Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Take off those earbuds and pay attention - or face a fine?

By | January 27, 2011, 10:04am PST

Summary: By now, you’ve surely heard about the video of the woman who walked right into a shopping mall fountain because she was texting instead of paying attention to her surroundings. Now, it appears that there’s an effort underway in several states to make a crime out of wearing earbuds while bicycling or even crossing the street. It [...]

By now, you’ve surely heard about the video of the woman who walked right into a shopping mall fountain because she was texting instead of paying attention to her surroundings.

Now, it appears that there’s an effort underway in several states to make a crime out of wearing earbuds while bicycling or even crossing the street.

It almost seems silly that lawmakers would have to create a law that forces people to pay attention - but in California, Oregon, Virginia and New York, lawmakers are actually having these sorts of conversations, according to a CNET report.

In particular, the proposed legislation in pedestrian-centric New York is meant to curb what state Sen. Carl Kruger is calling “tuning in and tuning out.” His push for such legislation stems from an incident in New York City where a 21-year-old iPod-listening pedestrian was killed by a large truck that backed into him. Presumably, the man couldn’t hear the truck’s warning beeps that it was in reverse.

It probably makes sense to issue some sort of ban on headphones for drivers who should be listening for the sounds of emergency vehicles. And it probably makes sense to extend something like that to bicyclists on public streets, as well, given that they’re sharing the streets with cars and trucks. Bicyclists need to be extra alert.

But pedestrians? Sure, the accident in New York is a tragic example of what happens when people aren’t paying attention. But it seems that that incident was an isolated one.

We’re quick to blame technology for some of society’s problems - but will a ticket of some sort teach people to pay attention to what they’re doing? Probably not.

Pulling yourself out of a shopping mall fountain and being laughed out by millions who saw you fall into that fountain via a YouTube video probably was a more effective way of getting that person to pay closer attention when she’s walking.

One thing is certain: You won’t see me texting and walking near any fountains anytime soon.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
49
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Take off those earbuds and pay attention - or face a fine?
non-biased Updated - 7th Feb 2011
@gardoglee While I agree that they banning of earbuds is extreme you should also realize that as an admitted left-wing liberal that the lawyers (you know, those your party protects) will be more than happy to file lawsuits that it was the Apple's (or whoever) fault because they made the iPod the earbuds were plugged into. Left-wing liberals have absolutely no concept of what personal responsibility is.
0 Votes
+ -
Those Liberals
Hasam1991 27th Jan 2011
Notice the states making the laws...
@Hasam1991 You consider Virginia a liberal state? If I assume the "1991" is your year of birth, maybe you're old enough to travel more? It might change some of your opinions.

As to the topic at hand, I actually jog with just one earphone so I can hear bikes coming up behind me. But I don't t think the government needs to mandate this for me.
@bmgoodman , I commend you sir, you are one of the few that have some small portion of a functioning brain, now what about the other 90 % of the population that has trouble determining the difference between light & dark?
@bmgoodman
We do not need this law.. The USA is already too much a nanny state.
@macsie: The other 90% can just get themselves killed for their stupidity quite honestly. Unless it effects others (like the ones doing this in vehicles), I welcome the reinstatement of Darwin's law. We protect too many people nowadays, such that Natural Selection is a thing of the past in the States. All that brings upon us is a stupider society. Stop protecting them from themselves.
@bmgoodman
So does that mean you will only have to pay half the fine? or is it like being only a little pregnant or only speeding a little bit? silly
0 Votes
+ -
able to hear at all?
erik.soderquist 1st Feb 2011
@bmgoodman

i commend you as well

i also question how loud those ear buds must be to not be able to hear a truck's backup beep... i can still hear it across an active construction site while wearing the mandatory hearing protection! if the person who was run over could not heard the backup beep at a close enough range to be run over, i question if that person could hear anything at all...


i also stand by the statement that you can't legislate intelligence.
@rparker009 Give it time and the nanny state government will be spending millions on giving out single ear bud head phones to the under privileged so they don't have to have the other one just hanging. Of course the underprivileged who receive the government subsidized headphones will be using them on their $200 iPod or smartphone wink
Absurd. We would save more lives if we outlawed visiting a fast-food restaurant more than once a week.
Bodazapha --

Again, though, that's not a decision that should be mandated by the government. The only time the government should curtail personal freedoms is when one's actions endanger or deprive others of their own rights.

