It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

Thank you dylancatlow for agreeing to be the contender for this debate. I forgot to mention that I wanted the first round to be for acceptance only. This is typically how debates on this site go. I see that you’re new to this site, so you may not have known that. I’m pretty new myself, but I explored enough debates on the site to know this. I don’t have much of a problem with this, so I’ll allow it, and won't force you to forgo posting an argument for the last round. You’ll get an extra argument out of this! Now on to the debate. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS 1- Stop signs are put up for a reason, safety. They aren’t just arbitrary signs to annoy us. A- I agree that stop signs are put up for that reason but that does not mean that all of them actually do serve that purpose at all times. I may bake a cake for someone for the reason that I want to make them happy, but that does not mean it will actually make the person happy. Intentions and consequences are not the same thing. B- I also agree that stop signs are not put up to annoy us. However, as I will explain in a bit, there are a few cases in which the placement of stop signs seems very arbitrary. But even if this were not so, the fact that they are not put up to annoy us does not prove that one must always stop at stop signs. Those are two different contentions. Con is arguing that the intention behind stop signs is valid, but my resolution is concerned with the consequences of stop signs. C - Con is putting his emphasis on the placement of stop signs, but as you will see, only one of my three scenarios concerns the placement of the stop sign. The other two have to do with the situation one finds oneself in at a stop sign, not the placement of the sign. 2- They are in such common use today that…signs that actually matter. A- It is never a good thing if people gain automation over any driving actions (though I can understand why automation might seem superficially beneficial.) It makes one form tunnel-vision habits that ignore things go out of the ordinary, and accidents are by their very nature out of the ordinary. Safety is created when drivers are alert and consciously judge each situation independently, anticipating mistakes, not following a rote routine. This is stressed in driver’s education. There is neither evidential nor logical reason to believe Con’s contention. 3- If there were some obscure hypothetical scenario…not the world we live in. A- As I explain below, the scenarios are not nearly as obscure as you think. Also, you describe a driver “running” a stop sign. But this implies a false dilemma: you either stop at a stop sign or you run through it, when there is of course a middle option of simply slowing down (to a crawl in some cases). I never said that slowing down was a bad idea. Slowing down can be just as effective as stopping in some cases. B- Con has overstated my burden. I do not have to show that there is no chance of getting into an accident if one fails to stop at stop sign (for there is a chance of anything physically possible happening) but that no accident would be caused by the failure to stop at the sign. POSITIVE ARGUMENTS I can conceive of at least three scenarios in which stopping at stop signs will not increase the chance of getting into an accident. 1- when a stop sign is placed at anyplace other than an intersection This is rare but it does occur. I cannot reveal a specific location because that would give members of this site an idea of where I live, and to reveal information like that is inappropriate, but take my word that there is a location in which a stop sign exists in the middle of a long strip of road. Surrounded on eitherside of the road are large sections of grass. There is no intersection at the stop sign, just more grass. There is no crosswalk intersection either. Since there can be no intersecting cars or people, how can a car accident occur here if a driver goes through the sign? This is also an example of an arbitrarily placed stop sign, and if there is at least one, you can bet that there are more. 2- when a driver can clearly see that there are no other cars approaching the intersection If a driver is approaching a stop sign and can clearly see that there are no other cars or people at the intersection or cars or people approaching it for a considerable distance, then there is no way that he can get into an accident if he skips the stop sign, for there is nothing or no one with whom he can collide. I would suggest slowing down a bit though. 3- when slowing down and coming to a crawl is sufficient to allow other cars at an intersection to go If a driver comes to an intersection where he must let another driver intersect his path, coming to a crawl (perhaps at 1 mile per hour) provides enough time for the intersecting driver to continue his path. It has the exact same effect as stopping. If he crawls at an appropriate point, he can reasonably maintain the crawl for perhaps 10 seconds (while never entering the intersection) which is clearly more than enough time to allow the other driver to go. Conclusion The rule that one should always stop at stop signs was created by and is held by overcautious people. As I have clearly explained, stopping at stop signs is not always important, and in the cases I have pointed out, failing to stop at stop signs will not increase the chance of getting into an accident. The rule of stopping at stop signs was universalized out of intellectual laziness. It was done out of failure to acknowledge the three scearios I have just pointed out.