What's more dangerous Not wearing Seatbelts or Seatbelt Traffic Stops 3457

Which is why government has done that end run, by saying they are looking for DUI. And people like you trust not only the current government and police but all future people who may hold those offices or jobs to never, ever, abuse that power.

In a society that values liberty, that arguement is one to justify tyranny. All it takes to control every facet of everyone's life is to draw some chain of how it might impact society as a whole. For instance, if people eat apples then too much land in somebody's opinion will be used for growing apple trees, so the political system kicks in and demands that no one eat more than 2 apples a week. I can control practically any facet of a person's life this way.

Now, to seat belt and helmet laws. The helmet only protects the rider. There is no reason to mandate it and no clear data that there is even a benefit. Especially bicycle helmets. I choose not to wear a bicycle helmet because I studied the varied information on the topic and concluded that they had several downsides while offering little to no protection in return. I should be free to make that decision for me.

Seatbelts. Seatbelts are made to keep the driver at the controls as much as they are made to protect him from injury. The injuries of another driver due to his choice is not an issue for me, what is an issue is remaining in control of the vehicle. That is where it may be regulated just as the headlamps, taillamps, emmissions, etc are. I see a seatbelt as a mechanical fastener in the control system of the automobile, much like the bolts that hold the steering column in place.

Why?

There is no right to have someone pick up the responsibility for mine or anyone else's care. That is not a right, can never be a right because it is demanding service from another citizen. Rights stop where you do.

BTW, you might want to google on the severe and-or life-changing injuries that motorcycle helmet wearers get instead of just dying without the helmet.

If health care costs (money and labor) were the real concern, then we should simply encourage that riders die instead of living with severe injury or having the expensive care to repair a severe injury. Because simply, dying is the cheapest option. Obviously then it's about trying to make it so people have what is thought to be the best chance of living, and not what is cheapest. The cost arguement simply doesn't hold together when it's cheaper to die than be injured.