Dumb laws or rules?

[PhotonWrangler]

I remember that in some town in the U.S. it was declared illegal to feed a cigarette to a squirrel.

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

In Fairbanks, Alaska it is an offence to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose.

In Sterling, Colorado cats may not run loose without having been fit with a taillight.

In Florida, if an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid as if it were a vehicle.

In Florida, having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

In Arkansas, aligators may not be kept in bathtubs.

In Atlanta, Georgia it is illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp.

In Quitman, Georgia it is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.

In Idaho, you may not fish on a camel's back.

In Boise, Idaho it's illegal to fish from a giraffe's back.

In Indianapolis, Indiana you can't ride a horse in excess of 10 mph. (Get a horse with a speedometer if you don't want a ticket.)

In South Bend, Indiana it is illegal to make a monkey smoke a cigarette.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

In Quitman, Georgia it is illegal for a chicken to cross the road.

But what if he wants to get to the other side? :laughing:

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

But what if he wants to get to the other side? :laughing:

He'd be a jailbird.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

He'd be a jailbird.

Ha! Good one, HOF!

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

These ones made me laugh, especially the first one:

In Fort Madison, Iowa, the fire department is required to practice firefighting for 15 minutes before attending a fire.

In Kansas, if two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed.

In Lawrence, Kansas no one may wear a bee in their hat.

In Witchita, Kansas before proceeding through the intersection of Douglas and Broadway, a motorist is required to get out of their vehicle and fire three shotgun rounds into the air.

In New Orleans, Louisiana, you may not tie an alligator to a fire hydrant.

In Maine, you may not step out a plane in flight.

In Baltimore, Maryland, it is illegal to take a lion to the movies.

In Massachusetts, hunting is prohibited on Sundays, but all men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.

In Massachusetts, no gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

In Boston, Massachusetts, no one may take a bath without a prescription.

 

[idleprocess]

In New Orleans, Louisiana, you may not tie an alligator to a fire hydrant.

Given the geography, that carries a bit more relevance than it would in, say, North Dakota.

In Massachusetts [...] all men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.

Guessing that dates back to colonial times, when it would have made a great deal more sense.

In Boston, Massachusetts, no one may take a bath without a prescription.

Given that only about a century ago it was believed that bathing was unhealthy, the law is more understandable.

 

[Steve K]

In New Orleans, Louisiana, you may not tie an alligator to a fire hydrant.

I assume that there are separate hitching posts for alligators, then?
Or is this like tying up your dog's leash to a post when you go inside a store?

In Maine, you may not step out a plane in flight.

That's just wrong... how can you skydive? Or is it okay if someone flings you out of the plane?

 

[alpg88]

. With the typical New Yorker attitude that runs rampant in this city, I can easily see fights breaking out between both obnoxious cyclists and obnoxious pedestrians.

.

we rode bikes on the sidwalks all the time until few years ago, did you see many fights??? i didn't, and i rode a bike for years in brooklyn.

 

[JCD]

I see bike riders blow through Stop signs all the time. Forget coming to a full stop or even treating a Stop sign the same as a Yield sign.

For most intersections, I have time to double check each direction to make sure the way is sufficiently clear well before I have to make a decision regarding whether or not to apply my brakes. I have no doubt that it looks like I'm recklessly blowing through a stop sign to people watching from a car, particularly non-cyclists, but I'm actually not doing anything remotely dangerous.

I have three rules for cycling through intersections. First, don't have a collision, regardless of who has the right of way. Second, yield the right of way whenever required (there's a good chance that I'll yield it when not required, also). Finally, don't stop unnecessarily, necessity being dictated by the previous two rules and the laws of physics, not the laws of City Council.

 

[jtr1962]

For most intersections, I have time to double check each direction to make sure the way is sufficiently clear well before I have to make a decision regarding whether or not to apply my brakes. I have no doubt that it looks like I'm recklessly blowing through a stop sign to people watching from a car, particularly non-cyclists, but I'm actually not doing anything remotely dangerous.

