
Honolulu fines pedestrians for viewing phone while crossing street - dpflan
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/business/honolulu-walking-and-texting-fine.html
======
jacek
I wish something was done about drivers playing with their phones. I live in a
city in the US, where cars are the main mode of transportation. I, however
live relatively close to work and walk every day (I am European ;). Number of
drivers using their phone is just ridiculous (looks like ~30-40% of them
during afternoon rush hours). I have been in life-threatening situations many
times (2-3 per month on average). All because of phone use and driver friendly
(aka pedestrian unfriendly) design and polices.

I just wanted to say that use of phones by pedestrians in certain situations
is unsafe and problematic. However, use of phones by drivers is a much bigger
problem that has much more serious consequences and is not addressed in any
way.

~~~
cafard
In the District of Columbia, one can get a large fine for holding one's cell
phone while driving. But if you walk two blocks in Washington and don't see at
least one driver doing this, you aren't paying attention. While out running, I
have yelled to get the attention of drivers looking every way but mine, but
mostly at their phones. While out the walking I am very wary. The threat of a
fine is not working.

(As I recall, there are many signs in Manhattan announcing large fines for the
unnecessary use of an automobile's horn. There is also a lot of noise from
horns. It could be that the horns one hears are prudently warning other
drivers or pedestrians, but I suspect that they indicate drivers' levels of
frustration.)

As somebody says farther down, such a law cannot possibly be enforced
uniformly, and is open to selective enforcement.

A neighbor's car was totaled in a rear-end collision. He's pretty sure that
the person who hit him was looking at a phone.

~~~
jacek
I was also rear-ended once by a person using a phone. To make things more
interesting I was in a rental car and I was on my way to return it.

------
peterwwillis
Jaywalking laws were enacted because cars were killing pedestrians. They
trotted out a huge PR campaign to call people who crossed in the middle of the
street country bumpkins, and made it a crime, so that cars would not have to
think about pedestrians.

This is another law aimed at making pedestrians second-class citizens. Instead
of protecting pedestrians, these laws protect drivers, because they put the
onus of safety on the pedestrians, who are the actual victims of the drivers.

I like the other cities who actually put in signals to the pedestrians, like
the lights on the floor, or signs in the way of the pedestrians who are
crossing the street. But an even better protection would be bollards that
emerge out of the street to prevent cars from running red lights and hitting
pedestrians, or other cars when drunk driving. But that might shine a light on
the actual cause of death - the vehicle - rather than the responsibility of a
passenger to keep a seat belt on, or a pedestrian to not use their phone.

~~~
carapace
> Jaywalking laws were enacted because cars were killing pedestrians. They
> trotted out a huge PR campaign to call people who crossed in the middle of
> the street country bumpkins, and made it a crime, so that cars would not
> have to think about pedestrians.

I wish more people knew about this. I've had a guy treat me like a tin-foil-
hat wearer when I brought it up. It really pissed me off, "It's not a
conspiracy theory you ignorant jerk."

------
cletus
Oh I miss the days when I could walk down the goddamn street without dodging
hundreds of oblivious zombies who pay no attention to their surroundings then
give you a dark look like it's your fault if they run into you.

I really wish NYC would have something like this.

I don't get it either. Either stop (and get out of the way) to look at your
phone or walk. Don't walk an one-third pace. It's pointless and annoying.

Much like texting while driving I think the majority of offenders believe they
can look at their phone without it impacting what they're doing. it's alsmot
universally wrong.

~~~
jaxbot
It drives me insane the same way that tourists stopping in the middle of the
sidewalk to look at a map does, or when people walk 4-people wide, stand on
the left of an escalator, queue up for a bus by blocking the sidewalk, or
holding everyone up to 'just take a quick photo.'

It's really annoying, but I don't think you can just ad-hoc legislate it. We
have tons of things that were made illegal in NYC and a tiny amount of the
laws actually get enforced. As others have said, this can lead to laws only
being enforced on people the police already want to harass, and everyone else
doing it on a regular basis.

In addition, with our Vision Zero goals, there are so many other things to
focus enforcement and government bandwidth on. Hundreds of people are still
being killed by reckless drivers every year. If we can solve that, then we can
focus on getting people to be less annoying when walking around.

~~~
sheepdestroyer
wow, or maybe people should not be expected to be always rushing in life? If
you are busy to get to a workplace that do not allow coming late, tough on
you, leave earlier. I'll keep enjoying life (and be a "tourist", even where I
live) at my own pace, and stop to take a picture if I feel like it, thank you

~~~
flukus
You can walk slow and not be in peoples way. Walk to the side not the middle
of the damn footpath for instance. If there's two (or more) of you walk single
file OR pay attention and move to single file when someone wants to walk
faster. Have some awareness and not stop suddenly when someone is right behind
you. Just have some awareness in general.

