Interesting you should bring that up. That was used as an example of unintended side effects of policy in my economics class, because when people started wearing seat belts, they drove faster and more recklessly, so while the seatbelts protected people inside the cars, the number of pedestrians hit by cars went up.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Hmm.

Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...)

1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...)

I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019.

In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019.

Interesting.

Regarding pedestrian death: Size/weight of car have also dramatically increased.

I take it you didn't actually read that wikipedia page. It says that the supposed Peltzman effect for seat belts didn't pan out.

The seatbelt thing is somewhat illogical. Like if that's the level of risk we deem acceptable for society then things like wingsuit diving and probably even motorcycles, longboarding and bicycling on city streets should also be illegal.

Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.

This is an imperfect process, and there's a balance to be made. Sure, we can be too paternalistic, and putting too many onerous restrictions on things (or on banning things outright that people have a reasonable desire to do). I think banning motorcycles would fall under that. Sure, riding a motorcycles is far more likely to get you injured or killed than riding in a car, but I think most people would consider banning motorcycles to be too extreme.

It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.

Alternatively the control could be given to insurance companies. For example you get a lower deductible in an accident if you're wearing a seatbelt (or bike helmet or whatever) compared to if you're not. Insurance companies actually calculate the risks/costs, as opposed to governments cramming something resembling moral judgement (or just blindly perceived risk reduction) as law.

It's certainly a slippery slope. You will find people who object to "their taxes" being used to do search and rescue, provide wilderness medical treatment, etc. for activities that they consider unreasonably dangerous, e.g. winter hiking up even fairly moderate mountains.

OK but longboarding is not essential like general transportation. Why ban helmet-less longboarding instead of the whole thing?

You ruin the roadway for responsible users by maligning the good name and reputation of your fellow riders when you do so.

I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.

Cars aren't essential by that measure.

That really depends on where you live. In many parts of the US, public transit is non-existent, and there isn't much within walking distance.

I think most people in the world -- even outside car-heavy US -- would disagree with that, even if they are not drivers or car owners themselves.