s/o people justifying breaking laws (illegal fireworks)

[maize]

Does arbitrary mean something different in British usage?

[Laura Corin]

Well, arbitrary is usually taken to mean a decision made randomly or without reason. The usage is not closely linked with arbiter in the decision maker sense so I don't find your argument very compelling. Basically, we hope that the arbiters of our laws make their decisions in a reasoned and not arbitrary way.

 

The words, while presumably from the same root, have diverged in meaning.

 

I get your point, but I was trying to get back to the origins of laws with the origin of the word: we (the people) make them by electing officials or acquiescing to existing laws.  So if we find them arbitrary (random or without reason) then it is our duty to persuade arbiters (deciders) to make them better.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Laura Corin

[wendyroo]

Deciding not to obey a fireworks law because one thinks it's stupid (and wants to shoot off fireworks) isn't the same thing.  (In my opinion, obviously.)

 

I can understand and support making it illegal to use high powered fireworks that shoot up above the roof tops.  But up thread, someone posted Maryland's law which prohibits even sparklers and other hand-held "fireworks".  I think it is that kind of nonsense that makes people disregard the entire law.

 

Yes, clearly even sparklers pose a small risk, but if we are going to use laws to prevent all possible harm to children, I would think we should start with guns and swimming pools and trampolines, not sparklers.

 

It is laws that seem moronic to otherwise reasonable, law-abiding people (raw milk bans, no sparklers and other small, relatively harmless fireworks, no leaving your kids in the car for even a couple minutes in mild weather, etc) that cause people to view some laws as optional.

 

I just finished watching Ken Burns' documentary about prohibition, and I see a lot of parallels.  Lots of people supported banning hard alcohol, but the law that was put in place was so ridiculously overbearing, that even most supporters ended up disregarded portions of it.

 

Wendy

[Caroline]

How does someone get a permit?

 

In Maryland, the permit is from the state fire marshall. I have no idea how you go about getting one. I just know that it was in the neighborhood newsletter that Mr. Anderson had obtained a permit and we were invited to the fireworks show.

[Tanaqui]

Your dog is your problem, not anyone else's.

 

Your migraine is also your problem, not anyone else's.

 

We live in a society. If you want to live on an island by yourself and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions, be my guest. But in a civilized society, your right to swing your arms ends at my nose - which means my dog, and my migraine, and my roof (notice you carefully elided that one) are YOUR problem if YOU are the one harming them.

[maize]

We live in a society. If you want to live on an island by yourself and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions, be my guest. But in a civilized society, your right to swing your arms ends at my nose - which means my dog, and my migraine, and my roof (notice you carefully elided that one) are YOUR problem if YOU are the one harming them.

Yes and--it is always a balancing act, as most things that are beneficial to one entity are in fact harmful to another.

 

I used to live next door to the L.A. airport. The noise of the planes taking off was obnoxious, the jet fuel emissions products were more obnoxious. Not good for health and sanity. But those planes were also a vital part of the economy of the city.

 

Living with lots of other people in a society is always going to be tricky.

[Tanaqui]

I think an airport is a little different from an amateur fireworks night, though.

[Amy in NH]

[sNIP]

 

kids are young enough that I don't think they can fully get the grey areas.  Ds has Aspergers and he is a very rigid, strict rule follower.  You use a bad word and he'll call you on it.  If the children's menu says "10 years old" he won't order from it unless we ask the waiter if it's okay.  

 

And I often wonder how many of the inflexible, rigid thinkers on this board also have Aspergers (diagnosed or not).

 

If you only see the world as black and white you may want to rethink your vision.

 

If the problem is "everyone else", maybe it's actually not...

[Spy Car]

Honestly, is there anybody who claims to follow ALL laws? There are plenty of utterly ridiculous laws on the books.

http://www.truthin7minutes.com/weird-laws/

 

Does God tell you to obey rules like "Women may not wear red dresses on the street after 7pm" or "Women may not wear high heels inside the city limits"???

