Some think taking away their rights is unwarranted

By Lethbridge Herald on January 8, 2022.

Lorne Fitch – Guest columnist

In a land not far from here but in a mental galaxy far removed from the orbit of reasonable people are some who think stop signs are unnecessary, even punitive. 

This is apparently government overreach, to take away the freedom of unimpeded travel. It is, in the opinion of the anti-stoppers, trammeling the individual rights of citizens to suggest obeying stop signs at intersections serves the interests of all.

Why they say, on social media platforms are found any number of “experts” who point out stopping is unwarranted, even unsafe. 

Some say you could be rear-ended if these freedom-killing signs are obeyed. Statistics showing stop signs save lives are just fake news, drummed up by egg-headed scientists and academics in league with oppressive governments. There is anecdotal evidence that while you’re stopped someone could be directing an aerosol spray your way, filled with mind-controlling substances that turn us all into drones doing the will of a dictatorial central government. (It may well be an aerosol, but it originates from the anti-stoppers and probably contains other viral substances.)

Really, where is the “proof” stop signs work and how safe is stopping anyway? Isn’t stopping inefficient and aren’t there better, less intrusive ways to handle this so-called problem? Who decided where to put up these signs and how can their judgement be trusted?

 Slowing down for these signs disrupts the supply chain and ultimately the economy. The economy is, of course the most important part of civilization and any slackening of it needs to be vigorously defended against. Humans are expendable, but the economy—never!

Obligations to others are touted as the reason for stop signs, but how about the obligation to ensure individual rights and freedoms aren’t unduly affected? There is so much whining from the timid and timorous about the overstated carnage this expression of freedom provides. 

As our premier alludes, why have such rules if people are going to break them, like running a stop sign?

 Flicking your headlights on and off when you approach an intersection should be enough warning to others that you are expressing your right to sail through it without stopping. 

That is a reasonable, prudent response, not the requirement to grind to a complete halt while overcautious drivers pile up, impeding a smooth flow of traffic. What could go wrong with this approach? Anti-stoppers say they will ignore these unnecessary interventions to freedom of the road. 

If governments (and their scientist underlings) are allowed to continually intrude into the lives of citizens, where will it end? Mandatory seat-belt use, speed limits, health requirements—the list of undue government intervention into our lives is endless and worrisome. 

The cry from the anti-stoppers is: unravelling our inalienable rights and freedoms to some overstated risk is unwarranted, unwise and undemocratic. 

All we need to do is exercise some more personal responsibility over what we choose to do at stop signs rather than being forced to stop. Will the demonization of someone running a stop sign never end?

Lorne Fitch is a retired biologist and is tired of the tyranny of the minority of anti-vaxxers.