Dumb laws or rules?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HighlanderNorth

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,593
Location
Mid Atlantic USA
This is not a political discussion in any way, shape or form, so lets keep it to just laws or rules that we may find silly or unnecessary, without bringing any politics or political party discussion into it. I say that to make it clear that I'm not trying to tread on the rules. It can be anything including dumb workplace rules or laws in place where you live.


In my state, we don't have helmet laws, so you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but we are also very close to 3 other states that do have helmet laws. I've owned 2 motorcycles and I ALWAYS wear a helmet when I ride, but I know people who don't. It's not so much the lack of a helmet law that I find to be the dumb aspect to this story, it's the part of the law that mandates that you have a helmet strapped to your bike, but you don't have to wear it!

So I guess the idea is, as you are riding along on your motorcycle, and at some point you see that you are just about to crash, but you aren't wearing your helmet, so you should very quickly turn around, unstrap your helmet from your bike, quickly put it on and strap it to your head, just in a nick of time for the crash to occur, so that your head is protected after all! Typically when an accident is about to occur, you'd have a full 1-2 seconds to pull that off, so it should work out well! LOL
 

Steve K

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
2,786
Location
Peoria, IL
discussing helmet laws is almost like asking for a fight to break out (or to get a thread closed), but having said that.... the law was probably the result of some sort of compromise between the folks on each side of the mandatory helmet issue.

The pro-helmet group probably likes the idea of requiring that a helmet be on the bike, since it might encourage the rider to wear it at least some of the time. Hey, if you already spent good money on the helmet, you might as well get some use out of it!

The pro-choice group (i.e. anti-helmet group) probably likes that the rider doesn't have to wear the helmet. If that requires keeping an old helmet attached to the bike, it's a small price to pay to not sweat to death in the summer (I'm guessing).

My favorite goofy law was in place when I first lived in Missouri... you were allowed to drink and drive, but you weren't allowed to drive drunk. In some regards, this is a great example of protecting individual liberties and encouraging personal responsibility. In practice, I think it was just Anheuser-Busch not wanting to lose any sales. The laws were changed to a more conventional limit on blood alchohol content. I'd like to think that A-B realized that their sales were just as good, since they weren't losing as many customers to auto accidents.
 

HighlanderNorth

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,593
Location
Mid Atlantic USA
discussing helmet laws is almost like asking for a fight to break out (or to get a thread closed), but having said that.... the law was probably the result of some sort of compromise between the folks on each side of the mandatory helmet issue.

The pro-helmet group probably likes the idea of requiring that a helmet be on the bike, since it might encourage the rider to wear it at least some of the time. Hey, if you already spent good money on the helmet, you might as well get some use out of it!

The pro-choice group (i.e. anti-helmet group) probably likes that the rider doesn't have to wear the helmet. If that requires keeping an old helmet attached to the bike, it's a small price to pay to not sweat to death in the summer (I'm guessing).

My favorite goofy law was in place when I first lived in Missouri... you were allowed to drink and drive, but you weren't allowed to drive drunk. In some regards, this is a great example of protecting individual liberties and encouraging personal responsibility. In practice, I think it was just Anheuser-Busch not wanting to lose any sales. The laws were changed to a more conventional limit on blood alchohol content. I'd like to think that A-B realized that their sales were just as good, since they weren't losing as many customers to auto accidents.


^^In the OP I wasn't criticizing the actual helmet law(as stated there). I was questioning the part that mandates tying a helmet to the bike while not having to wear it. I choose to wear a helmet, even though I don't have to by law, however I don't openly criticize anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet. When I'd go riding with more than 3 people, sometimes only half of us wore helmets.


Ive never completely understood the local alcohol/driving laws aside from when you drink enough to bring you blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08 or whatever it is now. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was ok to drive after drinking as long as you didn't drink enough to exceed the alcohol limit or not. That can be tricky because different people respond differently to different amounts of alcohol, so that one person might not be able to handle "buzzed driving", whereas another might be able to drive fine with a slight beer buzz. Fortunately I never got a DUI and no longer drink anyway, so it's not a concern for me anymore.
 

