The New Policy In The Subway

[nothing to see here]

I'm with the people who are curious as to how a regulation is unethical.

There are lots of weird American laws out there. Despite being unenforced (or, indeed, unenforceable) these laws still exist on the books and officially carry legal weight.

For instance....it is illegal for women to wear pants in Tuscon, Arizona.

...Monkey's are forbidden from smoking cigarettes in South Bend Indiana

Boston actually still has an ordinance on the books forbidding the taking of baths without a physician's order.

It is illegal for women to impersonate Santa Claus in Minnesota...though in a nod to the ladies, state law also requires men to brush their teeth if demanded to by their wives.

Memphis has a statute that forbids the sharing of pie. Not to be outdone the state of Tennessee has seen fit to pass a law forbidding the use of lasoo's to catch fish.

In the interest of public safety Seattle has a law forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons LONGER than six feet.

However my personal favourite weird American law is Lang, Kansas which, though I'ven ever visited, I'd sure like to. It is the only town in America (or, perhaps the world) with a law making it illegal to ride a mule down Main Street in August, unless the animal is also wearing a straw hat

 

[johnsemlak]

I'm with the people who are curious as to how a regulation is unethical.

There are lots of weird American laws out there. Despite being unenforced (or, indeed, unenforceable) these laws still exist on the books and officially carry legal weight.

For instance....it is illegal for women to wear pants in Tuscon, Arizona.

...Monkey's are forbidden from smoking cigarettes in South Bend Indiana

Boston actually still has an ordinance on the books forbidding the taking of baths without a physician's order.

It is illegal for women to impersonate Santa Claus in Minnesota...though in a nod to the ladies, state law also requires men to brush their teeth if demanded to by their wives.

Memphis has a statute that forbids the sharing of pie. Not to be outdone the state of Tennessee has seen fit to pass a law forbidding the use of lasoo's to catch fish.

In the interest of public safety Seattle has a law forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons LONGER than six feet.

However my personal favourite weird American law is Lang, Kansas which, though I'ven ever visited, I'd sure like to. It is the only town in America (or, perhaps the world) with a law making it illegal to ride a mule down Main Street in August, unless the animal is also wearing a straw hat

ROTFL
That's one of the funniest posts I've read for a while.

 

[Xath]

I've travelled on metro systems across the US and Europe, and I must say that Washington DC has one of the cleanest systems I have ever seen. I tribute this mostly to the no food/drink policy.

They just announced that we're going to start having to show IDs to ride the subway now...that's WAY more annoying. (Of course we already can't eat/drink on the subway.)

Is this the Baltimore Lightrail or the DC Metro? Because you used to have to show ID to get onto the Lightrail, but then they lost alot of their personnel funding so that mostly stopped, as did checking tokens. Does the Lightrail even still run on tokens?

Par for the course here in D.C. No eating or drinking anywhere in the system. I just wish they were more aggressive about enforcing it.

I've watched people eat right in front of the camera, and it's almost immediately followed by a blaring of the "No Food/Drink" PSA. If the person keeps eating/drinking, the PSA comes on again. If the person continues to eat/drink, then about 30% of the time, someone from WMATA will approach them.

What about people with medical conditions that require them to remain hydrated? Will they be required to show special "subway drinking licenses"?

Most subway systems with this rule will allow water as long as it's in a clear container with a resealable lid.

Get hit a few times in the head with one because the person wearing one forgets they have it on.

I carry a (to use the Seinfeld term) European Men's Carry-All. Also known as a man purse. It doesn't stick out from my back and hit the people sitting down in the head when I turn around.

I've tried both backpacks and side-bags, and I most definitely prefer the backpack. Many times when I ride the metro, I'm carrying my laptop and several D&D books, or my laptop and textbooks. Regardless, it's heavy. For the metro ride itself, there's not much difference between the bags, but for walking around to and from, the one-shoulder bag gives me a definite backache. I prefer my backpack all the way.

Isn't that the truth. Happened to me this very morning on the train. If you're going to stand on the subway, take off your backpack instead of smacking me in the face every time the train lurches.

I've been to some places where taking your backpack/bag off on the train was a sure way of saying goodbye to it. Thievery aside, putting your backpack on the floor is a safety hazard on any transit system. Especially during rush hour (and those of you who have ridden DC rush hours can attest to this) there is no room for anything but feet on the floor of a metro car.

To combat theft, I learned early on in my metro-riding career to sling my backpack around in front of me when I'm on the train. I'm more aware of it's position, and I'm taking up less space, since my arms are still in front of me to hold onto the pole.

However, If you're sitting in a seat, and are tired of someone's backpack being where it is, why not offer up your own seat? The person would probably appreciate the rest, their backpack would be out of the way, and if you were standing, the probability of being hit in the head decreases dramatically.

 

[Xath]

My metro pet peeve are the people who have their music so loud that I can hear it clearly from halfway across the train. The reason you wear headphones is so that other people don't have to listen to your music.

Or the people who shout their cell-phone conversations across the tri-state area. Seriously. Put the phone down. I bet whoever you're calling can hear you from here.

 

[Michael Morris]

I'm with the people who are curious as to how a regulation is unethical.

There are lots of weird American laws out there. Despite being unenforced (or, indeed, unenforceable) these laws still exist on the books and officially carry legal weight.

