[BlueStateDepression]

If I want to go outside in my underwear in below-zero weather, that's dangerous, but I don't need a law to keep me from doing it.

I live by a school, there indeed is a law against doing that kind of thing.

Maybe you missed my point. Lets remove the government intrusion into our lives and simply make cars that requie seat belts. Then the revenue generation argument is removed and everyone will be held to the very same standard. Maybe if more people did the right thing more often the government would not be able to make the case to pass these kinds of laws eh???

[elkfersupper]

Lets remove the government intrusion into our lives and simply make cars that requie seat belts.

That's already been done, and there was a MASSIVE revolt.

[capt. norm]

Maybe you missed my point.

It's more a case of you missing virtually everyone else's point. And you totally failed to respond to mine:

" Here's something to try on for size. It is a known fact that wearing flame retardant suits (like fire fighters wear) would save a lot of lives in auto accidents. They're big, bulky, hot and not at all comfortable to wear. By your logic, we should pass a law requiring all occupants of a motor vehicle to wear them while riding in the vehicle because wearing them would save lives. Such an intrusive law passes your tests, but not mine. That is where we differ. We separated from England over such as this but that spirit seems to be fading.

[Surtur]

Maybe you missed my point. Lets remove the government intrusion into our lives and simply make cars that requie seat belts.

Your logic is flawed. This is still governmental intrusion. Now it just uses the car manufacturers to enforce the intrusion instead of the local LEOs.

[Badray]

Mandating a seatbelt interlock is more government coercion. Such thinking has added thousands of dollars to the cost of cars and not all of the outcomes have been good ones.

You still don't get it at all.