Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: auto occupant positions
Message-ID: <294@terak.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 10:29:56 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.294
Posted: Fri Jan 25 10:29:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:42:47 EST
References: <1846@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 11

> I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes  to
> keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten-
> dants put it? An unscheduled landing?  But that the idea was vetoed
> because the public would refuse to ride backwards!

It is generally believed that motion-sickness is much more likely
to strike people riding in rear-facing seats.  Motion-sickness is
too common in airplanes already; adding to the passengers misery
would be unthinkable.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug