Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: manditory seatbelt laws ???
Message-ID: <2631@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 23:19:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2631
Posted: Tue Jun  5 23:19:54 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 05:17:36 EDT
References: <256@houem.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 14

A compromise suggestion: require all cars to have *some* sort of effective
passenger protection, either requiring effort on the part of the passengers
or not, and require all passengers to *use* whatever protection is available
in that car.

This way, if you hate seatbelts, you can order your car with airbags; you
then don't have to wear belts and are still protected somewhat, but you
have to pay for the bags.  I, who like seatbelts, can get them instead -
I'm required to wear them, but then I don't have to pay for the airbags
nor cope with the side effects of them inflating.

This is still annoying if you ride in the car of someone who doesn't agree
with your choice of protection, but it does allow you a choice in your
own car.  Comments?