Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"This bill cracks down on those who believe Ohio's highways are their own personal bathroom"!
Via prolific commenter Ruthless comes news from the heartland that the Buckeye State has had its fill of incontinent truckers (I missed the verse in "Convoy" about this):
Urine 'bombs' could bring $1,000 fines
Pitching portable potties along Ohio's roadsides could bring a fine of up $1,000 under a bill introduced this week by a state lawmaker.
Sen. Kimberly A. Zurz, D-Green, was prompted to introduce the bill by an Ohio Department of Transportation study that found that nearly 1 million containers of urine are dumped annually along roads.
Dumping potentially dangerous litter would carry a maximum fine of $1,000 and a minimum fine of $150. State law currently classifies all litter the same and sets a maximum fine of $150.
Repeat violators who discard "trucker bombs" would face higher fines and potential driver's license suspensions under Zurz's bill.
"This bill cracks down on those who believe Ohio's highways are their own personal bathroom," she said in a statement.
Whole Columbus Dispatch dispatch here.
It's the suicide urine bombers who really worry me.
|5.15.06 @ 11:42AM|#
Mike Watt was unavailable for comment.
"Ooooh, oooh, ooh, Piss Bottle Man!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjAAml_AtPM&search=piss%20bottle%20man
|5.15.06 @ 11:43AM|#
That's just really disgusting. Sounds good to fine them and
all... though I imagine it'd be difficult to catch anyone doing
it.
And how lazy are these truckers? If you pee in a bottle, you have a
responsibility to keep it until you can get rid of it at your next
stop... sure, you might look funny carrying around a few bottles of
piss...
Jeff P,|5.15.06 @ 11:51AM|#
The new season of Canada's Trailer Park Boys has a large number of "piss jugs" as a Chekov's Pistol during the season. The homeless trucker father of one of the main characters has been accumulating a large number of them, which get moved around from place to place. We're waiting to see who among the ensemble will be drenched in piss by season's end.
MP|5.15.06 @ 11:54AM|#
Andy D,
Urine is sterile. The truckers'
actions may offend your etiquette, but urine is clearly not
"potentially dangerous litter". This is a stupid law proposed by an
ignorant lawmaker... i.e. status quo.
|5.15.06 @ 11:55AM|#
Just how does one make a piss bomb while travelling at highway
speeds? Wouldn't a reckless driving statute be more
appropriate?
Keep your eyes on the road, your hands upon the whee-uhl.
|5.15.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Living in northern Ohio, I don't care. It all runs down hill to Sinsincity. I feel the urge to relieve myself.
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 12:00PM|#
That video is great, but I find sexy chicks dressed a grey
aliens disturbing.
While we're on the subject, has anyone seen the ad for Urine B
Gone? The dog & cat mess clean-up product? There's a line in
the ad that says it contains ingredients with an "unstoppable
appetite for urine."
That is a phrase with extremely limited usage...
|5.15.06 @ 12:01PM|#
How things have changed.
Time was that a carter or teamster in England was permitted to
relieve himself on the roadside as long as he kept hold of the
reins.
Knowing how slow legislatures are to change laws, I would not be at
all surprised if that law was still on the books.
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 12:02PM|#
It's too bad this board doesn't have Google ads. I'd love to know what links all this talk of urine would trigger.
|5.15.06 @ 12:04PM|#
urine's nearly sterile as long as the urinator doesn't have a urinary tract infection. therefore, it is potentially dangerous litter. I think this is an appropriate use government.
|5.15.06 @ 12:10PM|#
"I'd love to know what links all this talk of urine would
trigger."
Oh, I think you know...
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:12PM|#
biologist,
What is the survivability of the bacteria outside of the body. I
would suspect (although I don't know for sure) that there is zero
possibility of transmitting a UTI via urine unless you drink it
undiluted.
|5.15.06 @ 12:13PM|#
MP,
While it's true that, except in the case of a bladder infection,
urine exits the body sterile, it *is* a good breeding-ground for
bacteria. It doesn't remain sterile for long.
And notice that I didn't say that the urine bottles were dangerous,
but disgusting. Anyway, even if it remained sterile (which it
doesn't, especially not if the urinator is diabetic), it's a
particularly disgusting kind of littering that is easy enough to
avoid. I have no problem with folks pissing on the side of the
road, but a bottle of piss is something someone will have to clean
up (or we can just leave it there... oh, the beautiful
scenery!).
