Lazs,
It seems like the people in this thread fit into three categories. Those who use seatbelts but who are opposed to a seatbelt LAW probably form the biggest group. And then there are people like you that are opposed to both, and people like me who are opposed to neither.
The only reason I am in favour of the law as it stands in Britain (as well as 49/50 states - LOL) is because it saves lives. If people want to top themselves, surely it's not too much to ask for them to wait to get home to do it, instead of burdening our hospitals.
There's all sorts of NRA-style rhetoric around which tries to discredit seatbelts, but I prefer to stick to the FACTS. And the FACT is that in Britain, the tally of road traffic accident fatalities to front seat occupants of cars was cut by 40% when the 1983 law came into effect - from ~5000 to ~3000. Until it became law, most people just didn't seem interested, and did not wear them. That is NOT the same thing as saying they were opposed to seatbelt use and/or the law enforcing their use.
As to actually having a LAW - you have to understand that government is between a rock and a hard place. If a seatbelt law is passed, they're accused of nannying. But if they do nothing to tackle the problem of RTA deaths and injuries, they're accused of complacency - to the accompaniment of a chorus of "why doesn't the government do something"? You only have to look at post Katrina New Orleans to see the effect on a government's popularity when people are dying deaths that could perhaps have been avoided had the appropriate action been taken when it was needed.
Many people whose lives have been or will be saved by a seatbelt are nowhere as vociferous in their disdain for the seatbelt law as guys like you, Toad, HangTime and Jackal. I'm talking about people who couldn't give a fork either way, but chose to use seatbelts once it became law.
If I were opposed to the existence of the law AND to the use of seatbelts, as clearly you are, then I would do exactly what you do, which is to ride around without one, and just pay the fine in the unlikely event of being caught...
...and as I said earlier, that's exactly my stance with regard to our national speed limit of 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways. I'll drive at the speed I think is safe and appropriate, rather than have that decision made for me by a Whitehall bureaucrat. In some cases, that speed is actually below the posted speed limit.
But Nash is right, and the continued chest-thumping defiance is even more stupid than the chest-thumpers' perception of the law.
Your seatbelts laws are there to stay, and New Hampshire will complete the pattern of uniformity soon enough.
