Comments on: $100 Fine for Crossing the Street and Talking on the Phone http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:12:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-30623 Angus Grieve-Smith Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:08:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-30623 Regular Streetsblog readers will be familiar with the extreme "understanding" extended by the police, the D.A. and the press to motorists <b>when they actually kill someone</b>, regardless of right of way. Remember the SUV driver who used the excuse that it was impossible to see kids crossing the street from his Hummer? In this context, for Kruger and his supporters to make iPods into a big problem is, quite simply, blaming the victim and absolving motorists of any of the responsibility placed on them by the letter of the law. Regular Streetsblog readers will be familiar with the extreme "understanding" extended by the police, the D.A. and the press to motorists when they actually kill someone, regardless of right of way. Remember the SUV driver who used the excuse that it was impossible to see kids crossing the street from his Hummer? In this context, for Kruger and his supporters to make iPods into a big problem is, quite simply, blaming the victim and absolving motorists of any of the responsibility placed on them by the letter of the law.

]]> By: Doc Barnett http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-30621 Doc Barnett Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:49:35 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-30621 I know NYC right of way laws better than most motorists, going by their behavior, and I've never suggested that pedestrians have a "blanket right of way, all the time in all circumstances." The problem with the proposed law (is it dead?) and indie's comment is that they are at the opposite extreme, advocating restrictions (and penalties) that would apply to pedestrians <i>all the time, in all circumstances</i> and regardless of right of way. In my cynical assessment, it was all a ruse to shift blame for crashes to pedestrians whether they're law-abiding or not, and to make it easier for drivers to cut us off at crosswalks (either having the walk signal or where there is no signal) confidant in the knowledge that we could hear their illegally approaching motors and flee. (I'm borderline obsessed with these right of way thingies you say I should check up on.) I know NYC right of way laws better than most motorists, going by their behavior, and I've never suggested that pedestrians have a "blanket right of way, all the time in all circumstances." The problem with the proposed law (is it dead?) and indie's comment is that they are at the opposite extreme, advocating restrictions (and penalties) that would apply to pedestrians all the time, in all circumstances and regardless of right of way.

In my cynical assessment, it was all a ruse to shift blame for crashes to pedestrians whether they're law-abiding or not, and to make it easier for drivers to cut us off at crosswalks (either having the walk signal or where there is no signal) confidant in the knowledge that we could hear their illegally approaching motors and flee. (I'm borderline obsessed with these right of way thingies you say I should check up on.)

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29805 Lawrence Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:20:33 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29805 Hey Doc, I think you may have missed the point of 45. Pedestrians have the right of way within the crosswalk when they have the traffic light, or within a crosswalk at a stop sign. Pedestrians do not have a blanket right of way, all the time in all circumstances. Nor should they. You might want to check up on the traffic laws. The poster of comment 45 was mearly saying that peds have responsibilities too, and cannot always blame drivers (or cyclists). Hey Doc, I think you may have missed the point of 45.

Pedestrians have the right of way within the crosswalk when they have the traffic light, or within a crosswalk at a stop sign. Pedestrians do not have a blanket right of way, all the time in all circumstances. Nor should they. You might want to check up on the traffic laws.

The poster of comment 45 was mearly saying that peds have responsibilities too, and cannot always blame drivers (or cyclists).

]]> By: Doc Barnett http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29327 Doc Barnett Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:19:36 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29327 "it is important to remember that as a part of traffic, pedestrians do have responsibilities and cannot rely on pedestrian right of way at all times." Right of way is the law of the street, and it's everyone's fundamental responsibility to obey it. Use of the potential to kill to escape that responsibility (when it's inconvenient) is murderous. For us pedestrians, staying alive in the face of law-breaking, murderous drivers is a "responsibility" we may or may not have to ourselves, but it's none of your business either way. See you in the crosswalks. "it is important to remember that as a part of traffic, pedestrians do have responsibilities and cannot rely on pedestrian right of way at all times."

Right of way is the law of the street, and it's everyone's fundamental responsibility to obey it. Use of the potential to kill to escape that responsibility (when it's inconvenient) is murderous.

For us pedestrians, staying alive in the face of law-breaking, murderous drivers is a "responsibility" we may or may not have to ourselves, but it's none of your business either way. See you in the crosswalks.

