Home to all of Congressman Shark’s “Bill Talk” threads. Granted megathread to allow smother access between citizens and the legislature, as well as saving posts.
Good morning, afternoon or night everybody, it’s your favorite shark boi here today to discuss a recently proposed bill. Before I jump into it, I am not dissing the original maker of the bill but I am however critizing the actual effectiveness that the bill will have.
First off before I start, I completely understand this is a big jump at trying to establish a great amount of realism into our driving in this game and forward and I appreciate him trying to revise it and work on it but again like I said, some areas in this bill and their effectiveness may be not very well. Now let us begin.
Section 1 is generally just definitions of what he will be mentioning later and exemptions. There is nothing wrong or bad here that I see and it is generally good overall. I appreciate him trying to define a lot of types of intersections we have/may have and so forth.
Section 2 is where we have some conflicts. Many sections I feel and I do believe others will to are gonna be a pain to enforce and I bet you anything that most of this won’t be followed on a general basis. I understand he is trying to push at realism with this section but lemme just explain why they may not be the best idea to add for now and potentially later.
First, Section 2a states:
“While outside of built-up areas, no vehicle may pass another vehicle on the right”
This part right here is something anyone who can currently drive or knows basic road laws that this is a general regulation for most states in the US today. However, I don’t believe this will work in V2 and most likely V3 as well. The reasoning to this is simple, our cars are a pain to drive and we all know this. Whenever I drive, I always try to stay in one lane but it is never long lasting as the cars generally won’t line us up with the lanes with ease and you may start to drift into another lane and so you then may just decide to let that happen and try to straighten it as you flow into the next lane slowly and then that ain’t perfect and you start drifting into the lane you may have just left and then if you decide to just try and stick in your lane and try to maneuver your car and then it just decides to take a sharp turn with your small key input and next thing you know, you are starting to ride on the side and I can go on and on about this and we all know this has probably happened to you at some point or is happening to you. Also, I always see people driving on the left, right, passing on both sides, etc and honestly the drivers that mostly populate our streets now I can bet you will not follow this section as all. Please also note that this is talking about places like highways where speed limits are higher and the handling at higher speeds with the cars are to say the least interesting unlike when you may be driving like in city areas where I think you could say that it would be more plausible that people would follow them but I digress.
Other sections including 2b, 2c and such have similar effect. However, I do not critize this entire section with parts such as 2d being something that I think can be easily controlled as you can’t really speed unless you are on a pretty high gear but again, I digress.
Section 3 is actually really nice, helps define the right of way well and I believe is a pretty solid section overall as well as Section 4 and 5 which are self explanatory.
Idk maybe I’m just overacting and that people will be able to and will actually follow these lanes regulations in the county but I have a slight feeling they won’t with again seeing the type of drivers we currently have.
Anyway, what are your thoughts? How can he improve on this? What is good about the bill?
Shark boi out 
Bill being mentioned: A Bill To Establish More Specific Lane and Yield Regulations (Final-er Revision)
1 Like
I’d like to reiterate again that I am not saying this is a bad idea or anything of the sort but I am just questioning if some of the things in this bill will actually be followed and such
2 Likes
I recognize your concerns. It’s saying you can’t pass another vehicle on the right which is rarely done already. It also says outside if built of up areas it is not allowed. Meaning in Redwood and other cities you can still do it, just not on rural roads or highways.
2 Likes
Howdy it’s Shark here back at it again with another bill talk (don’t even know why I do this I feel like these are ignored but /shrug)
Today’s legislation on the table is “A Bill to Define Unnecessary Horn Usage”
First off, I do absolute agree that car honking, spamming the horn at cars and such is pretty annoying and I appreciate the Governor recognizing this and attempting to make a solution to this but let’s think about this for a minute. Why just make a bill about honking your horn and not an entire bill for disturbing the piece as I think we can all agree there are some things on the radio that people play that can be at the very least considered “disturbing the peace” (ie loud train horn and so on) However, let me all direct you to this fine piece of law, “A Bill to Define and Make Disorderly Conduct Illegal”.
Disorderly conduct is basically our “disturbing the piece law” as defined in Section 1A: “Disorderly conduct shall be defined as: “Without legal justification, unruly behavior which disturbs, offends, intimidates, or creates a general disorder to others in public.”
If we think about this with the definition it describes right here, creating any type of unneeded noise such as honking repeatedly for no reason or just spamming any loud noise in generally would fall under this law and thus I believe the bill Canine created in not bad per say but unneeded.
If anyone wishes to discuss it, I’m open to see what you guys think
Shark boi out
1 Like
Forgot to link bills guys sorry about that:
- Disorderly Conduct bill - A Bill to Define and Make Disorderly Conduct Illegal
- Honking bill - A Bill to Define Unnecessary Horn Usage
1 Like
ten out of ten shark
2 Likes
Ok am sorry the time change made me tired
1 Like
WOW MAN, THERE’S LIKE FIFTEEN CONGRESS PEOPLE AND ONLY ONE BILL IS ON THE TABLE
2 Likes
AHUH
unfactual
1 Like
the JRC takes 30 years to vote
1 Like
how come we never have these types of talks but i post one piece of low priority legislation and its more popular than the 2020 election.
2 Likes
i don’t wanna be that annoying person that just says “why don’t you run for Congress then” but you should probably run for Congress if this matters that much to you. also shame on you for not noticing it’s midterm Congress inactivity time.
1 Like
it’s a bad thing when low priority legislation attracts so much attention, if you had put out dozens of pieces of legislation since entering office that sides with the points that you want to make, maybe it wouldn’t be such a big issue now
1 Like
You talking to me or tim?
1 Like
i feel like shark is trying to roast the governor
anyways but I hear you guys on this don’t worry
1 Like
Nah I’m not I just saw it as unneeded after looking in things that’s all
1 Like
whomever
1 Like
yeah well if you look at the docket history half of firestone bills are about defining or redefining something lol
1 Like
a strong nay from me
1 Like