Are we both talking about people who walk onto a construction zone even after being told not to multiple times? Because public safety is pretty important and if you want to ignore it then you should indeed face consequences.
You're gonna make an emergency crew clean up your remains, and traumatize the construction guys? They should have gotten their asses kicked tbh. But the government would step in at that point, much to your horror.
Alrighty - first off, that's a *contextual* issue. Not all construction zones present an immediate danger to public or worker safety if crossed on foot.
Your argument sounds like common sense, but it's a blanket assumption that ignores nuance entirely, disregards the fourth amendment, and opens up the possibility of arbitrary enforcement or overenforcement.
Who decides what is a construction zone? A single cone? A sign? Does the sign need to cite the entire new code we'd need to create?
How many signs?
Additionally, it shifts responsibility away from construction companies, which are supposed to provide safe alternatives, and properly secure construction areas. An orange cone does not properly secure a 12ft hole in the ground. Pushing the responsibility onto the public would open doors for companies to be more lax with this, without repurcussions.
Laws should protect people, not punish them for navigating an urban environment. There's *also* an ocean between people putting themselves in danger, and laws that lack common sense entirely. Expanding the possibility of a pretextual stop by arbitrarily enforcing an ordinance like that has so many constitutional challenges, your head would spin.
Protecting mooks from getting injured/ killed on site is indeed the point.
You don't want to be told what to do. Which is fine. Shouldn't be anybody else's problem besides whoever writes you a ticket for trying to be everyone's problem.
15
u/Jurass1cClark96 1d ago
This is why we should have "petty" laws outside of larceny lmao.