[dionidium]

This is the "extension of yourself" part I opened with. You're still talking about the car likes it's an extension of youself. It isn't. It's just a tool. And it doesn't limit your freedom in any way that we require this particular tool to meet certain operational standards in order to be allowed on a public road. I reject the notion that there's even a freedom component here at all.

We already regulate practically every aspect of driving. You're just used to those things, so they seem invisible.

[Pet_Ant]

This sounds a lot like gun control. In likelyhood you are going to hurt yourself more than prevent harm from happening... but banning guns does mean that on the off chance a gang of bank robbers storms into your house your are powerless.

I believe there was a car in the 80's that would not start the ignition if the driver's seatbelt wasn't on. One day a women was trying to flee from an attempted rapist and was too panicked to buckle in... and well he got to her, and she sued.

The tradeoffs between general benefits and particular harms have lots of nuance and really plug into deep personal values.

[dionidium]

The right to self-defense and the right to operate any kind of vehicle you desire on a public right of way don't actually sound similar to me at all.