Lite_me

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
1,992
Location
Northern OH
Having ridden motorcycles for about 30yrs, in a few states before giving it up several years ago, I remember a time, somewhere, when the rider was not required to where a helmet, but any passenger was. During that time, I can remember seeing bikers with helmets hanging off of their bikes.. just in case.
 

Trevtrain

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
407
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Red "no right turn" arrows

(Obviously down-under we drive on the opposite of the road from the US)

Many dumb rules but one of my favourites is sitting at a set of traffic lights at 3am with not a vehicle in sight anywhere, but still facing a red "do not turn" arrow. I have a green light to proceed through the intersection if I want to but not to turn into the imaginary oncoming traffic.

Once upon a time, many of these arrows were disabled out of busy times but now it seems that this concept is just too difficult for our road engineers to cope with.

Sometimes I just drive through them on principle but we have so many "red light cameras" here that you need local knowledge with this approach.

I don't mind the red/green arrows in busy times - saves idiots from cutting across in front of others, but when the traffic is light to non-existant, they are just a PITA!
 

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
Re: Red "no right turn" arrows

In the state of California, you cannot use the GPS on your cell phone while operating your vehicle.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
Ive never completely understood the local alcohol/driving laws aside from when you drink enough to bring you blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08 or whatever it is now. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was ok to drive after drinking as long as you didn't drink enough to exceed the alcohol limit or not. That can be tricky because different people respond differently to different amounts of alcohol, so that one person might not be able to handle "buzzed driving", whereas another might be able to drive fine with a slight beer buzz. Fortunately I never got a DUI and no longer drink anyway, so it's not a concern for me anymore.
I wish there were some better standard for impairment when it comes to DUI/DWI than BAL - which seems to be under constant pressure to be lowered. Some people could blow a 0.10 and not be demonstrably impaired; others could hit 0.05 and be in no condition to make decisions of any consequence whatsoever, to say nothing of operating a motor vehicle. Alcohol tolerance varies widely by far more than just weight.

4) Nobody may be in parks after dark, or after official closing time. The rule was originally put in place to deal with either the homeless sleeping in parks, or drug dealing in parks. Both of these things can and should be handled by police on a case by case basis. Just banning people from using parks late nights is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm a night owl, and the idea of walking in a park at 3 AM is very appealing.
I worked 2nd shift for years and routinely walked through/used city parks between midnight and 4AM. Tested a few magmods in the process ... Was always very conscientious about the fact that everyone else was sleeping and - save for one time when I discovered that a magmod sporting 4x red Luxeon III's was evidently very alarming to the ducks on the pond - was silent and disturbed no one. Was never sure if there were laws on the books against that sort of thing, but it wasn't until I started walking along public sidewalks that I started to have encounters with the local police for doing things outside of the norm.

5) Open container laws. Anyone caught drinking an alcoholic beverage in public can get a summons. This law probably has its origins dealing with an inebriated homeless population but it's still silly. If someone drinks in public they're not harming anyone. If they get drunk enough to become disorderly, well, there are already laws in place to deal with that.
Yeah, public intoxication / open-container laws seem to be a holdover from when drunkenness of any sort was frowned on and it was a way to shame people. Disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace laws seem to cover behavior that actually affects other people beyond merely raising their hackles.

6) Laws against jaywalking. New Yorkers consider jaywalking to be their god-given right, so it's surprising that it's technically illegal, especially when the law is never enforced anyway. And there are practical reasons for crossing against the light or midblock. For one thing, you don't need to deal with turning cars (which 95% of the time never yield to crossing pedestrians as they're supposed to). And of course, with traffic lights on nearly every block, any pedestrian waiting for the walk signal will end up taking two or three times as long to get where they're going.
Jaywalking laws are vigorously enforced in downtown Dallas. I suspect this is no so much a public-safety issue as it is so that the foot- and bicycle police downtown can collect ticket revenue like their brethren in patrol cars.



I am generally of the opinion that there should be a compelling-needs test for all laws, failure of which can result in their nullification. Combine that with auto-sunset clauses and a lot of this nonsense would disappear.
 
Last edited:

JCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
892
No sidewalk cycling except by those under 14. So how is a parent supposed to ride a bike with their children when many streets are too dangerous for children to ride in but the parents can't ride on the sidewalk with their kids? Besides that, many streets are too dangerous, or just in such poor condition, that it's safer for even adult cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. I get that the purpose of the law was to keep bikes off crowded sidewalks where they are dangerous to pedestrians, but why should it apply citiwide, especially in places where sidewalks are nearly empty? Just make the ban selective.

I've lived in a few places where it was legal to ride on sidewalks, except in business districts.

I'm a firm believer that the street is usually safer than the sidewalk for cycling. Absent a bicycle lane, I usually pedal out in the middle of the right lane. That said, there are times & places when/where motor traffic is simply too fast and heavy to safely ride in the street, and the sidewalk becomes the safer option. Most often, this occurs in business districts.

It seems the effect of the ordinance is to prohibit sidewalk cycling only in places where riding on the sidewalk enhances safety. :shakehead

The Idaho stop has shown that modifying the rules so stop signs and red lights can be treated as yields doesn't compromise safety, and it allows more efficient cycling. Note: the Idaho stop law treats red lights as stop signs but my experience tells me they can be safely treated as yields.

I've long practiced Idaho stop laws, despite having never been to Idaho. I yield whenever I should, but I don't stop unless safety dictates that I do so. 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.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
3,076
Here are some of my favorites:
In Chicago, IL it is forbidden to fish while sitting on a girraffe's neck.
In Galesburg, IL there is a $1000 fine for beating rats with baseball bats.
In Horner, IL it is against the law to use a slingshot unless you are a law enforcement officer. (I wonder if that is their new sidearm.)
In California, no vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 mph. (I think this is for the new self-driving cars, but it's still scary.)
In California, it is illegal to shoot any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale. (I hope they're assuming that your vehicle is a boat for shooting whales, otherwise Shamu's in danger.)
In Chico, CA detonating a nuclear device within the city limits is a $500 fine.
In Fresno, CA no one may annoy a lizard in a city park.
In Los Angeles County, CA you may only throw a frisbee at the beach with the lifeguard's permission.
In Fresno, CA permenant markers can't be sold in the city limits. (Never live in a city that doesn't trust it's citizens with Sharpies.)
In Hollywood, CA it is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Blvd at one time.
In Los Angeles and Los Angeles County:
You can't hunt moths under a street light.
It's illegal to cry on the witness stand.
Toads may not be licked.
It's illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent.
You can't bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.
It is illegal to skateboard and rollerskate through the courthouse and library.
In Norco, CA if you want a rhinocerous as a pet it will cost you $100 for the liscense.
In Ontario, CA roosters may not crow within the city limits. (Go ahead and give the bird the fine.)
In Palm Springs, CA it is illegal to walk a camel down Palm Canyon Drive (Main street) during rush hour (4-6 p.m.).
In Portola, CA it is illegal to fish from an overpass in the city. (Having trouble catching that bus?)
In Redlands, CA Motor vehicles may not drive on city streets unless a man with a lantern is walking ahead of it. (Ever heard of headlights?)
In San Diego, CA it is illegal to shoot jack rabbits from the back of a streetcar.
In San Diego, CA the owners of houses with Christmas lights on them past February Second may be fined up to $250. ("Officer, those are Hanakkah lights. We don't celebrate Christmas.")
San Francisco has some of the funniest ones:
Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street. (I've been there. Half the city should be in jail for this.)
It is illegal to pile horse manure more than 6 feet high on a street corner. (5 foot 11 inch high manure on every street corner is legal? That town must stink.)
The law prohibits elephants from strolling down market street unless they are on a leash. (Like a leash is going to hold back an elephant.)
It is illegal to wipe one's car with used underwear.
In Santa Monica, playing percussion instruments on the beach is illegal.
In Thousand Oaks, CA one must obtain a special permit from the city manager before having a "going out of business" sale. (You can actually be too broke to go broke?)
In Walnut, CA kites may not be flown higher than 10 feet above the ground. (If you see me there, I'll be the one selling kids helium balloons with long strings.)
In Kendall, NY it is against town ordanances to camp on your own land for more than 72 hours a month. If you want to camp out for two weeks you need a permit, which you can only get once a year. (So much for property rights.)
New Yorkers can't dissolve a marriage for irreconcilable differences, unless they both agree to it. (If you can't agree to disagree, you're stuck disagreeing for life.)
In Arizona, it's illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine. (They don't want the criminals cheating them with the fake illegal narcotics.)
I once saw a sign in Arizona saying there was a $50 fine for parking on the railroad tracks. (That's cheaper than some parking structures.)

At a local hiking trail, Iron Mountain near Poway, CA, they "improved" the trailhead by putting in a well lit parking lot and added a sign saying that the hours for hiking were between sunrise and sunset. Further, the trail wasn't city property but went through private property given away for hikers so the city of Poway had no jurisdiction to even tell people they couldn't hike at night. When I confronted the guy who had the sign put up, he said hikers would not be ticketed at night because the parking lot would be used as a park and ride, but hiking at night would be (with emphasis) at your own risk.

In Mira Mesa, CA there is a sign that says "No Bike Riding Rollerblading Skateboarding Dogs". Shame on them for denying talented pets from having fun.:grin2:
 
Last edited:

Coffae

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
2
Having ridden motorcycles for about 30yrs, in a few states before giving it up several years ago, I remember a time, somewhere, when the rider was not required to where a helmet, but any passenger was. During that time, I can remember seeing bikers with helmets hanging off of their bikes.. just in case.
I am a motorcyclist and I can't imagine riding without a helmet now - my eyes water too much even with sunglasses. I have long hair and it just turns into a mess, and the wind rushing by my sensitive ears tires me.

Don't get me wrong, I can scrape my knees on a track and have picked myself up from a few bad slides. That said, my helmet(s) have saved my life more than once.
 

blah9

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
2,105
Thank you for these posts. I'm really enjoying these. We have one at home that says no one is allowed to back into a parking spot, and I really wish we could do that. It's much safer for many reasons.

I also wish public parks were not closed at night. I would love to walk around more often and play with my lights.
 

Search

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,779
Location
West Tn
I wrote a big post last night giving perspective on some of these from a Law Enforcement side.. then when I went back it I realized I was going to get in trouble :) I'll just leave the discussion of good vs bad types of people off the public board

Ive never completely understood the local alcohol/driving laws aside from when you drink enough to bring you blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08 or whatever it is now. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was ok to drive after drinking as long as you didn't drink enough to exceed the alcohol limit or not. That can be tricky because different people respond differently to different amounts of alcohol, so that one person might not be able to handle "buzzed driving", whereas another might be able to drive fine with a slight beer buzz. Fortunately I never got a DUI and no longer drink anyway, so it's not a concern for me anymore.

I will say this though.. You do not have to have a BAC of .08 or more to be convicted of DUI. I could arrest you if I felt you were too impaired to drive. Say I carry you to the hospital and your BAC is .06. Come court time the judge sees the video of me giving you field sobriety tests and you blatantly fail. Given you don't have the worlds best attorney, you are probably going to be convicted.

