The red light fine is absurd, but people are risking lives other than their own when they run lights. I can see fining them some. Jaywalking should not be illegal or fined. If you want to get run over, that should be your perogative.

You can look for this to happen in your state, too.

It happens when you

a) don't pay attention to how tax money is handled
b) don't think the behavior of others affects you
c) don't think the passing of laws affects you.

Congratulations! You've won a position of subservience to debt created by others because you didn't specifically forbid it!

I'm with you on red light runners momof4, but I think these cameras probably cause unsafe stops.

Yes, seems they do:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/01/red-light-cameras-cause-rear-end.html

While Baltimore reports that violations for running red lights have gone down 60 percent at the 47 intersections with such cameras, several studies in recent years - in places like San Diego, Charlotte, N.C., and Australia - have offered a fuzzier picture. The studies have shown that the reduction in side-angle collisions at the intersections has been wholly or largely offset by an increase in rear-end accidents like Ms. Correa's.

In addition, there has been criticism of the cameras' use to generate revenue from fines - in some cases exceeding $300 per violation, with points on a driver's record - and of revenue-sharing arrangements with providers of the technology. Those arrangements, critics contend, have led to the placement of cameras not necessarily where they would best promote safety, but where they will rack up the most violations. Those questions, along with malfunctions and legal challenges, have led some local governments to remove the cameras. ...

Studies elsewhere ... made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in San Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections had increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all of it a result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding is not consistent with the program's overall objective of improving traffic safety," the report's authors concluded.

Rad, I posted a comment about what you say above at the LA Times site, although it has yet to appear. I didn't vote for Tony Teeth (Antonio Villaraigosa, our junketing mayor), although I didn't have much of a choice in the case of our city councilperson. The whole city council here should be dumped.

Sorry, still not away -- that was the subtext of this piece...see the "emergencies" link at the bottom, to a piece by the guy I did vote for for mayor, Walter Moore.

I also don't vote for boondoggles like the "high speed" train to SF. Our state is going bankrupt, first of all. I've cut back on everything in this economy...we shouldn't be spending billions on this...especially in light of the fact that you can got to SF for $59 each way from LA on Southwest! Voters vote for these things thinking what? That leprechauns will leave a pot of money on every corner to pay for it?

If my memory is correct, part of the reason that the tickets for running red lights in California cost so much is that cities weren't making money with the red light cameras at the original fine amounts. Because of the expensive contracts with the camera providers, the fees needed to be raised to ensure that the cameras were "profitable."

Raising fines for traffic tickets is like raising taxes on cigarettes; it doesn't hit enough people to generate much in the way of complaints.

In our town, Gurnee Illinois, we have a group of three people running for Village Trustees on a "Repeal the Red Light Camera" ticket. The fine runs about $100 and the commerce in our town has gone down since the cameras were installed. There are lots of places to shop in other towns - why make people angry when they come to our village to spend money (we also have the Six Flags Amusement Park).

Remember the story from Finland a few years back, where a man got a $225,000 speeding ticket for going 60 in a 30 zone? They base it on your total net worth in Finland, and he was the heir to a meat-packing fortune.

PS- The first speeding ticket (1896) was for going 8 mph in a 2 mph zone in London!

Momof4 makes a good point. True, red light cams can boost rear-end collisions. But rear-end/bumper-to-bumper collisions (which is the kind of accident that usually occurs when someone slams on the brakes before an intersection) are generally less serious and fatal than front-to-side collisions (which is the kind of accident that occurs when a car runs a red).

In other words, it's a trade-off: you're replacing a more deadly accident with a less serious one. Not perfect, but might be a good trade off.

Also, it would appear that these red light cameras are decreasing fatal accidents: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr020111.html.

Another thing: You usually won't get ticketed for speeding up on a yellow light because it's unsafe to stop. The only way you'll get ticketed is if the front wheels of your car cross the stop line AFTER the light turns red. And, if that's your issue, well, I'd say you need to work on your driving/paying attention behind the wheel.

Sorry sofar, but I've got to disagree.

The only red light cameras around here are downtown. I just avoid the area. My objection isn't based on any bad experience on my part. I've only ever been ticketed for speeding, and I was, out-of-state, and I paid up. No persecution complex.

There is an intersection I drive through everyday with a 45mph speed limit, and a very short yellow. Have you ever been behind an 18 wheeler doing 45mph? Do you think you can stop when you see that the light is yellow, oops red, in about 30 feet from 45mph? That is, if you do the math, 66 feet per second. OK, can you do this on snow? How fast is your reaction time anyway?

How much are you willing to bet on the good graces of the town? These would be the same town whose cops who set up roadblocks, sorry, I mean "safety checkpoints" on busy days to look for crimes such as expired inspection stickers or unfastened seatbelts. I've seen them do this on the on-ramps to the interstates during rush hour. It could be me, but I get the distinct impression that they don't care if you sit there for twenty minutes if they can make twenty bucks.

Pollution from the miles of idling cars doesn't count. It's for a good cause.

Tell it to the judge? I'm sure he'll be fair. It's not like they want my money. It's for the public good, right?

In case I wasn't clear enough, I am opposed. It's not for safety, it's a scam. Great Britain is deactivating many if not most traffic cameras. They don't do what the advocates say they will. We don't have the problem. We don't need the cure.

I've been given 6 tickets for not wearing my seatbelt. I've challenged all of them and they were all dismissed.

The state KNOWS it's collecting money by enforcing laws they have no right to enforce. They KNOW it's all about the revenue.

And it's gotta suck to be a cop right now, since everyone pretty much hates you because your mere presence fucks up traffic flow.

In California, traffic fines started incurring an additional fee in 1999 due to SB1407, which will generate an estimated $280 million per year in increased revenue. It's supposed to help fund repairs and updates to the courts. I was in traffic court right after this went into effect, I can tell you, additional fines, fees and penalties that the court's are now allowed to assess increased each ticket by $100+. I'm sure the court's are maxing out the penalties and fees thinking that money is going to the courts, but my guess is, it's really just going to fund the state of California's ridiculous appetite for more money.

"people are risking lives other than their own when they run lights."

This is the premise that government often makes to impose arbitrary taxes ... "it saves lives, and the higher the fines, the more lives are saved."

However, there have been many studies done recently that show that removing traffic lights altogether actually makes for safer driving. You can Google naked streets and find many such trials and studies as this. When people have to make eye-contact and put some effort into ensuring their own safety, they will actually be much safer than by relying purely on idiot lights. This trend seems to hold for many other types of safety devices as well.

Brian, how did you win those not wearing a seatbelt challenges?

All I did was sign them "Not Guilty" (we have two spots to sign, one is guilty and you mail a check, the other is not guilty and you wait for a court date) and they dismissed them. Never got to court. Never will.

They learned their lesson the hard way during the time when radar detectors were banned. A guy got to court, and the DA wanted to offer him a deal, and he wanted a court date, and forced the issue. He presented his evidence that the law was in contravention of the Communications Act and got the whole radar detector ban thrown out.

They KNOW that they have no Constitutional authority to require me to wear a seat belt. They'll never let me in to a court room where I can potentially challenge the law itself. Better to pass up the one fine they could pull out of me at these "checkpoints" that are also of dubious legality than risk losing the whole law.

@MarkD, I agree that the law probably punishes some unfairly -- as do speeding laws. And "driving conditions" laws, which got me a very unfair ticket that still pisses me off when I think about it.

And I actually get pretty nervous driving home every day on TX Loop 360, as it has traffic lights AND speeds of 60 mph. Never driven an 18-wheeler, but, yes I have driven on snow and ice many many times. I imagine that if icy conditions made me slide into an intersection on a red, I would fight the ticket if I got one.

If the cams were penalizing those who sped up on yellow and were still in the intersection when the light turned red, I'd be decidedly against them. If they penalized those who were stuck in an intersection because of gridlock, I'd be against them. But they don't.

There will always be cases where someone's individual case warrants driving 20 over the speed limit, or running a red, or talking on a cell phone. But until the cameras start making mistakes and punishing people who WERE obeying the law, I don't see a problem with them.

Why wouldn't you wear a seat belt?

Some here may enjoy this blog

www.motorcopblog.com

It is written by a CA police officer. Pretty interesting and funny stuff.

Sorry, here is a clickable link to the motorcop blog....Motto: If you got stopped...you deserved it. hehehehe.

http://www.motorcopblog.com/

Most red light cameras also have speed cameras, so even if you make the light you still might get a speeding ticket.

A couple of years ago I got a speeding ticket for going 45 MPH in a 25MPH construction zone.

I went back out took all sorts of photos and took it to court.

I had photos showing the regulat MPH signs had been covered up in the construction zone.

I had photos showing the postion of the herrifs officers car was 200yrd past the construction zone, and by his own admistion he lazered me from behind.

I had photos showing that every road around this one was rated at 45MPH.

After showing all of this the cop aid that that road had been dropped to 35MPH just before the constrution started.

Now I got a ticket for driving 20 MPH over the limit in a constrution zone - and I had proved that I wasnt in the zone when I got the ticket.

The judge found me guilty f driving 10 MPH over the limit(but not in a construction zone)

My ticket went form about $600 to $120.

If I wanted to challange the jusdges ruling(which I did) I would have to pay $20 for a recording of the case, $40 for a copy of the evidence presented(my evidence which I gave the court, not the cops) and $200 to cover the higher courts cost, all non refundable.

And if I won that case the state would reimbure me in 3 to 6 months the $120 I still had to pay that day being found 'guilty'

So in the end it was cheaper to pay a fine for a 'crime' I wasnt even charged with then it would have been to fight it.

Why wouldn't you wear a seat belt?

That's the wrong question. The right question is Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to require me to use any safety equipment?

The answer to that is nowhere.

Keep your laws off my body.

That's the wrong question. The right question is Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to require me to use any safety equipment?

The answer to that is nowhere.

I suspect the courts would apply the same logic used for driver's licenses and license plates. If you're on a public road financed by taxpayers, you must comply with the public laws (seatbelts, licenses, plates, etc.).

On private property, I don't need a license, license plate, and could probably get away with not wearing a seatbelt.

The purpose of those laws is to prevent me harming someone else and to give the state a way to positively identify me so I can be made to repay damages that I cause.

There is no way that a seat belt falls under that claim of legitimacy.

If my lights are out, or I have no brakes or I'm intoxicated, I'm a danger to other users of the common resource.

If I'm not wearing a seatbelt, I'm not a danger to anyone but (potentially) myself.

And the state simply does not have a legitimate interest there.

And fuck the courts. They've already said that once you get in a car your 4th and 5th amendment rights are null and void. This is a little pushback against them.

cops who set up roadblocks, sorry, I mean "safety checkpoints" on busy days to look for crimes such as expired inspection stickers or unfastened seatbelts. I've seen them do this on the on-ramps to the interstates during rush hour

If they're putting checkpoints on the on-ramps, you should, as a courtesy you understand, alert your state's highway patrol that this condition is going on an on-ramp to an interstate.

They'll put a stop to it pretty quickly.

Where I live, I believe the camera tickets are $165. Of course, I also try to avoid those intersections. There's one close to where I live that is more difficult to avoid, but it is also one of the worst intersections for wrecks.

Of course, when they put in the cameras, it was touted as a "safety" issue. The intersection I reference above? it was like the 5th or 6th established.

Income? yes. Safety? not so much.

They've already said that once you get in a car your 4th and 5th amendment rights are null and void.

Here's some more push back: chop up your driver's license and sell your car, and buy a bike. I doubt they'll pull you over for not wearing a helmet, and they surely won't pull you over when you blow thru a stop (light|sign).

Right - because the proper way to protest an illegal law is to forfeit my freedom of movement.

And in Connecticut you CAN be ticketed for running a red light on a bicycle. You can also be ticketed for being on a sidewalk.

And if you're under 12, your parents can be arrested and/or fined if you aren't wearing a helmet.

