Government overreach is a term to sum up this: Why can't I get away with breaking that law like I used to?

Is the government "overreaching" when they enforce a law? Nope. They are just doing their job. Cops would rather be doing about ANYTHING besides writing you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt. Even though they have seen way too many lifeless bodies bashed all over the inside of cars. They know they are not going to convince you about seat belts saving lives. They are taking baby steps and trying to convince you to just obey laws, not try to make your own.

Cops don't scare me. Inertia does. Inertia is what throws you from one side of a vehicle to the other, so that when motion stops, you don't know where in the car you are. If you ARE in the car. It may throw you through the rear window or into a telephone pole 10 feet over the guard rail. They made the law. They enforce it.

Don't overthink it. Click it. It's cheaper.

Have to admit that free range road worrier lifestyle might be appealing!

Most people realize seat belts make you safer they're just sick of the nanny state dictating behavior. If I decide to take risks that's on me.

No. The computer in your vehicle can let them know if you were wearing it, if you were speeding, etc...
Considering the stupid crap people do on the road I'm rather eager to see diverless cars here. At least for the morons.

Speaking of car accidents,31% of all accidents are caused by drunken drivers.That means that 69% of accidents are caused by sober drivers.
If everyone drove drunk there would be way less accidents.

If I were a TN resident I would buckle up and let those who think they are being bullied pay the fines. It is a good way to lower other taxes.

Bryce

Rat, I don't think they make laws like that to protect scruffies like us who want to take risks and not be told what to do. They really don't care if people kill themselves ignoring safety laws. Those laws are to protect the widows, orphans, and innocent bystanders whose lives are impacted too. They don't have a say in it.

They are not supposed to 'have a say in it' that is the entire point!

A person cannot argue with that type of logic. Well, you actually could but it would most likely be wasted time...

Because the taxpayer ends up.....

The government does have an interest in trying to keep you alive by requiring the wearing of seat belts. If you are killed and have a wife and children who do you think is going to help support them with their husband and father not around. It will be the the government in the form of Social Security.

It just makes sense to wear seat belts. They have been proven to save lives of people involved in auto accidents. To me safety belts are no different than a stop sign. They are both there to protect lives.

Another reason I wear them is that I hate to pay fines for doing something that I knew better than to do. Like Ole said look at how many traps you could have bought with $716. After I would have paid one fine of $179 that would have been enough of a lesson for me.

You are also supposed to be leading by example. How does it look to your children when you disregard the law.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson (qouted while riding a horse without a permit or helmet).

So they had a law in the 1700's, when most transportation was by horse, that you had to wear a helmet and have a permit? My benefit of doubt is stretched plumb out of shape.

There is nothing unjust about the seat belt law, so Mr. Jefferson's opinion doesn't apply in any case. If we disobeyed every law we didn't like, what would Mr. Jefferson say then?

That is the point?
You are driving with your kids in the car . You don't have a belt on. You get hit a glancing blow by a truck. You are thrown away from the wheel. You hit someone head-on and are killed. You kids are hospitalized. The car you hit has 2 victims also hospitalized.
If you were alive you could tell them and your wife it is your right to not wear a seat belt. AND it doesn't matter what they think. Because they don't have any say in what you do.
That is the point?

If you get hurt in an accident, the person at fault is responsible for your injuries. Without a seat belt, your injuries are probably going to be worse than with it. So your decision not to wear it makes someone else responsible for more? That's not right.

The point is unnecessary legislation, not whether wearing a seat belt is prudent. Life is fraught with risk, minimize it as much as possible while leaving government and it's legislation out of it. I believe that is the O.P.'s point and I agree wholeheartedly.

Just to throw another twist on the subject,if seat belts are so important,how come police officers do not have to wear them?I find it disturbing that a man is writing me a ticket for not wearing a seat belt and is telling me he thinks my window tint is to dark when he does not wear a seat belt and has limo tint on his windows.
Seems there is always a exception for government entities in all kinds of helpful laws.Just take a look at the people who do not have to follow the do not call list as an example.
I feel we need to be governed by laws,but they should apply to all equally.

Legislators don't waste their time making laws unless their constituents bring them a problem they want addressed. If everyone used their head and wore a seat belt legislators would be content to make other laws or do nothing.

Something to consider: some insurance companies have a clause that says they don't pay if you are not wearing a seat belt in an accident, some pay less.

That should read"Legislators don't waste their time,(which is our time) making laws unless their lobbying groups make a sizable contribution to their offshore bank account". And your last sentence is all that was needed, that's the point.