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