Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 larry 2/4/84; site hlwpc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxi!mhuxh!hlexa!hlwpc!cb
From: cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.railroad
Subject: Re: auto occupant positions (riding backwards)
Message-ID: <482@hlwpc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 15:32:31 EST
Article-I.D.: hlwpc.482
Posted: Tue Feb  5 15:32:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 02:55:19 EST
References: <1846@drutx.UUCP> <294@terak.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.auto:5644 net.railroad:398

>> 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.

Very true -- I rarely get motion-sick, but I've nearly wretched twice
when riding trains backwards at >90 m.p.h. on Amtrak's northeast
corridor.  You're probably wondering why I rode the train backwards?
It's because the particular train I rode on -- the Broadway Limited --
has to go backwards from New York to Philly, in order to pull
out of the Philly station frontwards to continue on to Chicago.

Carl Blesch