 

I know the source of this one (although not cited in the link) it is in the Municipal Code of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

 

You can get a permit, but wearing high heels in a town with cobblestones and protected tree-roots (with few sidewalks) is a hazard and the ordinance goes back to the 1920s (under Mayor Perry Newberry if memory serves). It is designed to keep the city from being sued into oblivion.

 

Bill

[Tanaqui]

I'm sorry for your loss, but this seems like a fire code issue rather than a "let's ban fireworks" issue. After all, fires can start by all sorts of legal things like cigarettes.

 

Sorry for her loss, but not sorry enough to modify your behavior to prevent this tragedy from happening to others in the future. That's really selfish.

[Tanaqui]

Honestly, is there anybody who claims to follow ALL laws? There are plenty of utterly ridiculous laws on the books.

http://www.truthin7minutes.com/weird-laws/

 

Does God tell you to obey rules like "Women may not wear red dresses on the street after 7pm" or "Women may not wear high heels inside the city limits"???

 

I always suspect that most of those ridiculous laws are on the books because of ONE person who was really a pain. If there's a law against bathing in the middle of the street, that's because ONE person insisted on doing it in the middle of the 4th of July parade. If there's a law against putting food in your back pocket, that's because ONE person was trying to shoplift that way or something and argued that they "couldn't prove" he was attempting to steal (or something equally inane). They're the "that one jerk" laws.

 

Though your cited laws, five bucks suggests they're either outdated sumptuary laws, or they're intended to target sex workers.

[unsinkable]

We live in a society. If you want to live on an island by yourself and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions, be my guest. But in a civilized society, your right to swing your arms ends at my nose - which means my dog, and my migraine, and my roof (notice you carefully elided that one) are YOUR problem if YOU are the one harming them.

Weren't you the same poster saying NBD if kids see people having sex in public bathrooms?

[Noreen Claire]

'I think that law is silly.' 'I can use my own judgement.' 'I don't have to do those things that other people say I have to if I don't agree with it.'

 

Sounds like an alcoholic trying to rationalize their behavior.

 

Some of us live in black and white because we spent too many years being traumatized by others living in their grey areas. But, hey, if Dear Family Member thinks he's totally cool driving after taking several narcotic painkillers and smoking a joint to top it off, who's to complain? He thinks he can handle it. Laws only apply to you if you agree with them, right?

Edited July 1, 2017 by Noreen Claire

[Cindy in FL.]

I must have missed that thread!

 

Weren't you the same poster saying NBD if kids see people having sex in public bathrooms?

[marbel]

This totally sums up my beliefs/thoughts and what we teach our kids.  Good laws make sense and really don't need to be laws (obeying stop signs, not stealing, not killing, etc).  Some laws are just someone's personal beliefs that they want to impose upon all of us.  They have no right to do so IMO.

 

But we don't buy fireworks ourselves, considering it a waste of money.  We just enjoy what others set off.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

If there was no law that required drivers to obey stop signs, stop signs would be meaningless and pointless.  There would also be no reason for a government entity to put up stop signs.  

[creekland]

'I think that law is silly.' 'I can use my own judgement.' 'I don't have to do those things that other people say I have to if I don't agree with it.'

 

Sounds like an alcoholic trying to rationalize their behavior.

 

Or... it could sound similar to folks who hid the Jews during Nazi Germany rather than turning them in as they were legally bound to do.

 

There are many extremes one could look at if they wanted to.

 

Regardless, I'm still for intelligent, independent thought before conforming (or not) to laws.  I teach my kids the same.  Going the speed limit on many highways around here could probably get one shot in today's day and age (with the increase in road rage and recent incident near Philly + a previous one near Gettysburg).  Going a bit over the speed limit in a residential area is a totally different situation.  We teach our kids about both.

 

The same Bible that has it as a Commandment to not lie praised Rahab when she did just that.  Then there was David picking the grains... It's the Pharisees who kept every single law (or tried to - including setting up more for "others" to follow).  There wasn't much good said about them TBH.