According to the 2007 issue of the TCA laws regarding Tennessee Traffic Code here is the law pertaining to DUI:

It is unlawful for any person to drive or be to in physical control of any automobile or other motor driven vehicle on any of the public roads and highways of the state, or on any streets or alleys, or while on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park or any apartment house complex, or any other premises which is generally frequented by the public at large, while: (1) Under the influence of any intoxicant, marijuana, narcotic drug, or drug producing stimulating effect on the central nervous system; or (2) The alcohol concentration in such person's blood or breath is eight-hundredths of one percent (.08 %) or more.

Basically this means this in layman terms.. Driving while under the influence of any drug that alters your ability to drive can result in a DUI. You do not HAVE to be at a certain level, you only have to demonstrate your loss of ability to be safe.

The .08 is just a set line that basically says anything under is iffy and anything over means book them. You don't have to hit the number, but if you do your chances of getting off get very slim.

Hopefully that makes sense. Lawyers "practice" law because it is not finite in nature, it is ever changing and constantly being interpreted. Some might have different views so I'm always open to how other people read them.
 
Last edited:

HighlanderNorth

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,593
Location
Mid Atlantic USA
There is a fairly large park right down the road here, which has a trail that's about 7 miles long through the forest, which circles the lake there but inland. It would be a great place to check out wildlife at night and test lights, but I'd bet a weeks salary you aren't allowed there at night, so I haven't tried it. I guess these park managers just want to keep out any late night riff raff who may be intoxicated and littering and such.

Hooked on Fenix: If those laws you listed are real, they take the cake for stupidity(and people complain about silly laws in the south!)

There at least used to be a law that allowed public drinking while walking down the street in Philadelphia, as long as your beverage was concealed in a paper bag or whatever. If your beverage wasn't concealed you'd get ticketed or arrested. I discovered this when I went with some friends to hang out in Philly in early 90's, and we stopped by a local beer store and the clerk handed us some can sized form fitting bags, and I asked why he handed us those extra bags, and told us we could drink and walk down the street as long as we had beers in bags. I don't know of any other local towns that allow that.

I've only ever lived in a city for 4 years, and I was always oblivious of any jaywalking laws, as when I needed to cross the street, and I wasn't at the corner, I just crossed wherever I was at. I did it safely when no cars were coming, so I didn't see any problem. Seemed like most city residents did the same. I see people in the local college town who walk all the way to the next intersection and wait for the light. They are mostly students. That seems silly to me, especially if you are just trying to get to a store in the middle of the block!
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
Silly rule time;

In Calif you need to take a writen drivers license test once every 10 to 20 years if you have a clean record. Once you hit 70 it's much more frequent. Every 5 years?

But it's still a written test. NOT a driving test. You don't have to do the driving test until after your driving has deteriorated enough to cause accidents.

I guess they don't want to get in the car driven by an 80 year old guy either.

Dan
 

JCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
892
There at least used to be a law that allowed public drinking while walking down the street in Philadelphia, as long as your beverage was concealed in a paper bag or whatever. If your beverage wasn't concealed you'd get ticketed or arrested. I discovered this when I went with some friends to hang out in Philly in early 90's, and we stopped by a local beer store and the clerk handed us some can sized form fitting bags, and I asked why he handed us those extra bags, and told us we could drink and walk down the street as long as we had beers in bags. I don't know of any other local towns that allow that.

I think the practice is fairly widespread. Most places where I've lived in the US that do not allow public consumption will allow people to drink a beverage in a paper bag. It may or may not be officially allowed, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2fV-_eiKxE
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
3,076
Dumb law #2.

Again in Calif; At the age of 18 you can join the army or be drafted or become a policeman. But you can not buy a pistol.

Daniel

Please don't get us started on California's gun laws. If I posted how I felt about them and the current ones that are about to pass, this thread would be closed instantly and I'd probably get banned.
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
Please don't get us started on California's gun laws. If I posted how I felt about them and the current ones that are about to pass, this thread would be closed instantly and I'd probably get banned.

LOL. Sorry about that. I had just stumbled across that law (reading up on the handgun safety certificate test) a few hours before reading this thread. I found it odd.

Daniel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top