Oregon DMV Manual



  • I just moved to Oregon and had to apply for and ODL, and to do so I had to take the written test.

    As I read through the manual I noticed:

      Oregon Law prohibits anyone under 18 years old to ride on the hood, fender,
    running board, or other external part of the vehical, including a pickup bed.

       --- from page 69 in the manual: http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf

     

    Does this imply that it is acceptable to ride on the hood if you are over 18?

    Thankfully this question didn't come up on the test, nor have I seen people riding

    on the hood around town.

     

    I kind of ruins the theatrics to not post a screenshot of the page, but I did provide a link.

     



  • It is legal in some (if not most, I don't know) states to ride on the hood.



  • It could be a really old clause (dating back to when top speeds were a lot lower) that nobody ever bothered to take out, in which case it's somewhat less of a WTF.

     



  • [quote user="tster"]It is legal in some (if not most, I don't know) states to ride on the hood.
    [/quote]


    It's certainly a WTF if an adult can get a ticket for driving without a setbelt, but can ride around on the hood.

    It's a WTF that here in Indiana you must wear a seatbelt, but aren't required to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

    Don't get me wrong, driving without a seatbelt is a WTF in and of itself. 



  • [quote user="obediah"]


    It's certainly a WTF if an adult can get a ticket for driving without a setbelt, but can ride around on the hood.

    [/quote]

    unless one installs seatbelts on the hood.



  • WTF is a "vehical"??



  • [quote user="WhatsHisFace"]WTF is a "vehical"??[/quote]

    "resembling or reasonably comparable to a vehicle"

    I recently attached a bunk bed to the roof of my hatchback. For the kids, you know. But I guess I'll take it off now because of the hefty fines I'd get.
     



  • [quote user="dhromed"]

    [quote user="WhatsHisFace"]WTF is a "vehical"??[/quote]

    "resembling or reasonably comparable to a vehicle"

    I recently attached a bunk bed to the roof of my hatchback. For the kids, you know. But I guess I'll take it off now because of the hefty fines I'd get.
     

    [/quote]

    Well, I don't see why you'd want to do that. Unless there's some other law that applies, I don't see anything against having kids on something that isn't part of the car. (It only specifically mentions X, Y, Z, or other external part of the vehical")

    Your bed, not being part of the car (unless you have a very unusal model), apparently does not fall under this law.



  • [quote user="RayS"][quote user="dhromed"]

    [quote user="WhatsHisFace"]WTF is a "vehical"??[/quote]

    "resembling or reasonably comparable to a vehicle"

    I recently attached a bunk bed to the roof of my hatchback. For the kids, you know. But I guess I'll take it off now because of the hefty fines I'd get.
     

    [/quote]

    Well, I don't see why you'd want to do that. Unless there's some other law that applies, I don't see anything against having kids on something that isn't part of the car. (It only specifically mentions X, Y, Z, or other external part of the vehical")

    Your bed, not being part of the car (unless you

    have a very unusal model), apparently does not fall under this law.

    [/quote]

    A loophole! That's great.
     



  • if (age > 18)

    prohibit hoodriding, fenderriding, runningboardriding, externalpartriding, pickupbedriding

    else

    allow hoodriding, fenderriding, runningboardriding, externalpartriding, pickupbedriding

    <nice/>



  • [quote user="obediah"]Don't get me wrong, driving without a seatbelt is a WTF in and of itself. [/quote]

    So is government as parent figure. If I want to live dangerously and not wear a seat belt, I don't see how that's any business of the government.

    sincerely,
    Richard Nixon

     

     





  • [quote user="Richard Nixon"]

    [quote user="obediah"]Don't get me wrong, driving without a seatbelt is a WTF in and of itself. [/quote]

    So is government as parent figure. If I want to live dangerously and not wear a seat belt, I don't see how that's any business of the government.

    sincerely,
    Richard Nixon

     [/quote]

    I agree - we have way too many laws which are acting against Natural Selection. Warning signs, laws making you be safe - these are messing with the natural population control 😉



  • Except when these idiots slam their skulls into the pavement, guess who has to foot the medical bills?

    Now, if there were a law that said people who don't wear seatbelts (or helmets) don't get access to hospitals...



  • [quote user="Richard Nixon"]

    [quote user="obediah"]Don't get me wrong, driving without a seatbelt is a WTF in and of itself. [/quote]

    So
    is government as parent figure. If I want to live dangerously and not
    wear a seat belt, I don't see how that's any business of the government.

     [/quote]

    I agree, except that if you get hurt, the price on everyone else's insurance goes up.

    Plus you'll be taking up space in the ER that another victim needs.

    Plus
    if it happens in a metropolitan area, the resulting congestion will
    cost thousands of people two to four hours of their day.  Some of
    whom have families waiting.

    Now, if you want to ride in your
    vehicle unprotected on a private track or on your own property, without
    insurance, and take responsibility for your own injuries, I'm
    completely in favor of that.



  • [quote user="VGR"][quote user="Richard Nixon"]

    [quote user="obediah"]Don't get me wrong, driving without a seatbelt is a WTF in and of itself. [/quote]

    So is government as parent figure. If I want to live dangerously and not wear a seat belt, I don't see how that's any business of the government.

     [/quote]

    I agree, except that if you get hurt, the price on everyone else's insurance goes up.

    Plus you'll be taking up space in the ER that another victim needs.

    Plus if it happens in a metropolitan area, the resulting congestion will cost thousands of people two to four hours of their day.  Some of whom have families waiting.

    Now, if you want to ride in your vehicle unprotected on a private track or on your own property, without insurance, and take responsibility for your own injuries, I'm completely in favor of that.

    [/quote]

    Aaahh, such a dilema for the poor govt. Balancing the popularity of concern for public safety with the economic benefits that flow from greater employment in hospitals and medical practices, not to mention lawyers, smash repairers, car manufacturers and funeral homes. It must be hard to sacrifice all these economic benefits for votes.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.