I have three rules for cycling through intersections. First, don't have a collision, regardless of who has the right of way. Second, yield the right of way whenever required (there's a good chance that I'll yield it when not required, also). Finally, don't stop unnecessarily, necessity being dictated by the previous two rules and the laws of physics, not the laws of City Council.

That's exactly what I do. I don't doubt it looks reckless to bystanders passing a red light or stop sign without stopping, but I base my speed when going through on my lines of sight, such that I can stop in time if I see anything coming. Some intersections have poor lines of sight and I really do need to nearly stop because I can't see cars until they're nearly on top of me. Other intersections have great lines of sight where I can easily see anything a block or two down. I don't need to slow down at all in those cases. I find most intersections are safe to proceed through at 10-12 mph, covering the brake the entire time, and turning my head both directions repeatedly to ensure I don't miss anything. I've been doing this for decades, never had even a near miss.

I do not modify my behavior in front of law enforcement, and have "run" countless stop signs and traffic signals in the presence of police, without any trouble.

There was a time when I felt comfortable doing that in NYC. Ever since the first bike crackdown in 1999, when I got a sidewalk cycling ticket, I stopped doing anything illegal in the presence of law enforcement. A few times I had "oops" moments where I missed seeing police cars because they were blocked, but fortunately they left me alone. Based on some maps, maybe I'm being over cautious. I ride in Eastern Queens, but most of the bike enforcement is in Manhattan or downtown Brooklyn.

 

[Steve K]

That's exactly what I do. I don't doubt it looks reckless to bystanders passing a red light or stop sign without stopping, but I base my speed when going through on my lines of sight, such that I can stop in time if I see anything coming. .....

Personally, I feel that public relations matter.... whether I think I'm behaving safely or not, I don't want to make cyclists look bad and get people angry at cyclists. Therefore, I behave politely, follow rules if anyone else is within sight, and do my best to play nice with others.

Maybe this is just the midwestern ethos, but I think it works best in my environment. If nothing else, it reduces the chance of someone being aggressive towards me when I'm out riding.

 

[jtr1962]

Personally, I feel that public relations matter.... whether I think I'm behaving safely or not, I don't want to make cyclists look bad and get people angry at cyclists. Therefore, I behave politely, follow rules if anyone else is within sight, and do my best to play nice with others.

Maybe this is just the midwestern ethos, but I think it works best in my environment. If nothing else, it reduces the chance of someone being aggressive towards me when I'm out riding.

I can't argue with the public relations angle. There are times when I slow a bit when passing red lights even when I know I can safely pass them at 20 mph just because people are around. I figure if they at least see me slowing down, then it looks like I'm not being reckless. That said, it's easier to be "well-behaved" in the midwest than in NYC. Some (many) streets have traffic signals or stop signs at nearly every intersection. That's up to 20 per mile. Stopping at a red light for 30 seconds every 3 blocks is beyond annoying. It makes cycling tedious, as well as useless as an efficient means of transportation. Long term the answer here is probably grade-separated bike lanes but who knows if/when those will ever be built. In the meantime I do what I must in the interests of safety and efficiency. I also happen to get severe leg cramps which can suddenly pop up after maybe 15 to 20 stops, so there's a danger of being stranded far from home if I stop one too many times.

 

[Monocrom]

That's kind of Manhattan-centric. Today, or rather tonight, I rode on the sidewalk for 8 blocks because the road alongside is riddled with potholes and cars are traveling on it at 60 mph. Not a pedestrian in sight, and there rarely is on that section of sidewalk.

You rode at night. Along a section of sidewalk that you know is typically empty at that time of day. No pedestrians. I wish every cyclist was as considerate as you are. Many are not. I pictured something more along the lines of a crowded sidewalk during the afternoon, on a busy street, with a cyclist instead of walking his bike past the pot-holes; just hopping up on the sidewalk because there'd be no law against it. Let's face it, many of our fellow New Yorkers have a "I can do that. There's no law against it" mentality. With very little consideration for others.

