Honolulu Now Fines People Up To $99 For Texting While Crossing Road (theguardian.com) 131
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Hawaiian city of Honolulu has resorted to fining people up to $99 for staring at the devices, to try and force people to look up from their phones while crossing the road. The new law gives police the power to fine people up to $35 for their first offence, $75 for their second and $99 thereafter, perhaps expecting it to take quite some effort to get people to take notice. The bill, which comes into force today after being rubber stamped by the Hawaiian city's mayor in July, states that "no pedestrian shall cross a street or highway while viewing a mobile electronic device." Mobile phones are included as well as any "text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, or digital photographic device" but audio equipment is excluded. Holding a conversation on a phone while walking is still permitted, as is using a device in an emergency, but crossing the road while texting, reading or Facebooking -- as millions around the world do every day -- is not.
I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should get the fines regardless, and yes, their families should pay rather than taxpayers. It's about time people get their face out of their phones while they are walking around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. They might accidentally wander on to your lawn too.
This law is pure 'for the children' type protectionist crap. Should someone watch while crossing the street? Yes of course. Could they get hurt by not looking? Yep.
Do you need a LAW and FINE to tell people to do what they already know they should be doing? ... and furthermore punishment for something where there is no victim? Not at all.
Now, if someone causes an accident there are already ways to hold them responsible (protip: a $35 fine isn't
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but do YOU want to be the person driving the car?
I have had a person in my family who was in an accident where someone was killed. He was completely not at fault but the burden had a devastating effect.
I am all for natural selection to weed out the stupid, but do not want to hurt someone even if I am right.
Sometimes you have to hit people in the pocket to make them wake up.
Re: (Score:1)
And you know this because the victim didn't dispute the police report.
Sadly, the police tend to be biased against bicyclists and pedestrians for "getting in the way" of cars. There was a time when jaywalking wasn't a crime [youtube.com], but then cars came and ruined the streets for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this because the victim didn't dispute the police report.
Sadly, the police tend to be biased against bicyclists and pedestrians for "getting in the way" of cars. There was a time when jaywalking wasn't a crime [youtube.com], but then cars came and ruined the streets for everyone.
Streets would've been dirt lanes or similar without cars to drive the infrastructure demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if someone causes an accident there are already ways to hold them responsible (protip: a $35 fine isn't it). If they don't cause an accident, then no-harm, no-foul.
The problem is you could use that exact same argument to legalize driving while drunk. If you cause an accident, you get in trouble; if you don't, no harm, no foul.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we pay people to text while crossing the street? The whole point is you can't fix stupid, so let's be done with these people as soon as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
why did the texter cross the road? (Score:4, Funny)
why did the texter cross the light rail line? (Score:2)
texter? what texter?
Faces in phones (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's kind of interesting that Millennials and other constant users of smart phones, especially singles, who walk around all day looking at a screen, complain that they can't meet any decent people, when in fact they likely pass decent and interesting people all the time, but nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed. What a shame. Instead
Re:Faces in phones (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, what was I saying, oh yeah, repeated in a new post quoting TechCrunch, "Forget about your phone for a minute, look around and talk with people next to you." https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
It might be a "protected" turn, and you can see the lines, but it doesn't mean someone is going to actually stop or even slow down while making a right turn, stop for the light, or even actually stay around if they hit someone.
Maybe Honolulu is different, but in Austin, I've had to call EMS for people more than once in the past month, (and give license plates of the offending vehicle to the local police due to the hit and run) who assumed they were able to cross at a crosswalk and got struck by a car who b
Re:Faces in phones (Score:5, Insightful)
>I think it's kind of interesting that Millennials and other constant users of smart phones, especially singles, who walk around all day looking at a screen, complain that they can't meet any decent people
Oh come on, that problem pre-dated smart phones... we just outright ignored everybody instead of being entranced by our electronics.
Being 'dating age' sucks, because only welcomed approaches are socially acceptable and you don't know if your approach will be welcomed until after you make it. We don't really have great social customs for young people to meet; it's "be in the same class" or "get drunk at the local meet/meat market".
I'm well and truly happy to be past all that shit and I don't envy young people who - like me - aren't naturally gregarious but still would like to have a partner. ( I still have no idea how I ended up married with children).
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think dating was that bad though I do get approached more when I wear my ring. I don't know if that's something you have experienced or not but it was like the wedding ring suddenly made me more attractive. My wife doesn't mind that I don't wear the ring she understands that it's a signal for gold diggin bitches as she puts it. By the way the best line I ever used was to be only mildly interested and noncommittal, "sure".