------
carapace
I walk. I don't drive. I've noticed that traffic is getting crazy (I live in
San Francisco.)

Phones are a large part of it, and they are affecting all kinds of things: At
bus stops people now try to get on the bus without waiting for the people
getting off to exit first. It doesn't make any sense but they do it. And on
every single bus there's at least one person watching TV or listening to
(invariable bad) music without headphones.

So it's not just cars but car traffic is bad too.

A huge factor is the Lyft/Uber drivers. You see a lot of weird maneuvers and
crazy shit these days, and it's almost always one of them. Some one is driving
slow and turning their turn signals on and off? It's an uber driver looking
for their pickup. Car camped in a crosswalk with no signals or blinkers? Uber
driver. Etc...

I believe there's a bleed-over effect where people see others doing stupid
shit and then they start to think that's the way things are and do stupid shit
themselves. It becomes the new norm. I was bummed out to see the other day a
police officer roll through a stop sign looking at his phone. He glanced up as
he entered the intersection, at least. ;-(

People don't want to drive well.

I hate when drivers "play chicken" with me at intersections. I've had drivers
wave me forward to cross in front of them while they were still rolling. No
thank you. You stop and I'll go, or you go and I'll wait (and to hell with
right-of-way.)

More topically, anyone who crosses the street without paying attention has a
bit of a death wish or something. I doubt a fine is going to help much.

~~~
flukus
> At bus stops people now try to get on the bus without waiting for the people
> getting off to exit first. It doesn't make any sense but they do it

In Australia it's socially acceptable to barge into people doing this, same
with people two abreast on the escalator. Not everyone has the build to do it,
but there are enough to largely keep those people in check. The music thing
doesn't seem to happen much, but sometimes the TV thing does with kids. There
is a plague of people constantly having conversations on their phones though,
I don't feel bad about any music leaking from my headphones because it's
needed to drown out their conversations.

> I hate when drivers "play chicken" with me at intersections. I've had
> drivers wave me forward to cross in front of them while they were still
> rolling. No thank you. You stop and I'll go, or you go and I'll wait (and to
> hell with right-of-way.)

I see this more on my push bike, I'm not waiting for them to stop, just to
slow down a bit as an indication that they've seen me (a lesson learned the
hard way). They're failure to do this slows both of us down.

~~~
carapace
> In Australia it's socially acceptable to barge into people doing this

I've been tempted.

------
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
Outlawing something that large portions of the population already do can be a
pretty worrying thing. It's the perfect breeding ground for selective
enforcement.

~~~
module0000
>> Outlawing something that large portions of the population already do

That in and of itself should signal that we aren't quite as "democratic" as we
are told. We are allowed to vote on people who vote on things on our behalf -
we are never allowed to vote on laws such as this one(otherwise, it would
likely fail).

~~~
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
Yes, we are a representative democracy. I thought that was well understood.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

As opposed to the form where voters vote on laws and policies directly:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)

------
dogruck
I disagree with this regulation, but the big problem will be with how it's
enforced. Won't be long until "the cop said I was looking at my phone, but I
wasn't!"

~~~
WD-42
Isn't this the same argument that was used against seat belt laws?

~~~
olyjohn
This is how just about every traffic law works. Take speeding as an example.
Cop gets you with a speed measuring device like LIDAR or RADAR. He writes down
the measured speed, clears out his device. How do you know that's what the gun
actually registered? They totally have the power to make up a speed, pull you
over and ticket you. Good luck in court. It almost always comes down to your
word vs the officer's.

~~~
module0000
I've fought one of these tickets, and it is very difficult as you say. I won,
but in a way I consider sleazy. I plead non-guilty, and _used an attorney_
(this is so, so, so important) who had the radar device brought into court.
Once the device was present, the attorney entered a litany of requests:

1) Proof of the officers initial training with the device

2) Proof of the officers required continued training with the device

3) Proof of device's regular scheduled maintenance

4) Proof of training(initial and continued) of the person(s) who performed
said maintenance

They got as far as item #2, couldn't provide it, and folded. I paid my
attorney roughly the same cost I would have paid the court. Any "savings"
would be the increase in my insurance costs that never happened.

If you can't afford an attorney, you are screwed. The "system" is about
generating municipal income, not keeping anyone safe on the roads.