Oh, and as far as the red-light cameras? Why is it they always shorten the yellow to increase infractions and then act all surprised at the ten-fold increase in rear-end collisions at these intersections?

Also - have there REALLY been reductions in t-bone collisions at these intersections, or is that something that nobody discusses because it would point out the utter FAIL?

When you see a cruiser on the side of the road, he's there for one reason only - he's a profit center for the state.

Right - because the proper way to protest an illegal law is to forfeit my freedom of movement.

Sometimes, I think that the right way to protest is to respond to the perverse incentives created by government.

Instead of driving, walk or use the subsidized public transit system.

Instead of paying progressively higher income taxes, switch to a job with less pay.

Borrow against your house in an amount that will maximize your mortgage interest deduction.

Declare your property a farm. You might be entitled to very much reduced property taxes and subsidies for the right livestock or crops.

Reproduce, a lot. Children aren't just poop machines, they're deductible! If you have enough of them, you might drop below the poverty line.

Now that you're poor and have defaulted on your mortgage, you can get even more free services! Food stamps. Medicaid. Reduced cost bus passes. Social housing.

You'll be so short of time, that you'll have to quit your job. Hey, it's not your fault, you have to take the bus everywhere! Don't forget the wait at the emergency room. With enough kids, no family physician, and only Medicaid for insurance, you'll be spending three nights per week in the waiting room.

Don't worry about the sleep you missed, during the day, you'll have plenty of time to catch up. Your brats are all wards of the state from 9 till 3. Even your dimmest offspring will get promoted to the next grade.

One day, they'll take their rightful place right along side you. Your daughters will get knocked up, and your sons will go to prison for selling meth. Your whole family is staying on the public teat for another generation.

I'm with you on red light runners momof4, but I think these cameras probably cause unsafe stops.
I hate that wording.. the light does not cause anything. People's poor driving skills and incorrect reactions to suddenly realizing there's a light there, is what causes the accident. Else it's basically like the old Bugs Bunny cartoons when Daffy Duck would claim the building jumped right out in front of him.

Well, if the light changes from yellow to red faster than your body can respond I'd say lights are indeed the problem.

Time was they painted solid lines leading up to an intersection. If you were inside that margin when the light turned yellow you would make it thru, these days not so much

Amy, interesting that you should have picked Baltimore as your example. Reynolds has a link today to a story about Baltimore red-light cameras. On each citation that is mailed out there's a sworn statement that is signed by the officer who reviews the photo. Supposedly... as it turns out, since last September 28, those sworn statements have been "signed" by a dead man. The police claim it's a "computer glitch". Yeah, here's the glitch: they have been caught Photoshopping signatures onto citations that have never actually been reviewed. Someone is about to be up on thousands of counts of perjury and tampering with evidence.

"In Sierra Madre, where the local police department has declared an all-out war on the city's residents and visitors, it's common to see a police car parked at any of the major four-way intersections and totally ready to pounce on anyone who fails to stop before the limit line."

Annoying enough as it is, but the police generally don't have to wait for you to do anything wrong before writing a ticket. They can just say you did it. And in most cases, there's not much you can do because nobody (at least, in the court system) will take your word over the cop's.

I think you are really stupid for not wearing your seatbelt, Brian, but you are correct that once you are 18, it should be your choice. I never wore mine until I got preggers and had someone else to keep alive, and to live for.

Ticketing parents for their kids not wearing helmets or seatbelts I am fine with. Kids simply can't make that abstract decision at 6 or 8 or 10 years old. Heck even teens think they are immortal. I had an aunt die of a brain hemorrage flipping over her handlebars helmetless. 2 years later, my little brother nearly died of the exact same thing, although we think his backpack strap got into his wheels and made him wreck, as opposed to braking. People who don't wear helmets are walking organ donors. The black humor in waiting-for-transplant circles is you pray for someone to get on their motorcycle on a rainy day with no helmet. It should totally be their adult choice to make, though. We need organ donors!

You are free to feel that way. I don't like nylon straps across my throat.

