I wonder if a constitutionality argument can be made against this law.

If you can't get a court in this state and circuit to agree that zero people in the entire sate having the ability to lawfully "bear arms" in unconstitutional, what chance is there that looking-at-an-electronic-device-in-a-crosswalk-is-a-crime is unconstitutional?

Unless, of course, the progressives/Democrats get involved and find there is a constitutional right in there somewhere heretofore unseen (See: same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.), in which case it will be declared unconstitutional so fast the mayor's head will twist off.

If you're seeing women where you once saw young men, you might want to get your glasses prescription checked!   

His eyesight is fine. It is just wishful thinking. 

If you can't get a court in this state and circuit to agree that zero people in the entire sate having the ability to lawfully "bear arms" in unconstitutional, what chance is there that looking-at-an-electronic-device-in-a-crosswalk-is-a-crime is unconstitutional?

Unless, of course, the progressives/Democrats get involved and find there is a constitutional right in there somewhere heretofore unseen (See: same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.), in which case it will be declared unconstitutional so fast the mayor's head will twist off.

That would require a special session, and at great tax payer cost, to pass a "Freedom of Electronic Device Use" bill.

His eyesight is fine. It is just wishful thinking. 

....
At least I'm not seeing men instead of women.

And those are not the kind of fast women I'm looking for.

If you can't get a court in this state and circuit to agree that zero people in the entire sate having the ability to lawfully "bear arms" in unconstitutional, what chance is there that looking-at-an-electronic-device-in-a-crosswalk-is-a-crime is unconstitutional?

Unless, of course, the progressives/Democrats get involved and find there is a constitutional right in there somewhere heretofore unseen (See: same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.), in which case it will be declared unconstitutional so fast the mayor's head will twist off.

Hopefully they will station a cop outside city hall or the state capital and start tagging them when they cross the street while looking at their phone. Might as well tag them if they cross in the left hand side of the cross walk as well (yes it is a law)

Be sure to check out the story of the cop's "very dangerous... assault rifle" (Will Espero) that was stolen out of his "subsidized vehicle" while parked overnight "near his home" at http://khon2.com/2017/07/28/concerns-raised-after-rifle-stolen-from-police-officers-subsidized-vehicle/

The "still" image for the video report includes an officer walking across the crosswalk talking on his phone! Another case of do as you're told, not as I do, as "I'm a cop and exempt from the laws that control (and I enforce against) you peons". You can see the cop walking and talking at the same time at 1:37.

Then the cops use this argument against them having to be subject to the same laws as everyone else (i.e. non-cops):

"Thefts of officer equipment are rare."

So what do these numbers mean if "rare" is a valid criterion for and justification for laws existing or not?

Crime rate per 100k people:
 
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18

Prretty sure the only conclusion using the "rare" rationale is that fewer cops should be carrying guns and way more than zero citizens should be carrying in public. Perhaps they only selectively cherry-pick their application of the "rare" rationale?

Be sure to check out the story of the cop's "very dangerous... assault rifle" (Will Espero) that was stolen out of his "subsidized vehicle" while parked overnight "near his home" at http://khon2.com/2017/07/28/concerns-raised-after-rifle-stolen-from-police-officers-subsidized-vehicle/

The "still" image for the video report includes an officer walking across the crosswalk talking on his phone! Another case of do as you're told, not as I do, as "I'm a cop and exempt from the laws that control (and I enforce against) you peons". You can see the cop walking and talking at the same time at 1:37.

Then the cops use this argument against them having to be subject to the same laws as everyone else (i.e. non-cops):

"Thefts of officer equipment are rare."

So what do these numbers mean if "rare" is a valid criterion for and justification for laws existing or not?

Crime rate per 100k people:
 
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18

Prretty sure the only conclusion using the "rare" rationale is that fewer cops should be carrying guns and way more than zero citizens should be carrying in public. Perhaps they only selectively cherry-pick their application of the "rare" rationale?

In all fairness the whole "cops are exempt" thing doesn't exist because the cops are the cops, it exists because the legislature writes them into law. Cops, among other professions, aren't required to wear seat belts for example because it is written into the law by our elected officials so really the complaint should be against the legislature not the cops for doing something the law allows them to do.

I understand the image of hypocrisy it creates but it the blame is rather undeserved. Cops get blamed for a lot of things they actually have little to no input on.

In all fairness the whole "cops are exempt" thing doesn't exist because the cops are the cops, it exists because the legislature writes them into law. Cops, among other professions, aren't required to wear seat belts for example because it is written into the law by our elected officials so really the complaint should be against the legislature not the cops for doing something the law allows them to do.

I understand the image of hypocrisy it creates but it the blame is rather undeserved. Cops get blamed for a lot of things they actually have little to no input on.

If you think the police have no input into the law-making process, I have a bridge with your name on it -- CHEAP!

How many times have we seen news about laws that specifically include the comment that the department either supported or opposed the measure?  I remember reading recently, and even though the majority of citizen inputs were in favor, the Cops were not, and the bill was killed.

