View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the OP?
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
Obeying the rules and vigilance
04-09-07, 03:58 PM
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Obeying the rules and vigilance
The reason I'm having this poll is to start a discussion about an issue over which I have a disagreement with Robert Hurst [1] [2] and Brian Ratliff [3] [4].
What is the relationship between obeying the rules of the road, and being vigilant?
I think we can all agree that you can be vigilant even when not obeying the rules. Arguably, you have to be more vigilant when not obeying the rules...
But can you obey the rules without being vigilant? I don't see how. For example, you might be able to pass a driver's test, or the LCI road test, without being vigilant, but can you get a score of 100%?
If you're not paying attention, it seems to me you're much more likely to overlook a stop sign, drift out of your lane, not see the pedestrian (and violate their right of way), use incorrect lane positioning, etc., than if you are being vigilant and trying to obey the rules. Obeying the rules requires knowing the rules, and when which ones apply. Understanding why which rules apply when is a great help too. Knowing and following the rules also helps you discern where you should be paying the most attention at any given time: in particular following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules.
All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
What is the relationship between obeying the rules of the road, and being vigilant?
I think we can all agree that you can be vigilant even when not obeying the rules. Arguably, you have to be more vigilant when not obeying the rules...
But can you obey the rules without being vigilant? I don't see how. For example, you might be able to pass a driver's test, or the LCI road test, without being vigilant, but can you get a score of 100%?
If you're not paying attention, it seems to me you're much more likely to overlook a stop sign, drift out of your lane, not see the pedestrian (and violate their right of way), use incorrect lane positioning, etc., than if you are being vigilant and trying to obey the rules. Obeying the rules requires knowing the rules, and when which ones apply. Understanding why which rules apply when is a great help too. Knowing and following the rules also helps you discern where you should be paying the most attention at any given time: in particular following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules.
All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-09-07 at 04:07 PM.
04-09-07, 04:16 PM
#2
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I don't agree with your choices... or I don't understand the question. Is that because I am not being vigilent?
No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.
But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether...
No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.
But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether...
04-09-07, 04:23 PM
#3
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
I don't agree with your choices... or I don't understand the question. Is that because I am not being vigilent?
No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.
But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether...
No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.
But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether...
The question is: how well can you obey the rules without being vigilant (including paying attention to what others are doing and whether they are obeying the rules or not)? I say... not very well.
04-09-07, 04:37 PM
#4
Sumanitu taka owaci
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Ahem...(clears throat)...
I got a ticket once.
Yes. I couldn't believe it. I questioned the polite officer. "Are you sure? <disbelief> Are you positive? Did you actually see me run that stop sign?" I really thought this policeman was mistaken.
Well, I did run it. In fact, he told me I went through it without even slowing down.
A first. He convinced me. Why would he lie (and give me a $100 ticket) if he didn't see it?
Problem is, I never saw it. Really.
So I have to vote, "obedience requires vigilance."
I got a ticket once.
Yes. I couldn't believe it. I questioned the polite officer. "Are you sure? <disbelief> Are you positive? Did you actually see me run that stop sign?" I really thought this policeman was mistaken.
Well, I did run it. In fact, he told me I went through it without even slowing down.
A first. He convinced me. Why would he lie (and give me a $100 ticket) if he didn't see it?
Problem is, I never saw it. Really.
So I have to vote, "obedience requires vigilance."
__________________
No worries
No worries
04-09-07, 04:50 PM
#5
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
People follow the rules every day without being vigilant. The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example, your own favorite 'inadvertent drift' while one is driving the speed limit and not fiddling with something is another. Of course you will disagree, citing your mythical 'rules' versus the law, which will only prove that this is yet another of your loaded, meaningless poll.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:13 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I want to know which of your theories this poll is designed to prove before I answer!
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
04-09-07, 05:34 PM
#7
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think what does it matter? Is this really an important question to ask?
04-09-07, 05:37 PM
#8
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
People follow the rules every day without being vigilant. The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example, your own favorite 'inadvertent drift' while one is driving the speed limit and not fiddling with something is another. Of course you will disagree, citing your mythical 'rules' versus the law, which will only prove that this is yet another of your loaded, meaningless poll.
Similarly, drifting out of your lane into the shoulder or bike lane is also not following the rules of the road, and requires vigilance to consistently keep from doing (especially on an empty/quiet road).
04-09-07, 05:38 PM
#9
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I think what does it matter? Is this really an important question to ask?
04-09-07, 05:38 PM
#10
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Did I call it right or what. 
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:39 PM
#11
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT one example, because proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT following the rules!
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:42 PM
#12
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Did I call it right or what.
So, are you contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law? If so, I suggest you review the law. If not, what was the point of your post?
04-09-07, 05:45 PM
#13
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
No you did not, unless you are contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law, and that these are examples of HH's "mythical 'rules' versus the law".
So, are you contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law? If so, I suggest you review the law. If not, what was the point of your post?
So, are you contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law? If so, I suggest you review the law. If not, what was the point of your post?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:51 PM
#14
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Originally Posted by chipcom
...
The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example,
The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example,
21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
https://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21802.htm
04-09-07, 05:52 PM
#15
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Can you all envision HH googling his wittle heart out? 
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:52 PM
#16
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
She obviously thought it was ok to proceed safely - she came to a complete stop and looked both ways twice, but didn't see anything. So please cite which rule or law was broken, what are you charging her with?
Gotta go...
04-09-07, 05:54 PM
#17
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
https://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21802.htm
OK, so she maintains that she didn't see the other vehicle...and indeed you don't even know if perhaps the other vehicle didn't break the law and cause the accident themselves...so are you going to attempt to charge her with a violation...based on your limited knowledge of the circumstances and no investigation?
Or is the investigation is as rigged as this poll?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 05:55 PM
#18
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't the two are completely related.
For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.
For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.
04-09-07, 05:56 PM
#19
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Can you all envision HH googling his wittle heart out?
Pulling the "just kidding" card again, Chip?
So you voted no (disagree with the OP) in the poll, but you don't have a serious argument to explain?
Now, I'm really outta here.
04-09-07, 05:57 PM
#20
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think you can obey the rules without being vigilant.
Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to the ones who have right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not verbatim but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.
Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.
Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to the ones who have right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not verbatim but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.
Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.
04-09-07, 05:58 PM
#21
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I don't the two are completely related.
For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.
For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.
But I don't think you can follow the rules consistently/reliably without also being vigilant. Do you?
04-09-07, 05:58 PM
#22
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Does the phrase failure to yield have any legal meaning to you?
Gotta go...
Gotta go...
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 06:00 PM
#23
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
I think you can obey the rules without being vigilant.
Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to th one who has right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not [i]verbatim[/b] but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.
Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.
Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to th one who has right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not [i]verbatim[/b] but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.
Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.
04-09-07, 06:01 PM
#24
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Pulling the "just kidding" card again, Chip?
So you voted no (disagree with the OP) in the poll, but you don't have a serious argument to explain?
Now, I'm really outta here.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-09-07, 06:03 PM
#25
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That just shows that simply following the rules is sometimes not enough, that you also have to be vigilant. No one disagrees with that.
Originally Posted by HH
All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey