Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is this a question of the people following the law or not liking dogs? I ask because people breaking the law bugs the crap out of me and it's specifically "breaking the law", not the behavior itself. Meaning, if the law changed the behavior would no longer bother me.

For me it's about

(1) being law abiding and therefore a sucker to all those who get away with more than they're supposed to

(2) being afraid of selective enforcement - for example if it's traffic violation and it's enforced on me then my "points" go up which means my car insurance goes up. It's already at $4k a year with no points. One additional point is average ~$4680. So i don't want break at and fume at those who do but don't get caught.

So yea, seeing people take dogs where they are not supposed to, run red lights (bikes or cars), make right turns on red on "no right turn on red" places, make illegal left turns, speeding, walking un "bikes only lanes", etc all piss me off.

I go to local farmer's markets. There are signs everywhere, "No Pets". No one is obeying this law. Literally no one. WTF do they have the signs? All non-enforcement does is bread contempt for laws in general. Either enforce it or remove the signs.

Same with other laws. In other words, if the law was changed, these things suddenly wouldn't bug me. I recognise this as strange but I also feel laws and their enforcement is how we as a society enforce cooperation living together. Non enforcement = people taking advantage = worse society.



>I go to local farmer's markets. There are signs everywhere, "No Pets". No one is obeying this law. Literally no one. WTF do they have the signs? All non-enforcement does is bread contempt for laws in general. Either enforce it or remove the signs.

I think this is just health code where the law is forcing them to put up these signs but nobody actually cares if there's dogs there, it's not really needed to ban dogs there, and the only people who want to enforce that rule are people who really like rules.


> the only people who want to enforce that rule are people who really like rules.

Which literally seems to describe socalgal2.


If they're not going to enforce it I want them to remove the sign! Why is that controversial? and, ideally make it legal to bring your pet?

Maybe we should just ignore all signs? "No Tresspassing", "Employees Only", "No Parking", "No Stopping", "No Dumping", "No Fishing", "STOP", "Do Not Enter", "One Way"


I agree with the sentiment and think we don't do enough that way. However, sometimes laws (rules in general really) exist for broader reasons and there are edge cases where they don't make sense. In practice carving out every last edge case would be quite difficult and time consuming.

There's a park that closes at dusk. I walk my dog through it in the early morning hours unless I happen to see police hanging around. What's the alternative? The local residents clearly don't want people partying or sleeping in the park at night due to the crime that would invite in nearby areas. No one cares if I walk my dog through it. I doubt I'd be successful if I tried to effect change. What new wording would I even propose?


> I go to local farmer's markets. There are signs everywhere, "No Pets". No one is obeying this law. Literally no one. WTF do they have the signs? All non-enforcement does is bread contempt for laws in general. Either enforce it or remove the signs.

Is that a law, or just a rule from the farmer's market?


The signs says they are from the health department. I'm sure the farmer's market would prefer to remove them given 30% of customers bring their dog.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: