There is no law without signage.

[oscar]

Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library.  It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.

Especially if you haven't purchased updated legislative revisions or much less read them online.  Laws aren't static, they change and evolve constantly through time.  A lot of states based their laws in English Common Law, suffice to say very few statutory books would even resemble anything like it today.

It's not that hard to get the updated texts of statutes online. What you don't always get is the court decisions interpreting or gutting them. And you also don't get the common law, which is reflected mainly in court decisions (including sometimes decisions from other states or countries whose legal systems are common-law based).

There are annotated compilations of statutes which include notes on whether statutes have been nullified or pretzeled by court decisions. The people doing the annotations have to eat somehow (one of my cousins makes a living that way), so you might have to pay extra for access to the annotated versions.

[Max Rockatansky]

Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library.  It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.

Especially if you haven't purchased updated legislative revisions or much less read them online.  Laws aren't static, they change and evolve constantly through time.  A lot of states based their laws in English Common Law, suffice to say very few statutory books would even resemble anything like it today.

It's not that hard to get the updated texts of statutes online. What you don't always get is the court decisions interpreting or gutting them. And you also don't get the common law, which is reflected mainly in court decisions (including sometimes decisions from other states or countries whose legal systems are common-law based).

There are annotated compilations of statutes which include notes on whether statutes have been nullified or pretzeled by court decisions. The people doing the annotations have to eat somehow (one of my cousins makes a living that way), so you might have to pay extra for access to the annotated versions.

Doing the research yourself is a complete pain in the ass.  Back in my college days I used to do case briefs on cases that significance on Procedural Law on the State and Federal Level.  Generally I would end up highlighting about 50-66% of a case history and trim that down to something like 6-12 pages of notes that I would read for a week or so.  From there I would downsize the notes to 3-6 pages and just read them through the end of finals.

Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year.  Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year.  All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm. 

Point is, really there isn't too many people who can go on a website and armchair quarterback laws with any high degree of accuracy.  There is a reason why being "your own lawyer" is largely frowned on, the amount of research that is required is beyond what people generally expect or what the are capable of doing.

[Scott5114]

Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year.  Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year.  All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm. 

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.

[jeffandnicole]

Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year.  Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year.  All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm. 

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general—but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.

It does happen too often unfortunately.  However, in many cases the person wasn't wrongfully arrested, but the evidence is weak, evidence isn't permitted, procedures weren't followed, people that need to press charges don't, witnesses don't show, etc. 

[oscar]

Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year.  Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year.  All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm. 

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable.

And keeping up with court decisions (especially from the U.S. and state supreme courts) adds to the challenge. One hopes that law enforcement gets alerts from district attorneys or other lawyers, to spare front-line police officers the burden of keeping up with the latest legal developments.

[1995hoo]

.... They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. ....

I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts.  BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page.  There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.

The reference to "water way [sic] law" just reinforces my suspicion about him having so-called "sovereign citizen" ideas because those people apparently love to refer to admiralty law even though it has nothing to do with the issues they argue. The references to "Oregon Territorial" law remind me of a video clip I saw in which a so-called "sovereign citizen" was citing the Articles of Confederation as though they were binding authority.



Regarding law books, if you go to a library, you'll find that statutory compilations and most treatises have a paper insert stuck in the back. It's called a "pocket part" because the inside of the back cover has a slit in it and the paper insert has a harder page (sort of the consistency of a magazine subscription card) that gets inserted into the slit, or "pocket," so the pocket part stays with the main volume. The purpose is to allow for updating the hardcover book to reflect new case law, statutory amendments, etc., without having to send out entirely new hardcover books every few months. (Some law books instead come in a loose-leaf format where you just swap out the pages in question.) If you don't check the pocket part, you risk botching your research. It's a pain in the butt because you often have to flip back and forth to see the text surrounding whatever the pocket part says.

[MCRoads]

um... Yes, we need signs. but if we granted your wish, we would have signs EVERYWHERE!! we would have signs on stoplights that said "green means go and red means stop", signs on the freeway saying "no left lane camping" (oh wait...), we would have signs on cars saying "don't hit me"!

[kkt]

These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services.  It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.

[Max Rockatansky]

.... They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. ....

I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts.  BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page.  There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.

The reference to "water way [sic] law" just reinforces my suspicion about him having so-called "sovereign citizen" ideas because those people apparently love to refer to admiralty law even though it has nothing to do with the issues they argue. The references to "Oregon Territorial" law remind me of a video clip I saw in which a so-called "sovereign citizen" was citing the Articles of Confederation as though they were binding authority.



Regarding law books, if you go to a library, you'll find that statutory compilations and most treatises have a paper insert stuck in the back. It's called a "pocket part" because the inside of the back cover has a slit in it and the paper insert has a harder page (sort of the consistency of a magazine subscription card) that gets inserted into the slit, or "pocket," so the pocket part stays with the main volume. The purpose is to allow for updating the hardcover book to reflect new case law, statutory amendments, etc., without having to send out entirely new hardcover books every few months. (Some law books instead come in a loose-leaf format where you just swap out the pages in question.) If you don't check the pocket part, you risk botching your research. It's a pain in the butt because you often have to flip back and forth to see the text surrounding whatever the pocket part says.

