Use the following information to answer the next two questions

Alberta made the decision to enact at seat belt law in $1987.$ Evidence had shown that a seat belt law would prevent three times as many deaths and eight times as many injuries as reducing the speed limit to nincty$-$five kilometres per hour.

One Albertan, Kim Maier chose to protest this new law, choosing an unusual form of active citizenship. He claimed Alberta's seat$-$belt law violated his right to security of person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He decided to get arrested, and then make his point in courl. Maier drov$$ around downtown Calgary with his seat belt hanging out his truck door. On his first day, he received only a warning from police, but three days later he was handed a $$25$ ticket.

At first Maier's protest was successful, the judge agreed that although the risk was small, there was still a chance that a seat bell could injure a driver. Maier was within his rights to refuse to wear one. 'The Alberta government appealed the decision and won, the Supreme Court of Alberta overtumed the lower court decision.

The appcal of the lower court decision shows that individual rights can be balanced against the protection of all members of society. All of Canada's provinces have seatbelt legislation.

Canadian Citizenship in Action

Kim Maier chose to protest the seat belt law because he believed

Other provinces did not have seat belt laws.

The law did not save lives as the province argued.

The number of people wearing seat belts was low.

It was undemocratic to force people to wear seat belts.

Should the challenge of the seat belt law by Kim Maier be allowed to proceed through the court system?

Yes, because individuals have the right to challenge laws.

Yes, because individuals can choose to ignore laws they dislike.

No$,$ because citizens are expected to follow laws enacted by government.

No$,$ because governments, not citizens, know what is best for their citizens.