I don't understand why anybody would have a problem doling out
fines to people who litter, or with making more obnoxious forms of
littering carry a higher fine.
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:17PM|#
andy d,
"Pitching" and "dumped" clearly indicate that truckers are
environmentally conscious and are recycling their piss containers.
Ohio is not being littered by bottles of piss.
|5.15.06 @ 12:20PM|#
This is a stupid law proposed by an ignorant lawmaker...
i.e. status quo.
So dumping jugs of urine along public roadways ought to be
allowed?
|5.15.06 @ 12:20PM|#
Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system built into these trucks? Seems like a money-maker to me. If they have enough coordination to pee into a bottle while driving, then they can probably manage a hose or something leading to a tank that can be dumped when they cross into Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. Or couldn't they just dump the bottle out the window rather than throwing out the whole thing? Is there a law against spraying another car with urine?
fyodor|5.15.06 @ 12:26PM|#
Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system
built into these trucks?
Because the auto industry is a cartel that won't respond to the
market without new anti-trust legislation.
Joking!!
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:28PM|#
So dumping jugs of urine along public roadways ought to be
allowed?
As it is a harmless act, yes.
|5.15.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system
built into these trucks?
You don't need a collection system. You just need a way to
discharge the urine onto the road where it'll just evaporate. A
hole in the floor of the truck connected to a tube with a funnel on
top would serve just as well. Pee into the funnel and have it empty
out onto the road.
I don't particularly see the highway patrol trying to sample liquid
in the middle of highways to determine whether it is urine, coolant
or windshield fluid or just plain water.
|5.15.06 @ 12:31PM|#
I'd love to know what links all this talk of urine would
trigger.
My guess is it would take you to other H&R postings.
|5.15.06 @ 12:32PM|#
MP,
Mind if I stand off your property and hose down your house with
pee? It is a harmless act, afterall.
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:33PM|#
MP, do you think littering is just fine and should be
perfectly legal?
Absolutely not. But I have yet to hear any reason why dumping piss
on the side of the road should be considered littering. Why
classify piss differently from water? As I stated above, I'd have
to see evidence that somehow piss could be harmful once it is
released into the wild.
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 12:34PM|#
A tube that comes up from under the seat and feeds into a boiler
should do the trick. Then we've got great clouds of urine filling
the sky.
I don't think it's the urine that's the litter hazard as much as
the velocity and ballistic trajectory of a gallon jug or glass
bottle of dense coffee & gravy laden pee hurled from a fast
moving truck.
I am willing to bet that somewhere in this world one could find, or
create, a market for American Trucker Urine. I bet parts of Asia
would buy it. They buy anything.
And didn't immigrants used to believe that American streets were
paved with gold?
VM|5.15.06 @ 12:34PM|#
"Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system
built into these trucks? Seems like a money-maker to me. If they
have enough coordination to pee into a bottle while driving, then
they can probably manage a hose or something leading to a tank that
can be dumped when they cross into Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky,
West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. Or couldn't they just dump the
bottle out the window rather than throwing out the whole thing? Is
there a law against spraying another car with urine?
Comment by: John at May 15, 2006 12:20 PM"
cuz, Sir, they take a detour to lake erie and dump it there
:)
and what's wrong with a little Golden Shower on I 271? cleveland
could use a change in the weather from time to time... plus, it
might clean up the area (ewwwwww)
|5.15.06 @ 12:36PM|#
you might be right MP, but it's not completely clear to me that they are emptying the containers. if they are pouring urine onto the ground, there shouldn't be any problem. if they're pouring the urine out the window while they're driving at 70 mph so it aerosolizes or splatters on other vehicles, that's a problem.
|5.15.06 @ 12:37PM|#
MP, I'm sorry, but roadside litter (including the current topic
of conversation) is a classic "negative externality."
Perhaps the nit, though, is in the method chosen to internalize
this negative externality... in a more perfect world, we might turn
to torts, I suppose.
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:38PM|#
Mind if I stand off your property and hose down your house
with pee? It is a harmless act, afterall.
That's a property rights issue. I'd have the exact same grievance
if you hosed down my house with water. You have no right to take
action on my property in any way that is potentially harmful (I
don't want liquid sprayed under my vinyl siding, for example).
|5.15.06 @ 12:39PM|#
And, just for clarity, we're talking about jugs and bottles containing urine, not urine dumped loose onto the roadway.
|5.15.06 @ 12:40PM|#
Hey, MP, you ever walk past a wall where bums like to relieve themselves? That same wall may be washed with rain on a regular basis, but when the weather's been dry for a while, there is sure as hell a difference between urine and water...
|5.15.06 @ 12:41PM|#
"Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system
built into these trucks?
Why not just wear a Depends-like undergarment?
Discreetly worn until the trucker pulls into a rest stop where
disposal can be done in an environmentally sensitive manner...you
know, just like parents do with their kid's dirties.
|5.15.06 @ 12:44PM|#
So dumping jugs of urine along public roadways ought to be
allowed?
-- As it is a harmless act, yes.
Compare me to the 1970s crying Indian if you want, but I just can't
get behind jugs of trucker piss lying on the side of my highways.
Nope. Can't do it. I tried. Now, back to my folk songs.
|5.15.06 @ 12:45PM|#
What happened to simply pulling over, walking down the embankment until reasonably out of sight, and letting fly?
|5.15.06 @ 12:46PM|#
But I have yet to hear any reason why dumping piss on the
side of the road should be considered littering. Why classify piss
differently from water?
I had the impression that they are not emptying the jugs by the
side of the road; they're dumping the jugs while they're still
full. Which means somebody else is stuck with the unpleasant job of
picking them up and emptying them. If this is just a matter of guys
pouring the contents out I wouldn't care, but dumping full jugs for
someone else to handle is something for which I don't mind the
government demanding that it stop.
MP|5.15.06 @ 12:50PM|#
roadside litter (including the current topic of
conversation) is a classic "negative externality."
How is piss litter? Bottles of piss? Yes. Piss? No.
if they're pouring the urine out the window while they're
driving at 70 mph so it aerosolizes or splatters on other vehicles,
that's a problem.
Shouldn't it then be illegal to dump Coke at 70 mph? I don't want
my car getting all sticky with Coke. The brief paragraph doesn't
touch on the specific nature of the offense, but even 70 mph
splatter seems like too relatively trivial an offence to legislate
against. But that's not what I think the law, or myself, is talking
about here. I am talking about the act of dumping a non-harmful
liquid substance on public grounds.
|5.15.06 @ 1:02PM|#
No, MP, the law is going after containers of stale piss being dumped intact on the roadside.
|5.15.06 @ 1:03PM|#
What happened to simply pulling over, walking down the
embankment until reasonably out of sight, and letting
fly?
Because that takes time. And time is money to a trucker. Solution:
Create a government program to recruit more pee-drinkers. Plenty of
Web sites out their from which to draw up a list of potential
recruits.
Oh, and let's be clear, MP. I live in a trucker state (Montana) and
they are NOT dumping the urine overboard, as it were. They're
dumping plastic containers of piss. That's why they're called
"trucker bombs," as opposed to "trucker puddles."
|5.15.06 @ 1:06PM|#
What happened to simply pulling over, walking down the
embankment until reasonably out of sight, and letting fly?
Comment by: Steven Crane at May 15, 2006 12:45 PM
Steven, I suspect the reason is that truckers make bonuses based on
delivery times, and don't want to take the time to stop.
|5.15.06 @ 1:06PM|#
MP,
I believe the bill targets containers of urine. The article says a
million containers are dumped, not emptied, along the roads. They
really couldn't count how many were emptied, could they? We have
the same problem here in California.
MP|5.15.06 @ 1:08PM|#
No, MP, the law is going after containers of stale piss
being dumped intact on the roadside.
My mistake. My reading comprehension is clearly off kilter
today.
Hey, MP, you ever walk past a wall where bums like to relieve
themselves?
See this
thread from Volokh.
|5.15.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Jamie, I suspect that you'd find that the pee-drinkers whose Web
sites you're referring to are interested in the fresh product, not
day-old. Probably something about some involvement with the donor,
as well...
I wonder how many of these trucker bombs are generated by relief
drivers, rather than the driver actually behind the wheel?
|5.15.06 @ 1:11PM|#
Why doesn't someone come up with a urine collection system
built into these trucks? Seems like a money-maker to me.