Yeah....I'm pretty sure you're onto something there.  Most of these guys rant on about stuff like this on their social accounts and this guy seems to think he's bicycle social justice warrior or something.  I'm sure with the antagonist tone we've heard so far that the dial is only going to get cranked up more as people don't agree with all his views.

Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year.  Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year.  All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm. 

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.

It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop.  The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code.  Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty.  Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case. 

[kphoger]

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.

It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop.  The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code.  Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty.  Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case. 

I've found that it doesn't help a person's situation to tell a police officer what the law actually says.  I've done that twice while hitchhiking, both times I was within my rights, and both times the officer simply argued that I was wrong about what the law said.  One of those times, I emailed the chief of police afterwards and received an apology from the deputy chief stating they would follow up with the officer.  (Note:  I complied with the officer's directive both times.)

Then, on the other hand, there was the time I actually hitched a ride home from work with a secretary of state police officer.  He was actually interested to hear the true wording of the law.

[1995hoo]

These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services.  It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.

That's why I prefaced that comment with a reference to the library–assuming the average guy doesn't have access to computer-assisted legal research services and might go to the courthouse library or a local law school library. Of course, these days it's probably more likely someone will use Google, look at the first three results, and just go with that!

[kkt]

These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services.  It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.

That's why I prefaced that comment with a reference to the library–assuming the average guy doesn't have access to computer-assisted legal research services and might go to the courthouse library or a local law school library. Of course, these days it's probably more likely someone will use Google, look at the first three results, and just go with that!

Especially if they say what that someone wants them to say!

[Max Rockatansky]

Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.

It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop.  The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code.  Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty.  Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case. 

I've found that it doesn't help a person's situation to tell a police officer what the law actually says.  I've done that twice while hitchhiking, both times I was within my rights, and both times the officer simply argued that I was wrong about what the law said.  One of those times, I emailed the chief of police afterwards and received an apology from the deputy chief stating they would follow up with the officer.  (Note:  I complied with the officer's directive both times.)

Then, on the other hand, there was the time I actually hitched a ride home from work with a secretary of state police officer.  He was actually interested to hear the true wording of the law.

At the end of the day it really isn't worth arguing with a police officer given the chance it will likely escalate things.  Charges always have to be reviewed by someone above the beat cop level, chances are they will get tossed if something isn't in compliance with how a statute is written. 

[bicyclehazard]

A few questions about the OP's argument:

-- Do the states formed out of the Oregon Territory (and other territories) have the right to modify or repeal the territorial laws they inherited? That might be addressed in the acts of Congress granting them statehood, for example. It would surprise me if states were required to constantly go back to Congress to modify or repeal territorial laws. AFAIK, they don't do that, which suggests to me that they don't have to.

-- Just because roads are "public land" doesn't necessarily mean restrictions can't be placed on what users or vehicles can use them. Does that mean, for example, that HOV restrictions can't be imposed? Or trucks can't be prohibited from roads on which they can't be safely driven? Or underage users who might be OK on bicycles can't be barred from driving motor vehicles on public roads? ISTM that the OP's argument WRT bicyclists has a fair amount of "slippery slope" potential, something that arouses suspicion for the judges and others charged with interpreting the laws.

This is a valid point. There is a continuity to law. People demanded this. If you owned a piece of property before a county was formed you owned that piece of property after the county was formed. Overturning every law when a county was formed or a county joined a state or a state joined the federal government would have been too disruptive and open to much abuse. Every law carries over except those specified. Laws were  and are to complex to be micromanaged by the new government.

[bicyclehazard]

No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway. I don't really care about this but a fisherman clued me in to what is going on. He used to park his automobile along a highway and walk down to the river to fish. The the highway department built a fence along the highway to prevent. This is an 8 foot high cyclone fence. The highway department clearly broke the law and wasted a lot of money. When the law was written no one had any idea there would one day be horseless carriages. So interstates along a river are violating this law. I expect this has been modified. I crossed Wyoming by bicycle on the interstate. Every few miles there were bridges that only serviced the farms on both sides of the interstate. This must have been tremendously expensive. I expect I can force the highway departments to build bridges every few miles on interstates along rivers. I will not do this it is up to the fisherman and boat owners. If the highway departments really want to fight with me I can hand out legal trouble measured in the trillions of dollars.

[hotdogPi]

If the highway departments really want to fight with me I can hand out legal trouble measured in the trillions of dollars.

Highway departments don't have trillions of dollars. $1.5 trillion is the monthly GDP for the entire United States, or yearly for the state of New York or Texas, and I assume you want even more than that, given the word "trillions", plural.

Edited for accuracy.

[oscar]

There is a continuity to law. People demanded this. If you owned a piece of property before a county was formed you owned that piece of property after the county was formed. Overturning every law when a county was formed or a county joined a state or a state joined the federal government would have been too disruptive and open to much abuse. Every law carries over except those specified.

Real property law tends to be stable, to protect existing land claims. Laws regarding public roads, not so much, especially with major and continuing changes in how they are built and used. After all, there were no automobiles, few if any bicycles, and not a lot of pavement let alone freeways, when most of our states were territories.

Laws were and are to complex to be micromanaged by the new government.

GMAFB. State legislatures are full of lawyers, who are skilled enough to micromanage our laws without usually messing things up (unless that was their intention).

No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway.

Huh? In most states, private property owners can block access to at least ocean beaches, and even own those beaches at least down to some boundary where the beach ends and the ocean begins. Even in states like California and Hawaii whose constitutions declare all ocean beaches to be public and guarantee public access, adjacent landowners often try to keep the public off "their" beaches, and sometimes are forced to provide beach access easements.

I don't really care about this but a fisherman clued me in to what is going on. He used to park his automobile along a highway and walk down to the river to fish. The the highway department built a fence along the highway to prevent. This is an 8 foot high cyclone fence. The highway department clearly broke the law and wasted a lot of money. When the law was written no one had any idea there would one day be horseless carriages. So interstates along a river are violating this law. I expect this has been modified.

I'm sure it has been modified. How else could highway departments try to prevent wildlife (especially larger critters like moose, deer, and bears, or cattle in "open range" areas) from colliding with motor vehicles? It's routine for highway departments to fence off rights of way, especially for limited access highways such as Interstates.

[kalvado]

No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway.

Huh? In most states, private property owners can block access to at least ocean beaches, and even own those beaches at least down to some boundary where the beach ends and the ocean begins. Even in states like California and Hawaii whose constitutions declare all ocean beaches to be public and guarantee public access, adjacent landowners often try to keep the public off "their" beaches, and sometimes are forced to provide beach access easements.

There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books  - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html

[oscar]

There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books  - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html

Let's not over-generalize, though. Some of our states started off as part of France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, and might or might not have inherited or imported that feature from the "olde English books".

[kalvado]

There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books  - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html

Let's not over-generalize, though. Some of our states started off as part of France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, and might or might not have inherited or imported that feature from the "olde English books".

As far as I know, public right of navigation is in Federal law, so tracing it to English common law should actually make sense..
But then  probably many places had similar rules as trade along the river should be similar all over the place...

[hbelkins]

Geez, this guy seems to think he's omnipotent. I suspect he's blowing smoke, and if he ever really challenged a state over some of this stuff, he'd get his rear end handed to him in court.

Concerning waterway access, property owners can most certainly prevent people from going across their property to access the stream. I own a piece of property with a short length adjoining the North Fork of the Kentucky River, which was navigable up until the point that the Commonwealth of Kentucky ceased operation of the locks and dams along the upper portion of the river's main stem. While I cannot keep anyone from coming down the river in a boat and fishing against the bank on my side of the river, I can most certainly build a fence to keep people from using my property to access the river.

[bicyclehazard]

I'm not suggesting people be allowed to cross your property. The problem is highways and railroads run along rivers without there being any property between them. Some of you may have seen the fishing shacks along the Columbia river in Oregon. The United States has a treaty with the native Americans that allows them to fish for salmon. Ahem, but i'm going to run this into the ground until you start to pay attention. Treaties with native Americans are considered to be part of the United States Constitution. It is necessary to park along the highway to access these. I would say there are thousands of miles of rivers being illegally blocked by highways and railroads in the lower 48. You can check my photo stream to see that I have forced railroads to remove no trespassing signs. Keep in mind when I started this project there was gigabyte limit on the photo sites. so what you see are examples. Nor do I post photos when the governments are reasonable and fix problems quickly. 

[oscar]

The problem is highways and railroads run along rivers without there being any property between them.

What about the highway department's and/or railroad's property? Especially since the latter is private property.

Some of you may have seen the fishing shacks along the Columbia river in Oregon. The United States has a treaty with the native Americans that allows them to fish for salmon.

Even if those tribes might in some places need to be accommodated, such as with a padlocked gate, that doesn't affect anyone else (who would have no treaty rights of their own), or any other place where there are no tribal access rights.

[jwolfer]

Don Quixote is that you?

Z981

[bicyclehazard]

Ok I found another one. After cycling 20 miles on highway 204 in Georgia I found my self on a portion of the highway I am not allowed on. There was no sign warning me to exit. But that's not all. GDOT has placed a construction zone keep out and pedestrians not allowed on the underpass of that road at King George. Just to be sure I checked with the local fire department there is no alternate route. The place is a swamp. The clearest violation of Title 23 Section 109m I have ever seen. The locals are quite pissed. The children are not able to walk to school. They will be more pissed when the highway causes their homes to flood. https://flic.kr/p/21P5JEu