• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Secession?

pipelineaudio said:
In the same way that locals in hawaii dont get their pictures taken past "do not cross railing" signs at hawaii volcanos national park, arizona locals dont drive underequiped vehicles into flowing washes. Event the stoutest 4x4's are better off not trying it
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Apparently, Hawaii and Arizona are the only places on Earth with no native stupid people.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're right about that.


I'm sorry, but you're both wrong to claim that high water that temporarily covers a roadway isn't "flash flooding". That's exactly what flash flooding is.

[ETA: If I find a picture of an even bigger flood--like the Great Flood of '93 we had here in the Midwest--does it logically follow that your video wasn't a flood?]

Pipelineaudio claimed a flash flood is only when you're on a safe and dry roadway and a surge of water sweeps over you. That's not at all true.

The law doesn't use the term anyway. It just talks about water temporarily covering roadways.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify - I was not making any claim about what constitutes a flash flood and what does not. I was merely posting a video that is an example of the sheer volume of water we experience during the monsoon.

Sort of a "thats not a knife, this is a knife" moment.
 
Cleon said:
Fascinating. Apparently, Hawaii and Arizona are the only places on Earth with no native stupid people.
Click to expand...

Every locality has its dangers and the locals are aware of them in a way that tourists are not. What looked like killer lake jumping spots for BMX in florida to me were in fact not good at all. The local riders clued me in on the nice big alligators that lived there. I'm sure you can think of a few dangers where you live that might not be apparent to other people
 
Okay..
So, the MO proposed amendment is kinda interesting...basically a state veto.

And, with the AZ proposed law, isn't that the 10th amdendment? Does it already exist? Why pass it again? (I know, to placate the pleebs who haven't read the Constitution and are unfamiliar with the 10th.)
 
C_Felix said:
Okay..
So, the MO proposed amendment is kinda interesting...basically a state veto.
Click to expand...

It would essentially invalidate (or reverse) the supremacy clause which would pretty much make all federal law (including the Constitution itself) something the states could take or leave on a voluntary basis and not be bound by.

It would have the effect of un-ratifying the U.S. Constitution for all the states.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Here's a textbook example of a flash flood
Click to expand...

Fine, but so is standing water on roadways that happened because rain fell quicker than the water could absorb into the ground or be drained away.

You're wrong if you think this video is the only thing that is a flash flood.

And driving through what you call "not even a puddle" is exactly the kind of danger we want people to avoid. You can't really tell how deep the water is (you don't know if there isn't a hole or washout in the pavement you can't see), and water is heavier and often pushes a lot harder than people might think.

But again, we have plenty of flash floods here in the Midwest, but best I can tell only Arizona has a goofy law like this one. Here we issue flash flood advisories and warnings, and we caution motorists not to drive through water any time they can't see the pavement.

But I think it's a really bad idea to deter people from calling for help, which is certainly one effect this law will have. Consider that the lives at risk might be passengers who were innocent of the decision to ignore a barricade and drive into a flash flood.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But I think it's a really bad idea to deter people from calling for help, which is certainly one effect this law will have. Consider that the lives at risk might be passengers who were innocent of the decision to ignore a barricade and drive into a flash flood.
Click to expand...

And rescuing everyone without charge creates moral hazard.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And rescuing everyone without charge creates moral hazard.
Click to expand...

What "moral hazard" is that?

Spending some taxpayer money on yahoos who take stupid and illegal risks?

OK, let's compare that against the risk of loss of life--including that of totally innocent passengers.

I guess a kid with an immature or even alcoholic father is at fault for putting himself in that situation!
 
Cleon said:
Fascinating. Apparently, Hawaii and Arizona are the only places on Earth with no native stupid people.
Click to expand...

The point is that a relatively few natives are stupid; a much larger number of tourists are ignorant.

If you don't know that scorpions like to crawl into shoes, you won't think to check your shoes for scorpions. That's not stupidity, it's ignorance -- but that distinction won't save you from being stung.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
What "moral hazard" is that?

Spending some taxpayer money on yahoos who take stupid and illegal risks?

OK, let's compare that against the risk of loss of life--including that of totally innocent passengers.

I guess a kid with an immature or even alcoholic father is at fault for putting himself in that situation!
Click to expand...

Moral Hazard is an economics term..."Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk"
 
drkitten said:
If you don't know that scorpions like to crawl into shoes, you won't think to check your shoes for scorpions. That's not stupidity, it's ignorance -- but that distinction won't save you from being stung.
Click to expand...

That was the exact example I was going to use about the rate of events being different for locals than tourists.

It seems reasonable to me to assume that in the summertime homes of the snowbirds, water covering the road may be no big deal and no real danger, so they just drive thru it. I know thats the case in Hawaii too, when water covers the roads, if it isnt flying by, we drive right thru it, even in cars. The problem comes when people drive right into rapids
 
BobTheCoward said:
Moral Hazard is an economics term..."Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk"
Click to expand...

Pretty much just what I said, right? If taxpayers pay the cost of rescues that are the result of yahoos taking stupid risks, it might encourage them to continue their risk taking.

So again, weigh that against the morality of deterring calling for potentially life-saving rescue (even of innocent parties).

Seriously, even if it were just about the yahoos themselves, do you think death is an appropriate potential punishment for ignoring safety ordinances? And wouldn't it make more sense to enforce infractions of safety ordinances themselves rather than the need for rescue?

And again, I brought up this strange law (which I don't think any other state has) as a tongue-in-cheek comment about how well this ideology of rugged individualism would fare in a civil war.
 
pipelineaudio said:
It seems reasonable to me to assume that in the summertime homes of the snowbirds, water covering the road may be no big deal and no real danger, so they just drive thru it. I know thats the case in Hawaii too, when water covers the roads, if it isnt flying by, we drive right thru it, even in cars. The problem comes when people drive right into rapids
Click to expand...

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that natives, being the most motorists driving the most miles probably account for the most rescues.

So unless you have something to support your assumption, it is just unproven conjecture, and my conjecture is at least as valid.

In this news article, I found the name of one guy, Jonathan Tate, who may be subject to the bill for rescue under this law. (He has already been charged with child endangerment in the incident.) I can't find whether he was a native or a "snowbird", but I would gladly bet on it. I'd be willing to bet money he's an Arizonan.
 
I can see why you guys are glomming on to a casual, tongue-in-cheek comment I made. It's far easier for you to try to defend the Stupid Motorist Law than it is to defend the proposed legislation that is the topic of this thread.

I'll grant you that: the Stupid Motorist Law isn't nearly as crazy as the proposal to allow states to nullify federal law. (And, as I've pointed out, Arizona isn't alone in having legislators pushing this notion.)
 
And in case we need to spell it out, this bit:

F. IF THE LEGISLATURE VOTES BY SIMPLE MAJORITY TO NULLIFY ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, MANDATE OR EXECUTIVE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, THIS STATE AND ITS CITIZENS SHALL NOT RECOGNIZE OR BE OBLIGATED TO LIVE UNDER THE STATUTE, MANDATE OR EXECUTIVE ORDER.
Click to expand...

conflicts with Article III Sections 2 which grants this authority exclusively to the federal judiciary which is defined in Section 1.
 
Guess some people in Missouri are still sore about never actually suceeding in seceeding during the last Civil War, and want to get in on the ground floor this time.

Sounds as if there are few Quantrell wannabes in Missouri......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom