(no subject)
Feb. 7th, 2007 03:50 pmHa ha ha ha ha what?
They're kidding, I trust.
No, really, fine you $100 for every time you walk across a crosswalk with your earphones on or your Blackberry out? If the government wants to wholesale steal my iPod, why can't they just do that? Then I won't be at risk of having $500 gouged out of my bank account every day when I walk to work (and $500 for when I walk back, so $2k because I go home for lunches...).
They're kidding, I trust.
No, really, fine you $100 for every time you walk across a crosswalk with your earphones on or your Blackberry out? If the government wants to wholesale steal my iPod, why can't they just do that? Then I won't be at risk of having $500 gouged out of my bank account every day when I walk to work (and $500 for when I walk back, so $2k because I go home for lunches...).
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:18 pm (UTC)Which is why the cell phone ban while you're driving makes sense and this one doesn't. You get hit, it's your own damn fault for not lowering your music volume.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:04 pm (UTC)For something like a speeding ticket, you can play statistical games to figure out the cost of the crime--or you can look at the estimated "catch" rate for speeders and figure out what the government thinks the cost of the crime is.
Occasionally, fines are pulled out of the aether by politicians who've decided they're acting in someone's best interest. This leads to things like jaywalking laws--or "crossing the street while wearing headphones" nonsense. I personally hate such laws, because they do nothing but prevent perfectly good social Darwinism.
More to the point, though, odds are good this wouldn't have a siginificantly higher prosecution rate than, say, riding the light rail without a ticket. So you'd only get a ticket one out of every 50 times you crossed the street. That's only about $40/day in fines--much more reasonable.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:17 pm (UTC)That, of course, would lead to people shrieking about the cops being too distracted writing tickets to keep an eye on criminals and getting such a stupid law rescinded.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:10 pm (UTC)Luckily, no Democrat in the New York State Senate has any power to pass anything. Unless the Republican majority gets behind it I assume it's a dead letter.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:35 pm (UTC)I would like to make another proposal since its being discussed due to a girl who was listening to her iPod while walking and could not hear people shout warnings, i would like to know if New York will soon ban deaf people from crossing New York streets as well? You know just in case since they would not be able to hear the warnings either.....
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:53 pm (UTC)actually its something i have always hated that they try to pass laws regarding "not being able to hear". There are states that wont allow deaf people to drive since they cant hear anything....neither can people who have their radio and bass turned all the way up. Its my personal cause.
You should have seen my reaction at work when we have 37 diffrent languages you can specify when going to see a doctor and ASL is not one of them. It just blows my mind that some jerk off like this guy is trying to pass a law like this when his basis is something you CANT make a law against.
*grrr*
and honestly still laughing about this being National Hot Breakfast Month (no it is, look it up!!!)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:39 pm (UTC)We should ban people from using iPods until they learn to read lips so they don't accidentally kill anyone!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 10:45 pm (UTC)