With the exception of Staten Island, I've been to many neighborhoods in all 5 boroughs. It's not a Manhattan-centric outlook. Yes, some neighborhoods are less crowded. But the sidewalks, at least from what I've seen, tend to be worse than what you'd find in some of the more neglected parts of Manhattan. And there are parts of Manhattan that are very quiet at night. Yes, even on a Friday or Saturday night. Mainly in certain parts of Soho. (Though I wouldn't recommend cycling through what is little more than a trendy ghetto. Amazing the number of folks who are unable to look past the trendy shops that are open only during the daylight hours.)

You're setting up a strawman here.

Going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. My reasons are mentioned below.

Someone staggering around drunk or loudly screaming profanities due to drunkeness can easily be arrested for disorderly conduct. The line is already drawn without resorting to open container laws. You should be able to do whatever you want on a public street up until the point it harms someone else. If you can't, then in keeping with the main topic of this thread, you have dumb laws. "Harm" is very easily defined under common law. Harm is anything which causes loss of property, injury, loss of life, or interference with "normal" activities.

"Harm" itself might be very easily defined. But the definition itself under common law is quite vague when you get to that last part regarding "interference with normal activities." I can say that a drunk staggering towards myself and my niece is clear interference with our normal activity. (Let's even say that he's not being loud and obnoxious. But simply clearly drinking out of a bottle.) I'm sure that some slick lawyer could come up with a way to argue that an individual sitting quietly on a park bench and openly enjoying an adult beverage would also be a violation of "normal" activity.

It's been done with other laws. The whole "Expectation of privacy" thing, for example. Slick lawyers arguing that there is none if you use a work-phone for making a private call, and it turns out your boss is monitoring it. Instead of simply asking the employee, "Did you expect your phone call to be monitored or someone would be listening in when you made that call?" Answer: "No!"

Well, there's your expectation of privacy. The employee genuinely believed that his call would not be monitored or listened in on at all. But slick lawyers made sure that common sense would never win in such cases. Another example is the current state of affairs in NYC regarding one-hand opening folding knives with locks. No new laws were passed. Just an utterly ridiculous interpretation of the also vague Sullivan Act that was created many decades ago to ban gravity knives. The true definition of a gravity knife was kept vague, and now applies to everything including a traditional Buck 110. Only in NY could such a traditional working-man's folding knife be declared an illegal gravity knife. Same problem with defining what is "normal." Since that word is intentionally left vague.

And the larger point is when we pass a lot of dumb laws, we actually just end up with more unenforced or sporadically enforced laws on the books. The police get distracted from their primary duty of public safety by trying to make all the complainers happy.

This is where we agree. But clearly have different opinions of which laws are dumb.

. . . I'm actually a big fan of cameras in public places. Lots of them.

Oh! Definitely have to disagree with you there. Privacy over the internet is an absolute joke that we all pay lip-service to. Would very strongly prefer that the same not occur in real life. I don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare of good intentions and hollow promises of safety & security gone horribly wrong. No thank you. Orwell wrote his novel as a cautionary tale. Since then, many have used it as a "How-To" manual. If he knew the consequences of publishing that work, I think he would have at the very least re-considered doing so. (And I mean, at the very least.)

 

[jtr1962]

You rode at night. Along a section of sidewalk that you know is typically empty at that time of day. No pedestrians. I wish every cyclist was as considerate as you are. Many are not. I pictured something more along the lines of a crowded sidewalk during the afternoon, on a busy street, with a cyclist instead of walking his bike past the pot-holes; just hopping up on the sidewalk because there'd be no law against it. Let's face it, many of our fellow New Yorkers have a "I can do that. There's no law against it" mentality. With very little consideration for others.

No arguing that but I'd say the problem here is lack of consideration and a me-first attitude which permeates all street users. I can't honestly say things would be much worse with fewer laws. I really think the problem is inherent in our streets. Everyone is competing for the same space, so they do what they need to. If I were to design our streets from scratch, motor vehicles would be on one level, pedestrians on another, and cyclists on a third level. In some Asian cities they're already having elevated pedestrian arcades which go on for many blocks. It's a good idea because it lets each mode operate optimally, with no interference from other modes which have different requirements.

