"Seattle Should Not Ban Distracted Walking"

Yes, it should. There will always be large, heavy, and deadly vehicles of some kind on the road, even in a non-fossil fuel world. They may not be the cars of today, but they will be the personal transportation of tomorrow, they will be buses, they will be trains, and they will be trucks moving goods from Point A to Point B. We can hope technology will save us from ourselves by making them "smart" when near pedestrians, but there will be a point where they won't be able to defy physics. And software will have bugs.
18% of non-whites is still a hell of a lot more than I'd expect.
Applying makeup shouldn't be an offense as, after all, women are looking forward as mascara is applied.
Good Morning Charles,
Indeed, @1 has a point regarding part of your posting title, "Seattle Must Not Ban Distracted Walking". It is getting more and more dangerous to walk and use one's hand-held device. I am not sure a ban would work but humans/pedestrians must be made aware that once distracted, it can be fatal. See below:…
There is no "allegedly" when it comes to the shooting of Ruszczyk, the officer admitted to pulling the trigger, and has already explained why he did so.
"Something that never happens in the US of A: A police chief resigning after a black person is shot and killed by a white cop. "

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story line.

Note counterexamples in San Francisco CA, North Miami FL, Ferguson MO, Sanford FL (tho Zimmermann was not a cop), and Colbert OK (where nobody died, but contact between the Chief and a road-raging black beauty queen went verbally ballistic).

Note also the rolling turnover of senior SPD leadership (chiefs included) in the wake of John T Williams fatal shooting.
@5 -- For the oecord, Officer Noor has admitted nothing and explained nothing, in public or private. What little we know comes from statements by his partner, who mentions a loud noise and a fear of ambush.
That shooting in Minneapolis - very strange in the details. The lady approaches the squad car in the alley after the 911 call had been made. Officer Noor was sitting on the passenger's side of the cruiser. He shoots, bullet travelling across and in front of the driving policeman, through the open window, and into poor Ms. Ruszczyk. Isn't it odd that a policeman would shoot from inside the car on the opposite side with someone between him and the victim? In all the other tragic shootings by police we've read and heard about, motive was assumed. This shooting is different. It's almost like an accident, but how could it be?
There's no point in "banning" distracted walking; it's self-enforcing. I've given up trying to stop the Tiny Screens Brigade from waltzing out in front of a bus.
I confess: not only I own a car, I even shamelessly drive it.
I also make an attempt to be civilized and considerate to all involved.
As such I think those phone use limitations while driving make sense, and wonder if some limitations should be applied to all.

It will be hard to phrase and enforce “distracted walking,” but something must be said if not done in regards to jumping to the street without any consideration to traffic, due to talking on the phone and/or using a headset of some sort.

Same goes to bike riders. While many are considerate and careful, too many others are changing back and forth from "traffic" to "pedestrian" whenever it suits them, risking themselves and others in the process regardless of electronic usage or not.
@8, if your recount is accurate, that is strange. Maybe 'strange' just goes with guns. I recall stories of toddlers killing or maiming their parents/siblings/playmates with firearms. Mishandle that menace just a bit, and hell's fury bursts forth.
@ 8, My dad worked in law enforcement, and I can tell you that no firearms instructor would ever approve of firing a shot directly across your partner seated in a patrol car--the sound alone would've been deafening--it's obviously negligent and reckless.
@7: Thank you for pointing out the error, Noor did not admit to the event, but the official account from the BCA states that Noor fired the shot as per the account #8 provided.

As to the comments @8: It makes very little sense, even if we are to take into account insufficient training or ascribe a highly strung personality to officer Noor. Firing across another officer's body, inside of a squad car is completely against any sort of police or gun safety training I am aware of.

@11: Those are genuine accidents though, where the firearm was never meant to go off. It appears that Noor made a conscious decision to shoot Ruszczyk, for whatever reason. It does not appear that the gun was "mishandled" from this perspective, setting semantic issues aside. It appears the gun operated exactly how the operator wanted it to.
@12 is correct. But it's fun with a full clip on full auto
For the record if you're in a military vehicle caught in an ambush and there are militants rushing in, it's still a bad idea to fire directly across your driver. (My 2nd cousin's barber knows a guy who knows a guy.)
@3 No, raindrop. She/He/They woiluld be looking at the rearview mirror that has been pulled down, which means BOTH the front and back views would be obstructed!
When a distracted walker steps directly in front of a 4,000 lb. moving vehicle, who cares that walking was the more ecologically correct thing to do? Numb nuts have stepped directly in front of my car, crossing against the light or mid-block, on more than one occasion while focused on texting. Fortunately, my brakes are always kept in top condition and I've missed them by a few feet.

I think we ought to declare those who walk and text to be fair game any time they step off a curb doing so. Any driver who turns one of these airheads into a damp spot on the pavement should be free from all penalties or prosecutions derived thereof. In fact, said drivers should be given a reward.

Oh, and by the way, there are instances where pedestrians have been killed by bicyclists (the ecologically sound vehicle of choice). Look it up.

Actually, I sort of agree with Chaz on this one. If nothing else (as @4 & @9 point out), it's a pretty effective way for those folks to self-select out of the gene pool...

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.