At least the police can sometimes be counted on to ignore non-value-added laws. The real question is why lawmakers don't have more important things to do.

Bicycling with headphones on is potentially dangerous, though.

Those who believe that we need the government to protect us from ourselves will continue to pass more, and more, of these laws. Is it potentially dangerous to ride a bicycle with headphones on? Yes. But it's also potentially dangerous to ride a bicycle in NY without headphones on. Where do you draw the line on government intervention? Who's at risk if a jogger is wearing headphones? Obviously, the jogger. So who should decide if the jogger should be wearing headphones? In my libertarian utopia, it should be up to the jogger.

The police will ignore the laws the way they ignore jaywalking laws. They really do have better things to do.

The police do not ignore 'non-value-added' laws; they enforce them against some and not others. I am glad people are finally waking up, but the erosion of personal liberty has been going on for our entire lifetimes. I would feel better about re-gaining our freedoms if issues like eminent domain & The Patriot Act got the same attention from the public as airport genital photography and cell phone restrictions. The average American works over twenty years to earn a million dollars. We are spending over two-hundred million dollars a day in Iraq. You don't create a smaller government by expanding the laws that restrict personal liberties or without reducing the size of the military and intelligence departments.

Who's at risk if a jogger is wearing headphones? Obviously, the jogger.

Yeah, righ up until you hit a jogger who didn't see or hear you coming and came out right in front of you. Not only will you suffer emotional trauma from their poor choice - you did hit them - they'll probably add insult to injury by suing you and your insurance company for actual and punative damages.

At least if they broke a law, you'd have that going for you during the trial. Otherwise, you may look like a deep pocket to a jury inclined to award damages to the injured party. Hopefully, you'll have some witnesses, otherwise you'll probably get screwed.

Making this a law is pointless. The technology is becoming so small that it is becoming really difficult to tell when people are using it, especially with phones.

Also, it's a pain in the ass. It's not unusual for me to walk from 5 to 20 blocks to get where I'm going. I'm not going to remove my iPod at the end of each block. I'm perfectly capable of listening to music and crossing the street at the same time. And what do they mean by using? If I go into a store, very often I'll turn off the iPod so I can conduct business, but I'll leave the earbuds in my ears or over my shoulder. Would it be illegal to even appear to be using an iPod or phone?

Maybe we'll see a return to boom boxes. That would be MUCH better.

Yes! Everyone with the super-sized Ghetto Blaster with the 8" woofers in it.

And a different song on every one.

The cacophony would be wonderful.

I am terrified of hitting one of these nitwits on their devices -- they leap into traffic with oblivion. But, you don't ban a practice for all because SOME are assholes about it.

I get what you're saying and sympathize, but so long as these nitwits double down on their rude behaviour by declining to take responsibility for their actions and shifting the blame to an innocent party, there will be attempts like this law to shift the blame back where it belongs.

Had you hit that bicyclist, you'd been found at fault. Doesn't matter that she was trying to pass on the right, or didn't observe your turn signal, or that she didn't have any lights on after dark,

Whooops...you would have been on the hook for her choices.

Seems like a bit of tension with the War On Obesity. Aren't we supposed to encourage people to walk/bike/run?

So this means we can expect a law against hearing rap with the volume at 11 blasting from cars?

Bicycling with headphones on is potentially dangerous, though.

I do it all the time. It isn't. What is dangerous is cycling without a rear view mirror.

---

Beware of confirmation bias: that someone is clueless with earbuds doesn't mean they would be any more clueful with them.

testing

date test

"I've been reading that this may have negative health effects -- this low bass heard over a period of time, especially. "

Well, there you go: the perfect "reason" to pass laws and regulations. It's for your own good!

And notice this about public health-care plans:

The agent who provides your health care can deny you care in certain cases. What do you think will happen when the sole provider of your health care - the Federal government - notices a risky behavior costs the system money?

I don't own a BMW, but I'll bet the guy who was found in the trunk of his car with his ears cut off wished the NY cops were paying more attention to career criminals.

I R A Darth Aggie hit on one of my first thoughts. Maybe the laws are really for the protection of the taxpayers and property owners.

Think of the woman who fell into the mall fountain while texting. She should have let it go and slunk away with the embarassment, but NO. Let's sue. Not my fault. Well, it was her fault and she was not hurt or damaged.

I am not fond of laws that are paternalistic and try to protect people from their own bad choices. OTOH, I am even more down on people who expect to hold others responsible, and even profit from, their own bad choices. Not sure of the solution - just frustrated.

These laws are there for one reason, for the 'protection' of the jobs of bureaucrats looking to justify their presence as leeches on taxpayers.

Just one more financial straw on the camel's back. Any day now, it will break. Many municipalities and states are already staring bankruptcy in the face. The party is coming to an end.