With the exception of Staten Island, I've been to many neighborhoods in all 5 boroughs. It's not a Manhattan-centric outlook. Yes, some neighborhoods are less crowded. But the sidewalks, at least from what I've seen, tend to be worse than what you'd find in some of the more neglected parts of Manhattan. And there are parts of Manhattan that are very quiet at night. Yes, even on a Friday or Saturday night. Mainly in certain parts of Soho. (Though I wouldn't recommend cycling through what is little more than a trendy ghetto. Amazing the number of folks who are unable to look past the trendy shops that are open only during the daylight hours.)

Well, I've ridden on Hillside, Jamaica, and Liberty Avenues in the wee hours of the morning. Soho is probably a picnic compared to those areas.

"Harm" itself might be very easily defined. But the definition itself under common law is quite vague when you get to that last part regarding "interference with normal activities." I can say that a drunk staggering towards myself and my niece is clear interference with our normal activity. (Let's even say that he's not being loud and obnoxious. But simply clearly drinking out of a bottle.) I'm sure that some slick lawyer could come up with a way to argue that an individual sitting quietly on a park bench and openly enjoying an adult beverage would also be a violation of "normal" activity.

It's been done with other laws. The whole "Expectation of privacy" thing, for example. Slick lawyers arguing that there is none if you use a work-phone for making a private call, and it turns out your boss is monitoring it. Instead of simply asking the employee, "Did you expect your phone call to be monitored or someone would be listening in when you made that call?" Answer: "No!"

Well, there's your expectation of privacy. The employee genuinely believed that his call would not be monitored or listened in on at all. But slick lawyers made sure that common sense would never win in such cases. Another example is the current state of affairs in NYC regarding one-hand opening folding knives with locks. No new laws were passed. Just an utterly ridiculous interpretation of the also vague Sullivan Act that was created many decades ago to ban gravity knives. The true definition of a gravity knife was kept vague, and now applies to everything including a traditional Buck 110. Only in NY could such a traditional working-man's folding knife be declared an illegal gravity knife. Same problem with defining what is "normal." Since that word is intentionally left vague.

My only answer to this is perhaps we shouldn't have let the lawyers run things. I know other countries have common sense laws and enforcement were lawyers don't try to twist words around to give them unintended meanings. Perhaps the reason we have so many laws with unintended consequences is that we have too many lawyers. Maybe fix that first by having a moratorium on law school enrollments for about a decade, and also paying lawyers money to go do something else besides practice law.

Oh! Definitely have to disagree with you there. Privacy over the internet is an absolute joke that we all pay lip-service to. Would very strongly prefer that the same not occur in real life. I don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare of good intentions and hollow promises of safety & security gone horribly wrong. No thank you. Orwell wrote his novel as a cautionary tale. Since then, many have used it as a "How-To" manual. If he knew the consequences of publishing that work, I think he would have at the very least re-considered doing so. (And I mean, at the very least.)

Here we could put in technological means to prevent abuse. Video files could be encrypted so nobody can edit them. And the surveillance cameras could automatically overwrite old videos after 24 hours if no crime was committed. You're right that we don't need everything we do in public remaining on public record literally forever the way nearly everything you do online already is. And with proper safeguards that can be kept from happening while still helping us catch the bad guys.

 

[gadget_lover]

In Carmel, California..

A man can't go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.

Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.

Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk. (Repealed when Clint Eastwood was mayor)

Daniel

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

In Carmel, California..

Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.

I'm guessing this is an overly broad law to prevent prostitution in the city.

 

[gadget_lover]

In Carmel, California..

Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.

I'm guessing this is an overly broad law to prevent prostitution in the city.

While we can never discount the possibility of silly laws based on moral grounds, I suspect that it might be more to prevent ankle injuries. What little I remember of Carmel in the 1960s includes no sidewalks and very little level land.

Daniel

 

[Norm]

Thread closed this thread has turned into a discussion of paedophilia, not a topic for CPF, take it to the underground if you wish. gadget_lover, Monocrom, jtr1962 your relevant post have been deleted, post quoting deleted posts have also been deleted.. - Norm