Cops also have free will to follow the laws the rest of us do or not.  Just because they can do the opposite of what gets us a ticket doesn't mean they have to.

BTW, the cell phone while walking law doesn't take effect until October.  Still, if it's a safety issue, the Cops should already be aware of it and set a better example for the public.

What double standard (again) ? 

...
I disagree, I see older folks like me driving slower. What I do notice when I see speeders nowadays is that many times they are women drivers. In the past it was young men doing the racing around.

 slow-ass road hogs!
 

slow-ass road hogs!
 

.
Yesterday I set my cruise at 60 and looked at all the cars passing me.
They were mostly males.
So I sped up to keep pace with traffic.
Everybody was doing 70 to 80

IOW, if you're traveling less than normal speed and the right hand lane is open, move over. That also means that if someone drives up to your rear bumper and starts flashing his high beams, you don't have to cut someone off in the right lane to give HRH space to pass you in the left lane.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol05_Ch0261-0319/HRS0291C/HRS_0291C-0041.htm

Still, if it's a safety issue, the Cops should already be aware of it and set a better example for the public.

I wholeheartedly agree, unless it is some operational necessity. My point was that people need to talk to their legislature if they want these types of exemptions removed from law.

Even Far Left mag Slate condemns the Honolulu law as moronic, deceptive, nearly useless, etc.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/28/the_absurdity_of_honolulu_s_new_law_banning_pedestrians_from_looking_at.html

The Absurdity of Honolulu's New Law Banning Pedestrians From Looking at Their Cellphones

Dig into the data and cellphones start to look like even less of a factor in pedestrian deaths. The Ohio State study (which, keep in mind, is four years old—a lifetime in cellphone use habits) reports that 70 percent of cellphone pedestrian injuries involved talking on the phone.

The way to stop drivers from killing pedestrians is to make the roads safe. More than four in five pedestrian fatalities occur outside intersections, which is not surprising: Americans suburbs are designed for cars, and people without them are condemned to play Frogger. Too often, the response is to blame the victim—rather than reformin the system that puts people in danger in the first place.

In all fairness the whole "cops are exempt" thing doesn't exist because the cops are the cops, it exists because the legislature writes them into law. Cops, among other professions, aren't required to wear seat belts for example because it is written into the law by our elected officials so really the complaint should be against the legislature not the cops for doing something the law allows them to do.

I understand the image of hypocrisy it creates but it the blame is rather undeserved. Cops get blamed for a lot of things they actually have little to no input on.

Name one law that exempts cops from ordinary treatment that the cops didn't lobby ("input") the legislature (via testimony and who knows what else) to acquire that exemption. Or name one law that exempts them and which they submitted testimony and lobbied against their privileged exemption.

Name one law that creates greater burdens upon and/or further obstructs the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment that the cops didn't lobby the legislature to pass.

Of course they don't "make" (pass) the laws. That's both a red herring and a straw man. No one ever claimed they made the laws. They do what they can to make sure the laws they like, including those that grant them exemptions not available to ordinary citizens, are passed by the legislature, where the cops receive inordinate deference and the laws get passed even when there is no evidence that those laws with create or enhance "public safety", as evidenced by several cases in recent years where public testimony was overwhelmingly against, and vastly outnumbered cop testimony (sometimes on the order of 10 to 1 or more), and yet the committees and/or legislature passed the bills.

IF the goal of the law is to prevent people from doing anything other than paying attention to the traffic on the street going both directions and the traffic/crosswalk lights, then the violation should be for doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.

So if you are looking at your feet, or the sky, or your hand or a newspaper or book or the face of the person you are walkling with and talking to or anything at all other than traffic/lights, you are endangering yourself (according to them) and should be punished. Why select just a particular class of objects of distraction/lack of attention, and not "lack of attention" itself. It makes no logical, coherent sense... and they don't seem to care... they just want to "do something" (even if it will have no influence on the "problem" they are asserting it will influence). Where have we heard that before?

Name one law that exempts cops from ordinary treatment that the cops didn't lobby ("input") the legislature (via testimony and who knows what else) to acquire that exemption. Or name one law that exempts them and which they submitted testimony and lobbied against their privileged exemption.

Name one law that creates greater burdens upon and/or further obstructs the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment that the cops didn't lobby the legislature to pass.

Of course they don't "make" (pass) the laws. That's both a red herring and a straw man. No one ever claimed they made the laws. They do what they can to make sure the laws they like, including those that grant them exemptions not available to ordinary citizens, are passed by the legislature, where the cops receive inordinate deference and the laws get passed even when there is no evidence that those laws with create or enhance "public safety", as evidenced by several cases in recent years where public testimony was overwhelmingly against, and vastly outnumbered cop testimony (sometimes on the order of 10 to 1 or more), and yet the committees and/or legislature passed the bills.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The department does submit things for consideration in bills. I doubt that your average real cop has any say in it though, rather some desk job official who makes the decision. I think most cops that do police work are probably laughing at this stupid law.