Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-milo.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
From: john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <408@gcc-milo.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 09:43:40 EST
Article-I.D.: gcc-milo.408
Posted: Mon Dec 16 09:43:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:06:23 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred)
Distribution: net
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.politics:12514 net.auto:8831

In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes:
>Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go
>into effect.  They are going to use the lack of a visible
>restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is
>an excuse.  (For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you
>don't get pulled over for speeding.  But if you are not
>wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.)  Why?
>
>Because the staties want the seat belt law enforced.  Why?
>
><enter heavy disgust mode>
>"Because it saves lives. ... Remember, it is a privilege to
>drive." -- anonymous (who doesn't mind breaking other
>driving laws, as long as he isn't stupid enough to get
>caught, in which case he thinks he deserves it)
><exit heavy disgust mode>
>
>				David Hudson
>

Not quite.  It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed
that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states
pass mandatory seat belt laws.  I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than
airbags.

<supressing long, rambling tirade against airbags and regulatory agencies>


-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john