If I choose to eat fast food every day for every meal, I'm not harming anyone but myself. If my health declines because of my own FREELY-CHOSEN actions, it's not the fast food restaurant's fault, nor is it the government's job to act as my mother or nanny.
@Churlish

Then please explain to me again how is it that others are safe where I MUST wear my seatbelt?
@Churlish
I didn't actually think we should limit fast food. I was making a joke to the absurdity of any laws limiting our personal freedoms.
0 Votes
+ -
An example
oncall 27th Jan 2011
@SpankyFrost

"Then please explain to me again how is it that others are safe where I MUST wear my seatbelt? "

I was driving and hit another card that was trying to cross a 4 lane intersection in front of me. I was wearing a seat-belt and my friend in the passenger seat wasn't, no airbags and we both saw it coming. The seat-belt stopped me and I was able to maintain control of the car and bring it to a stop safely. My buddy was thrown against the dashboard and and actually wound up face up on the passenger floor, which was pretty impressive cause he was a big guy and you wouldn't think looking at him that he would fit there. But I don't think it's so much protecting others as it is saving others the money it's going to cost them scooping you brains off the windshield and putting them back in your head assuming the crash doesn't kill you outright.

No one seriously hurt ultimately.

As far as this topic, yeah it's getting pretty silly, I mean might if your gonna outlaw every possible way a person can harm themselves it's gonna get really boring.
@Churlish

Who is paying for your medical care? If you have insurance, the others on your plan are paying for the extra health costs your eating habits cause. If you have no insurance, the taxpayer pays. Either way, unless you pay in full on your own, your unhealthy habits hurt everyone else in the wallet.

Same goes for not wearing a seatbelt.

This is why insurance rates go up (well, aside from trying to make huge profits). Our unhealthy eating habits - and I admit I like a burger king whopper myself - and unsafe driving costs us all.
@Bodazapha - whick fast food restaurant?
0 Votes
+ -
Banning them in your car is one thing..
Tigertank Updated - 27th Jan 2011
Driving is a restricted privilege. But, banning people from listening to music while walking or cycling is complete invasive overkill. You can listen to music and pay attention at the same time just fine.
I have seen people in NYC completely engrossed in conversations step right out into traffic. Do we ban conversations too? There comes a point in time when we have to accept that the world is hazardous.
Tigertank --

Not if you listen to the "Nanny State" advocates who would pass a law for everything, including (as Bodazapha recommended above) where, when, and how often we could eat certain foods.

Laws to ensure the safety of others are fine, e.g.:

-- No smoking where non-smokers will be forced to breathe your cancer,
-- No driving while intoxicated,
-- No distracted driving (i.e., ticketing a driver for being all over the road while texting, etc.)

Those I have no problem with ... they're protecting innocent people from the irresponsible acts of others.

Laws to protect people from themselves, however, are overly intrusive and betray the arrogance of the [usually left-wing] elites who advocate them. They smack of a "you're too dumb to make good decisions, so we'll do it for you" attitude.

Individual freedom should be preserved unless one's actions encroach on the rights or safety of others.
0 Votes
+ -
@Churlish We mostly agree;
Not too many places where people are "forced" to breath smoke; nobody "forces" anyone into a PRIVATELY OWNED restaurant, or a PRIVATELY OWNED sports arena. Also, some of those same states are considering banning smoking in ONE'S OWN HOME and ONE'S OWN CAR and on ONE'S OWN PORCH. The government isn't tasked with protecting us from ourselves; it is tasked with, among a FEW other things, protecting the rights of everyone, and keeping someone from impinging on my right to life by driving intoxicated is within the scope of that; keeping someone from smoking in a place I don't have to go is not. Keeping people from smoking in the tax assessor's office or other public building where it is conceivable that I might "have" to go to transact enforced business like paying taxes is part of the government's task.

And even good laws can be extended way too far, like the proposed ban on ALL cell phone activity in vehicles; one of the cabinet members wants to force carmakers to install devices that will block ALL cell phone activity while the engine is running.
@Churlish

Can you spell seatbelts!

Also, please show me how you breath my smoke will cause cancer... B***sh*t! There is no proof. Just a bunch of balnoey from the right wingnut christians who believe killing abortion doctors is fine and believe there is a all mighty powerful being above all other powerful beings. As George Carlin used to say... B***sh*t!
@SpankyFrost
If you really want an answer to your demand to "please show me how you breath my smoke will cause cancer", just read any of the thousands (yes, thousands) of studies documented by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), showing a direct link between second hand smoke and cancer.
0 Votes
+ -
@v r I am sure for every study that you can show SpankyFrost that in your opinion proves your stance he can show you just as many that prove his. Each side will use extremes to come to the conclusion that they want. Just like a study I saw exposed a number of years ago stating the number of people killed each year from smoking. The study included people that smoke who were killed in car accidents. Their death had nothing to do with cancer but the fact that they were a smoker and killed in a car accident where they may have been on the way to or back from buying cigarettes was enough for this group to include them.
@ SpankyFrostnk The NIH must be part of the Vast Left Wing Liberal Consipracy (as, of course, is every other aspect of government). So of course we cannot believe their reports on smoking, any more than their conjecture (surely unsupported) that eating plutonium is hazardous to your health.

