cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/05/85)
>> I heard that rear-facing seats were once proposed for airplanes to >> keep the passengers safer in the event of, how do the flight atten- >> dants put it? An unscheduled landing? But that the idea was vetoed >> because the public would refuse to ride backwards! >It is generally believed that motion-sickness is much more likely >to strike people riding in rear-facing seats. Motion-sickness is >too common in airplanes already; adding to the passengers misery >would be unthinkable. Very true -- I rarely get motion-sick, but I've nearly wretched twice when riding trains backwards at >90 m.p.h. on Amtrak's northeast corridor. You're probably wondering why I rode the train backwards? It's because the particular train I rode on -- the Broadway Limited -- has to go backwards from New York to Philly, in order to pull out of the Philly station frontwards to continue on to Chicago. Carl Blesch
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/11/85)
> > Very true -- I rarely get motion-sick, but I've nearly wretched twice > when riding trains backwards at >90 m.p.h. on Amtrak's northeast > corridor. You're probably wondering why I rode the train backwards? > It's because the particular train I rode on -- the Broadway Limited -- > has to go backwards from New York to Philly, in order to pull > out of the Philly station frontwards to continue on to Chicago. > Well you were lucky, because I hardly ever am on an AMTRAK train in the northeast corridor that approaches speeds of 90 miles per hour. I was however, once on a train where the last car was put on backwards (I have no idea why). Ever been to Providence? -Ron