> I still don't quite follow this logic. It's perfectly *okay* to temporarily remove the "freedom of movement" from children ONLY, by making them wear seatbelts in cars "for their own good"... But it's NOT okay to insist lazy and stupid adults should adhere to the same sensible rules and do the same?

It boils down to the fact that minors don't have legal constitutional rights or responsibilities (well, in the U.S., but if you live in a nation in which parents are allowed to instruct their children to go to bed by a certain bedtime, then you also live in a nation in which children are not given the full rights and responsibilities adults are). Pretty much anything a minor does is the *legal* responsibility of the parent or guardian. So laws requiring minors to wear seatbelts are justified twofold: (1) as it is the parents' legal responsibility for a minor's safety and wellbeing, unlike adults for which it is their own legal responsibility for their own safety and wellbeing, the law is justified by the "other people" principle I outlined before. (2) Children should not be expected to understand fully of all the risks inherent in day-to-day life that mature common sense is expected to guard adults against.

> Out of curiosity, I wonder how that particular wrinkle to the New Hampshire driving code came about (i.e. no primary enforcement of seat belts for adults whatsoever). No other state or province in North America has such a lack of provision.

New Hampshire is one of the most conservative states in the union. On some points, THE most. There is a very strong "freedom right" movement in this state, and that is reflected in the lack of personal safety laws we have. (Fireworks isn't a good example, though; we have some unfortunate fireworks laws here just like most, but not all, other states.) We just don't tend to put up with such trifling. Entertaining a tangent momentarily, it's interesting that I ended up here. I'm not a native of New Hampshire. Neither of my parents are, either. My opinions were formulated well before moving here, and yet, somehow, I ended up in a state that tends to embrace my political views more than most states do.

> This idea is dangerously close to the argument that you equally "have the right to take your own life, too."

Note that I'm speaking of *legal* rights. I don't think we have the *moral* right to put our lives in needless, heedless risk. But, speaking strictly in terms of *legal* rights, yes, I do believe you have the legal right to take your own life. Morally, not a chance.

> Wearing seat belts is *directly* related to a reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries. Your average driver, however, probably does not know about these facts -- or doesn't care.

If he doesn't care, that's his problem. He understands the risks and chooses, foolishly, to take them. If he doesn't know, that's a problem, and my solution would be education, not regulation. (I could be persuaded to support a law that requires that some standard pamphlet of seatbelt information be provided with the sale of every car. It makes sense that documentation of risks be provided whenever *any* potentially dangerous product is sold.) But I'm not sure I'd agree that the average driver isn't aware of the risks, at least in the U.S. I've absorbed enough seatbelt statistics and propaganda for dozens of people just on my own.