It was a very effective advertising campaign for Verizon wireless, some geeky-looking guy walking around asking, “can you hear me now?”  Sadly, the campaign ended when he was run down by Peterbilt semi.  He never heard it coming.

From the New York Times, Brooklyn Senator Karl Kruger has introduced a bill prohibiting the use of cellphones, iPods and other electronic devices that give rise to “distracted walking,” after three pedestrians were killed and one critically injured on the streets of New York City since September.  Similar laws are proposed elsewhere.

In New York, a bill is pending in the legislature’s transportation committee that would ban the use of mobile phones, iPods or other electronic devices while crossing streets — runners and other exercisers included. Legislation pending in Oregon would restrict bicyclists from using mobile phones and music players, and a Virginia bill would keep such riders from using a “hand-held communication device.”

Exercising in Central Park on Tuesday, Marie Wickham, 56, said she understood what all the fuss was about: “They’re zigging, they’re zagging, they don’t know what’s around them. It can definitely be dangerous.”

But Ms. Wickham added that she would be opposed to any ban of such devices. “I think it’s an infringement on personal rights,” she said. “At some point, we need to take responsibility for our own stupidity.”

We used to have a description of people who suffered such challenges, saying they were unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.  It covered those who were too stupid, too uncoordinated, to manage to navigate life when engaging in two activities at once.  Having spent many years walking the sidewalks of Manhattan during rush hour, I can attest to the extreme difficulties that many nice folks have with such mundane activities. 

But are electronic devices different?  The public-spirited libertarian approach is to diminish this proposal as more Nanny Statist pap, outlawing “distracted walking” because of a few dopes who got run down.  Cynics amongst them see this as another excuse to collect fines at $100 a pop.  They fail to appreciate the Luddite influence, an attack not on distracted walking (which is obviously just a marketing excuse) but electronic culture itself.

Like many others, I walk down the street unaided by ear buds, whether attached to iPhone or iPod.  It’s not because I fear becoming so entranced by the buzzing in my ear that my life will be in jeopardy, but because I don’t need constant digital stimulation to make it through the day.  I can walk, look around, think, and be remarkably happy without the sound of Justin Bieber (not Owen’s son, by the way) singing “baby” in my ears. 

I have a cellphone.  It sits peacefully in my pocket, turned off, until I need to make a telephone call.  Having lived the bulk of my life without being available to the world at any moment, I’m quite happy to hear your voicemail when I’m damn good and ready.  No, you cannot have access to me whenever you want.  No, I am not available at the end of the cellphone 24/7.  Not even 23/6 or less.

Yet this doesn’t stop the doofus in earbuds from walking into me, wholly oblivious that there are a million other people on the sidewalk, as he chatters like wacko about absolutely nothing.  This is even more annoying than three obese women strolling two miles an hour, side by side, during their lunch hour blocking tens of thousands of people on 7th Avenue.

The problem with this proposed law, of course, isn’t that it’s more Nanny Statist pap, protecting us from ourselves because we’ve grown too damned stupid to pay attention to the obvious risks around us.  The problem is that it fails to serve the greater good of distinguishing those who can chew gum and walk at the same time from those who can’t.

Where are the proper incentives?  Why not make it lawful to pop some sucker in the chops who bumps into you while walking down the street talking on his iPhone?  Why not make it, say, seven points instead of the normal 5 for running down a iPodder crossing against the light?  Let them do what they want, and let others thin the herd as nature intended.  Freedom is a two way street, and you better pay close attention when crossing it.

We’ve added to the arsenal of things that prevent the metacognitive challenged from paying adequate attention to the world around them.  That they are incapable of behaving in a way that safeguards themselves doesn’t make them special.  Or maybe it does, but not in the positive sense. 

There are not enough laws, not enough dead children or iPhoners, not enough summons pads, to fix the problem of stupidity.  That electronic devices offer yet another way to demonstrate obliviousness isn’t the fault of devices, but people who can’t take sufficient personal responsibility for themselves or demonstrate basic courtesy toward others.  While they enable the oblivious to ignore the fact that they are not the center of the universe, with everyone else obliged to move cautiously out of their path so as not to disrupt their telephone conversation about critical issues of soap operas or lunch menus, they are not the cause of the problem.

Indeed, the better solution may be to let a few more pedestrians in earbuds get run down by large trucks because they neglected to notice that they walked or ran right in front of them.  At some point, one of two things will happen. Either the oblivious will come to the realization that they need to take responsibility for not getting themselves killed, or the market for iPhone 16 will shrink significantly.  Either way, problem solved.

Now, if there was only a law against obese people strolling side by side down the avenue at two miles an hour, they might be on to something.