Re: (Score:2)
>I didn't think dating was that bad though I do get approached more when I wear my ring.
Very little attention prior to marriage... three opportunities for affairs after marriage. Of course, there's a social comfort factor at play, too, since I'm a lot more casual with women when I'm not trying to decide if I want to start a serious relationship with them and how to go about that without a hard rejection or other problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a women at work that was 10 years younger than me who followed me around the office and was clearly infatuated with me. I did my best not to encourage her but I think the unattainable and married co-worker made her feel safe from getting into a serious relationship and ultimately being hurt. She worked there for about three months and then abruptly moved out of state to go back to college.
Re: (Score:3)
I am soooo glad I found my soulmate and married her before the PC Police went full retard.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in Kailua (Oahu) from 2000-2001 and worked in Honolulu. More than once I grabbed somebody by the arm to keep them from obliviously walking out in front of The Bus. I didn't understand it then, but it seems like it's probably much more common in the age of texting.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem. I don't dare step off the curb when the walk light first comes on, at least at most intersections, because there is always someone running the light.
Pedestrians ought to obey the l
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.
running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem
Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.
What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.
running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem
Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.
What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?
I think he's advocating that you enforce the rules against the people in the 1500kg death machine over those who are walking and at most might give someone a bruise if they aren't being careful. My personal experience is pretty similar to the GP. I have to actively prevent motorists from hitting me, even when there is a law enforcement officer. I was in a cross walk, with a walk signal, when someone ran a light that had been red for 10+ seconds and narrowly missed me. I yelled angrily. A cop there look
Re: (Score:2)
What are you trying to argue here, anyway?
I am trying to argue that while it's correct to insist that pedestrians toe the line, a major factor, namely drivers who could care less about pedestrians, is being ignored, not through lack of laws but through lack of enforcement.
The white "walk" symbol is on (at most major intersections) for only seven seconds, several of which are lost waiting for drivers to run the yellow/red, because as I said, I risk my life trying to cross right away when the light changes in my favor. After seven seconds blinking re
Re: (Score:2)
I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem
That is good for you, and you won't have to worry about getting a ticket. But for the rest of the pedestrians that are not as cautious as you, these laws might make them realize that they also need to be more aware of their surroundings while crossing the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Well those laws aren't working obviously...and what does a politician do when a law isn't working? Why you just make another one!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah its ridiculous for someone to cross the street without looking. Thats why blind people aren't allowed to walk around in Honolulu.
Look, if you have the light it shouldn't matter if you are looking at your phone or the news paper or a book or the back the the head of the guy in front of you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't look up from your phone, how do you know if you have the light?
I've had people walk blithely out in front of me when I was exiting a parking garage, meaning (1) I had no way to see them, (2) there were warning lights flashing, and (3) there was a very loud annunciator warning that a car was coming. Some people just ignore their environment entirely, between headphones and eyes on screen.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed. What a shame.
Because anything so much as "hi" to some stranger is considered sexual harrassment
Hi.
Re: Faces in phones (Score:1)
Rape!!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that a government is having to go to these drastic lengths to try and get people to live in the real world.
I think it's kind of interesting that Millennials and other constant users of smart phones, especially singles, who walk around all day looking at a screen, complain that they can't meet any decent people, when in fact they likely pass decent and interesting people all the time, but nobody is able to catch anyone's eye anymore, so potential connections are missed.
People have always found it hard to meet potential dates, but I found it much easier to meet people when online dating became mainstream than before. Without technology, it's harder to meet people outside of your social circle, online dating opens up a much wider circle. So yeah, you need to weed out the liars and fakes, but you have a much wider pool to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's kind of interesting that Millennials and other constant users of smart phones, especially singles, who walk around all day looking at a screen, complain that they can't meet any decent people
I think it's kind of interesting that {Insert older generation} have some idea based entirely on prejudice and observer bias about {insert younger generation}.
Newsflash: Millennials are living in a shit-storm from the previous generation, yet on the whole are incredibly happy with their lives. The only negative relationship statistic for millennials is that marriage rates are down. Mind you so are divorce rates, and the overall marriage rate is about on par when correlated to the belief that marriage is a g
Darwin at play? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws of physics don't care who has the right of way. It's small comfort to you next of kin that the driver was in the wrong. Just look before you step off the curb - very low effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so if you have a dash cam in your car proving what happened - how the fuck are you liable??
oh wait - sorry - this is online - lets make shit up as fact
Killing someone even if you did it by accident and it was totally the victims fault, is a crime called accidental manslaughter. The punishment is usually low, but it is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we have to fund the train some way...
Mahalo.
Fines don't work (Score:2)
Just look at all of the criminals constantly speeding on the road, not to mention using phones while driving. These minor infractions need to come with a penalty that really impacts people's lives... One night in jail would be perfect. It needs to keep them from getting to work, picking up their kids, their friend's party... *something* that is really going to have a lasting impact besides just money. Monetary penalties are also extremely regressive and hurt poor people the most. That's not okay.
I'm g
Re: (Score:1)
I learned in Psych class that likelihood of getting caught is much more of a deterrent than the extremity of the punishment.
Even if the punishment was just being rudely spoken-to by a cop...people would hugely amend their behavior if there were cops watching for it on every street corner.
Re: (Score:2)
If the top faggot had his skull squished flat on the pavement I think that would be an excellent lesson for all the little up and comer faggots who looked up to him.
Wow, you sound like you have a bit of a road rage problem...
Around here the law is if you see someone near the sidewalk you have to stop and let them jaywalk, seems to work out fine.
people don't have walking licenses and will this p (Score:2)
people don't have walking licenses and will this points to your drivers license.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to give tickets to self-driving cars, so they gotta find a new way to fill the coffers.
Self driving cars are not the problem, texting drivers are, but it's also hard to ticket texting drivers, so it's much easier to target texting pedestrians even though the drivers are the ones killing people.
Re: (Score:1)
Honolulu is a small but traffic-congested city, with lots of crosswalks over the streets that get busy during the rush-hours. Making idiots pay attention to crossing signs rather than their phones probably helps relieve some of that congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
More drunk pedestrians are killed by sober drivers (by far) than sober pedestrians killed by drunk drivers. (At one point it was something like 40% of pedestrians killed in crosswalks were drunk.) I'd expect texting to be the same.
better than fining them... (Score:5, Interesting)
...simply legislate that any such action makes it impossible to sue.
Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop. Americans don't go where they don't have lawyer-armor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop.
That's not enough. These people clearly don't believe they'll get hit, which means they either believe they have magical invulnerability or because they believe that drivers will take responsibility for avoiding hitting them. If they believed that drivers only avoided hitting them because the drivers were afraid of the ensuing lawsuit, you might have a point. But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.
So to make your plan work you'd need to remove both civil and criminal liabilities for drive
Re: better than fining them... (Score:2)
We already drive cars with bombs attached to the steering wheel (airbags) and it hasn't helped.
Re: (Score:2)
We already drive cars with bombs attached to the steering wheel (airbags) and it hasn't helped.
Those make us safer, and therefore more likely to get in an accident.
I get that you're disagreeing that they make us safer but (a) perception is what matters and (b) the facts actually do show that they make us safer, so perception is even correct.
Re: (Score:2)
But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.
Let's not forget that most people legitimately _don't_ want to cause the death of strangers.
Re: (Score:2)
But drivers also fear various forms of criminal charges.
Let's not forget that most people legitimately _don't_ want to cause the death of strangers.
Apparently I needed sarcasm tags :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I nearly hit a jaywalker with his face buried in his cell phone maybe a week or two ago. He walked out into the street from behind an SUV and I hit the horn and slammed on the brakes. I would have expected him to look up and then crap himself but he didn't look up or even miss a step.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider yourself lucky then. A local mayor was cycling, nearly hit a jaywalker, and was scolded by said jaywaker (who was texting) for not looking where he was going. [www.cbc.ca].
Yes, the jaywalker stepped out right in front of a cyclist
Re: (Score:2)
Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop.
Stop what? Stop texting? Like the J-walking laws have stopped people crossing at red lights?
Or maybe we are looking to stopping fatal crashes, in which case you could take the opposite approach like the Netherlands where if a driver hits a pedestrian (even a texting inattentive one) they get royally fucked. That reduced injuries quite well and as a side effect drivers seem to be far more sensible there than in most other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that you're supposed to be driving such that you can stop
That has never been a reasonable expectation, and certainly isn't the law where I live. Where do people come up with that shit? No matter how slow a car is going, it's possible to jump out in front of it with little enough visibility that there's nothing the driver can do.
Also, where I live, pedestrians only have the right of way in a marked crosswalk (and, in a controlled crosswalk, only when they have the light), not just anywhere they wander into traffic.
But (Score:2)
Photography (Score:3)
As someone who dabbles in urban photography as a hobby... *FUCK*THEM*
Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who dabbles in urban photography as a hobby... *FUCK*THEM*
Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?
Ahh but if you stop walking, you're no longer crossing the street ;)
Re: (Score:2)
J-walking is also illegal in many places. That hasn't stopped anyone, even those people who have been fined in the past. It is just a tax on the unlucky.
