Your last sentence makes no sense. Something can both be good, and be undesirable for government regulation. For example, it's good for me to eat vegetables. But it would be odious to have a law requiring me to eat X number of vegetables per day. Similarly, a person can be in favor of wearing seatbelts but opposed to a law requiring seatbelt use.
Your reasoning is flawed, eating vegetables or not basically only affects you and your health, not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile against the general public.
