lrd (12/09/82)
The following items are quoted from a column in the January, 1983 issue of CYCLE GUIDE magazine, that reports on current or pending legislation of interest to motorcylists (and motorists in general). "Pennsylvania is considering adopting a law which has all the spirit of Nathanial Hawthorne and the Scarlet Letter. SB1561 proposes that motorists convicted of driving under the influence be issued special license plates, thereby marking them as transgressors. Standard colors for Penn- sylvania plates are yellow with dark blue letters; con- victed offenders would get red plates with yellow letters, the same colors that Hester Prine was forced to wear." "The use of radar detectors no longer is illegal in Michigan. A recent Supreme Court decision in that state has overturned a 1929 statute that state troopers had cited as grounds for confiscating detectors. The 54- year-old law prohibited listening in on 'police radio' bands; the troopers were loosely interpreting that to include radar. The Supreme Court didn't agree." "New Jersey is the latest state to propose legislation against the use of stereophonic headphones while operating a motor vehicle. New Jersey's bill, AB 1750, goes one step further, however, and would also ban headphone use by pedestrians -- if they're on public roads. Punishment would be the same -- whether on foot or on wheels; $75 for a first offense and $100 thereafter." Comment: I hope the Michigan action is used as a precedent for similar action in the other states that ban the use of detectors. If I were a resident of either Pennsylvania or New Jersey, I would certainly let my legislative representatives know that I wanted them to support the proposed bills -- particularly the Pennsylvania action! I wonder if I should be wearing an asbestos suit -- I think I feel a flame or two coming my way... L. R. DuBroff Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois
mark (12/09/82)
Oh really? You think it should be a $75 fine for a pedestrian or driver to wear headphones? Boy, I'd like to see the Supreme Court handle that one! If you outlaw headphones for drivers, you had better outlaw all radios that can drown out road noise, all luxury cars with such good sound deadening that you can cut a diamond in the back, and you also had better make it illegal for deaf people to drive.
bdp (12/10/82)
From cbosgd!mark Thu Dec 9 11:20:59 1982 Subject: Re: New Legislation Oh really? You think it should be a $75 fine for a pedestrian or driver to wear headphones? Boy, I'd like to see the Supreme Court handle that one! If you outlaw headphones for drivers, you had better outlaw all radios that can drown out road noise, all luxury cars with such good sound deadening that you can cut a diamond in the back, and you also had better make it illegal for deaf people to drive. Your suggestion is well taken. Such legislation should be enacted immediately. I heard of a fellow bike-rider (bicyclist) who was in a race in New York. It seems that a young lady wearing headphones stepped out in front of him. Oblivious to his cries to get out of the way and unable to stop or swerve at the speed he was going, he struck her. As a regular bike rider I am continually amazed at the stupidity of most people when it comes to traffic. This goes for pedestrians, car-drivers, and, yes, other bikers. The last thing the states should be doing is sanctioning the drivers and pedesrians to be totally oblivious to the traffic while in it. Bruce Parker BTL Pissthataway
ark (12/11/82)
Wonderful idea to outlaw headphones on pedestrians. While we're at it, let's prohibit deaf people from walking in public streets at all. After all, they can't hear oncoming traffic... Seriously, one of these days we will start to realize that people are responsible for their OWN well-being. Trying to legislate "safety" is inconsistent with personal freedom.
ber (12/12/82)
#R:ih1ap:-10900:harpo:7000001:000:80 harpo!ber Dec 11 17:24:00 1982 Maybe the headphone law in NJ would set a precedent to outlaw helmets. brian
hsc (12/14/82)
Pedestrians can change direction AWFUL fast. I get nervous passing them, and generally tap my horn before I go by if there's any chance they don't notice me and might cut in my path. I would be unhappy if the pedestrian was wearing earphones (do I swing wide and chance hitting an oncoming car? do I cruise up at 5 mph and display a sign that says "EXCUSE ME"?). It's not fair that automobile drivers can have heavy soundproofing and 100-watt stereos, but so what? I hit a kid once (just some light bruises, and the court ruled it wasn't my fault); anything that will reduce the chance of hitting another is OK with me. I have enough to do looking out for cars; I don't want to impair the little guys' ability to look out for me. Harvey S. Cohen BTL-LZ1C314 (201)576-6059 houxn!hsc Lincroft, NJ (ABI 1/1/83)
hsc (12/14/82)
As ark says, people are responsible for their own well-being.
If a pedestrian does something stupid and you kill them, that's THEIR
problem. Just leave a note on the body, explaining the circumstances - no
need to feel bad, and no need to go to court.
Trying to legislate safety is indeed inconsistent with personal
freedom, and it's a damn shame we have to do it. Too bad we have to
forbid people from driving while drunk, driving without necessary
eyeglasses, shooting off guns in their back yards, etc. It would be
so much nicer if we could just wash our hands and leave responsibility
to the individual.
There are times when the net social benefit of safety legislation
is not worth the cost or the loss of personal freedom, but
a blanket policy like ark's is simply not realistic.
Harvey S. Cohen BTL-LZ1C314 (201)576-6059 houxn!hsc
(ABI 1/1/83)