[unsinkable]

I must have missed that thread!

 

 

It was a tangential type of thing in the thread about where to use the bathroom with young boys on road trips.

[snowbeltmom]

'I think that law is silly.' 'I can use my own judgement.' 'I don't have to do those things that other people say I have to if I don't agree with it.'

 

Sounds like an alcoholic trying to rationalize their behavior.

 

Some of us live in black and white because we spent too many years being traumatized by others living in their grey areas. But, hey, if Dear Family Member thinks he's totally cool driving after taking several narcotic painkillers and smoking a joint to top it off, who's to complain? He thinks he can handle it. Laws only apply to you if you agree with them, right?

 

Well, I don't think anyone replying on this thread would be ok with that scenario.  There are laws that I think are silly and don't follow, but the laws we choose to ignore do not have an impact on others.

 

When my kids were small, I could purchase fireworks in my state, but it was illegal to use them in my state.  I let my kids play with sparklers even though it was against the law.  This law breaking had no impact on anyone else.  However, I did not let them use anything "bigger" than a sparkler.

 

 

[creekland]

What do you mean by this?

 

If there was no law that required drivers to obey stop signs, stop signs would be meaningless and pointless.  There would also be no reason for a government entity to put up stop signs.  

 

Rules and laws are different.  Rules give meaning to "the game" of life. Stop signs are rules for driving. When we're all playing the same game, we need rules to make that game work better.

 

My pp means if everyone could use common sense, we wouldn't need laws.  We would all know what a Stop Sign meant by definition of the rule and our brains would have us obeying it even if there were no punishment whatsoever.  We'd know the life we could be saving was our own - or at least equally as valuable as our own.

 

Laws are needed (sometimes) in order to put punishments out there when folks don't use common sense... like texting and driving (or running stop signs).  Intelligent folks could look at the stats and say, "Wow - won't ever do that one!  Too dangerous!"  Those with less intelligence keep right on doing it.  Laws add a punishment to it if they get caught - with or without hurting someone else.

 

I wouldn't text and drive even if there were no punishment attached.  The stats are that black and white.

 

With fireworks?  It would depend upon the actual situation.  Some are fine.  Some are way too dangerous.  There is no blanket "fits all."  (This last bit being theoretical for us because we don't personally use fireworks by choice in how we spend our money, not by worrying about it.  It's totally as safe as one can get where we live, but I have no desire.)

Edited July 1, 2017 by creekland

[marbel]

Or... it could sound similar to folks who hid the Jews during Nazi Germany rather than turning them in as they were legally bound to do.

 

There are many extremes one could look at if they wanted to.

 

Regardless, I'm still for intelligent, independent thought before conforming (or not) to laws.  I teach my kids the same.  Going the speed limit on many highways around here could probably get one shot in today's day and age (with the increase in road rage and recent incident near Philly + a previous one near Gettysburg).  Going a bit over the speed limit in a residential area is a totally different situation.  We teach our kids about both.

 

The same Bible that has it as a Commandment to not lie praised Rahab when she did just that.  Then there was David picking the grains... It's the Pharisees who kept every single law (or tried to - including setting up more for "others" to follow).  There wasn't much good said about them TBH.

 

Civil disobedience in order to save lives is on a bit of a different level than disobeying fireworks laws, don't you think?  

[marbel]

<snip>

 

My pp means if everyone could use common sense, we wouldn't need laws.  We would all know what a Stop Sign meant by definition of the rule and our brains would have us obeying it even if there were no punishment whatsoever.  We'd know the life we could be saving was our own - or at least equally as valuable as our own.

 

 

<snip>

 

 

Sorry, I guess I am dense but this still makes no sense to me at all.

 

The only reason there are stop signs anywhere is because someone (traffic engineer?) determined that for safety, people should stop at that spot. The law requires drivers to stop there.  If there was no law to stop at stop signs, there would be some people who say "this is a stupid spot for a stop sign.  I'm not going to stop here."   Maybe... some of the same people who think it's OK to buy illegal fireworks.  :-)   Come to think of it, there are already people who consider the law to stop at a stop sign optional.

