Earlier I saw signs hanging on chains which blocked a brand new, otherwise perfectly passable sidewalk on the University of Michigan campus. The signs proclaimed "SIDEWALK CLOSED. NO WINTER MAINTENANCE" and yet there was absolutely no indication that any maintenance was needed.

The only thing that's changed is that the temperature has dropped into the 20s and snow is on the way. Obviously, the idea is that the maintenance department won't remove the snow, and for that reason they have closed the sidewalk -- thus requiring the regimented citizenry to walk around to use a further-away sidewalk or else walk a block to get to the front entrance.

It's what you might call a high profile public inconvenience, and apparently there are similar signs elsewhere on campus. "Budget cuts," doncha know....

In response to budget cuts, the University has determined to save money by not scraping the snow and ice from all the broad steps leading up to Angell Hall and the ones to Hatcher Library. Only the center sections are kept passable; the two sides are chained off and kept in the environmentally natural state.

The Angell sign is clear: "DANGER. Sidewalk closed. No winter maintenance." The sign is a little misleading since the sidewalk is not closed; only the two side stairs are closed.

The signs, of course, are only a minor annoyance, and the people who use the building are simply ignoring them and squeezing past the areas on each side of the posts from which the chain hangs. However, they reminded me of a creeping authoritarian tendency I've seen over the years. It started with the "closure" of lakes and oceans because life guards are not present. (Closure is in quotes because they really can't close natural conditions.) In Berkeley there's a park with a field that's perfect for running, except when the rainy season starts, they put signs in front of every entrance to it which say "FIELD CLOSED DUE TO WET CONDITIONS." Not that the runners pay any attention to the sign, because after all they have to run on slippery streets covered with slippery leaves to get there, but still... If they can "close" a park for being wet, then what else could "they" ultimately close? All roads? (Anyone remember that plane full of passengers who were not allowed to exit their plane because the TSA screeners had gone home? Or how about threats to arrest passengers for leaving a stranded commuter train?)

I'm of two minds about the useless and annoying signs. As an angry libertarian crank, I hate them. But philosophically, I have to ask whether these signs might actually be good (in the ironic sense, of course). One effect they clearly have is that they systematically condition people to ignore them and go about their business. That's good, because it promotes a healthy spirit of individualism, as well as healthy hostility towards mind-numbing bureaucratic control. But what I cannot determine is whether they might be obeyed by some people, and actually condition such people to accept ever more mindless regimentation. That would be bad.

To be fair to the bureaucrats involved, they may very well be motivated by fear of litigation. That seems to be the ultimate trump card to be used to shut down nearly anything (such as public restrooms in parks, jungle gyms in playgrounds, old buildings that might contain asbestos, and virtually any body of water in which someone might theoretically drown) and it is most likely a major reason for the sign. The fact is, if some idiot walks on the ice and falls, the University is liable. Back in the evil old days, they could have put up a sign saying "USE SIDEWALK AT YOUR OWN RISK. NO WINTER MAINTENANCE." But since assumption of risk has been abolished, not only can't they say that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't now legally required to actually enforce their blasted sign. Seriously; I could envision a trial lawyer arguing that even though his client disobeyed the sign that was placed there for his protection, by allowing people to do it, the University was "negligent" for not posting a guard or issuing citations or something. Of course, it's easy to blame the trial lawyers (and they are a disgusting species of human being), but state legislatures could step in at any time and correct the problems they create. Just as in many states they have enacted the "man's home is his castle" doctrine, there is no legal reason they couldn't reenact a statutory version of "assumption of the risk" as an absolute defense. (It has been effectively abolished by the "comparative negligence" doctrine.) I wouldn't expect state legislators to bring it back, though. The trial lawyers contribute too much to their campaigns.

If there's a rule here, it seems to be that if something can't be fixed or costs too much, it should be closed. So why can't that rule be applied to the courts and the state legislatures?