I stumbled across this today and it might be relevant. Basically, in the same year, a seatbelt law was passed in Illinois and Yugoslavia. In Illinois, people decried the law and filed lawsuits trying to challenge it. The police announced they weren't going to enforce it unless you committed some other offense. In Yugoslavia, the people were silent and the police were vigorous in enforcing the law.
The end result, the people of Illinois generally complied with it. The people of Yugoslavia generally circumvented it (they would wear the strap but not the belt or passengers would hold the seatbelt without buckling it). The author of the article describing this phenomenon had an interesting interpretation. In our country, law serves some kind of nature law goal. If a law doesn't contribute towards this, it is abhorrent (therefore, paternalistic laws like seatbelt laws are decried). In Yugoslavia, law is simply something a government can enforce on a people. Therefore, trying to avoid law enforcement is simply part of the whole thing rather than morally wrong. It was an interesting take on traffic laws as a whole.
The end result, the people of Illinois generally complied with it. The people of Yugoslavia generally circumvented it (they would wear the strap but not the belt or passengers would hold the seatbelt without buckling it). The author of the article describing this phenomenon had an interesting interpretation. In our country, law serves some kind of nature law goal. If a law doesn't contribute towards this, it is abhorrent (therefore, paternalistic laws like seatbelt laws are decried). In Yugoslavia, law is simply something a government can enforce on a people. Therefore, trying to avoid law enforcement is simply part of the whole thing rather than morally wrong. It was an interesting take on traffic laws as a whole.