 

Do you stop even when there is no stop sign, because you think it's common sense to stop there?  

[wendyroo]

What do you mean by this?

 

If there was no law that required drivers to obey stop signs, stop signs would be meaningless and pointless.  There would also be no reason for a government entity to put up stop signs.  

 

I'm not Creekland...

 

I think most rational people in this country would agree that we need a system to keep cars from crashing into each other at intersections.  I think it is good that we have a law that standardizes the shape, color and placement of stop signs (and enforces stopping at them), but if the government got entirely out of the traffic sign business, I think regular folks would step in and start putting up their own signs to help traffic flow safely in their communities.

 

I think most good laws are the same way.  I think most (though not all) people in this country agree that starting house fires, getting severely injured, and traumatizing people and pets is bad.  They also, however, think that having fun, being patriotic, and passing on traditions to their kids is good.  I think a good law will try to reasonably prevent most of the bad, while impeding the good as little as possible.

 

As that applies to fireworks, I would fully support bans on fireworks that are designed to shoot above a certain height, strict enforcement of age restrictions for buying fireworks - I would even support increasing the age limit to 21, ordinances restricting firework usage to the 4th, plus the Friday and Saturday nights before and after, and requiring that anyone purchasing fireworks in our community be given an information sheet briefly discussing the trauma some people experience, and outlining when the fireworks may legally be set off...along with a few key safety tips.

 

Wendy

[Catwoman]

Sorry, I guess I am dense but this still makes no sense to me at all.

 

The only reason there are stop signs anywhere is because someone (traffic engineer?) determined that for safety, people should stop at that spot. The law requires drivers to stop there. If there was no law to stop at stop signs, there would be some people who say "this is a stupid spot for a stop sign. I'm not going to stop here." Maybe... some of the same people who think it's OK to buy illegal fireworks. :-) Come to think of it, there are already people who consider the law to stop at a stop sign optional.

 

Do you stop even when there is no stop sign, because you think it's common sense to stop there?

It's so interesting that you posted about the Stop signs because I was just thinking about it yesterday. I frequently encounter a stop sign in a fairly remote place in an incredibly stupid location, but even though I know there would be absolutely no danger to anyone if I drove through it (because the sign must have been put up when they thought a cross street was going to go there but it was apparently never constructed so there are no cars coming the other way, ever!) and almost no chance in the world that I would get caught, I still stop. Every single time. Because it's a stop sign and it's the law to stop at stop signs.

[marbel]

I'm not Creekland...

 

I think most rational people in this country would agree that we need a system to keep cars from crashing into each other at intersections.  I think it is good that we have a law that standardizes the shape, color and placement of stop signs (and enforces stopping at them), but if the government got entirely out of the traffic sign business, I think regular folks would step in and start putting up their own signs to help traffic flow safely in their communities.

 

<snip>

 

OK, that helps me understand a bit better, though I don't have as high a view of human nature as you do.  :-)

[Tanaqui]

Weren't you the same poster saying NBD if kids see people having sex in public bathrooms?

 

Very unlikely to set anything on fire, no matter how hot you are.

 

And honestly, this was in response to somebody saying "well bathrooms are sketchy, people have sex there and flash others" when other people had pointed out that your risk of rape and abduction are pretty low. On the comparison scale of "things that are a big deal", I'll say that walking in on people having sex in a bathroom but not in the stall is very much not a big deal when compared to rape and/or abduction.

 

[creekland]

Civil disobedience in order to save lives is on a bit of a different level than disobeying fireworks laws, don't you think?  

 

That would be why there are many extremes one could look at if they wanted to... it was in response to a negative extreme the other way.

 

 

Sorry, I guess I am dense but this still makes no sense to me at all.