]]> By: Steve http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29319 Steve Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:38:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29319 Hey Jimmy, check out comments 7, 11, 15 for some bicyclists' perspectives. Peds are the low-power, low-speed street users, we've to got yield to them. But it's OK to let them know when they do something stupid and dangerous. Hey Jimmy, check out comments 7, 11, 15 for some bicyclists' perspectives. Peds are the low-power, low-speed street users, we've to got yield to them. But it's OK to let them know when they do something stupid and dangerous.

]]> By: indie http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29318 indie Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:13:57 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29318 Although Kruger's law does seem somewhat silly, it is important to remember that as a part of traffic, pedestrians do have responsibilities and cannot rely on pedestrian right of way at all times. Drunk in public and gross negligence are both restrictions placed on pedestrians, which give some precedence to this new law, it is simply another way to make sure that the roadways are a safer place for all. Also, is trying to protect the few pedestrians stupid enough to walk into traffic with or without iPods really "anti-pedestrian". Although Kruger's law does seem somewhat silly, it is important to remember that as a part of traffic, pedestrians do have responsibilities and cannot rely on pedestrian right of way at all times. Drunk in public and gross negligence are both restrictions placed on pedestrians, which give some precedence to this new law, it is simply another way to make sure that the roadways are a safer place for all. Also, is trying to protect the few pedestrians stupid enough to walk into traffic with or without iPods really "anti-pedestrian".

]]> By: Jimmy McGuire http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29317 Jimmy McGuire Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:35:51 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29317 Does anyone here ride a bike in the City? Pedestrians are as dangerous as cars. Why they don't get run over more often is a mystery to me. Yes a lot of the time they pretend not to be paying attention when they are. Non the less an oblivious pedestrian posses a danger to themselves and others(such as me, they guy swerving on the bike). Pedestrians are the problem, no more walking! Does anyone here ride a bike in the City? Pedestrians are as dangerous as cars. Why they don't get run over more often is a mystery to me. Yes a lot of the time they pretend not to be paying attention when they are. Non the less an oblivious pedestrian posses a danger to themselves and others(such as me, they guy swerving on the bike). Pedestrians are the problem, no more walking!

]]> By: Lawrence http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-29295 Lawrence Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:48:04 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-29295 Like it or not, the streets must be shared by all; pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. What many fail to realize is that safety is the responsibilty of all street users, not just some (and no, peds do not ALWAYS have the right of way). The biggest hinderence to safety is the 'Me First' attitude that some people have or the mistaken idea that some have Special Dispensation. The problem is not just with motorists, but with all street users. The actions of others does not justify our own defiance. We also must be aware of the difficulties faced by one-another, and act accordingly. It's not easy to ride a bike in NYC, but nor is it very easy to drive or - sometimes - to walk. So look out for one-another. Any opinion or proposal that does not accept these realities will not gain much support, and will come off sounding like temper tantrum. That said; Krugers' proposal is silly. It is a perfect example of bad legislation that achievs nothing but media attention Like it or not, the streets must be shared by all; pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. What many fail to realize is that safety is the responsibilty of all street users, not just some (and no, peds do not ALWAYS have the right of way).

The biggest hinderence to safety is the 'Me First' attitude that some people have or the mistaken idea that some have Special Dispensation. The problem is not just with motorists, but with all street users. The actions of others does not justify our own defiance.

We also must be aware of the difficulties faced by one-another, and act accordingly. It's not easy to ride a bike in NYC, but nor is it very easy to drive or - sometimes - to walk. So look out for one-another.

Any opinion or proposal that does not accept these realities will not gain much support, and will come off sounding like temper tantrum.

That said; Krugers' proposal is silly. It is a perfect example of bad legislation that achievs nothing but media attention

]]> By: v http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28631 v Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:35:13 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28631 haha, how ridiculous!! senator kruger, thanks for this gem of a proposal. create a financial disincentive to not paying attention...as though getting flattened by a speeding truck weren't enough! haha, how ridiculous!!

senator kruger, thanks for this gem of a proposal. create a financial disincentive to not paying attention...as though getting flattened by a speeding truck weren't enough!

]]> By: Steve http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28617 Steve Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:49:58 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28617 Hey, April, what about little kids? Is it their fault when they get run over too? Or should we blame it on their parents when speeding vehicles run them over? Hey, April, what about little kids? Is it their fault when they get run over too? Or should we blame it on their parents when speeding vehicles run them over?

