Ruth

Look, law or no law, pinning your safety on a sign dictating which set of plumbing is allowed in the bathroom with you is as stupid as assuming that a piece of paper will keep your abusive boyfriend away.  If creepy rapist kidnapper dude decides that he’s going to hunt women in public bathrooms the fact that his plumbing doesn’t match the sign on the door isn’t going to stop him.  MAYBE allowing folks with different plumbing into a marked bathroom will up the risk level.  But I have my doubts.  Creepy rapist kidnappers are not restricted to the opposite gender, or to molesting the opposite gender.  Public bathrooms are simply not, and never have been, a place to lose yourself in the white zone.

Honestly, the simplest, if costly, solution is to turn all bathrooms unisex.  Change the partitions to full length, and get rid of the urinals (seriously, very few guys have them at home, so why do they need them in public?).  That way parents can stand within reach of their child of opposite sex while the child uses the bathroom.  Guardians of the handicapped don’t have to find a “family” bathroom in order to help their charges on the toilet.  And no one flips out at the apparent gender of the person who just walked through the door.

The whole thing could even be phased into usage so that the financial burden isn’t as painful.  Swap out the partitions for full length, partition off the urinals with signs on the doors “URINALS ONLY”, and change the signs on the main doors.  Then later, as regular maintenance has to be done, swap the urinals out for toilets.

It’d even save money in the long run for new construction as they’d only have to put in one, slightly larger, bathroom in new buildings instead of the two divided bathrooms.

Frankly this sort of thing should have been happening a while ago.  And not because of the transgender issue.  There are plenty of people out there who mentally match their plumbing, but who’s looks do NOT match their plumbing, and who then get hassled for using the correct bathroom.  Plus see above comments about other reasons why someone of the opposite sex might need to be present near by.

And yes, the same sort of thing could be put into place in locker rooms and the like.  Though the solution for how to handle the transgendered folks who wish to play sports and whether to put them on the men’s or women’s teams would have to be thought through a bit.

Fuck no

Every person operating a motor vehicle which has been involved in an accident or collision involving damage to real or personal property, personal injury or death, and who has in his possession at or near the time of such accident or collision, a mobile telephone or personal electronic device, shall at the request of a police officer, surrender his or her mobile telephone and/or portable electronic device to the police officer solely for the purpose of field testing such mobile telephone and/or portable electronic device.

(formatted to fit the post here, not otherwise modified)

And an article on the proposed bill.

Extra fuck no

…….

Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or portable electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer, after such person has operated a motor vehicle involved in an accident or collision involving damage to real or personal property, personal injury or death.  If a person operating a motor vehicle involved in an accident or collision involving damage to real or personal property, personal injury or death has in his or her possession a mobile telephone or portable electronic device, having thereafter been requested to surrender such mobile telephone and/or portable electronic device for field testing, and having been informed that the person’s license or permit to 17 drive and any non-resident operating privilege shall be immediately suspended and subsequently revoked, shall be revoked for refusal to surrender his or her mobile telephone and/or portable electronic device solely for the purpose of field testing, whether or not the person is found guilty of a violation of section twelve hundred twenty-five-c or twelve hundred twenty-five-d of this article, refuses to surrender his or her mobile telephone or portable electronic device solely for the purpose of field testing, unless a court order has been granted pursuant to subdivision four of this section, field testing shall not be conducted and a written report of such refusal shall be immediately made by the police officer before whom such refusal was made. Such report may be verified by having the report sworn to, or by affixing to such report a form notice that false statements made therein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law and such form notice together with the subscription of the deponent shall constitute a verification of the report.

For persons charged with a violation of section twelve hundred twenty-five-c or twelve hundred twenty-five-d of this article, the license or permit to drive and any non-resident operating privilege shall, upon the basis of such written report, be temporarily suspended by the court without notice pending the determination of a hearing as provided in paragraph (c) of this subdivision. Copies of such report must be transmitted by the court to the commissioner and such transmittal may not be waived even with the consent of all the parties. Such report shall be forwarded to the commissioner within forty-eight hours of such filing of charges.The court or the commissioner shall provide such person with a scheduled hearing date, a waiver form and such other information as maybe required by the commissioner. If a hearing, as provided in paragraph of this subdivision, is waived by such person, the commissioner shall immediately revoke the license, permit or non-resident operating privilege, as of the date of receipt of such waiver in accordance with 2 paragraph (d) of this subdivision.

…….

Any license which has been revoked pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision shall not be restored for at least one year after such revocation, nor thereafter, except in the discretion of the commissioner. However, no such license shall be restored for at least eighteen months after such revocation, nor thereafter except in the discretion of the commissioner, in any case where the person has had a prior revocation resulting from refusal to surrender his or her mobile telephone or portable electronic device for field testing within five years immediately preceding the date of such revocation.

……..

(bolding done by me for emphasis)

Can you say massive privacy violation??  If they want to know if someone was using their cell phone near the time of the incident then they can get a warrant for info from the phone company.  Browsing people’s “mobile devices” on the side of the road at the time of the incident is just wrong.  Assuming the device used to browse the phone isn’t hackable.  I’m sure as hell not going to bet on that, what an opportunity to record data and send it off somewhere……

Article here.   Text here.

It passed in the state Senate by 54 to 5.  It heads for the Assembly next.  Contact your Assembly person and let them know what you think!  This would criminalize a very useful tool that is already in a large number of homes in the state.  Meaning that your average Joe on the street could be arrested for possession as soon as this law goes into effect.