Traffic law that depends on police enforcement is of particularly limited efficacy in New York. Violations tend not to be taken seriously as the victims are theoretical and we are collectively and individually bad at risk calculation. Laws with no tangible, immediate consequence quickly fall into selective enforcement and corruption. The powerful will continue to engage in the dangerous activity with impunity and even popular support, while the intended effect on the hoi drivoi is muted by their understanding that even if they are stopped for a violation there is a decent chance of being forgiven with a warning. But when they lose it's like the lottery in reverse, not so great for the poor or general fairness. All told, just about any other measure to improve public safety is better than depending on subjective police enforcement.

HOWEVER, the affected activity of frequent driving is one that many Streetsblog readers have given up. This accounts for the strong support of the ban, not a particular indifference to The Federalist Papers. If you see city driving as a special and serious burden rather than a daily routine, specific legislative restrictions on that activity are justified. Of course no one should be using a phone, period, while driving. The human cost of driving is much too high as it is, particularly to victims that do not even opt-in to the activity. From a pedestrian perspective any law that increases the gravity of driving—that reminds motorists that they are not on a couch but operating a deadly vehicle—is a good one.

So I support 'texting' ban, but I also agree that it could be better dealt with locally than statewide. It is not my business if people on Long Island want to play bumper cars while texting. If they want some subsidy for a train line or complete streets I'm a generous guy, but otherwise they can crash Escalades into each other while texting until the oil runs out for all I care. (Leaving aside the merits and necessity of a national carbon tax.) Unfortunately we're all in the same legislative boat, and we in NYC have to fight for a texting ban that makes sense for our pedestrian butts while they fight to keep their multitasking crashstyle. And then of course Gant is the same guy that shot down automatic (aka fair) enforcement for NYC bus lanes. Whether we're talking about effective, local, and incorruptible law or flimsy showpieces like this, Gant is on the wrong side for New York transportation and deserves all the antipathy Streetsblog sends his way.

I am unfortunately certain that that person is most of Streetsblog's audience.

As soon as it's a legislature full of people trying to vote through a law curtailing _your_ freedoms, and they're blocked by a single man via procedural horseplay, you'll be thanking him for his service.

Majority rule is mob rule. That's why slowing down their legislatures is so important. cf Federalist 51 for indirect applications.

There are plenty of great arguments to be made against the texting ban, and plenty of great arguments to be made against Silver and Gantt. These, I don't think are them.

Maybe we should start with why Albany has any jurisdiction over New York City traffic laws altogether? That, I think, is completely indefensible.

(The path out of here is through secession, friends.)

In NY, the rules for any given piece of legislation depend on who is proposing the legislation, who is lobbying on each side and whether or not it absolutely HAS to be dealt with or some part of government people care about may actually cease to function.