The Regulatory Version of a Horror Movie
 

The sky is falling. Update: the sky is not falling.

https://bikeportland.org/2020/12/17/...oadways-324120

How road bicycling was almost killed by typo.

The End.
 

The wheels of our bureaucratic democracy are out of true, slightly taco'd, missing a few spokes and a little rusty. Probably need to patch and pump the tires, too.

Interesting use of a double negative.

I'd be curious to see what the thoughts were behind the revision. Were they editing an existing electronic copy, or typing in a whole new document from scratch?

I'm wondering if they were trying to simplify the language.

Completely deleting the double negative, however, does slightly change the meaning of sentence.

I find it hard to believe that someone so precisely lined out just the exact words needed to entirely change the meaning of the sentence and that just happened to be inadvertant.

An inadvertant mistake would leave wording that made no sense on the subject.

This soon to be gone administration, who knows if it was an attempt to get away with something on the way out or just complete incompetence?

From the link.

“Why we you trust that it’s a typo?..."

LOL

The "double negative" is easy enough to understand.

The "rule" against them is made up and overblown.

They are much more common than the supposed rule against them suggests.

That can't possibly be what they intended as it would indicate that the lack of a bike lane negates any other rule prohibiting bicycling on that road. That would make a posted restricted access road with no bike lane a bicycles may use road. That's not a "slight" change in meaning.

The intent of the current reg is clear--roads are open for cycling unless deemed explicitly otherwise, the new "typo" would have reversed that to mean that the default rule was no cycling on roads, and your version would have made it that the lack of cycling infrastructure prohibits the restriction of roads.
To get rid of the double negative but keep the current meaning, I would suggest "shall not be construed to mean that bicyclists are prohibited from traveling on that roadway."

If the chapter discusses both signs allowing bicycles as well as signs prohibiting bicycles. Then one would assume that all roads lacking the official signage prohibiting bicycles would actually allow use by bicycles. Rattle can signs don't count.

In that case, one could remove the "Shall not be construed to... Not", and one ends up with a simple "are permitted".

That particular text has been corrected. It's only in the proposed rule stage so they are nowhere near final on this revision. If any of you have an interest you may want to review and comment (due by 15 Mar 2021).

Knock yourself out figuring out whether signs prohibiting bicycles are or are not included in Chapter 9a.I looked at the chapter and that's not clear at all.

"shall not be construed to mean... are prohibited" is not a double negative.

Thanks! They just deleted "be construed to", leaving "shall not mean that bicycles are not permitted". The double negative remains, but the redundant phrasing "be construed to mean" has been shortened.

Yes, still not concise, though I read it as a triple negative: "absence of" + "shall not" + "not permitted".

Sort of like: "Just because it's not on your schedule, it doesn't mean that you aren't expected to attend"

I don't think "absence" is a negative in that sense. I've always understood the "rule" to refer to having more than one negating modifier, like not or the un prefix or the less suffix. The double negative in the reg is "not" appearing twice in the same sentence. It might be objectionable on esthetic grounds, but the logic of the sentence is quite clear.

Here's a sentence that could drive you nuts. "He is not absent without leave." Is he present or not?

Doesn't drive me not sane. That sentence really does not address his presence, only a condition: "absent without leave" (aka AWOL). In actual communication, you wouldn't phrase it in the present tense if he were present, though.

Back to the original topic - I've dealt with federal and military regulations for most of my working life and can say that they are never crafted in a way that provides concise guidance. Few regulations are not followed by letters of interpretations which are then usually followed by other LOIs. One of the most significant unintentional typos that I saw was a one letter substitution that changed "it is not required" to "it is now required".

Liked for the first sentence!

I write a lot of agreements which, when signed, become court decrees. The main goal there is to write something that's so clear that if the parties ever dispute it, you know how a judge will interpret it. Prose written for that purpose is rarely elegant, but clarity can generally be accomplished because it's usually only two parties involved, and the universe of contingencies is relatively manageable (although COVID made a hash of more than a few of those, hard to see that one coming). Regs get messy because they're trying to specify guidance for an indefinite number of parties often for an infinite period of time. The possible contingencies are simply too many to estimate, and you tend to end up with language that gets vague in the fine grain.

I'm still suspicious that someone deliberately inserted this "typo", but that probably has more to do with my feelings about this administration's integrity than it does an objective appraisal of the odds. The general rule that one should not assume nefarious plotting as the explanation when stupidity or incompetence could be the explanation still seems reasonable.

"He's not AWOL! He's standing right there" is not illogical, BTW.

If not for exceptions there would be no need of rules...
 

And not AWOL means one is absent with a valid reason.

ex-GI

It could. It could also mean he's not absent as AWOL is an offense requiring 2 elements--1) absence from duty 2) without authorization to be absent. Not being absent from duty is a defense to the charge. "He's not AWOL, it's a clerical error that failed to record his presence" would be a very good defense to the charge even before a military tribunal unless it was the accused's duty to record their own presence.

It's also an expression in common informal usage which is basically "absent" or asleep at the switch. The example shows that context is important.

An easier way to write the sentence:
.

I'm of the opinion that the entire drive train is suspect. Our democracy is supposed to represent everyone but for some time the wealthy are over represented. It was almost a laughing matter when a contingent of GM showed up in Washington to beg some money, having traveled in their corporate jet. In the meantime, there are stupid people about who complain loudly about welfare queens when corporate welfare dwarfs what any individual can get away with.