4 ms·

Whilst a fine might be a good idea for crossing the road, it'll eventually be eroded away over time as the practice of _always_ looking at your phone saturates

Whilst a fine might be a good idea for crossing the road, it'll eventually be eroded away over time as the practice of _always_ looking at your phone saturates more and more into society. Discovering this compulsory need might lead to reducing the actual actions but let's face it: Other things you could recieve a fine for, jail time for, etc. are now in the mainstream. Gay marriage and marijuana are two principal examples (not that I'm against either). It's only a matter of time, really.

ddeokbokki 8y ago
Your comparison doesn't work at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana whereas crossing the street while essentially being tunnel visioned on a 6" screen is potentially very dangerous for yourself and, more importantly, others.
- renholder 8y ago
  >There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana... Today, there isn't, no. How about 50 years ago? Edit: I feel like you entirely missed the point of societal progression, here. There's nothing wrong with it, now, but it doesn't - explicitly - mean that this was never the case or that your arguments of "protecting the people, themselves, or others" was never used to justify the illegality of them.
  - xmonkee 8y ago
    What does ignoring safety have to do with societal progression? This isn't some progressive cause. You analogy is absurd.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  Ah yes, the very dangerous pedestrians! That's depression era revisionism to make people feel less bad for not paying attention, hitting and killing people merely walking with their cars.
  - renholder 8y ago
    "Think of the pedestrians!" is the new "Think of the children!"
  - bpicolo 8y ago
    It's absolutely dangerous to others to walk into the road without paying attention because it can force oncoming vehicles to behave erratically (fast breaking, swerving, etc).
    - renholder 8y ago
      By this argument, you wouldn't have the pedestrian right-of-way laws that you have today (unless you're in certain areas of the states)... Instead, the onus is on the vehicle to stop and cede right-of-way. How do you reconcile these two - almost identical precepts? The only difference is the phone and where "attention" is paid, yeah?
    - bryanlarsen 8y ago
      If a pedestrian steps out onto a crosswalk and you cannot stop without behaving erratically, you were going too fast for road conditions or you weren't paying attention and you're at fault. If your quick stop causes problems for any vehicles behind you, they were going too fast or weren't paying attention and they're at fault. edit: jrockway said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676
  - dasil003 8y ago
    It’s not revisionism, it was a cultural change sponsored by the auto industry. We may not like it, we may want to reverse it, but it’s not revisionism.
  - jrockway 8y ago
    Indeed. The reality is that if you're driving fast enough to not be able to stop for someone looking at their phone, you're also driving fast enough to not be able to stop for some kids chasing a ball into the street. You may not mind murdering some dude on Instagram but I bet you'll feel pretty bad about flattening someone's kid who was just playing outside after school. High-speed traffic and pedestrians don't mix. The problem is not distracted pedestrians, the problem is that the situation where the two classes of traffic can mix exist. Ultimately, pretending that asphalt swaths cutting through the center of society is some "safe zone" for high-speed vehicles was a huge mistake society made. It was never true; someone could always penetrate that space and the unfortunate driver would end up killing them. Very slowly we are walking back on that, sharing space between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Lot less people getting killed. But it is unfortunate that China wants to repeat our mistakes there, and blame pedestrians for existing.
kibwen 8y ago
Alternatively, consider that this behavior could be an artifact of society still adapting to technological progress. When cell phones first started becoming popular, movie theaters experienced the growing nuisance of people who had not silenced their cell phones before the movie (or perhaps not even realized that a phone could be silenced). Movie theaters contemplated the extreme move of coating the interior of theaters with wallpaper that blocked cell reception, and they would have done it were it not for the FCC. Yet now, two decades later, rather than movie theaters descending into an impenetrable cacophony of ringtones (which is what would be predicted by the "It's only a matter of time, really" stance), society evolved to pressure people into the habit of silencing their phones before movies (aided by the now-ubiquitous plea to do so before the movie begins, but by this point I don't know anyone who actually still needs to be reminded of this).

ddeokbokki 8y ago

Your comparison doesn't work at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana whereas crossing the street while essentially being tunnel visioned on a 6" screen is potentially very dangerous for yourself and, more importantly, others.

renholder 8y ago
>There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to marry someone you love or consuming marijuana... Today, there isn't, no. How about 50 years ago? Edit: I feel like you entirely missed the point of societal progression, here. There's nothing wrong with it, now, but it doesn't - explicitly - mean that this was never the case or that your arguments of "protecting the people, themselves, or others" was never used to justify the illegality of them.
- xmonkee 8y ago
  What does ignoring safety have to do with societal progression? This isn't some progressive cause. You analogy is absurd.
stefan_ 8y ago
Ah yes, the very dangerous pedestrians! That's depression era revisionism to make people feel less bad for not paying attention, hitting and killing people merely walking with their cars.
- renholder 8y ago
  "Think of the pedestrians!" is the new "Think of the children!"
- bpicolo 8y ago
  It's absolutely dangerous to others to walk into the road without paying attention because it can force oncoming vehicles to behave erratically (fast breaking, swerving, etc).
  - renholder 8y ago
    By this argument, you wouldn't have the pedestrian right-of-way laws that you have today (unless you're in certain areas of the states)... Instead, the onus is on the vehicle to stop and cede right-of-way. How do you reconcile these two - almost identical precepts? The only difference is the phone and where "attention" is paid, yeah?
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    If a pedestrian steps out onto a crosswalk and you cannot stop without behaving erratically, you were going too fast for road conditions or you weren't paying attention and you're at fault. If your quick stop causes problems for any vehicles behind you, they were going too fast or weren't paying attention and they're at fault. edit: jrockway said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18932676
- dasil003 8y ago
  It’s not revisionism, it was a cultural change sponsored by the auto industry. We may not like it, we may want to reverse it, but it’s not revisionism.
- jrockway 8y ago
  Indeed. The reality is that if you're driving fast enough to not be able to stop for someone looking at their phone, you're also driving fast enough to not be able to stop for some kids chasing a ball into the street. You may not mind murdering some dude on Instagram but I bet you'll feel pretty bad about flattening someone's kid who was just playing outside after school. High-speed traffic and pedestrians don't mix. The problem is not distracted pedestrians, the problem is that the situation where the two classes of traffic can mix exist. Ultimately, pretending that asphalt swaths cutting through the center of society is some "safe zone" for high-speed vehicles was a huge mistake society made. It was never true; someone could always penetrate that space and the unfortunate driver would end up killing them. Very slowly we are walking back on that, sharing space between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Lot less people getting killed. But it is unfortunate that China wants to repeat our mistakes there, and blame pedestrians for existing.

kibwen 8y ago

Alternatively, consider that this behavior could be an artifact of society still adapting to technological progress. When cell phones first started becoming popular, movie theaters experienced the growing nuisance of people who had not silenced their cell phones before the movie (or perhaps not even realized that a phone could be silenced). Movie theaters contemplated the extreme move of coating the interior of theaters with wallpaper that blocked cell reception, and they would have done it were it not for the FCC. Yet now, two decades later, rather than movie theaters descending into an impenetrable cacophony of ringtones (which is what would be predicted by the "It's only a matter of time, really" stance), society evolved to pressure people into the habit of silencing their phones before movies (aided by the now-ubiquitous plea to do so before the movie begins, but by this point I don't know anyone who actually still needs to be reminded of this).