For instance....it is illegal for women to wear pants in Tuscon, Arizona.

...Monkey's are forbidden from smoking cigarettes in South Bend Indiana

Boston actually still has an ordinance on the books forbidding the taking of baths without a physician's order.

It is illegal for women to impersonate Santa Claus in Minnesota...though in a nod to the ladies, state law also requires men to brush their teeth if demanded to by their wives.

Memphis has a statute that forbids the sharing of pie. Not to be outdone the state of Tennessee has seen fit to pass a law forbidding the use of lasoo's to catch fish.

In the interest of public safety Seattle has a law forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons LONGER than six feet.

However my personal favourite weird American law is Lang, Kansas which, though I'ven ever visited, I'd sure like to. It is the only town in America (or, perhaps the world) with a law making it illegal to ride a mule down Main Street in August, unless the animal is also wearing a straw hat

It gets worse..

In Lexington KY it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket. Also, drunk is legally defined as "being unable to hold on to the ground."

In Detroit it is illegal to tie up an alligator to a fire hydrant. And don't throw squid onto the ice ring at a red wings game - that's illegal too.

In Tenessee it is illegal to house more than 4 single women in the same building, as such according to the statue constitutes a brothel (I wonder what the Universities have to say).

Stupid laws aren't always old. In 1993 Mobile Alabama passed a law prohibiting women from wearing high heel shoes. The statue was passed after a women sprained her ankle trying to walk across a sewer grate in a pair of stilleto heels - and she successfully sued the city for some $200,000. The city passed the ordinance so that in the future anyone else hurt this way would be injured "during the course of committing a crime", which alleviates the city from any liability. The statue gives no penalty if one is caught wearing high heels.

Other stupid laws make sense when you consider the times in which they were passed. For instance, in Charleston GA, a small suburb of Atlanta, it is illegal to yell "Oh boy." The law was passed shortly after the civil war when the town was overflowing with out of work former slaves, many of whom where on the brink of starvation. Aristocrats out of Atlanta thought it was cute to start riots by offering a quarter to the first man who'd shine their boots. How did they incite the riots? By yelling.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Yes. I almost got ran over twice in a city where no one supposed to drive. Its an insane city to drive in so it appears.

And don't forget the insane cabbies either! Had one try to "argue" for the same spot of roadway as our tour bus...

 

[Darth K'Trava]

i can't imagine this would ever fly. i also havent seen or read any official announcement of this. Anyone have a link? I feel bad for any cop who ever tries to give me a ticket for eating or drinking. He better start writing up the "assaulting an officer" ticket too.

And while I might be able to buy that this is to make everything "cleaner" explain why they would also want you to not drink water?

As for prohibiting backpacks... this is already why I don't go to Yankee Stadium anymore.
Prohibiting backpacks is assinine. How else am I supposed to carry my stuff back and forth?
Especially on the train...an hour commute to work...you need something to do for that hour, and something to do during breaks at work. If they ever prohibited backpacks on the subway, they'd either encourage more traffic, or get people to just avoid manhattan altogether. i'm sure that would help the economy.

Jaerdaph, why are backpacks a pet peeve? Surely you realize that people need to carry stuff back and forth? Plus, I don't see any bad side to backpacks.

I can see how that'd go over well with businessmen who carry laptop cases.... Those might go under that "rule" as well....

 

[Ranger REG]

There are lots of weird American laws out there. Despite being unenforced (or, indeed, unenforceable) these laws still exist on the books and officially carry legal weight.

Well, I've yet to hear such similar "silly & stupid" laws being passsed since 2000, but just out of curiosity. If a local government were to review all laws and try to remove them outdated "stupid" ones, how long would such a process take and are legislators -- who have the power to approve raising their own salary only to attend one or two congressional sessions a year (not counting the emergency sessions) willing to extend such a session to clean up the regulations/ordnances?

 

[fusangite]

Well, I've yet to hear such similar "silly & stupid" laws being passsed since 2000, but just out of curiosity. If a local government were to review all laws and try to remove them outdated "stupid" ones, how long would such a process take and are legislators -- who have the power to approve raising their own salary only to attend one or two congressional sessions a year (not counting the emergency sessions) willing to extend such a session to clean up the regulations/ordnances?

We had this situation in British Columbia; the government elected in 2001 created the Ministry of Deregulation which implemented the Core Review Process. The purpose of Core Review was to find and repeal unnecessary laws. It turned out, at the end of the process, that it is cheaper to leave useless and silly laws on the books and not enforce them than the millions of dollars they spent paying bureaucrats to draft legislation to repeal the laws and then put it through the legislature.

The Vancouver Sun legislative columnist Vaughn Palmer wrote a very funny column about this pointing out how much money was spent repealing the Weather Control Act, a law passed in the early 70s, apparently against supervillains that required one to obtain a permit before attempting to control the weather. Finding the law and all references to it and then drafting and passing the necessary acts and amendments to remove all traces of it exceeded the total amount of money that had been spent on enforcing the law in the previous 30 years.

Palmer enigmatically ended his column noting that only one application had been made to control the weather in 1977 but it was turned down for unspecified reasons.

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's another question. Now so far we've dealt with them silly criminal law, but what about silly civil law that one citizen can use against another in a civil or small claims courts?