio:
"Please put away your phone while crossing"
Smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc. all seem to work pretty well despite the fact that many people really don't like these things.
Preventing you from looking at your phone while walking is not forced servitude.
If it were a federal law, perhaps it would violate the 10th amendment. But it's just a local thing.
Prohibiting you from using a phone is not taking your life.
Similarly, we ask people not to use HN primarily for politics or ideology. A certain amount is inevitable; more than a certain amount destroys the site for the things HN exists for.
So would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them when commenting here?