Stop sign tyranny: Great LTE!
From the Longmont (Colorado) Times-Call, July 25, 2020:
To be clear: I am not anti-stop sign. I am, however, against mandated stop sign usage. The media narrative that people like me are silly or irresponsible is both offensive and further shows the constant attack against my feelings and desire to avoid inconvenience. I stand against big government, and I will never apologize for being a freedom fighter as I blast through any intersection necessary.
While data show that stop signs may be useful for limiting traffic accidents, injuries, and death, that data is easily proven to be a media conspiracy to thwart our collective freedoms. Despite having stop signs for decades now, people still die frequently in automobile accidents. If stop signs were effective, there would be no more accidents. Instead, big government and mainstream media push this narrative of “safety” as a manner of restricting freedom of movement.
If I am in a rush to get to work, I may not have time to consider stop signs. The government cannot tell me that I need to stop, that I cannot be on time to earn my money. If a legitimate need for stop signs existed, our Founding Fathers would have placed them in the Constitution. Overarching mandates are a slap in the face to figures like George Washington, who wrote that no government ought to interfere with the movement and safety of citizens: on foot, horse, or vehicle.
Anyone who wants to use stop signs can go ahead and use their brakes. I, however, do not believe everyone should be beholden to this tyranny. Let the people choose!
In summary: Wear your masks — a symbol of freedom for others to live. In a world where uncertainty reigns, this basic act of humanity cannot be plagued with childish defiance.
Cayden Stice, Longmont
Link: https://www.timescall.com/2020/07/25/letters-stop-sign-tyranny/
= new reply since forum marked as read
For example, seatbelt laws protect drivers and passengers, but don't affect the safety of drivers and passengers in other cars. Same with motorcycle helmets. And of course, public nudity does little to endanger public safety -- although I suppose the sight of a naked person could cause extremely distracted driving, or -- in some cases -- cardiac arrest, whether from arousal or horror!
I like those laws. 
But I wanted to post the letter as published for accuracy.
If I'd written it, I would've gone full snark with no softening.
ETA: And yes, there certainly are plenty of those who are irony-challenged, which I'm sure the author considered.
(I hope Trump doesn't see this, he's liable to make it legal again.
)
Running a stop sign doesn't kill or injure more than a few others trying to go through the same intersection at that same time, even in heavy traffic. But it wouldn't multiply the threat exponentially, spreading to drivers and passengers who were never near the site of the original traffic violation. Flying lawn furniture and garbage cans could injure neighbors, and they could keep flying around for a while and for a long distance -- but they wouldn't spawn more lawn projectiles, spreading the damage far and wide (although that could maybe make a passable cheesy, low-budget midnight horror movie).
Still, such analogies are useful if they get people to think a little bit about how their selfish actions or lazy inaction can cause others' suffering and death -- and how taking very simple, easy actions can save lives. Getting them to care, now, that's a different story. 
