Isn't it interesting.....

[crusader rabbit]

This sort of idoicy doesn't stop with simply passing stupid laws;  sometimes it requires spending lots of taxpayer money.  

Out in TAB's fair state of Kalifornistan, some years back a toddler managed to escape the control of its parental units while the lot of 'em were walking along the Golden Gate Bridge.  Said toddler wriggled through the protective guard rails and fell to its death in the cold waters of San Francisco Bay.  Under most circumstances (like the murder of the Anthony kid) legislators would get their panties in a bunch and pass a law making it illegal for parents to lose control of their offspring.

But, in Kalifornistan that wasn't enough.  They mandated installation of netting underneath the length of the bridge on both sides so if someones' brat managed the escape and fall routine, it would wind up entangled in the safety netting instead of becoming fish food.

No one seemed to notice that no other toddlers had ever managed to fall from the bridge since it was first opened.  They just assumed that there would be a rush of falling toddlers who would now know how to do it since the first little bastard managed to take the plunge.

The net cost a fortune to install and another fortune to maintain.  And, to date, not a single toddler has managed to duplicate the feat of the original falling bastard.  So the netting has been a total waste of resources in a broke state.

It is no surprise that Kalifornistan is bankrupt.  

If we must have stupidity in legislators (and, it seems we must) let them write laws that do not impact the vast majority of people and that we, who have a bit of sense, can completely ignore.  It's better than having them mandate expenditures.

[tombogan03884]

In Ca's defense I will point out that a lot  (relatively ) of people were jumping off the bridge, some even landing on ships passing beneath, finding and fishing out bodies was becoming an expensive PITA.  Also considering the fact that the job of painting the bridge is never ending, the netting may have been quite cost effective.

FQ, I don't know if it was 300 years ago, and the politicians definitely did not listen, but some one did say that.

[fightingquaker13]

In Ca's defense I will point out that a lot  (relatively ) of people were jumping off the bridge, some even landing on ships passing beneath, finding and fishing out bodies was becoming an expensive PITA.  Also considering the fact that the job of painting the bridge is never ending, the netting may have been quite cost effective.

FQ, I don't know if it was 300 years ago, and the politicians definitely did not listen, but some one did say that.

It was from the latter half of the17th century by a Scotsman named John Campbell Argyle. The quote has been attributed to Oliver Wendall Holmes, but he filched it. The point being that this little gem of common sense has been around for a while. Its not like its a new concept. "Gee, laws, which are the rules for everyday events, ought to be based on the circumstances we face everyday. Basing them on once in a blue moon type circumstances might just be a bad idea". How freaking hard is this to figure out?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Apparently it's pretty damned tough.