I recently got pulled over for three things:
- A cracked windshield
- A broken center brake light
- Not wearing my seat belt (a secondary offense in Arizona)
The officer ticketed me only for the seat belt. The statutory penalty is just $10, but the court adds another $132.50 in fees and surcharges. That brings the actual amount due to $142.50.
In other words, I received a $10 ticket that costs nearly $150.
A Nearly 30-Year-Old Truck Is Not a New Car
I am considering going to court and explaining the reality of the situation: this is a nearly 30-year-old vehicle.
It has two working brake lights (the same number many older vehicles were originally designed with, mind you) but the center brake light no longer works. Because of the truck’s age, I cannot simply walk into an auto-parts store and buy a new replacement assembly.
The windshield presents a similar problem. A proper replacement may need to be salvaged from another old Nissan or custom made at an absurd cost relative to the value of the vehicle.
My seat belt latch also does not work. That is why I was not wearing the seat belt.
These problems are not new. They have existed for roughly 15 years (the entire time I have been driving this truck). During that time, I have never received another citation or moving violation.
That history does not prove that functioning safety equipment is unnecessary. It does, however, challenge the idea that every equipment defect creates an immediate danger serious enough to justify punishment—especially when repairing that defect may be difficult, prohibitively expensive, or practically impossible.
I wish that my truck had a standard sized windshield, two brake lights, standardized headlights, standard seat belts and airbags, etc. so I could properly maintain and repair them… But because all cars need to be unique snowflakes, getting parts for any car that is not one of the most popular models ever created is nigh impossible after about 10 years past the original manufacture date.
The Law’s Logic Feels Inconsistent
I understand the law’s basic reasoning. If a vehicle is equipped with three brake lights, Arizona law says that all three must work. A.R.S. § 28-939 requires every stop lamp, tail lamp, and signal lamp installed on a vehicle to be maintained in good working condition.
But a vehicle originally manufactured with only two brake lights can remain legal.
That means the difference between a lawful vehicle and an unlawful one may not be how many functioning brake lights it has. It may simply be whether the manufacturer originally installed a third one.
The seatbelt law raises similar questions. A.R.S. § 28-909 applies to qualifying vehicles manufactured for model year 1972 or later. If you drive an older vehicle that was not required to have seat belts, the law does not compel you to retrofit and wear one. If your vehicle came with a seat belt, however, you are required to use it.
The result is a law that treats two people engaging in essentially the same behavior differently based on the equipment their vehicles happened to include when they left the factory.
Safety Rules Are Not Applied Consistently
Arizona allows an adult to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. The law requires eye protection unless the motorcycle has a protective windshield, but it does not require adult riders to wear a fullface helmet, abrasion resistant clothing, or a wearable airbag, even though those precautions could substantially reduce the risk of serious injury.
Arizona also permits limited motorcycle lane filtering under specific conditions: traffic must be stopped, the road’s speed limit cannot exceed 45 miles per hour, and the motorcycle cannot travel faster than 15 miles per hour. That is not unrestricted lane splitting, but it is still an example of the law accepting a degree of personal risk.
Likewise, adult ATV riders are generally not subject to the same helmet requirement imposed on minors in many public land situations. Motorcycles and ATVs are also treated differently under Arizona’s windshield laws. A.R.S. § 28-957.01 requires an adequate windshield on passenger vehicles and motor trucks while expressly excluding certain other vehicle categories.
I love motorcycles, so this is not an attack on riders. It is a comparison.
If the government’s justification is that it must compel people to use every reasonable safety measure available, why does that principle stop with seat belts? Why are adult motorcyclists not required to wear full face helmets, anti-abrasion clothing, and airbag systems? Why can an adult ride an ATV without a helmet while I can be fined because the seat belt latch in my old truck no longer works?
If personal choice is acceptable in those substantially riskier situations, why is it unacceptable inside a pickup truck?
When Safety Becomes Bureaucracy
Every day, people voluntarily accept risks.
The police do not enter my home to confirm that I checked a firearm twice before cleaning it. No officer magically teleports behind me to issue a citation if I use an angle grinder without a face shield. No peace officers inspect my kitchen to make sure I washed lettuce that might be contaminated with Listeria.
Those activities can cause serious injury or death. Yet we generally recognize that adults have the right and responsibility to evaluate those risks for themselves.
Driving is different when a person’s conduct directly endangers other people. Laws against reckless driving, impaired driving, excessive speed, and defective equipment that prevents others from seeing or predicting a vehicle’s movements have an obvious public safety purpose.
Seat belt laws are different. Their primary purpose is to protect the person choosing whether to wear the belt.
There may be secondary social costs associated with that choice, including emergency response and medical expenses. But if indirect social costs are enough to justify government compulsion, there is almost no limit to the personal behavior the government could regulate. And the craziest part of this argument is that I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND MEDICAL EXPENSES! IT ISN’T EVEN OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S POCKET!!!
The Punishment is the Point
What bothers me most is not merely the existence of the law. It is the way the system transforms a nominal $10 penalty into a $142.50 financial burden.
If lawmakers determined that failing to wear a seat belt deserves a maximum civil penalty of $10, how can an additional $132.50 in mandatory charges be justified? At that point, the statutory penalty is almost meaningless. The fees are the punishment.
This system falls hardest on people who rely on old vehicles precisely because they cannot afford newer ones. Someone with enough money can replace a windshield, repair an obsolete brake light assembly, or buy another vehicle. Someone without that money receives a citation and is then charged fees that make the underlying problem even harder to afford.
That is not a sensible path toward safer roads. It is bureaucracy punishing people for being unable to make an old vehicle conform perfectly to standards written around newer ones.
Where I Land
I believe adults should wear seat belts. They save lives, and choosing to wear one is usually the intelligent decision.
But believing that something is wise does not mean believing that the government should punish every adult who chooses otherwise.
The government should have broad authority to prevent drivers from endangering other people. It should have far less authority to punish adults solely for accepting personal risks, particularly when the enforcement is inconsistent and a $10 violation somehow becomes a nearly $150 bill.
Seat belt laws are paternalism disguised as public safety. They should be treated as an unconstitutional intrusion on personal liberty, or, at the very least, reconsidered so that education and individual responsibility take precedence over citations, surcharges, and punishment.