I typically wear a helmet on the motorcycle, snowboard and bike though. And the rollerblades.

Falling on pavement is serious shit. Same thing with trails. I took out a bike helmet on a rock when I ditched.

I just don't feel that a strap across my belly and another across my neck are really going to help more than they hurt. Add to that the fact that I can't properly turn to clear my blind spots, and being belted in is more dangerous than not for me.

I believe there was recently a case were it was proven that a city cut down the length of time the yellow light goes on so more people would get tickets.

Anyways I certainly get nervous when I see those damn lights and drive more dangerously in order to make sure I dont get a ticket.

Brian, I'm totally with you on the constitutional argument. However, you really are better off with the belt on; there's numerous studies that show it. And consider: there is no auto racing series anywhere in the world today that lets you race without belts. Not only does it protect you from being thrown from the car in a crash, it keeps you in the seat during radical maneuvers. Back in the days of the big bench seats and no belts, I can't help but wonder how many crashes were caused by the driver sliding across the seat and away from the controls.

Now, the standard lap and shoulder belt is far from ideal. If it were up to me, I'd have a four-point harness with a sternum belt. But you can't put one in most production cars because there are no hard points for the mountings.

"I just don't feel that a strap across my belly and another across my neck are really going to help more than they hurt."

Well, in addition to not feeling, you're also not thinking. You've actually phrased this to help you rationalize something you know is stupid: The belt doesn't go across your belly, but across your hips; it crosses your chest, not your neck. You can be supported by this belt, hanging, without injury.

Professionals wear belts because the forces in an accident will pulp them, not because of laws. Regulations found in the literature of sanctioning bodies are there to see that the gear chosen works and is in good condition, as a condition of participation; otherwise, the sanctioning body can be liable for personal injury.

The forces in a passenger car crash can be every bit as violent as one in NASCAR. You might notice the conspicuous lack of a roll cage in your sedan, though, and nobody requires that you wear a helmet in a car, even though head injuries are frequent.

The reasons belts work is because of physics. The amount of force exerted on your body in a deceleration event depends on the time taken to slow it, not on your feelings. Plainly put, when your car strikes an object, it will stop, and then you will strike the inside of your car. If you are not belted, you will miss your airbags, and in some cases will be ejected. If you merely run off the road, you will not remain seated.

If you want to know what happens then, just jump out of the passenger window at just 35 or so. I'll drive.

Do you imagine you get to pick when to crash?

Professionals wear helmets. I have a full-face Arai because the pros wear them - on tracks where speeds are higher, but:

1) No one pulls in front of you jabbering on a cell phone
2) No one stops on the track
3) No one hauls animals on the track, and spills are rapidly cleaned up
4) If you make a mistake, there is LOTS of runoff room, notoriously free of curbs, mailboxes, parked cars, dropoffs, trees and phone poles.

Roads are simply more dangerous.

Jerry Seinfeld has a neat routine about helmets. After pointing out how stupid it was to continue an activity where injury is likely, he said something like, "...and the only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law, designed to protect a brain which functions so poorly that it cannot even recognize the danger."

But the biggest hint that you're just being selfish is the sheer number of people pulled out of totaled cars without a scratch on them.

Basically, you're doing everything you can to make sure - that won't be you.

Ah. For the nitpickers, like me:

It should be, "But the biggest hint that you're just being selfish is the sheer number of people without a scratch on them pulled out of totaled cars."

I bet you knew what I meant, though.

By the way - there is a common idea that rear-seat passengers don't have to be belted.

Wrong. This is about as wrong as any automotive idea can be!

If you value your life, you better be sure the back-seat people are belted - or they will crush you on the way to your dashboard when your car hits something. You and your seat back will cushion them at your expense.

Fun experiment: when you have a passenger in the back, if they're skeptical of your demand to buckle up, just get up to 5 MPH and pound the brake pedal.

Yes, they'll be mad. But maybe both of you will learn something.

-----
On topic:
Don't let failing government policies cause you to do stupid things. The only thing dumber than seat-belt laws are the people that don't use them because they're mad at the law. You know who you are.

