8 ms·
Honolulu fines pedestrians for viewing phone while crossing street
- djsumdog 9y agoI always put my phone down to my side if I was looking at it before crossing a street. But I'm also one of those people who have to slow down if I look at my phone while walking; I can't really do both effectively at the same time just because I want to be aware of where I'm going. 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.
- interfixus 9y agoYou are potentially hurting other cyclists, other pedestrians, and very much the future well-being of any motorist who happens to run you over while running a green light.
- jaxbot 9y agoI bike in NYC and occasionally deal with people stepping into the street while looking at their phones and not checking for cross traffic because they can't hear me. It's annoying, but doesn't take much to just brake and dodge them. I wish they would've looked, but the streets are for the people in the city. It's not a freeway. 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.
- to3m 9y agoWhy is the person in the car not looking where they are going? It's people driving cars who are responsible for not running people over. The green light is there to tell traffic it's OK to proceed if appropriate. It doesn't make it OK to just run people over.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThe person in the car should be looking where they're going, but they expect a clear roadway, not random pedestrians stepping out without paying attention. 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).
- Symbiote 9y agoThe driver should certainly not expect a clear roadway. 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.
- sheepdestroyer 9y agoWhere I come from (France) and where I live now (Japan) the laws are quite similar in that, as a driver, you have to be "in control" of your vehicle at any time. Meaning that you need to be able to stop it to avoid any unexpected event. Quite sensible if you ask me.
- dheera 9y agoWell yes but it's also the responsibility of the pedestrian to demonstrate intent to cross the road if they do in fact intend to cross. 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.
- p49k 9y agoThere is absolutely no excuse for a car to hit a pedestrian in or at the end of a crosswalk, regardless of “signaling”. The car should be driving slow enough to make this impossible, and for the worst-case scenario to be the pedestrian walking into the car.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago> 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. 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.
- rhizome 9y agoThat's some impressively-veiled libertarian sophistry.
- dang 9y agoThis violates the HN guideline against calling names in arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. This applies even when someone else is completely wrong, since a reply like this won't convince anyone anyhow.
- cletus 9y agoOh I miss the days when I could walk down the goddamn street without dodging hundreds of oblivious zombies who pay no attention to their surroundings then give you a dark look like it's your fault if they run into you. 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.
- mtalantikite 9y agoMy major new annoyance is people walking slowly up the stairs from the subway while reading their phone. It’s NYC and there are dozens of people behind you, wait until you get outside.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sheepdestroyer 9y agoWait until you get old ; people waiting behind will resent you too. The thing is you should be able to walk at any pace you like or can. Others waiting behind should get a less stressful life.
- jaxbot 9y agoIt drives me insane the same way that tourists stopping in the middle of the sidewalk to look at a map does, or when people walk 4-people wide, stand on the left of an escalator, queue up for a bus by blocking the sidewalk, or holding everyone up to 'just take a quick photo.' 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.
- module0000 9y agoPickpockets or laws, both eventually "fix" this problem. The difference is who the money goes to.
- carapace 9y agoI walk. I don't drive. I've noticed that traffic is getting crazy (I live in San Francisco.) 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.
- flukus 9y ago> 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 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.
- dogruck 9y agoI disagree with this regulation, but the big problem will be with how it's enforced. Won't be long until "the cop said I was looking at my phone, but I wasn't!"
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoYeah selective enforcement could make this a pretty powerful tool for harassing anyone you don't like.
- booleandilemma 9y agoMake the cops prove it with video evidence?
- detaro 9y agoDoesn't help against it being selectively enforced, only against it being used for false accusations.
- dogruck 9y agoOh great, nonstop video surveillance of pedestrians. I don't like that either.
- emodendroket 9y agoIsn't that a bridge that's already been crossed?
- dogruck 9y agoIt's one thing to have street cameras that are used to investigate serious crimes, or to help direct first responders. It's another to regularly use that camera footage for petty crimes like j-walking or cell-phone-walking.
- 9y ago
- PatientTrades 9y agoThis is unconstitutional. Same with the law requiring a seatbelt. Please tell me whos life you are endangering by crossing the street while viewing your phone? The answer is only your own. The state/government is basically saying we own your life (slavery) by instituting laws like these.
