Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6890)	4/15/2003 4:02:55 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 7689

I have been unable to find it on the internet. It was done at a Canadian University using all RCMP statistics for several years. The Professor dared the police to arrest him for not wearing his belt. They were told by the AG to desist. They did not want the evidence argued in the public eye. They had previously charged him with not wearing a belt I think 4 times. The charges were dropped in every case. I have not been so lucky. I have paid 2 times...maybe three. To me it is an insurance policy. I sometimes wear a belt on the highway where the danger of a side collision is really minimal. But I will never wear one in the city. Why should I risk being hit from the side, or having my car hit where I am guided against the side and a post or anything else?? If I ever come to believe that I am at risk of running into something in FRONT of me at more than 15 miles per hour, then I may start wearing belts. Not really. The Government said thalidomide was cool. It wasn't. They said Urea Formaldehyde Foam was good. It wasn't. ON and ON...and ON. The Government is trying to escape a direct cost for the seatbelt fiasco by the airbag diversion. Good luck to them! As long as they drop charges against educated people, it is looking good for everybody in the long run...