Sometimes when I'm lying awake in bed, I wonder if laws intended to promote safety are in fact a means of getting the die-off rate to increase among rebellious types. I'm not just talking about respectable Libertarian types like me but everybody who is oriented toward disestablishmentarianism. This makes these laws antidisestablishmentarianist measures. (Hah! I finally used that word in a sentence.)
Lets say a hippie finds out that his state has adopted seatbelt laws. So he decides to stick it to the Man by driving his Volkwagen van around without a seltbelt. When he falls asleep at the wheel after too many joints, the van veers into a median, and he is ejected from the vehicle into oncoming traffic. Whereas if that seat belt law had not been passed, he would have worn his seatbelt and survived the crash.
Airbags save more lives than they kill, but making them manditory in all new cars means that people will want to dissconnect them. Laws against minors consuming liquor or tobacco make teenagers want to smoke and drink.
In fact, those anti-smoking ads that say how cool it is not to smoke make me want to light one up. And I don't smoke. Since when are propanganda writers the authority on what's cool? They are trying to get me to develop an unhealthy and expensive habit by telling me not to do it!
Anyway, the point is that just because there is a law requiring you to do it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Drive safely, there might be a hippie lying in the middle of the interstate.