- jeffdavis 9y agoWhat part of the Constitution are you referring to? 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.
- PatientTrades 9y agoThis law violates the constitution by restricting a basic liberty (In this case walking across the street while viewing your phone) this action does not directly hurt or harm anyone other than potentially yourself. Under the constitution we have a right to our life. This law violates that principle
- nkrisc 9y agoIt does in fact endanger other people. You are creating a dangerous situation. A pedestrian in the street who is oblivious to their surroundings is a hazard to all drivers.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jeffdavis 9y agoWhat specific part of the constitution? Prohibiting you from using a phone is not taking your life.
- dang 9y agoIt breaks the site guidelines to take threads on generic ideological tangents like this. It makes discussions less interesting, so we ask people not to do it. 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them when commenting here?
- cartercole 9y agothanks nanny state
- firefoxd 9y agoThis sounds great, but then how do you enforce it. - 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"
- mercer 9y agoHow does fining people for looking at their phone while crossing the street not effectively curb that behavior? Regardless of whether it's addictive or not. Smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc. all seem to work pretty well despite the fact that many people really don't like these things.
- bjornlouser 9y agoMele Kalikeyswipey is the thing to say to a dead Hawaiian pedestrian
- peterwwillis 9y agoJaywalking laws were enacted because cars were killing pedestrians. They trotted out a huge PR campaign to call people who crossed in the middle of the street country bumpkins, and made it a crime, so that cars would not have to think about pedestrians. 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.
- carapace 9y ago> Jaywalking laws were enacted because cars were killing pedestrians. They trotted out a huge PR campaign to call people who crossed in the middle of the street country bumpkins, and made it a crime, so that cars would not have to think about pedestrians. 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."
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoOutlawing something that large portions of the population already do can be a pretty worrying thing. It's the perfect breeding ground for selective enforcement.
- module0000 9y ago>> Outlawing something that large portions of the population already do 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).
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoYes, we are a representative democracy. I thought that was well understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy As opposed to the form where voters vote on laws and policies directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
- jacek 9y agoI wish something was done about drivers playing with their phones. I live in a city in the US, where cars are the main mode of transportation. I, however live relatively close to work and walk every day (I am European ;). Number of drivers using their phone is just ridiculous (looks like ~30-40% of them during afternoon rush hours). I have been in life-threatening situations many times (2-3 per month on average). All because of phone use and driver friendly (aka pedestrian unfriendly) design and polices. 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.
- WD-42 9y agoI'm in a similar situation and completely agree. A large portion of the US road infrastructure was designed specifically to accommodate cars and nothing else. On my walks to work I often have to step in to the street because the sidewalk dissappears, or there are no crosswalks. Behavior of drivers is a problem, cell phone usage especially. But I also believe we need to seriously update our urban design in this country, so that people who want to, you know, use their feet, can get around safely.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hamstercat 9y agoThe biggest difference I see is looking at your phone while crossing the street is dangerous for your life. Looking at your phone while driving is dangerous for everyone else's life.
- mc32 9y agoTrue, but two failsafes is better than one. If one fails (is distracted) the other compensates.
- cafard 9y agoIn the District of Columbia, one can get a large fine for holding one's cell phone while driving. But if you walk two blocks in Washington and don't see at least one driver doing this, you aren't paying attention. While out running, I have yelled to get the attention of drivers looking every way but mine, but mostly at their phones. While out the walking I am very wary. The threat of a fine is not working. (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.
- mrgoldenbrown 9y agoShouldn't we be treating the root cause of the danger, and not an ancillary factor? Cars are the cause of the injuries that motivated this law. Cars can be built to reduce pedestrian injuries, and are required to be in some countries (not the US). Distracted Drivers are the most common cause of cars hitting pedestrians. Yet the article barely addressed what laws currently address this in Hawaii, if any.
- grzm 9y agoYou make good points regarding other things that can be done to reduce accidents. This article is addressing one in particular that is being tried in Hawaii. > ”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.
- rthille 9y agoWithin the first few hours I was in Honolulu for the first time I went to cross a street with the "walk" signal and had a driver blow through the red, probably 5 seconds or more after I'd gotten the "walk" signal. I wouldn't walk around Honolulu staring at my phone if you paid me.