So you do acknowledge that there are some accidents in which a person could end up worse off with a belt than without. It's not just the "being thrown clear" type either, which is admittedly very rare; there are numerous cases on record in which relatively minor crashes have left people with severe internal injuries or even broken necks due to the belt when they would otherwise have walked away with much more minor cuts and bruises.No, but your fatuous and discredited argument was used by people like you when the law was first proposed. Utter nonsense like "being thrown clear" was often bandied about. Since nobody could possibly know in advance if they were going to have the rare type of accident where they would be better off, and not the much more likely sort where they would be worse off, it could not be used to decide whether to use a belt or not at the start of any particular journey, and therefore it cannot be used to decide if the law should exist.
Whether you discount these as being a small proportion of accidents is irrelevant. The fact remains - as you have acknowledged - that in some cases it can be harmful rather than beneficial, yet you think it's acceptable to force the use of something on people which may prove harmful, even lethal, in some cases. Whether the chances are 50/50 or only 1 in 1000, the state has no right to play Russian Roulette with people's lives and people should be free to look at the facts for themselves and decide if they feel that the potential benefits of something outweigh the potential risks.
But even if there were no risks and only benefits to something (like eating healthily), it's still not the state's business to try and force people to do something "for their own good." Freedom means the freedom to make bad choices for oneself as well as good ones.
It is all part of the same basic principle. Do you think a person should be free to decide for himself what steps he takes to protect himself or don't you? Either that applies to everything he does, or if you accept that he should not be free to so decide you open the floodgate to ever-increasing regulation of what he should be forced to do "for his own good."The question was "Should one report what could well be a breach of H&S regulations?". Side tracking that to a general discussion about what is for the common good with an idealogue who is rabidly opposed to any sort of regulations in any field, and any sort of society, is pointless.