 

The only reason there are stop signs anywhere is because someone (traffic engineer?) determined that for safety, people should stop at that spot. The law requires drivers to stop there.  If there was no law to stop at stop signs, there would be some people who say "this is a stupid spot for a stop sign.  I'm not going to stop here."   Maybe... some of the same people who think it's OK to buy illegal fireworks.  :-)   Come to think of it, there are already people who consider the law to stop at a stop sign optional.

 

Do you stop even when there is no stop sign, because you think it's common sense to stop there?  

 

Stopping for stop signs is a rule helping us all drive more safely.  We all learn the rules of driving in order to get our license.

 

Having a law saying one must stop at a stop sign is needed because there will be some folks with less common sense - or who are just distracted - who don't stop potentially causing significant injury to themselves or others.  Without a law, there can be no punishment for those folks.  Intelligent folks would stop anyway since it makes sense to do so.

 

And yes, we do significantly slow down or stop at certain areas because I know there is danger there.  One example is a nearby house where the kids like to play in the road (not a highly traveled road) and I want to make sure they see us coming.  Another is an area I know deer frequent.  But both of those are totally different than what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about Stop Signs being places as parts of the rules of driving - who gets the right of way.

 

And... related to what Catwoman said... there is one stop sign we (and oodles of others) only stop for if we see cars coming.  It used to be a Yield sign a few decades ago and only needs to be a Yield sign due to extensive sight distance.  The state (NY) required it be changed, but many of us obviously disagree with the state for that specific situation.

[Tanaqui]

It's the Pharisees who kept every single law (or tried to - including setting up more for "others" to follow).  There wasn't much good said about them TBH.

 

Aren't the Pharisees the ancestors of modern Rabbinical Jews? There's plenty good said about them - it just doesn't show up in the New Testament.

 

[creekland]

OK, that helps me understand a bit better, though I don't have as high a view of human nature as you do.  :-)

 

Oh, I don't either.  We live in the Real World and not the Ideal World.  We need those laws.  They make sense.  But not all laws do and even moreso, not all laws do for every situation under them - hence - using our minds to distinguish between them rather than taking a black and white approach.

[snowbeltmom]

It's so interesting that you posted about the Stop signs because I was just thinking about it yesterday. I frequently encounter a stop sign in a fairly remote place in an incredibly stupid location, but even though I know there would be absolutely no danger to anyone if I drove through it (because the sign must have been put up when they thought a cross street was going to go there but it was apparently never constructed so there are no cars coming the other way, ever!) and almost no chance in the world that I would get caught, I still stop. Every single time. Because it's a stop sign and it's the law to stop at stop signs.

 

I also have a couple of those type of stop signs in my area.  I also stop every single time, but I don't stop just because it is the law, I stop because if I don't, I may injure someone else.

 

 

 

 

[eternalsummer]

There's a thread about fireworks and in it several people have said that fireworks are illegal where they live, but people still buy them and set them off.  

 

For years I've wondered about people who buy illegal fireworks. When I lived in Oregon, they were illegal but people would drive to Washington to buy them. What do they tell their kids about following the law?     Seems a bad idea to blatantly break laws in front of children.  I've never known anyone personally who bought illegal fireworks, and if I did I'm not sure how I'd ask.  So in the relative anonymity here, I'll ask.  How does one justify it? 

 

I don't want to debate fireworks laws.  I'm interested in how people justify breaking a law because they want to set off fireworks.  

 Have you ever seen anyone drive over the speed limit, or done so yourself?

[Catwoman]

Very unlikely to set anything on fire, no matter how hot you are.

 

And honestly, this was in response to somebody saying "well bathrooms are sketchy, people have sex there and flash others" when other people had pointed out that your risk of rape and abduction are pretty low. On the comparison scale of "things that are a big deal", I'll say that walking in on people having sex in a bathroom but not in the stall is very much not a big deal when compared to rape and/or abduction.

Obviously rape and abduction are horrifying, but I would think it would still be a pretty big deal to the average 9yo if he walked into a public rest room and saw people having s*x. It would certainly have been a big deal to me if it had ever happened to my ds. (I'm sure the likelihood of it happening is incredibly rare, though -- or at least I hope it would be!)