Been done on aircraft ...
Pilot Relief
Tube
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 1:13PM|#
With my hectic schedule I don't have time for Golden Showers
anymore.
Fortunately there's Pee-Wipes...
|5.15.06 @ 1:16PM|#
The problem is lazy, stupid truckers tossing bottles of piss off
the side of exit ramps. The bottle is hidden in the tall grass and
then an unsuspecting DOT employee runs over it with a mower. If the
mower blade hits it right, the mower operator gets a piss
shower.
Tip to truckers: Open the fucking bottle and pour the contents on
the ground and then toss the bottle into a trash can.
|5.15.06 @ 1:23PM|#
What happened to simply pulling over, walking down the
embankment until reasonably out of sight, and letting
fly?
In addition to what others have written, it is dangerous and
time-consuming to pull a rig over onto the shoulder of the open
road*. I'm not sure why they can't dump their pee bottles when they
stop for fuel and food though.
I'm not sure why a new law is needed though. Surely throwing a
bottle of piss (or anything, or an empty bottle for that matter) is
littering and I would think whatever health hazard exists
is covered by hazmat regs.
*which is why so many states put "emergency stopping only" signs
along their interstates.
|5.15.06 @ 1:25PM|#
MP,
From the original article: "...study that found that nearly 1
million containers of urine are dumped annually along roads."
So this legislation is all about *containers* of urine. Ok? Now do
you have a problem with it?
If they were just pouring urine out their windows... well, I have
no problem with that so long as they're careful not to splash or
spray anyone. But beware pourers!, the wind can whip that piss in
unpredictable directions.
And it's hilarious that you'd have "the exact same grievance"
against someone who sprayed your house with water as against
someone who sprayed it with urine. See, some of use have a sense of
smell...
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 1:27PM|#
Christ, I gotta pee...
So, do truckers buy beverages based solely on the size of the
bottle? Were they angry when Coke stopped making three-liter
bottles?
|5.15.06 @ 1:39PM|#
I have a cunning plan. Develop and introduce truck engines that
run on diesel and urine.
Problem solved!
|5.15.06 @ 1:43PM|#
MP, one other thing - if you were riding a motorcycle or driving
a convertable, I suspect that you would feel pretty strongly about
either piss or Coke being dumped onto the roadways, as well.
Might truck stops have a role to play here, putting designated
recepticles in place for truckers to dump off their bombs? Gotta
think about the problem in practical and economic terms.
Truckers have to stop for fuel and to take a dump every so often.
(One assumes that bags of trucker shit are rarer than bottles of
trucker piss...) A prominently labeled depository (enhanced, where
appropriate with a large sign: "Ohio imposes a $1000 fine for
roadside dumping of urine containers. Put 'em here, instead.")
could be placed convenient to the fueling stations or the lot
entrance.
Service on the depository would be handled as it is for trash
receptacles, I assume, but the extra liquid content might require
more delicate handling, I dunno. On the other hand, once crushed
down, the bulk of the volume could simply be routed into a handy
sewer; the remaining plastics could be recycled or landfilled as
normal.
Am I missing anything here?
|5.15.06 @ 1:50PM|#
Some of you are MISSING THE POINT.
Truckers do NOT want to stop their trucks, because pulling
over = lost per diem mileage; the government already regulates the
number of hours they can drive daily anyway. So they're going to
piss in their trucks no matter what, even if you built a truck stop
every 30 feet. Money = mileage = need to keep driving = pissing in
a Mountain Dew bottle. Personally, I don't think I could drive
straight while trying to cram my penis into the mouth of a bottle
and relaxing enough to actually spill my bladder without getting
piss all over my lap, the windshield, the Alpine deck, etc. It's
creepy.
|5.15.06 @ 2:01PM|#
Cunning Plan #2: In-transit urine tanks. Hundreds of urine tanks
could drive across Ohio, with capabilities similar to in-air
refueling planes. Except in reverse and stuff.
Of course, fully roboticized trucks lack this urine problem don't
they? Maybe the robot lobby is behind this?
Jeff P|5.15.06 @ 2:06PM|#
Actually, pissing into a bottle, especially a wide-mouth one
(Snapple, Gatorade), while driving with one hand is easy.
Or so I've been told...
|5.15.06 @ 2:34PM|#
Fifty-some comments, when this is the most clear-cut issue I've
seen on H&R in awhile.