Rad -

Well, in addition to not feeling, you're also not thinking. You've actually phrased this to help you rationalize something you know is stupid: The belt doesn't go across your belly, but across your hips; it crosses your chest, not your neck. You can be supported by this belt, hanging, without injury.

"Feel" was the wrong word then.

I didn't wear seatbelts when cars only had lap belts. I didn't wear the three-point harness in my first car in 1987. I wasn't wearing one in my pickup truck when I was hit in a full frontal collision at 40+ mph (total injuries: mild whiplash and a bruised wrist. The truck was 3" shorter and a total loss. The Buick Elecktra 225 had minor damage.) I don't wear one now in my VW.

Why? Because it restricts my ability to turn my body, so I can't see around me. My neck doesn't turn more than about 70 degrees to either side, so I have to pivot my body to clear the blind spots. Also, the auto-lock on them is so aggressive that I've been violently yanked back into the seat when I try to pivot. This hurts very much bad.

Also, I've never been in any vehicle where the shoulder harness, no matter what adjustment position it is in, does not go over the top of my shoulder and rest against the side of my neck. This positioning of the belt resulted in at least one decapitation in Texas that I read of years ago.

The lap belt does, in fact, go across my belly. This positioning led the SAE in 1955 to declare the lap restraint the most dangerous accessory ever added to the automobile. When my mother was pregnant, the doctor advised her to not wear a seatbelt.

Every year, the three point harness results in broken collarbones, severe whiplash, internal injuries. It is a menace, and an engineering failure.

The proper solution for me would obviously be better mirrors and a four-point harness. But since that is both expensive and against the law, I can't be bothered. (yes, it is a federal crime to remove the three-point harness from your vehicle, even if you replace it.)

Oh, and if you'd like the equations, I can probably suss them out. You'd be stunned to know just how much force is hitting your gut and your shoulder in a sudden deceleration from 45 mph.

What the three-point harness does is make a compromise between traumatic brain injury and potential internal organ damage.

The main reason that you won't see passenger cars come with a 4 point harness (aside from idiotic federal regulations) is that they have to be custom fitted to be effective. It would be trivial to have hard points to attach to in a modern monocoque chassis.

"When my mother was pregnant, the doctor advised her to not wear a seatbelt."

Well this was simply idiotic. The belt goes across your thighs, not your stomach. The steering wheel, however, does hit right in the gut when you fly at it. If it's on your stomach, you're wearing it wrong and/or have a really crappy posture when sitting. Do you wear them when you fly? I'm guessing so as they come and check. Car seatbelts fit the same way when you use them correctly. They also sell positioners for the shoulder belt for short people.

When your car goes from moving to not moving suddenly, the car stops, then your body stops (either at the belt or the dash, same amount of force) then your internal organs stop. 3 collisions in one. The belts put the force at the places on your body (again, if you use them correctly) best able to take them without catastrophic damage. That is the boniest areas of your body-the pelvis and the shoulder/upper thorax. Not, for example, your face, which is where the force is placed as you go through the windsheild. Again, I fully support your right to not wear it.

Well this was simply idiotic. The belt goes across your thighs, not your stomach.

I don't know what kind of cars you had in the 70s, but that belt connects at the junction of the seat back and seat. It's not going across your lap, it's going right over your bladder and in the crook of your belly. And when you're forced forward, the belt is going to crush your bladder.

The belt in an airplane is slightly different, and has no auto-tensioner, so you can leave it loose. And it's sole purpose is to stop you hitting your head on the ceiling in the event of a sudden drop or severe turbulence.

The addition of the shoulder strap and auto-tensioner to cars was intended to limit your forward motion to minimize the damage the lap belt can do. It may work, but it's not a certain enough thing for my liking.

You'll notice that no serious restraint system actually has a belt across the lower abdomen. Know why? Because it will cause injuries nearly as serious as taking a steering wheel to the gut.

A 4-point harness connects above and behind the shoulders, the straps cross and are connected to a restraint at the chest, and then connect on the sides of the seat a few inches down the thigh.

