[_b4ut]

Well, I am not a Libertarian. I am for regulation in many cases. The difference between a safety rail and traffic lights are this. When I approach an intersection then my health depends more the prudence of the car's driver also approaching the intersection and crossing my path. So putting traffic lights people at least know who can drive and who should stop. But a cliff is an obvious threat. There is nothing insidious about it. If that cliff would be close to an elementary school - then I would be for safety rails, though. Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.

Regarding safety belts - I think you didn't get my point. I didn't say they aren't saving lives. I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind.

[moorhosj]

==But a cliff is an obvious threat.==

But there are also other people around and animals and high wind speeds and any number of other factors that impact safety. I bet you still follow stop lights when nobody is coming the other way.

==Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.==

This is an argument for putting rails on cliffs, as children are not barred from cliffs. Seems like you have talked yourself into a pretzel.

==I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind. ==

I get the point, people may drive more recklessly because they feel protected by the seatbelt. I would say that all regulations are a cost-benefit equation. In the case of seatbelts, the benefit of more people living is larger than the cost of lost freedom.