[eru]

> Same reason you try to save somebody who wants to jump from a bridge? Cost is marginal and potential benefit is huge.

If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. Though I grant that jumping off a bridge is inconsiderate.

> BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.

So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?

[ajuc]

> If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life.

I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation.

But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision.

Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero.

> So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?

It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?