~~~
peatmoss
> The "system" is about generating municipal income, not keeping anyone safe
> on the roads.

But presumably you were actually speeding?

------
mrgoldenbrown
Shouldn't we be treating the root cause of the danger, and not an ancillary
factor? Cars are the cause of the injuries that motivated this law. Cars can
be built to reduce pedestrian injuries, and are required to be in some
countries (not the US). Distracted Drivers are the most common cause of cars
hitting pedestrians. Yet the article barely addressed what laws currently
address this in Hawaii, if any.

~~~
grzm
You make good points regarding other things that can be done to reduce
accidents. This article is addressing one in particular that is being tried in
Hawaii.

> _”Yet the article barely addressed what laws currently address this in
> Hawaii, if any.”_

I think this is a bit unfair. Articles are not exhaustive dissertations on a
topic. They have some scope that the writer and editor determines is
appropriate for the context. That may or may not match the scope you expect.
Then again, the article may just be poorly written. If you were to look into
this more deeply yourself and put together a piece yourself, I’m sure there
are others (even on HN), that would find it interesting.

------
djsumdog
I always put my phone down to my side if I was looking at it before crossing a
street. But I'm also one of those people who have to slow down if I look at my
phone while walking; I can't really do both effectively at the same time just
because I want to be aware of where I'm going.

However I don't think fines are the right way to go. Signs and advertising
campaigns would be better. Fines just violate the social contract. You're also
not really hurting anyone else but yourself. In the fight or car vs person,
the car is going to win .. I mean, unless you get hit by a cyclist.

~~~
interfixus
You are potentially hurting other cyclists, other pedestrians, and very much
the future well-being of any motorist who happens to run you over while
running a green light.

~~~
to3m
Why is the person in the car not looking where they are going? It's people
driving cars who are responsible for not running people over. The green light
is there to tell traffic it's OK to proceed if appropriate. It doesn't make it
OK to just run people over.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The person in the car should be looking where they're going, but they expect a
clear roadway, not random pedestrians stepping out without paying attention.

In several states, if you're above a certain age (to exempt children) and walk
into the path of a moving vehicle outside of a crosswalk, fault will be
assigned to you and the driver in equal amounts (unless the driver is
speeding, in which case they accumulate more fault).

~~~
Symbiote
The driver should certainly not expect a clear roadway.

At least in Britain, roughly the first driving lesson begins with looking all
around for other road users. Speed must be reduced if there's an increased
risk of inattentive pedestrians, such as near parked cars around a school or
houses.

------
firefoxd
This sounds great, but then how do you enforce it.

\- I was just checking the time

\- Well check this ticket out

Joking aside. You have in your hand a device that is designed to be addictive,
you have spent years nurturing that addiction, in fact society praises you for
using the device. If you use it you get a ticket.

Yes I think it is super annoying when people are not looking where they are
going, it can even be dangerous, but this rule does not solve the problem.

I think even a just in time reminder is more effective. We have these traffic
lights that have audio:

"Please put away your phone while crossing"

~~~
mercer
How does fining people for looking at their phone while crossing the street
not effectively curb that behavior? Regardless of whether it's addictive or
not.

Smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc. all seem to work pretty well despite the
fact that many people really don't like these things.

------
rthille
Within the first few hours I was in Honolulu for the first time I went to
cross a street with the "walk" signal and had a driver blow through the red,
probably 5 seconds or more after I'd gotten the "walk" signal. I wouldn't walk
around Honolulu staring at my phone if you paid me.

------
PatientTrades
This is unconstitutional. Same with the law requiring a seatbelt. Please tell
me whos life you are endangering by crossing the street while viewing your
phone? The answer is only your own. The state/government is basically saying
we own your life (slavery) by instituting laws like these.

~~~
jeffdavis
What part of the Constitution are you referring to?

Preventing you from looking at your phone while walking is not forced
servitude.

If it were a federal law, perhaps it would violate the 10th amendment. But
it's just a local thing.

~~~
PatientTrades
This law violates the constitution by restricting a basic liberty (In this
case walking across the street while viewing your phone) this action does not
directly hurt or harm anyone other than potentially yourself. Under the
constitution we have a right to our life. This law violates that principle

~~~
nkrisc
It does in fact endanger other people. You are creating a dangerous situation.
A pedestrian in the street who is oblivious to their surroundings is a hazard
to all drivers.

------
module0000
Pickpockets or laws, both eventually "fix" this problem. The difference is who
the money goes to.

