Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site zehntel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!zehntel!root
From: root@zehntel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: mandatory seatbelt laws - (nf)
Message-ID: <1317@zehntel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jan-84 04:19:50 EST
Article-I.D.: zehntel.1317
Posted: Thu Jan 26 04:19:50 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jan-84 02:23:40 EST
Sender: root@zehntel.UUCP
Organization: Zehntel Inc., Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 24

#R:amd70:-424900:zinfandel:4900014:000:940
zinfandel!berry    Jan 24 09:30:00 1984

This discussion has already strayed from the original question.  It was
not "What about mandatory seatbelt laws" but "What about mandatory
CHILD-RESTRAINT laws in California."  That's very different.

I have had a car seat (Strolee Wee-Care, if you must know) since my son
was 3 days old.  (He's 18 months now.)  I would have had it to take him home
from the hospital but the shipper was slow.  Benjamin has ALWAYS been
strapped into it whenever we drive anywhere.  He always will be until
he is old enough to drive his own car.  (well, he won't always use the 
car seat...)

The rationale is, tiny tots are not old and wise enough to decide 
rationally whether or not to wear seatbelts.  Therefore, since
the burden of statistics is in favor of seatbelts, ALL tots should wear them.

I think this is good.  I am not pleased that it has to be enforced by a law.

Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900