However, as a very left-wing liberal, I even agree that banning waering earbuds while joggin is intrusive, and counter-productive. If you believe in Darwinism (oops, the right doesn't believe in that either, do they...) then maybe someone stupid enough to turn up their iPod loud enough to get backed over by a truck (which only has a backup beeper because of another horrible liberal law) should be removed from the gene pool.

And yes, I do feel sorry for the people ledft behind by someone who gets backed over by a truck. His selfishness hurt them. Something you should think about before you plug in your iPod, or grab your phone off the passenger seat to tweet about this reply.
0 Votes
+ -
@gardoglee While I agree that they banning of earbuds is extreme you should also realize that as an admitted left-wing liberal that the lawyers (you know, those your party protects) will be more than happy to file lawsuits that it was the Apple's (or whoever) fault because they made the iPod the earbuds were plugged into. Left-wing liberals have absolutely no concept of what personal responsibility is.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Cylon Centurion Updated - 27th Jan 2011
We're wasting time with this crap? If you wanna declare war on headphones, why not start with the morons who drive with them on.

I'm not taking them out every time I cross a street while out for a run. I actually have a brain and stop and look before crossing.
0 Votes
+ -
This is a perfect example of evolution in action. Those who are too stupid or inattentive to survive will be killed off ensuring the smarter survivors are around to strengthen the gene pool. Only the politicians are trying to stop it, why you may ask? Probably because most of them realize that if we allow evolution to take it's natural course, the general populace would eventually get smart enough to realize that the politicains are the source of the biggest problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
Cylon Centurion 27th Jan 2011
Survival of the fittest at its best.


This is nothing more than the victim's families placing the blame elsewhere for their relative's forgetfulness.
0 Votes
+ -
cyclists?
Tigertank 27th Jan 2011
And it probably makes sense to extend something like that to bicyclists on public streets, as well, given that they?re sharing the streets with cars and trucks. Bicyclists need to be extra alert.

The last part is all that needs to be said. As a cyclist who listens to music on long rides, I can say that you can hear traffic just fine as long as you set the volume at a medium level. I always hear cars approaching from behind and am always alert (checking over my shoulder on busy roads.)
Honestly, what are the statistics of cyclists causing accidents because of earbuds. I would interested to know. Arrogant cyclists that don't follow the traffic laws anyway I can understand. (I see those jerks in NYC all the time.) but I doubt earbuds have anything to do with it-they just don't give a crap.
But truthfully, you can say the same thing about people cranking the car stereo also. Are we going to ban them too?
0 Votes
+ -
So do they want to lock up the deaf, too?
0 Votes
+ -
@alsobannedfromzdnet

probably... after all, they can't hear the backup beep either and might get run over. we need to protect them from themselves!

/sarcasm
As much as I can see the need for responsible use of music players, I just can't bring myself to believe that the best deterrent is another law. If someone is going to zone out so completely that they put themselves in harm's way, I absolutely believe that it's their lookout. This may sound harsh, but really... Don't we have enough of a "nanny state" already?

I remember seeing a bumper sticker on the back of a car several years ago - "Hang Up and Drive!" If you're stupid enough to be texting while driving, you _deserve_ to be ticketed heavily - you're a danger to others even more than to yourself, although that's true as well. If you're walking or riding while lost in oblivion because of your tunes, then it's probably just desserts if you walk into a manhole or worse. Hopefully _that_ lesson will stick without being lethal.
I agree. Too many laws. How is one to know if something is or isn't legal especially if you are just visiting another state.