Jaywalking in Honolulu ripoff. (Score:2)
Jaywalking is illegal in Honolulu, and usually carries a fine of $150
Fucking HPD only enforce it when they've got nothing else to do. I got ticketed for crossing on red at night when there was no traffic in sight. And for some goddamned reason my ticket was $300, which would normally be for a repeat offender (I'm not). I only realized when I got the demand in the mail and I was overseas so couldn't contest it.
Fuck Honolulu PD.
Re: (Score:2)
Running into the middle of the cross walk when the little person on the sign turns white, something that is perfectly legal, becomes ILLEGAL all of a sudden if you stop, take a pic, and continue on while still during the safe crossing time!?
You're making the assumption that just because the WALK sign is lit, you're not holding anybody up while you're on the street. What about cars that are waiting to turn? Not all roads have a green left-turn signal, and very few have a right turn arrow, so cars wanting to turn have to wait for pedestrians to clear the intersection before they can complete their turn. And, if there's no turning lane, cars waiting to turn can hold up cars behind them wanting to go straight on a green light. During heavy tra
Best quote ever... (Score:1)
You can't legislate intelligence and common sense into people. - Will Rogers
Re: (Score:2)
Why use commercial pricing schemes? (Score:3)
Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?
I get why stores would want to price products at $99.95, but since when did Law Enforcement need incentive for fines? Are they trying to reach a quota by having a sale? Is it this week only and then back to $129.95 a pop?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there is some rule/law/guideline these kind of offenses must have a fine "less than $100" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why $99? Are they trying to sell as many as possible?
Fines in many places in the world are graded in ranges which can be applied to specific offences. I would bet you that spare $1 that the reason it is $99 is that the next range starts at $100 and the crime isn't serious enough to fit in that next range. Likely they simply applied the maximum whole dollar amount.
Read the law and look for words "up to and not exceeding".
come on (Score:2)
Let Darwin do his work. Stop interfering with gene pool cleansing.
Do not fight Charles Darwin (Score:1)
Make it decriminalized to cross a road while texting, but indemnify any driver who hits someone crossing the road while texting.
In this way, natural selection will pare from among us the clueless people who are unable to self-entertain or stay alert to reality around them for even thirty seconds.
Attention spans will rise, as will average IQs. The many bodies that pave the streets will serve as a warning for others. Gradually, society will become more thoughtful and concentration will improve.
Too many of our
Still reading my book (Score:2)
...because apparently this is a stupid, targeted law to "do something" because a politician is bored or someone's idiot child got hit crossing the street because they weren't looking.
Hint: there's an unlimited number of distractions in life. This doesn't address the actual problem that people are easily ... oh look, shiny....
The usual response (Score:2)
Laws are born when common sense fails.
let's punish the victims (Score:2)
Honolulu has had a problem with inattentive drivers hitting and killing people in the crosswalks.
Many of these fatalities are people legitimately in crosswalks, a few not, but in most cases the driver claims to have never seen the pedestrian.
Rather than deal with distracted driving, and as a driver and a pedestrian in Honolulu I can tell you it's rampant, they've taken to punishing the victims. As with most political moves in Hawaii, this appeases the mass of drivers who can't be bothered to look up from th
Well, (Score:2)
I suppose on the bright side; it seems people are reclaiming the roads from motor vehicles.
Hans Guck-in-die-Luft (Score:2)
What if I am simply using the GPS? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they know I am not trying to find my way?
Presumably you can do that before or after crossing the street. Since you are supposedly walking between two white crosswalk lines when you are crossing, you don't have a lot of choices as to where to go while crossing!
Cutting down on tax payer expense? (Score:2)
A few weeks ago I noticed someone with her phone up to her face but had a white cane. She was obviously legally blind but was using the phone to be able to see where she was going. Perhaps they should add an exception.
I've wondered why countries that have universal medical coverage don't have the types of laws. As the 24x7 phone users start to get old enough that falls results in broken bones, walking while using a phone could be very dangerous and expensive.
I've also noticed that people using their phon
How much do you want to bet nobody gets fined (Score:2)
Wonderful. Now, how about the rest of the US? (Score:2)
I lived with a true alcoholic for about six years. There is NO DIFFERENCE between zombiephone addicts and an alcoholic. They *can't* stop looking at it, never mind they're in a crowd, and blocking people, they act like it's a matter of life and death that they respond to every text immediately, if not sooner.
They're all fucking drug addicts. They're another opioid crisis.
But won't admit it, any more than any other addict.
including wearables (Score:2)