Your ribcage can take an enormous amount of pressure. Your belly, lap, and shoulder? Not so much.

Car seatbelts fit the same way when you use them correctly. They also sell positioners for the shoulder belt for short people.

I wanted to answer this in a separate comment.

I'm 5'10" tall. I'm not short. And I've never, repeat NEVER been in a car where the seatbelt didn't cross at the place where my neck and shoulder meet. No matter HOW I adjusted the belt, it always found its way up to my neck.

I don't like ANYTHING touching my neck.

So until they can show me that the seatbelt won't kill me with 100% certainty, I am not using one. If the state cares so damned much about my safety, then they can give me back some of my tax dollars and I'll put a 4-point restraint in my car.

However, as was pointed out earlier, they don't give a fuck about safety, they just want the cash.

Well, Brian, you embraced so many fallacies here to justify what you've decided already that I can tell you need to look at a good list of fallacies.

You're in there, more than once.

And you belong right over there with the antivaxxers with a statement like the "the seatbelt won't kill me with 100% certainty".

If you actually meant to write that, you're completely irrational. The crash forces, not the seatbelt, are the causal factor.

Don't just claim you could probably "suss out the numbers". Do it. And be ready to admit you're wrong.

Rad - I already did the math, over a decade ago.

The fact of the matter is that the seatbelt isn't a factor in most accidents.

And from what I came up with, give the way the seatbelt rides on my body, I'm more likely to be injured by the seatbelt than some other part of the car.

And since the seatbelt itself has been the proximate cause of death in a non-zero number of cases (not saying that the person would have survived without it, but the seatbelt was the primary factor in, say, a decapitation) then the government has no right to require it.

Again, my failure to wear a seatbelt (unlike not vaccinating a child) does not have any impact on anyone else in a collision.

And since you're being Mr. Pedantic, let me lay it out for you real simple like. Conservation of momentum pushing me forward against a nylon strap where the primary energy transfer occurs at my shoulder and waist is going to do more damage than the same energy transfer damped by the muscles in my arms.

You aren't dealing with someone who's having a knee-jerk idiot reaction to this, you're dealing with someone who has done the math and understands statistics.

Oooh, those manly arms!

Why didn't you say so?

Let me get this straight; you're apparently so big that a seatbelt rides on your body in places you would be harmed if you were restrained, yet you can hold yourself off the steering wheel with your arms?

Wow.

By the way, this:

"And since the seatbelt itself has been the proximate cause of death in a non-zero number of cases (not saying that the person would have survived without it, but the seatbelt was the primary factor in, say, a decapitation) then the government has no right to require it."

is false on two levels.

One, government has no "rights", only "powers".

And you obviously have not even looked at the cover of any decent accident analysis, as your "non-zero" requirement, and special pleading, repeated nonetheless, exhibits.

If only you'd been there to unbuckle the decapitee, and show them how to grip the steering wheel! They would have lived, guaranteed!

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

By the way, when your airbag goes off, it will blow your hands off the steering wheel and the bag will give you a nice rash on the insides of your arms.

Better disable that airbag, too, Brian.

Ahh, crashes are so orderly, and happen so slowly that we can take conscious effort and lessen their effects as they happen...

...nope. Never mistake the time taken between first motion (when you see a crash might happen) and car impact for what happens after impact. Google is your friend. Look for "crash test video" and look for the chaos.

I'll say here what I do to every motorcycling moron who claims, "I just had to throw 'er away" when talking about their crash: You weren't smart enough or skillful enough to avoid the crash. What makes you think that you can do something after you're in it that makes a difference?

You will not be in charge in a crash. You might not even be conscious.

And if you cannot recognize that modern cars are built to save more people than ever before, you probably aren't really conscious right now.

None of which convinces me that a strap across the neck is a good idea. I'll get over a rash long before I'll get over a broken collarbone.

You take your chances your way, and let me take mine my way.

It's not like you're the one who dies if I'm wrong.

And in the case of the decapitation, it's highly likely he would have been ejected from the car and killed anyhow, but the seatbelt certainly didn't help him.

