Head down, absorbed in the fascination of his smartphone, the pedestrian walks into a lamp post 鈥� or onto a crosswalk. We laugh at the first and cringe at the second, because some of those distracted walkers get hit by cars. It鈥檚 a problem, but is it a problem that should be fixed with a new law? Can it even be fixed by a law?
We think the answer to both of these questions is no. While no one wants to see needless death or injury, we cannot always protect people from themselves.
In Ontario, Liberal MPP Yvan Baker introduced a private member鈥檚 bill called the 鈥淧hones Down, Heads Up Act,鈥� in the legislature last week. Under the bill, pedestrians would be banned from looking at their phones or other devices when crossing roads. The penalty for a first offence would be $50, second would be $75 and third would be $125.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said the idea should be discussed. And thanks to Baker鈥檚 bill, the idea is being discussed.
It should be discussed, but the bill shouldn鈥檛 be passed.
Yes, it鈥檚 dangerous to navigate a crosswalk on a busy street with your head glued to your phone, but there are both practical and moral objections to trying to reduce the danger with a law.
Practically speaking, how would such a law be enforced?
Jaywalking is against the law, but pedestrians rarely feel the long arm of the law for crossing illegally. Cyclists are required to wear helmets, but how often do two-wheeled scofflaws get ticketed? Despite well-publicized enforcement campaigns, police admit they can鈥檛 catch all the drivers who are yakking on their cellphones while they hurtle down the road.
So how are the police supposed to find the time and resources to hand out tickets for distracted walkers? Unless you happen to walk in front of a police car whose occupant is not on the way to a more urgent call, the chances are that you won鈥檛 get caught.
Having too many laws that people routinely flout undermines our respect for the law, and that damages society. Laws should be used sparingly.
The moral objection to a distracted-walking law similar to distracted-driving laws is that it suggests a walker and a driver are the same thing. They are not.
One of them is, in the normal course of events, harmless. The other is, in the normal course of events, a constant danger to everyone around him. A car or truck can, at any moment, kill or maim people or destroy property.
We license drivers, and register and insure vehicles, because driving carries a weight of responsibility that walking does not. It is drivers who are responsible for the machines they control. It鈥檚 the driver鈥檚 responsibility not to hit the pedestrian.
Of course, drivers are not omniscient, nor do they have the reflexes of cats. The lines on a crosswalk protect you legally, but not physically. Pedestrians have to watch where they are going, especially when crossing streets.
Public-education campaigns and peer pressure are valuable tools in changing behaviour. By all means, remind people of the dangers of distracted walking. Perhaps the coding geniuses at Apple and Samsung can find a way to have our phones remind us to look up before we step off the sidewalk.
Distracted walking is a dangerous problem, but it鈥檚 not a problem we can solve with another unenforceable law.