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Who decides a law is silly? So we don't need to follow that law.

Edited July 1, 2017 by PinkyandtheBrains.

[StephanieZ]

'I think that law is silly.' 'I can use my own judgement.' 'I don't have to do those things that other people say I have to if I don't agree with it.'

 

Sounds like an alcoholic trying to rationalize their behavior.

 

Some of us live in black and white because we spent too many years being traumatized by others living in their grey areas. But, hey, if Dear Family Member thinks he's totally cool driving after taking several narcotic painkillers and smoking a joint to top it off, who's to complain? He thinks he can handle it. Laws only apply to you if you agree with them, right?

 

 

LOL, see, when I see people arguing that one should "follow all the laws", I read . . . somebody has some serious problems with self-control and/or self-direction. I read that as somebody who has been really messed up by a rules-based religion, rules-based household, over-controlling family member, or something else. 

 

I personally think that it's really messed up to live life according to edicts, laws, rules. To me, it means that the individual has ceded their autonomy and given up their humanity. 

 

Isn't it strange how one can read the exact same stuff in such opposite ways?

 

If we own our own actions, own the consequences of our actions, and are responsible not to harm others, then, to me, we're in pretty good shape. Whether we follow all the rules/laws/whatevers is only very loosely correlated with those more important principles, IME. 

 

I'd *much* rather live in a society where people had good critical thinking skills and took responsibility for their actions . . . than one where folks just followed all the rules. 

[JFSinIL]

When I still lived at home, my friend lived in a nearby town.  I was out driving near her neighborhood and saw a lot of black smoke - turned onto her street and there were firetrucks etc.  Her house had major water damage while the house behind it burned to the ground..kids there playing with illegal fireworks.. No one was home at friend's house, I had to call her mom to come.  Guarded her house until she showed up.  

 

The firework family later rented the house next to us and the kids would jump off the roof into the backyard pool screaming like banshees at all hours of the night. :-(

 

But, yeah, fireworks can cause fires.

Edited July 1, 2017 by JFSinIL

[Laura Corin]

LOL, see, when I see people arguing that one should "follow all the laws", I read . . . somebody has some serious problems with self-control and/or self-direction. I read that as somebody who has been really messed up by a rules-based religion, rules-based household, over-controlling family member, or something else.

 

I personally think that it's really messed up to live life according to edicts, laws, rules. To me, it means that the individual has ceded their autonomy and given up their humanity.

 

 

To me it shows full engagement in society, where I live by communal principles or strive to change them. But I'm just a poor benighted Brit, brought up by left-wing atheists. Interesting social attitudes survey here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40408576

[Word Nerd]

Sorry for her loss, but not sorry enough to modify your behavior to prevent this tragedy from happening to others in the future. That's really selfish.

What behavior should she modify? She said she supports bans in her area but not everywhere. She didn't say anywhere that she currently buys or shoots fireworks.

[Tanaqui]

What behavior should she modify? She said she supports bans in her area but not everywhere. She didn't say anywhere that she currently buys or shoots fireworks.

 

She can modify her behavior of telling other people either that they don't need to care about the effects of their actions on their neighbors or that she doesn't think it's fair to ask her to. If she stops doing that, then she will be doing a lot of good.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Tanaqui

[Tanaqui]

Obviously rape and abduction are horrifying, but I would think it would still be a pretty big deal to the average 9yo if he walked into a public rest room and saw people having s*x. It would certainly have been a big deal to me if it had ever happened to my ds. (I'm sure the likelihood of it happening is incredibly rare, though -- or at least I hope it would be!)

 

I'll grant that, without saying that therefore I think nine year olds can't or shouldn't go to public bathrooms alone. (However, in saying *that*, I add the caveat that if it works for your family,  or they simply prefer not to, I'm not going to judge it.)

