my mind has not changed, I still think it’s a stupid law and I resent being forced to wear a seatbelt. We’re adults ffs, I don’t think we need babysitting laws to micromanage our every move. Where is the freedom in that?
But I’m tired of paying $100.00 tickets too… so I wear it… although lots of times it appears that I’m wearing it when I just throw it over my shoulder, like when I’m only going around the corner to run an errand.
Yes.
Yeah, that’s pretty much a problem all over this country. 
JRB
That’s assuming they die on the scene with no dependents. Try a woman alone in the car who gets a bad enough back injury to make her quadriplegic for life. She has three children under the age of six.
No one else affected?
I said directly affected. If you start talking about the theoretical indirect consequences, you can justify doing anything to anyone. To use jtgain’s example, couldn’t you use the same logic to argue that the government should criminalize over-eating? After all, obesity causes more health problems than car accidents do. Of course, we’re already heading down this road; seatbelts and motorcycle helmets were first, then cigarettes followed, and now we’re starting to outlaw trans-fat.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Nah, this “social cost” argument is pretty absurd. If I die in a car crash at age 30 because I’m not wearing a seat belt, it saves society money because I don’t live from age 71 to 97 in a nursing home on Medicaid.
Only if you die. It affects me and my insurance rates if you become a veggie in a nursing home at the age of 30 and live until you are in your sixties.
The hypocrisy that I don’t understand though, there are states that require seatbelts but don’t require helmets for motorcycle riders.
The only reason I started wearing my seabelt regurlarly is the design of my car. It’s too damn hard to not wear it and the beeping NEVER stops until it is buckled.
I really agree with the helmet thing. Just look up Florida fatalities after the helmet law was revoked for drivers over 21.
In the US, states didn’t pass seat belt laws because public opinion changed. Heck, no. It was federal money. The federal highway funding law was written with a big hook in it. Here’s all these truckloads of highway money, but you can’t have any of it if you don’t pass a firm seat belt law. The lawmakers, coast to coast said, “Never mind those angry voters, we’ll take the money! Click it or ticket.”
Are direct effects the only legitimate considerations?
They should be. The burden of proof should be on society to prove it needs to restrict the liberty of any individual.
Another way it affects others: If I’m in an accident with someone and we both walk away, well, no biggie. If I’m in an accident with someone and they die, it’s going to have a huge and quite real impact on me, regardless of who is at fault in the accident.