A) As long as highways are public property, then the public should
be able to regulate polluting & littering.
B) As one of the first commenters noted, urine is sterile,
presenting no more danger than a jug full of water.
C) Therefore, the laws singling out urine bombs are foolish, but
that doesn't mean the truckers shouldn't be punished at all.
Why is all this so difficult? I mean, yes, I realize that 90% of
the comments here are some kind of elementary school bathroom joke,
but, still...WTF?
|5.15.06 @ 2:47PM|#
"I'd have to see evidence that somehow piss could be harmful
once it is released into the wild."
Born free, as free as the wind blows.
As free as the pee flows...
wait, how about something more driving related, like "99 Bottles of
Pee on the Road"?
or this
MP|5.15.06 @ 2:48PM|#
Why is all this so difficult? I mean, yes, I realize that
90% of the comments here are some kind of elementary school
bathroom joke, but, still...WTF?
The difficulty was caused by my original interpretation of the
article's reference to "dumping" and "pitching" as the releasing of
fluid, not the disposal of containers containing fluid. Someone
pointed out that it wouldn't be feasible for the DoT to come up
with "1 million containers" and not be refering to containers of
fluid, since there is no way they could estimate how many times
truckers empty reusable and/or properly disposed of fluid
containers.
I appreciate all of those who were willing to politely entertain my
original argument and didn't rudely piss all over it.
|5.15.06 @ 3:14PM|#
Evan, on B... 1) urine is usually sterile, but not always 2)
it's never antibacterial, so stuff will grow in it. So urine is in
fact somewhat more hazardous than water. More important that the
hazard factor is the disgustingness factor. Does that mean nothing
at all to you? It should. And it should mean something to the
law.
If you object to this, consider taking it to an extreme: I run a
mortuary. When I get a corpse, I pump the body so full of
formaldehyde that bacteria and such won't consume the corpse and it
won't even stink! Now... if I dump the corpses on the side of the
road, should I be fined $150 for littering? Shoot, if you're
concerned just about the size of the "litter", I could chop them up
into pieces no bigger than half a head;)
|5.15.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Personally, I don't think I could drive straight while
trying to cram my penis into the mouth of a bottle
That's one advantage to having a shrinky-dink.
|5.15.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Now... if I dump the corpses on the side of the road, should
I be fined $150 for littering?
I wish it was that easy. It's a pain in the ass to, in the middle
of the night, stop on the freeway shoulder; start shoveling to bury
the leftovers - even worse if the weather is bad.
Shoot, if you're concerned just about the size of the "litter",
I could chop them up into pieces no bigger than half a
head;)
Yeah right. You try chopping up the little groupies into pieces
that small - let me tell you, it's not as easy as it sounds.
DFD
|5.15.06 @ 4:41PM|#
I'm not sure why a new law is needed though. Surely throwing
a bottle of piss (or anything, or an empty bottle for that matter)
is littering and I would think whatever health hazard exists is
covered by hazmat regs.
No, no, a separate "pee bill" is needed, and I think Senator Zurz's
constituents are very, very fortunate that she introduced it.
Pee bill. People who need pee bill ... are the luckiest people ...
in the world.
|5.15.06 @ 4:49PM|#
Pee bill. People who need pee bill ... are the luckiest
people ... in the world.
Up With Pee Bill!
The Wine Commonsewer|5.15.06 @ 5:51PM|#
MP, it's true that urine is sterile. It's also true that tossing
piss bottles along highways is tresspass, littering, or something.
Somebody's gotta pick up the mess.
I think anyone who litters deserves the death penalty whether its
Mickie Dees Coke cups or piss bombs.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.15.06 @ 5:53PM|#
The state of Washington is facing similar problems with state
workers refusing to handle piss bottles when they clean up the
roadsides.
Don't have the link but I think Wa enacted similar draconian
law.
|5.15.06 @ 7:25PM|#
Evan, my jokes are never elementary. They are timeless,
because they speak to you on so many levels.
I don't see any issue here, either. Toss urine bag on road, get
fine. Sounds reasonable. Even in the libertarian dictatorship of my
dreams.
|5.15.06 @ 9:50PM|#
smacky,
Are you about to get down on comment number 69?
Or, how 'bout you, Pee Bill?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245