States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians

States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians

By: SUSAN SAULNY & MATT RICHTEL
NY Times Published: January 25, 2011

Many joggers don earbuds and listen to music to distract themselves from the rigors of running. But might the Black Eyed Peas or Rihanna distract them so much that they jog into traffic?

That is the theory of several lawmakers pushing the latest generation of legislation dealing with how devices like iPods and cellphones affect traffic safety. The ubiquity of interactive devices has propelled the science of distraction — and now efforts to legislate against it — out of the car and into the exercise routine.

Consider that common sense dictates that, as we instruct our children, one should look both ways before crossing the street.  Presumably, joggers and the like are not children but rather adults.  As adults they hopefully have adult judgment and can thus be held to adult responsibility and consequences.  Should such adults be forbidden by law from doing something stupid?  Where does societies' interest in lay?

There is a certain disposition to "nanny law" in the US.  For example we place a major burden for safe conduct while engaging in dangerous activities such as skiing not just on the participant but also the venue.  Sometimes this passes the common sense test.  Rather to often it doesn't.  This proposal seems to Common Sense as in the latter category.  Really, if you aren't bright enough and engaged enough while walking, hardly a dangerous activity, to look before crossing the street and you get injured it really is your problem not societies!

One might argue that this is like laws concerning cell phone use while driving.  But is it?  Common Sense thinks not.  Driving is a very dangerous activity involving controlling several thousand pounds of high speed machinery able to do damage not just to the operator but to many other innocent bystanders.  Walking, not so much.  Common Sense thinks there is a fundamental qualitative difference between walking and operating a vehicle.

Of course one must recognize that there is some societal interest insofar as there is social cost associated with the injury but is that any different than the many other foolish actions that as a society we accept?  Common Sense thinks that perhaps this is a Darwin Award sort of issue and that the good legislature of NY must surely have other rather more important business to attend to.