You know. If they actually need to make this into law perhaps the people they're trying to save don't really need to be saved.

Reply

That looks like Abbey road.

Reply

We're seriously messin' with Darwin's survival of the fittest here. Why do we always have to try and legislate behavior??

Reply

Yet another example of the government wanting to think for us. We aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves so the government needs to stand up for the dumb, the stupid, and the ignorant.

Reply

Hm... I'd have to agree with Drew2 - It's kind of sad that we need to have people remind us to take out our earbuds and silence our phones, but also sad that the government thinks that this is their business. When it becomes an epidemic it might be, but right now I think that the ad campaign mentioned in the original post should be enough. I don't think that it's gotten serious enough to be a legislative issue yet, all that is needed is a gentle reminder that attentiveness is necessary.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90858871@N00/388492443/

Reply

Uh, overreact much? "The government" isn't trying to get in the way of your personal freedoms here -- one lone state legislator has a stupid idea and a big mouth.

It isn't law, so it isn't "the big bad awful government". The government exists, in part, to protect its people. Just because this iPod idea takes it too far does not mean the idea of government protection is wholly without merit. Katrina anyone?

Reply

By making this a law, people who get run over because they're listening to their iPod while crossing the street are at fault, not the driver.

Protects drivers more than it protects pedestrians.

Reply

they want to control us in everything. this is the key for the great door to start it. what's next. don't walk when snows cause i could fall down and will cause and masive accident pushing others? then what kjnd of clothes i'm wearing and then all is gonna be ........ the worst. people like this person should use their time for more productive things. i would like to have in his office a camera that is webcasting live to see what does he do al the time he is working. we are paying him with our money and 100 dollars for a camera in hi officce will not hurt anyone.

Reply

why are people so quick to assume the worst of this? it's not about controlling you, it's about protecting the drivers who accidentally run over these idiots when they step into the street without looking

Reply

I don't know if it needs to be a law, but there should definitely be a safety campaign about it. I've seen friends nearly killed because they were jaywalking (bad enough I know) while listening to music. And as for protecting the drivers... I know just as many drivers that listen to iPods while driving because they forgot their iTrip -- or are too cheap to buy one.

I'm pretty sure most hearing people wouldn't want to be deaf, so I don't understand why they completely shut off one of their senses while in a situation where they'd most need it.

Reply

Thataboy, your arguments make no sense. You criticize the use of the word "government" because it's "one lone state legislator". So what? If he gets this to a vote, do you think he's going to be the only one voting yes?

You say government exists, in part, to protect its people. From what? Themselves? Their own carelessness? If you really think that, then come out and say it. Your Katrina reference is irrelevant because protecting people from natural disasters is a different political and moral issue from protecting them from themselves.

But if you really support the government protecting people from themselves, you'd better think long and hard about where you'll draw the line, and how you'll argue against one law while arguing in favor of another. Should the government check up on you to make sure you're not eating too many fatty foods? Should they check to make sure you're dressing warmly enough for the winter? Because that's where we're headed.

Reply