Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal From: neal@denelcor.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws Message-ID: <289@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Jan-84 21:23:07 EST Article-I.D.: denelcor.289 Posted: Mon Jan 30 21:23:07 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Feb-84 01:01:37 EST References: <923@druxy.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO Lines: 23 ************************************************************************** This reminds me of the fellow in England (where apparently they have had such laws for some time) who was arrested for selling T-shirts with a big diagonal stripe. Seems you could wear one of his T-shirts and the Bobbies would think you had your shoulder belt all nicely fastened. I am against any such law. I maintain that we have too many ill-conceived laws now. The more laws--or at least the more laws such as this that are unduly difficult to enforce and/or trample personal liberties, the less respect that any law and even the concept of LAW gets. The idea of limiting an insurance payment (or other liability) to someone who is injured while not wearing one sounds very reasonable. I wonder if it's been tried and what the outcome was. (Probably not by an insurance company--their policies are prime examples of legal contracts with every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed; but individual liability is as much common law as statute law anyway.) Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc.!denelcor!neal