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?