should texting while walking negate pedestrian laws

[Ksandra]

hay guys, lets restrict our freedoms more by not allowing us to multitask when we walk anywhere. You know, you shouldn't be allowed to eat and text at the same time cuz you might choke. Or smoke and text since you might burn yourself and/or start a fire. Same with smoking and watching tv, you might get up and yell TOUCHDOWN while dropping your cigarette and burning the house down. We really need the government to step in and make sure we are protected from ourselves.

tl;dr fuck this thread. bitch is stupid for not paying attention but our current laws are perfectly fine. The "no texting / using cell phone while driving" law pissed me off enough, now we gotta extend it to fucking people walking? jfc it's 1984 in here

it's not about limiting freedom. If you want to text while walking go for it. But if you get hit because you didn't fucking pay attention, then why should the driver pay 100%?

[Demosthenes11]

that's impossible to start enforcing unless you made texting while walking illegal. You can't have someone pay for some of the damages if they didn't break any rules

[Correction]

that's impossible to start enforcing unless you made texting while walking illegal. You can't have someone pay for some of the damages if they didn't break any rules

I'm trying to understand why you think laws against texting while driving are a problem. Do you think such behavior is covered by existing laws? Or that there should be no restrictions on how folks spend their time 'multitasking' in their cars?

[Davricle]

thread needs more

Meet Joe Black.

[Ksandra]

that's impossible to start enforcing unless you made texting while walking illegal. You can't have someone pay for some of the damages if they didn't break any rules

orly?

Strict liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strict liability makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.

Culpability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Before you say "those don't apply in this situation", that's not my point. Point is such types of liability laws do exist, (usually involving someone being retarded and overloading a power cord or something). And it's not impossible for such laws to get extended to cellphones.


[edit] to further strengthen this point:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Strict:liability.htm

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.

as in this case. It is not illegal to own a tiger in a rehabilitation center, but if the tiger causes injury to another person the own is considered 100% liable.

while obviously, a tiger is a much more dangerous thing than texting while walking, but again the point is to illustrate these types of laws can and do exist without making something "illegal"