> WARNING! HUMOR ALERT! HUMOR IMPAIRED PLEASE DELETE FORTHWITH!
I got it - very Socratic of you. ;)
I also understand where you're coming from, but I submit that there is a
difference 'twix "unsafe" and "unreliable" and/or "inconvenient".
If the mirror is so large (for a given car) that removing it and storing it
elsewhere in the car (so that there is no loss of weight) is a "performance
improvement due to increased visability" then that says to me it is unsafe - and
to prohibit the remedy of a truely unsafe condition to me is beyond
comprehension.
"If it was so unsafe, how did it ever get on the road in the first place? Surely
our elightened govenment officials would have seen to it that such a dangerous
bit of machinery would never have been licensable"
Right. Early Corvair, anyone?
And besides, what's stopping us from holding ourselves to a higher standard of
safety? We wear helmets after all. Why wear helmets in Stock? Surely a car in
Stock condidtion is as safe as any other road going car, and the Government
doesn't make us wear helmets on the 401....
Now the catch here is the phrase "truly unsafe". I'm sure that someone out there
might be able to frame an argument for subframe connectors in terms of safety,
but a reasonable person would see that as a bit of a stretch. Framing an
argument to allow removal of mirrors - as an item blocking the direct line of
sight out of the vehicle - as a safety concern I would think a reasonable person
would see as being, well, reasonable.
After all, if the prime objection to allowing its removal is that it allows
better vision... doesn't that speak for itself? Maybe it's not as screamingly
hyperbolic as my "hardened steel spike" was, but to my mind, the only difference
here is of degree.
DG
|