My 2 current cars (and a few others before them) set off the alarms like crazy just a few seconds when I drive without wearing the seat beat. The front passenger seat also behaves the same if significant weight is detected on it. I thought it's probably regulated to be so for at least over a decade or two in Canada. Isn't it so in the States?

Those alarms can be disabled. I always disable them on my cars so it doesn't annoy me when I don't want to wear my seatbelt.

Seatbelt laws are very strange to me. I think the law should only be that you can get a ticket if you don't force your children to wear a seatbelt. Forcing adults to wear them does nothing for public safety, it's a personal safety issue which shouldn't be mandated by the government.

I'm surprised the cops didn't refer the guy to mental services. This guy definitely has control issues and it would be worth it for his family to have him checked out and get help if he needed it.

It's a public safety issue if you speed & crash, and then got flung onto the road.... but that's admittedly extreme.

I myself prefer to take the seatbelt off when I'm reversing.

The guy not only need to wear a seat belt, he needs to be strapped in a padded room...

Seat belts will better help keep you in control of your vehicle after a collision. If your car rolls over or you go sideways into a tree it helps keep you from back, head and neck injuries which could leave you with pain and mobility issues long after the crash. I also see it as being very selfish to your family and loved ones who potentially may have to care for you if you survive, in which case you will be very annoyed and annoying.

It should be mandated by government because some people think they are the best drivers ever.

Does any of your family members drive the disabled alarm car?

If those people could sign waivers refusing any medical care they don’t pre pay for, waiving any physical damages if they aren’t at fault (I shouldn’t have to pay for your preventable injuries just because we crashed) and hospitals honor those waivers…just a dot on your license that says if your wallet is empty you agree to be a live organ donor…I’d agree.
Since that’s not the case and as often as not the paying public ends up footing the bill in one way or another for the irresponsible behavior like not wearing a seat belt, mandating seat belt usage seems 100% reasonable.
Also, since most learning/teaching is by example, it’s near child abuse to not wear it with kids in the car. Akin to shooting drugs or playing Russian roulette in front of them….taking a deadly risk for no purpose.

While smart to wear one I also agree it shouldn't be a law. It's the same as helmet laws which vary from state to state proving that it's not really a public safety issue so much as a reason for the cops to have (yet another) tool in their toolbox to collect additional revenue and potentially escalate the crime.

In this case I don't think it's just cash for cops.

As far as I know most western countries have laws against it and if nothing else that's normalised it. If I'm not wearing a belt in a front seat I feel really weird. I haven't quite got to that point sitting in the back, but I hope my son does.

Recently a relative from Russia got into my car and didn't belt up and I didn't feel comfortable moving until I reminded her. She just wasn't in the habit. Last time I was in Russia I got funny looks every time I belted up, which has the opposite effect: normalising not wearing it.

Wearing a belt is good. The more it can be normalised the better.

The most surprising thing about this video was that the fine was $10.

Dude was probably having a really bad day/week/year. It looks awfully stupid and irrational to an observer.. but there might be reasons we can't see. The sad part is thinking what would have happened if a black guy acted like this.

I'm having a hard time imagining the case where wearing a seat belt is going to make you have better control of your car after a collision.

Your moral case, for wearing a seatbelt, while personally compelling, doesn't mean the government should be controlling that activity for individuals. Being selfish is usually not a crime.

There is shared risk if you look deep enough in all activities that people engage in throughout their lives. Newtboy's assertion that these types of activities should be regulated because of their knock-on effects doesn't seem practical in a "free" society.

The reason I don't understand why this is a law is because the affects to society are so low and are similar to many other unregulated choices people are allowed to make. The inconsistency is painful.

Perhaps not, but we don’t live in a free society, nor a responsibility free society.

The effects are not low. The difference in cost of a serious car crash with and without seatbelts is in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Again, because you can be “at fault” through no fault of your own, and responsible for all injuries the other driver suffers, it’s not just smart but the only responsible move to be forced to wear them and minimize the shared risk.
It’s 100% unfair for the other driver to be allowed to take the high risk of not wearing it but you have to pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility….don’t you think?
The difference here as opposed to, say, obesity is the risk/consequences of the irresponsibly transfer to others regularly and often completely (at least financially).

If not wearing it was an automatic waiver for any and all bodily injury damages, fine, but it isn’t so being forced to wear it is the only sane and rational move. Because that choice can turn a no damage bump into injuries requiring life long care

Quick google search, since I never really looked at the legal liability side pf this issue before.

Some states actually hold drivers accountable for not wearing their seatbelts and discount the payout for injuries, others don't allow insurance companies to consider whether the driver was wearing a seatbelt or not when looking at their injuries. (California discounts, Pennsylvania doesn't)

I think you are understating the societal impact of obesity compared to drivers getting more badly injured without seatbelts. To be clear I don't think the government should be regulating either.

I don’t understate or underestimate the impact or cost of obesity, I only point out that no one else has to directly pay for your care because you got fat by your own choice, but others might and often do foot the bill for the irresponsibility of not wearing a seat belt.
Discounting is a partial fix….by how much? How do they decide how much worse your injuries are because you didn’t wear a belt…and who decides…and what’s the cost of doing that math? I’m perfectly fine with people not being safe as long as they accept 100% of the risk….it should be wear no belt, get no injury recovery (or insurance coverage) period. Anything less makes the case for seatbelt requirements imo.

Maybe it's like a parking ticket I got once - $13 ticket (max regulated by statute) plus $58 in "processing fees" (not regulated)