Originally posted by walt 1940
Not stopping at stop signs imposes on others maybe too.....
My comment was about not coming to a
complete stop.
I don't know if your laws require that someone who's at a stop sign has to then give way to all comers after stopping... ours does.
This means that a 'give way' sign would suffice, with the exception that one doesn't have to come to that complete stop.
Coming to a complete stop, of course, [i]increases[/b] the time it takes to subsequently clear the intersection... or reach speed in a line of traffic. It reduces the ability to blend in with a line of traffic.
To my way of thinking, there should be no 'stop' signs, only 'give way' signs.
So living by these rules, it wouldn't impose any cost on anyone. It would be beneficial all round.
.....Cell phones are a distraction while driving for some people. I followed a person on the freeway, thinking he was drunk, because of frequent lane changing for no apparent reason.
Finally decided to get around him after about 5 miles, he was talking on cell phone, gestering with other hand while talking.....
But why drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator?
I came onto our local freeway today, and as I blended in behind a Holden V8 utility I was aware I was getting spray over my car. I pulled to the side a little and saw the car was dumping stacks of fluid onto the road, so I drove alongside the guy to tell him, blowing my horn and gesturing.
All the while he was on the phone, it took him an age to respond, then he pulled up. Even then he finished his conversation before he spoke to me.
The V8 was in dire straits... it had dumped all its oil and water... and the fool hadn't noticed a thing!
But that doesn't mean there aren't others who are capable of driving and talking on the phone. I drive vast distances frequently, trips that might be up to 1200 miles in one stint. Talking on the phone on those long lonely runs helps me stay alert.
.....There are thoughts for both sides of belts.
Another incident, a person not wearing belt was thrown from car, if they had been wearing a belt they would have been killed after the car rolled and top was down to steering column.
I wear my belts and installed them in my street rod 30 years ago.
Glad to hear you'r safer, Walt!
I've heard this kind of thing many times, but I have frequently seen cars that you'd think nobody would ever get out of alive and you find that the occupant/s were barely scratched.
Another one is 'what if the car catches fire' or 'what if the car goes into a river?'
Frankly, you're more likely to be unhurt and capable of doing something about it if you're wearing a belt.
I personally witnessed at fairly close quarters (there was probably not more than ten people closer than me) the very accident that led to the compulsory use of harnesses in open race cars.
This occurred at Lakeside Raceway in 1968, and it was horrendous. Niel Allen, driving a little McLaren openwheeler, had been fastest the previous day. During the official qualifying he went wide on the fastest corner on a racing circuit on the Australian mainland, we saw a puff of dust rise above the embankment that hid that detail from us.
Then he came back into view... upside down, backwards and over twenty feet up in the air! The car tumbled and bounced and rolled and discarded pieces for another hundred and fifty yards, when it was over there was only the cockpit monocoque around him, the engine, suspension units and wheels, even the back of the chassis along with the rollover bar were torn out.
He had a sprained or broken finger...
Racing drivers had for years said they would prefer to be 'thrown clear'... Masten Gregory used to jump out just before the point of impact... just look at the change in the numbers of deaths in openwheeler racing since that time, however.