I don't have a problem with others listening to there headphones while they are walking. The problem is that when something happens, they try to blame someone else for their stupidity and try to sue over it. The real problem is frivolous lawsuits.
0 Votes
+ -
@having_fun

the problem is not the law suits

the problem is people refusing to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions

the rest (frivolous lawsuits, nanny state laws, blaming everyone else, etc) is a result of that refusal
So, are these lawmakers are seriously thinking that the prospect of a fine will install 'sense' in senseless people when bodily harm will not?
How about a law that fines lawmakers if they attempt to pass senseless laws.
@sirpaul2

I have a better idea - recall them from office, and a permanent prohibition on them ever holding any public office again - for life.
If you are so preoccupied with something other than what is the primary task you are performing and you get injured or killed, all I have to say is that is a darwin award! Simple as that...It's a cleansing of the gene pool!
Seems like this is a perfect example of where natural selection should be allowed to run its course...
These people want to protect us into oblivion. This one is just another excuse for dipping into people's pocketbook to give local officials another source of revenue to help them support their over-spending habits. They think they can make it so that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone, but the only way to accomplish that is to take people's freedom away... they are beginning to go to extremes that should not be tolerated.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm All In!
Gr8Music 28th Jan 2011
"And even good laws can be extended way too far, like the proposed ban on ALL cell phone activity in vehicles; one of the cabinet members wants to force carmakers to install devices that will block ALL cell phone activity while the engine is running."

As a salesman on the road every day AND as a motorcyclist, I support this 100%. Ever since I hooked-up my Sony Discman D-50 to my car and almost drove off a cliff while changing a disc (1984), I NEVER change discs, answer/make phone/text calls, eat, shave, pleasure myself or anything else but DRIVE when in a car. It's easy to pull-over and doesn't take much time. If I should ever be hit on my motorcycle by someone distracted, they had better hope that I die! I know, I know, "drive defensively" ... I do but its getting to be too much with 80% of the drivers being distracted one way or another.

BAN IT ALL - NO EXCEPTIONS!
0 Votes
+ -
death by iPod - not uncommon
anthonymaw 28th Jan 2011
Reminds me of a tragic incident in the case of a Kenyan student in Cranbrook, British Columbia, a few years ago when a stricken helicopter fell right on top of him as he listened to his "iPod". The three passengers of the helicopter were also killed. Must have been some good music! http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/four-killed-cranbrook-bc-helicopter-crash_916.html
@NancyJones surely you are an imbecile, All forms of cellular activity in a vehicle are a distraction to the driver. This non-essential activity clearly impinges on the drivers ability to concentrate fully on the task at hand, that is driving the vehicle safely.
Way more people die in cars then from listening to an mp3 player. We should ban cars before anything else.
You claim the person getting smashed by a truck that was backing up only hurt himself. Now imagine the emotional toll on the innocent driver. It does affect others.
Leave 'em alone. It thins out the lower end of the gene pool.
Looks like the Left didn't learn anything from the last election!
I ride my bike while wearing headphones in very rural areas with dirt roads. I pay attention and ride defensively. I don't need these law makers taking away my freedom!! Well, there is always 2012 to look forward to.
0 Votes
+ -
Shaking the air is not enough
tim.poston@... 29th Jan 2011
Warning sounds via air don't cut it any more. How about an emergency band for signals that come in through e-ears? Position sensing could keep it short range, so you don't get swamped.

Standards for that would involve some regulation, but much less impact on rights: and would be much easier to enforce than a ban.
So, it will be illegal for deaf people to walk in New York?
As the old saying goes: You can't fix stupid. Either regarding everyday activities people indulge in, or with proposed laws in legislatures.
0 Votes
+ -
ONLY ONE THING TO SAY. . . .
fm-usa Updated - 31st Jan 2011
.
.
.
. . . More laws = Less freedom
.
.
.
0 Votes
+ -
Just another assinine piece of legislation
BlueCollarCritic 31st Jan 2011
Guys ? Guys ? Guys, let?s not in fight about this. Clearly there will be differences of opinion as to what laws are going to far and which are not. Therein lies the problem with all laws, how much is too much. The answer is it depends and that?s why you have to err on the side of too little regulation then too much. Neither the Federal government nor the State has the authority to enact this kind of ridiculous legislation and yet this is what they do most of the time.

The Federal government is supposed to, by Constitutional decree, protect our borders and yet they do not. They are NOT supposed to perform illegal searches and seizures and yet this exactly what they are doing thru the TSA at the airports now and the train stations and all other public venues very soon (did you think they were stopping at the airports).

The States while not as out of control are still enacting just as ridiculous and outrageous legislation as the Federal government. Why do they do this? Because we let them. Every year we send back to DC and our local State capitals the same connected group of men and women we have for many decades. With a very few as the exception, each on of these men and women come from either a wealthy family or a politically connected family or both with BOTH being the most common. When was the last time a politician was elected who came from the middle class or lower? There have been a god number run for office in the last few years but most get beaten by the richer and more connected career politician. This is because the media stands behind them.

Step back and take a good look at politics the last 50 years and see how many Senators/Representatives at the Federal Level or State equivalents ended up actually doing what they promised when they were campaigning. How many of these came from a working background where they had to have a job to survive because they did not have a trust fund?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix