Are you paying extra for all the people who need to clean up your body in the accident you get into? And to bring the coroner out just to verify your time of death. And all the lost time of the other people on the road delayed because you died or were seriously injured when you didn't have to be. We all pay these costs with higher insurance and higher taxes. These costs are a drag on society. Just like smokers, people who don't wear seatbelts should pay more for insurance. Likewise, they should pay more in taxes because they cost more.

Because the average person has a very bad understanding of risk and consequences?

Also, the laws aren't solely about the wearer; not wearing seatbelts at scale has societal costs.

Can you please elaborate what is so difficult to understand about the concept that when you drive fast and crash you get thrown out the windshield and possibly die? What does it mean to you that this understanding already fails?

It's a constant minor annoyance weighed against a fairly rare, hypothetical risk.

People ride motorcycles despite vastly higher death and injury rates than cars, cause it's fun. (I did for awhile and might start doing so again one day.)

I'm not disagreeing with you I don't think? I agree that it's a really stupid thing to not wear a seatbelt. I just think it's important to consider how to solve these problems without throwing up our hands and saying "people are irredeemably stupid" because that doesn't really do much good for anyone.

>Because the average person has a very bad understanding of risk and consequences?

When it comes to things that are defined by social consensus (like whether or not one should wear a seat-belt, or smoke indoors, etc) like the hypothetical "average person" is always correct by definition.