tzipple responds:

An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to
all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect
us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the
general principle seems like a good thing to me.

I think the irritation is not with the inclusion of the seat belt, or the
availability of the safety helmet for motorcyclists, but the making of the use
a legal requirement. I use seatbelts. Back when I was still riding motorcycles,
I used helmets and at least three times, the helmet saved my life, or my
ability to walk. At that time, neither was a legal requirement. I still use
seatbelts every time I use a vehicle, but it is NOT because the state and the
feds tell me I have to.

Possibly my biggest objection to these legalities is the way they grow. A few
states will make, say, helmets mandatory. Survival statistics improve in those
states. The Feds then get a toe in, making state reception of certain road
funds dependent on their having helmet use laws that fit a new Federal
standard. Whoops. A bit further down the slippery slope to big government, de
facto Federal control of a Constitutional state function, using the big stick
called bucks.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx