At the core of a free society is the right of individuals to make their own decisions, even if those decisions come with risks. Mandating seatbelt use infringes on personal autonomy, effectively dictating how citizens should manage their safety in personal vehicles. Adults should be trusted to assess their own risk tolerance, just as they are trusted to make countless other potentially dangerous decisions in daily life, from recreational sports to dietary choices. The state's role should not be to shield people from every conceivable harm, especially when it comes to private actions like seatbelt use, which do not directly affect others. One of the most glaring inconsistencies in seatbelt laws is the fact that motorcycles, which are inherently more dangerous than cars, are not equipped with or required to have seatbelts. If the primary rationale for mandating seatbelts is to protect drivers and passengers in the event of an accident, why is this logic not extended to motorcycles? Motorcyclists face far greater risks of injury and death in collisions, yet no similar requirement exists.Every individual has a different level of risk tolerance. Some people feel comfortable driving without a seatbelt, while others do not. In a free society, people should have the right to evaluate their own risks and make decisions accordingly. The state’s role is not to eliminate all risk but to provide citizens with the information and tools necessary to make informed choices. If someone chooses to ride a motorcycle—acknowledging its higher risks—that decision is respected. Similarly, choosing not to wear a seatbelt in an enclosed vehicle should be a personal choice. The inconsistency between motorcycle and car regulations suggests that the government’s selective enforcement is arbitrary. Period.
↧