Traffic safety measures such as seat belts, helmets, and speed limits have often been opposed by people claiming that these measures infringe on their liberty. Safety measures are often described as paternalistic, i.e., as protecting people against their own will. This chapter provides a historical account of such criticism of safety measures, beginning with nineteenth-century opposition to sanitation measures, which were claimed to threaten the freedom to drink dirty water. The historical analysis has a surprising conclusion: Opposition to safety measures does not seem to have much to do with paternalism. Some measures that would typically be described as paternalistic, such as seat belts in commercial aviation and hard hats on construction sites, have met with no significant opposition. In contrast, some of the most vehemently opposed measures, such as speed limits and the prohibition of drunk driving, cannot with any vestige of credibility be described as paternalistic. This is followed by an analysis showing that due to our tendency to follow examples set by others (herd effects), purely self-affecting behavior is much less common than what has usually been assumed. Most of the opposition to safety measures in road traffic seem to result from some individuals' desires to engage in activities that endanger other people's lives. The social need to restrain the satisfaction of such desires is obvious.