Here in Az it's easy to get out of photo revenue tickets. Register your car with a PO box for the address and then throw out the tickets. The tickets come with a disclaimer at the top that says something like, "to avoid a service fee you must appear on or before...." The mailed notice has no subpoena power. You must be served for the ticket to be valid. When an officer hands you a ticket he's serving you.

I have my vehicles and driver's license registered to my PO box. No way to serve me at a PO box.

You can also register the vehicle in a company name or trust to make driver identification harder.

I consider a lot of these cameras as photo revenue. We've had these cameras here in AZ for decades. A few years ago the state put cameras on the freeways as a way to raise $90 Million a year. That didn't pan out and once Napliano went to the homeland security, they were ripped out.

In the town I live in - Mesa AZ - the camera operator had a fit when the city increased the duration of yellow lights. The city didn't back down and the operator renegotiated for more of each ticket. The corner near me used to have 2-3 accidents a week caused by people running red lights. Now with the cameras, there is only 2-3 accidents a month. The cops that used to sit at the light, can now do other things.

Thank you thank you thank you for posting that highwayrobbery.net URL. My fiance recently got a document that I thought was from the San Mateo police with a picture of him running a red. I've been on him to contact them to figure out why there's no court appearance information or information on how to pay the ticket. Now I know why. It's a "snitch" ticket. Not a real court document. It's a trick to make you fill out an affidavit admitting to your infraction. Infuriating.

"None of which convinces me ..."

Oh, I know. Your mind is made up.

"And in the case of the decapitation, it's highly likely he would have been ejected from the car and killed anyhow, but the seatbelt certainly didn't help him."

Irony. Yep, you've never seen the cover of any good accident analysis textbook.

And never once thought about your numbers.

Do just 30 on a side street. Swerve to miss a kid chasing a football. Properly looking at him, you don't look where you're going, but you didn't have a choice. You hit the phone pole dead center and your car stops in three feet.

You were going 44 feet per second. The average speed from 44-to-zero is 22fps. Your car stopped in 3/22 second, or about .136 seconds. This deceleration rate is about 161 ft/sec^2. This is a little over 5 "Gs".

Yes, really. You said you worked the numbers.

Your only hope is to stretch the impact time out. This is why the car is made to collapse in a certain way. Taking twice as long to stop your body cuts the acceleration in half.

You're just flatly not going to do that with your hands.

For a crash the likes of which happens thousands of times a year, you'd better be ready to do a pushup, with those arms on the steering wheel, with four guys standing on you. And that's just a simple crash.

Your belt and airbags not only can, but will save you from serious injury in such a case. They do so worldwide, today. There is NO impact event in which an unbelted passenger is safer.

-----

It doesn't mean the local town isn't trying to get your money, but the law itself isn't at fault at all.

Given the one accident I've been in, I'll take a bruised wrist over a fractured collarbone any day of the week.

Oh, and the forces that the three-point harness put on all that wonderful squishy midsection? Far in excess of those 5 g. You're talking about taking a 100kg person, traveling at 13 m/s, decelerating in about 100 ms, which gives you 13kN of force. Now, you're going to distribute that force into soft tissue and weak joints through an area that's 6cm wide, and 160 cm long - total surface area of just under 1 m^2.

13 kN/1 m^2 -> 1855 psi.

That assumes uniform distribution. If someone were to design such a thing today, it would be banned.

How anyone walks away from a frontal collision without serious internal injuries is beyond my comprehension.

Look at Nigella Lawson on Bondi Beach covered head to foot in her burqini! Ughhh!!! This is all about protecting her fair skin, apparently, but what's covering up like this doing for her vitamin D levels? There's established evidence now we need the sun, we shouldn't be hiding from it. She should be getting acclimatised to the sun, not dressing up like something out of science-fiction to conceal herself from it.

Sorry I missed this.

Brian's calculations are so far off they're not even wrong, because there's no time element.

It's easy to tell when somebody just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Need more? Ask yourself this - how much surface area do his hands subtend?

And where are the professed injuries he pretends happen in the crash records?