While you think saving lives isn't sufficient justification, most people do. That's why we have seat belt laws in all 50 states. That's why we have speed laws. That's why we have stop signs and stop lights.
The question is why we have so many people who can't tell the difference between a lane marker or speeding law, and a law that mandates buckling ones own seat belt.
Is there a single aspect of anyone's life that cannot be controlled by a law under the justification that lives are saved thereby?
Actually, you know, we didn't have mandatory usage laws until fairly recently - and they were passed by deception, almost universally: first the mandatory belt availability - that made sense, but some people were worried that it would expand into mandatory usage, so the legislators promised that would not happen; then mandatory usage, but not as a primary offense (could not be used to pull someone over) and the fine kept very small, and that made less sense but the promotors promised that it would never be a primary offense or a serious fine; and then one day it was tweaked a bit and now it is a primary offense and it can cost hundreds of dollars in my state (Minnesota).
That was a betrayal. A minor one, to be sure, but it's one that people are reminded of every time they get in their car.
Further, if the fine is larger than your paycheck, you cannot afford to drive a car. You can't afford to buy the gas to put into the car. The median penalty in the United States for not wearing a seat belt is $25.
You guys really don't have much of a clue, do you. Has it occurred to you that someone who has enough money for gas may not have much left over? Or better yet: Try looking up the actual cost of a seat belt ticket in the ten most populous States in the Union - say, if it's the third ticket in three years.
I'm wondering if one is born a crank or if that is something that develops later in life?
Crankhood develops, from being abused by fools with official power. It currently afflicts a majority of the American voting public, many of whom voted for Clinton on the sole basis that Trump was the only alternative - and wait 'til this mandatory purchase of ripoff corporate monopoly health insurance really kicks in.
If people don't like the laws, they can change them. And clearly they like seat belt and other safety laws.
No, they don't. If you don't know that, ask around.
And when they point out that they don't, telling them to write their Congressman is just the standard bully's response - you get the same line from the guy firing up his straight pipe Harley in the hospital quiet zone: "Write your Congressman". It's a response meant to rub in the helplessness of the complainer - and that's what we get from Clinton backers?
No, it happens when begin believing stuff for which there is no evidence to support and denying all evidence to the contrary. Question all you will, that's not a problem. But you need evidence and reason, and you needed to acknowledge evidence and reason
In this forum, that would require reading comprehension, and the ability to follow simple arguments. Notice the lack of that in your posts - say, 26? And Seattle's, like this:"Wearing seat belts is poorly justified? Wearing seat belts reminds people that they can't trust government? How so?".
So any time you guys feel up to acknowledging evidence and reason, there's a backlog of missed opportunities here.
Condescension plays better from information and attention. From inattentive ignorance, not so well.