Trevor Boicey wrote:
>
> Rick deOlazarra wrote:
> > I believe the '74 overiders were the result of Federal laws
> > newly implemented that addressed safety concerns authored by the ever
> > present do-gooders obsessed with taking responsibility for everyone
> > else' safety, imagined or real; but I digress...
>
> ...actually, no.
>
> The Overriders were for insurance purposes, not safety. The
> problem was that insurance rates were going through the roof
> because an everyday little touch to the bumpers was costing
> thousands to fix properly.
>
> The laws at the time were something to the effect of
> "vehicle must withstand collision of X mph without sustaining
> over $Y in damage" or something to that effect.
>
> The overriders allowed this.
>
> Sorry if the facts get in the way of another nice
> conspiracy rumour involving do-gooders and overactive
> governments, but...
>
> --
> Trevor Boicey
> Ottawa, Canada
> tboicey@brit.ca
> http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
You're right, damnit!...I KNEW it; some voice in the back of my head
was screaming shrilly while I was typing the words, but all I could
see was the resemblance to modifications made in the name of safety, and
jumping the gun, taking on the same jump-the-gun attitude as those I
percieved as do-gooders...
After reading your post, I was so embarassed (sp?) that I just sat
there, cringing, for 5-10 seconds, then broke out laughing at myself.
Gaining perspective is always one of life's rare gifts, even when it
arrives in the form of a freight train..
|