 

[Catwoman]

I'll grant that, without saying that therefore I think nine year olds can't or shouldn't go to public bathrooms alone. (However, in saying *that*, I add the caveat that if it works for your family, or they simply prefer not to, I'm not going to judge it.)

I'll join you in not judging anyone, either. :) I assume that most parents will make the wisest choice for their own families.

[snowbeltmom]

Who decides a law is silly? So we don't need to follow that law.

Here is one example.  I live in a neighborhood that has a lot of kids out biking, walking, roller blading, etc.  We are rural and have no sidewalks. Therefore, the cars must share the road with the kids. 

 

The other rural neighborhoods in my area have a speed limit of 25 mph on their roads. The speed limit for the roads in my neighborhood is 35 mph, which many of us believe is too high under the circumstances.  A group of neighbors petitioned the county to lower the speed limit to 25 mph, but the county officials could not lower the speed limit because one of the roads in our neighborhood connects two parallel roads that are considered state roads. Had these roads not been state roads, the speed limit would have been reduced to 25 mph.   

 

Most people who travel through are neighborhood do not follow the law. Instead, they go 25 mph on our streets because they recognize that a speed limit of 35 is dangerous and silly. 

[Tanaqui]

Most people who travel through are neighborhood do not follow the law. Instead, they go 25 mph on our streets because they recognize that a speed limit of 35 is dangerous and silly.

 

Admittedly, I don't drive, so this may be the most ridiculous question... but if you're on a residential street, is it unlawful to go under the speed limit?

 

[Laura Corin]

Admittedly, I don't drive, so this may be the most ridiculous question... but if you're on a residential street, is it unlawful to go under the speed limit?

 

In the UK, a speed limit is just that - a limit.  There is no requirement to go at that speed and the law specifically says 'don't be an idiot' (or words to that effect) - it is your responsibility to drive safely given the road conditions.  Lots of kids?  You have a duty to drive slowly, whatever the signs allow:

 

You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

 

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

Edited July 1, 2017 by Laura Corin

[wendyroo]

Who decides a law is silly? So we don't need to follow that law.

 

In the real world?  Everyone decides for themselves which laws they will or won't follow.  That is how it always has been and how it always will be.

 

For example, in my city it is against the law to keep your garbage can in front of your house.  I choose not to follow that law.  I do think I considerately follow the spirit of the law, because I keep the garbage can behind a large hedge so that it is not visible from the street.  Nonetheless, it is in front of the house, so I am not following the letter of the law.  I fully accept that my choice may eventually lead to a fine; I doubt it, but if the police come a-knockin', I will pay...and then continue to keep my garbage can behind the hedge in the front.

 

Wendy

[snowbeltmom]

Admittedly, I don't drive, so this may be the most ridiculous question... but if you're on a residential street, is it unlawful to go under the speed limit?

You can be pulled over for going under the speed limit - it happened to a friend of mine years ago.  I don't know what the under limit is though.  No one would be pulled over in our neighborhood for going 25 mph.

[wendyroo]

Here is one example.  I live in a neighborhood that has a lot of kids out biking, walking, roller blading, etc.  We are rural and have no sidewalks. Therefore, the cars must share the road with the kids. 

 

The other rural neighborhoods in my area have a speed limit of 25 mph on their roads. The speed limit for the roads in my neighborhood is 35 mph, which many of us believe is too high under the circumstances.  A group of neighbors petitioned the county to lower the speed limit to 25 mph, but the county officials could not lower the speed limit because one of the roads in our neighborhood connects two parallel roads that are considered state roads. Had these roads not been state roads, the speed limit would have been reduced to 25 mph.   

 

Most people who travel through are neighborhood do not follow the law. Instead, they go 25 mph on our streets because they recognize that a speed limit of 35 is dangerous and silly. 

 

It is exactly these types of situations that lead to many Americans thinking that it is more prudent to just ignore stupid laws rather than try to convince the red-taped bureaucracy to change them.  As was mentioned previously in the thread, our government encourages us to do this by leaving boat-loads of completely irrelevant laws on the books and then simply not enforcing them.