]]> By: P http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28589 P Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:47:41 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28589 You're a good sport, Spud. (or just a perv) :) You're a good sport, Spud. (or just a perv) :)

]]> By: Spud Spudly http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28585 Spud Spudly Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:33:20 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28585 Not fair Doc. What she says is kwazy. But I might be willing to overlook all that if she's cute enough. Not fair Doc. What she says is kwazy.

But I might be willing to overlook all that if she's cute enough.

]]> By: ddartley http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28580 ddartley Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:46:19 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28580 I have the strength to suppress all 50,000 retorts to April except one: "It's not like speeding vehicles appear out of thin air." Okay, two things: if a ped is hit by a SPEEDING motorist, it's the ped's fault? And motorists should be expected to speed? I have the strength to suppress all 50,000 retorts to April except one:

"It's not like speeding vehicles appear out of thin air."

Okay, two things: if a ped is hit by a SPEEDING motorist, it's the ped's fault? And motorists should be expected to speed?

]]> By: Doc Barnett http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28545 Doc Barnett Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:48:11 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28545 April, Spud... something tells me love is in the aaaiiirrr! April, Spud... something tells me love is in the aaaiiirrr!

]]> By: Chris http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28539 Chris Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:15:34 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28539 April, I hope you get hit by a car. I'm sure you'd have no problem labelling the reckless driver that hit you as the "victim." April, I hope you get hit by a car. I'm sure you'd have no problem labelling the reckless driver that hit you as the "victim."

]]> By: someguy http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28530 someguy Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:09:10 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28530 I don't have the energy. I don't have the energy.

]]> By: P http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28528 P Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:55:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28528 Thanks for perking up a tired thread, April. The lively responses you hope for will be arriving shortly. Thanks for perking up a tired thread, April. The lively responses you hope for will be arriving shortly.

]]> By: April http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28521 April Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:40:21 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28521 Don't you think if someone gets hit by a car it is most likely their fault. It's not like speeding vehicles appear out of thin air. Regaurdless of weither you are listening to your IPod or not, you will most likely still get hit if you are violating the law cross the street. So, you got hit-- Too bad. Don't you think if someone gets hit by a car it is most likely their fault. It's not like speeding vehicles appear out of thin air. Regaurdless of weither you are listening to your IPod or not, you will most likely still get hit if you are violating the law cross the street. So, you got hit-- Too bad.

]]> By: Spud Spudly http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28517 Spud Spudly Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:57:24 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28517 9 AM this morning and I'm in the back of a crowded elevator going up to my office at work. Woman directly in front of me has her iPod BLARING so loud that everyone can hear note for note what she's listening to. Elevator stops at my floor and I try to get out but she doesn't move. I say "excuse me" but she can't hear me. Finally I pull her elbow back and she moves one inch to the left and I barely make it out before the door closes. WE NEED A LAW BANNING IPODS ON ELEVATORS! WHY ISN'T CARL KRUGER ON THE CASE HERE? 9 AM this morning and I'm in the back of a crowded elevator going up to my office at work. Woman directly in front of me has her iPod BLARING so loud that everyone can hear note for note what she's listening to. Elevator stops at my floor and I try to get out but she doesn't move. I say "excuse me" but she can't hear me. Finally I pull her elbow back and she moves one inch to the left and I barely make it out before the door closes.

WE NEED A LAW BANNING IPODS ON ELEVATORS! WHY ISN'T CARL KRUGER ON THE CASE HERE?

]]> By: Reya http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/comment-page-1/#comment-28515 Reya Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:46:25 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/07/100-fine-for-crossing-the-street-and-talking-on-the-phone/#comment-28515 I think this is a ridiculous waste of time and sends the wrong message to other cities in the nation. People should be responsible in their actions but remain free to use their electronics. I am signing the petition (online at www.myspace.com/batterygeeks) against the ban because this is just silly. Join me in the fight because whether or not you live in New York, if this legislation passes, it will trickle down like other NYC bans ie no trans-fat and smoking initiatives. ~Reya I think this is a ridiculous waste of time and sends the wrong message to other cities in the nation. People should be responsible in their actions but remain free to use their electronics. I am signing the petition (online at http://www.myspace.com/batterygeeks) against the ban because this is just silly. Join me in the fight because whether or not you live in New York, if this legislation passes, it will trickle down like other NYC bans ie no trans-fat and smoking initiatives.

~Reya

]]>