TexasCHLforum.com

rp_photo wrote:An unintended consequence of the signs could be someone not stopping to render aid out of fear for their safety.

As best as I could tell a homeowner pays for the sign to be placed in front of their home. Another unintended consequence would be the sign used against that person in court if they were accused of an aggressive act (even one away from their home).

Ultimately as law abiding citizens we have to let the justice system work. If someone runs over one of your kids and you decide to dispense justice, the only thing accomplished is your other children will be without you while you sit behind bars.

VMI77 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Jaguar wrote:Um, speed bumps?

I like what they call "speed humps". When they're designed and built right, you can drive over them up to the speed limit without issue. At 5 over, they will loosen your teeth.

I don't know about that...I've found if you go fast enough you sort of just "fly" over them.

What I love is when kids in low riders take those too fast. Of course if they go too slow over them they run the risk of getting high centered.

My thoughts on the video:
1. I think the "children at play" signs would work just as well.
2. Last I checked ATV were off road vehicles and were not legally allowed on the street.
3. If people want to walk the neighborhood they should put in sidewalks.
4. If it's that big of a problem with people using a neighborhood as a bypass, petition the appropriate authority to become a gated community.
5. If your dogs weren't ratting the streets they wouldn't get run over.

I don't see how the signs could not be seen as threatening. They might as well say, "Hit my kid or dog and I'm going to kill you".