 

In Michigan, a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission.  I don't have a clue if anyone ever followed that law, but at some point after it was passed, some woman had to be the first to ignore it.  And then there was a second and a third and eventually it was tacitly agreed that you didn't have to follow that law...even though it is still the law.

 

So maybe, all the people in Maryland who ignore the law and let their kids use sparklers, are just early adopters, and eventually everyone will tacitly agree that sparklers are fine even if they are still technically illegal.

 

Wendy

[amy g.]

I do not enjoy people who selectively obey rules and no, I don't speed. Instead, I leave with enough time to get where I'm going while obeying the speed limit.

 

Our city has leash laws. My neighbors think it is a stupid law and don't obey it. Why should they have to walk their dog when they can just open the front door and let her out instead?

 

The problem is that when they do that, she comes to my house and scratches up my front gate trying to get in. This drives my own dogs to bark. Yes, I know, my dogs, my problem.

 

People who decide to selectively disregard laws that they don't like invariable inconvience others. They just don't care.

 

Illegal fireworks infringe upon your neighbor's rights.

 

If people complain about legal fireworks, they should have researched the area better before moving there.

 

And no, I wouldn't order a meal for an adult from the children's menu without asking first.

 

Some call it rigidity. I call it consideration.

[StephanieZ]

 

 

So maybe, all the people in Maryland who ignore the law and let their kids use sparklers, are just early adopters, and eventually everyone will tacitly agree that sparklers are fine even if they are still technically illegal.

 

Wendy

 

Indeed, for the first dozen July 4ths we lived in WV, we were early adopters of cool-fire-works-on-our-own-land. Some were bought in other states . . . Some were legal here, some weren't. 

 

This year, though, apparently our (generally deranged and idiotic) state legislature (which doesn't have the time or organization to address any of the very serious pressing problems in our state) somehow found time and energy to pass a law recently permitting *all the fun and dangerous* fireworks. So, now we have very legal fireworks in hand . . . 

 

Which are no less dangerous than the prior 12 years we set them off . . . when they were illegal. 

 

Same fireworks. Same land. Different year. 

 

As always, we'll be prudent, responsible, wear shoes, have a hose handy for unexpected emergencies and a big bucket or water ready for the "dead" fireworks to safely cool down . . . 

 

I am confident we're no more safe this year than we were prior years. 

 

Laws changed. We didn't. 

 

I don't feel like a better person this year now that we're following the local fireworks laws.  

[Tanaqui]

The problem is that when they do that, she comes to my house and scratches up my front gate trying to get in. This drives my own dogs to bark. Yes, I know, my dogs, my problem.

 

Seriously, I'd tell the neighbors that if they do it again, the dog is going to the nearest shelter, and I'll continue to do so until they supervise their animal.

 

And no, I wouldn't order a meal for an adult from the children's menu without asking first.

 

This one isn't a law - and I don't see how it's likely to inconvenience anybody else. Surely "children's menu" just means "we think these dishes will appeal to kids" and neither "children only, no grown-ups allowed" nor "children cannot eat those other foods".

 

I purchase men's socks for myself. I don't feel that the fact that they're labeled "men's" means I should ask about those either. That's just what we call those socks that are big enough to fit my feet.

[amy g.]

In my opinion, items on the children's menu are discounted for kids. Particularly if it specifies "for ages 12 and under" on the menu.

 

I respect the restaurant owner enough to ask if I want an exception.

[scoutingmom]

 

 

We tell them that some laws are silly.

 

 

Do you speed? Do you pay sales/use tax on all the stuff you buy off the internet? Do you pay (or accept payment) under the table ever? Ever give your spouse an extra vicodin that you had leftover from surgery when he has a killer headache? Do any DIY home improvements that technically required a permit? There are numerous laws on the books that we don't always follow.

 

Guess I am a rule follower. I have occasionally soed, but it was always inadvertently. I have followed the rest of those rules.