You found a risk reducing law that probably does make sense. Very small investment (Volvo relinquished the patent, thanks Volvo) and very large benefit.
But this "their personal risk taking is my concern" argument of yours makes me shiver. I'd never want someone else's risk taking to be my concern: I've got more important stuff to attend to, thank God.
All right, let's suppose for a minute that self-interest is literally the only thing to be considered.
Your personal risk preferences impact me in a variety of ways:
* my cost of living goes up, because damage control is much more expensive than prevention; someone has to pay for it, and dead people can't.
* my personal risk goes up, because resources I might need such as emergency doctors' time are occupied dealing with the consequences of your decisions instead.
* my quality of life goes down, e.g. I have to spend more time waiting in traffic jams while the bodies are scraped off the roads.
If you take your risks in a space I am forced to share with you, whether physical, societal or economical, your choices affect me.
And we will live in the most boring Brave New World where all danger is eliminated because of this reasoning.
Sports will be gone, only the gym survives as it has the lowest risk factor. No more alcohol and drugs. And there will be condom police checking up on you when you cozy up with anyone except your wife.
Sure, go and try to make it happen. But I will also try to subvert it :)
You found a risk reducing law that probably does make sense. Very small investment (Volvo relinquished the patent, thanks Volvo) and very large benefit.
But this "their personal risk taking is my concern" argument of yours makes me shiver. I'd never want someone else's risk taking to be my concern: I've got more important stuff to attend to, thank God.