• 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?

A "snowbird" is someone from a cold climate who comes to Arizona to escape their own winter. Being an Albertan, my grandparents and many of their siblings spent a lot of time being snowbirds.

I don't know what a mall-crawler is- a kind of jeep?
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of people who disobey the law who I would imagine are Arizona natives. I see people drive through stuff all the time, people disregard traffic signs at their and others peril.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Maybe you can find me a pic of one (that isn't a flash flood, which this law doesn't cover) that isn't a mallcrawler.
Click to expand...

Again, what exactly is a "mallcrawler"? And it seems to me that you're the one making an unsubstantiated claim (that this law was needed because of snowbirds in mallcrawlers), so it's your burden, not mine.

I wonder how many people are going to be reluctant to call 911 if they're stuck because of this law.

And finally, nothing in the law excludes flash floods. Since pretty much that's the only kind of flooding you get in Arizona, I think that's exactly what the law was written for.

Here's the law itself:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00910.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS/

No mention of excluding flash floods.

In fact, the law refers to "a public street or highway that is temporarily covered by a rise in water level" which sounds like a flash flood to me.

And the law isn't limited to "washes" and drainage ditches and such, but also applies to regular public streets and highways.

Also, the law isn't limited to passing barricades or signs either.

ETA: And back to the tongue-in-cheek point I was making when I first mentioned this goofy law, if this every-man-for-himself ideology is used in fighting a civil war, I would bet against Arizona.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
There are plenty of people who disobey the law who I would imagine are Arizona natives.
Click to expand...
Yep. Since they log the majority of the miles in that state, I bet they are the majority of those requiring rescue.

I see people drive through stuff all the time, people disregard traffic signs at their and others peril.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in this law about ignoring signs. It basically says if you get stuck on a road or highway in high water, you can be charged the cost of rescue up to $2000.

I expect the first time there is a death because someone was reluctant to call for help, this law will go away.
 
WildCat said:
Yeah, secession... I can see nothing but upside for a new landlocked country composed of mostly desert! Just look how well Niger is doing.
Click to expand...

When Arizona applied for statehood the territorial representatives told congress that all Arizona needed was more water and more people. As wise cracking congressman replied, "That's all that hells needs."

I seriously doubt anyone at the federal level gives a poop about our little capital building and its temper tantrum.

Please don't think we are all crazy, me and my neighbors just want our potholes fixed and our sonoran dogs spicy.
 
Biscuit said:
Please don't think we are all crazy, me and my neighbors just want our potholes fixed and our sonoran dogs spicy.
Click to expand...

And this nuttiness isn't unique to Arizona's legislature. Missouri has followed nearly in lock step on some of these bills.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And this nuttiness isn't unique to Arizona's legislature. Missouri has followed nearly in lock step on some of these bills.
Click to expand...

As if it will achieve anything at all. We have budget crisis in our state and the legislators are setting up years of legal battles to be paid for by people like me.

We need serious people right now with good ideas. Instead we have clowns with a hard on for federal powers.
 
Madalch said:
I don't know what a mall-crawler is- a kind of jeep?
Click to expand...

A mall crawler is pretty much a soccer mom suv, but more unisex. Its a bit higher than a car, tends to have AWD or 4WD, but is more about show than go. Escalades and other very much street oriented SUV's.

I think they give a false sense of security since they have that 4wd button. People tend to take bigger risks in them than regular cars. Like I said, NOBODY who knows whats in a flooded wash would drive a regular car in, and even tourists can look and know better.
 
Dancing David said:
There are plenty of people who disobey the law who I would imagine are Arizona natives. I see people drive through stuff all the time, people disregard traffic signs at their and others peril.
Click to expand...

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
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
In fact, the law refers to "a public street or highway that is temporarily covered by a rise in water level" which sounds like a flash flood to me.
Click to expand...

To be the victim of a flash flood, you'd have to be crossing a lowpoint in safe conditions when all of a sudden a giant wall of water comes barreling down on you.

What this law is about are when people see a giant torrent of muddy water, with cows and cacti, and all manner of crap, blowing across the road in a sea of foamy white wash, and then decide they're going to cross it anyway.
 
pipelineaudio said:
To be the victim of a flash flood, you'd have to be crossing a lowpoint in safe conditions when all of a sudden a giant wall of water comes barreling down on you.
Click to expand...
Sorry--that's not at all accurate. Flash floods result in water on the road. If you drive into that water and get stuck, you can be charged for the rescue.

ETA: Driving through a flash flood:
Driving_through_flash_flood.jpg
GNU Free Documentation License.
From the Wiki entry on Flash Flood.


What this law is about are when people see a giant torrent of muddy water, with cows and cacti, and all manner of crap, blowing across the road in a sea of foamy white wash, and then decide they're going to cross it anyway.
Click to expand...
Again, none of that is in the law. I gave you a link to the text. It's not very long. You're simply making up stuff that's not true.
 
Last edited:
pipelineaudio said:
To be the victim of a flash flood, you'd have to be crossing a lowpoint in safe conditions when all of a sudden a giant wall of water comes barreling down on you.

What this law is about are when people see a giant torrent of muddy water, with cows and cacti, and all manner of crap, blowing across the road in a sea of foamy white wash, and then decide they're going to cross it anyway.
Click to expand...

You'd think they'd remember the countless newschopper broadcasts of people being rescued and wouldn't try it.

Hell I wouldn't try it in my Ford Explorer.

So how does the new law help with this anyways?
 
Biscuit said:
As if it will achieve anything at all. We have budget crisis in our state and the legislators are setting up years of legal battles to be paid for by people like me.

We need serious people right now with good ideas. Instead we have clowns with a hard on for federal powers.
Click to expand...

Amen!

But don't feel bad, 'cause it's not just happening in Arizona.
 
Travis said:
So how does the new law help with this anyways?
Click to expand...

Since none of the stuff Pipelineaudio claims is in the law is actually in the law, it doesn't.

I think what the law is for is to make the gung-ho, anti-gummint, rugged individualists feel that they've asserted their ideology of every man for himself once again.

In real life, I think the only thing it's likely to deter is people calling 911 if they get stuck. IMO, that's not a good thing.
 
I dont see it as any different than any of the other laws making people pay for rescues from their own stupid acts that exist all over the country
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Since none of the stuff Pipelineaudio claims is in the law is actually in the law, it doesn't.

I think what the law is for is to make the gung-ho, anti-gummint, rugged individualists feel that they've asserted their ideology of every man for himself once again.

In real life, I think the only thing it's likely to deter is people calling 911 if they get stuck. IMO, that's not a good thing.
Click to expand...

IIRC the law only applies if you go around a barricade in order to enter the flooded area. Also I remember someone telling me that not a single person has been charged under this law. It is a "everyman for themselves" attitude but its precisely those type of people that would go around a barricade!

He is right about one thing. That wasn't a picture of a flood, this is a flood.

 
Biscuit said:
IIRC the law only applies if you go around a barricade in order to enter the flooded area.
Click to expand...

You're right about that.

He is right about one thing. That wasn't a picture of a flood, this is a flood.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom