 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2005Headlights plus windshield wiper law
By Amy Oakes UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER January 3, 2005 California drivers soon will have to flip on their headlights when the weather is wet enough that their wiper blades are in constant motion. The concept might be new for some drivers, so they have six months to start the new habit. The law goes into effect July 1. "It's not something very difficult," said California Highway Patrol Officer Lorenzo Ruano. "It's just people getting used to it." The law states that drivers of all motor vehicles, except motorcycles, must turn on their headlights when they use their windshield wipers in rain, mist, snow, fog or other precipitation. Headlights also must be turned on when drivers cannot clearly see a person or vehicle 1,000 feet away. Ruano said many new vehicles have lights that are automatically on when the engine is running. Those drivers will not need to turn on their headlights when their windshield wipers are on. As for enforcement, Ruano said, it will be at the officers' discretion. "If it's raining, the officer will probably be doing other stuff," he said. Violators will be cited. Ruano said the penalty will be determined by the courts. The rain this week caused many traffic problems. On Tuesday, 243 collisions were reported in San Diego County between midnight and 10 p.m., the CHP said. That number included only accidents on freeways and unincorporated roads under the CHP's jurisdiction. Ruano said drivers should use common sense if they have doubts about whether to turn on their headlights and windshield wipers. If the majority of vehicles are using their wipers, he said, "you should probably have yours on." "I probably would have done it automatically," said Darlene La Madrid as she left the AAA office in Chula Vista. "It never occurred to me that it would be a law." The 69-year-old Chula Vista resident said that although she didn't know about the new law, she wouldn't have to change her habits. The lights on her 2002 Buick Park Avenue turn on when she starts the engine. The law was written by former Assemblyman Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto. Simitian is now a state senator representing District 11, which includes San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Simitian said the law was proposed by two women in his district who submitted ideas in his annual "It Ought to be a Law" contest. His Assembly district includes all or part of 13 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Simitian held the contest for three years, usually picking a few entries to become proposed legislation. Six bills from those contests have become laws. "It's everyday people coming up with everyday solutions," Simitian said. He said he wasn't enthusiastic about the headlights proposal at first. But after he did some research, he found that at least a dozen other states required the use of headlights when windshield wipers are on. "There's a demonstrable improvement in highway safety during inclement weather," he said. Simitian met with transportation officials and the CHP to discuss the concept. Having the law go into effect in July, he said, gives drivers time to get used to the practice. "The goal is not for everyone to get a ticket," he said. "The goal is for everyone to drive safely." >The concept might be new for some drivers, so they have six months to >start the new habit. The law goes into effect July 1. When it doesn't rain. Should go into effect in October. >The law was written by former Assemblyman Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto. >Simitian is now a state senator representing District 11, which >includes San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Dems, making more laws for YOU! >Simitian said the law was proposed by two women in his district who >submitted ideas in his annual "It Ought to be a Law" contest. His >Assembly district includes all or part of 13 cities in San Mateo and >Santa Clara counties. Dems, can't do their own job, so they get YOU to do it. >Simitian held the contest for three years, usually picking a few >entries to become proposed legislation. Six bills from those contests >have become laws. > >"It's everyday people coming up with everyday solutions," Simitian >said. So just WTF did Simitian do to earn our taxes? Besides run for another office? I demand a refund, and spend his salary on something we REALLY need, like some Botts Dots on 280 or 101 where any sliver of lane dividing disappears in the rain.  Signature"If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot 'em?" > California drivers soon will have to flip on their headlights when the > weather is wet enough that their wiper blades are in constant motion. I don't have any wiper blades on my motorcycle, there is no way to turn off the headlights, and I often ride in the rain. Hope they made exceptions for us. > > California drivers soon will have to flip on their headlights when the > > weather is wet enough that their wiper blades are in constant motion. > > I don't have any wiper blades on my motorcycle, there is no way to turn off > the headlights, and I often ride in the rain. Hope they made exceptions > for us. There is no need to. The law requires: IF WIPERS ON ---> LIGHTS ON. Since you have no wipers, it simply doesn't apply to you. And if you did, you would be in complete compliance, just like cars with DRLs. The only situation that will become illegal is WIPERS ON & LIGHTS OFF. > There is no need to. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The only situation that will become illegal is WIPERS ON & LIGHTS OFF. Yes, I agree. >The law requires: IF WIPERS ON ---> LIGHTS ON. I wonder if the front running lights on newer cars would be considered in compliance with this. Scott Peterson -- Duct tape is like The Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together... 382/601 >>The law requires: IF WIPERS ON ---> LIGHTS ON. > >I wonder if the front running lights on newer cars would be considered >in compliance with this. Yes, they most certainly are. The bill states the following: " A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture." That to me implies, headlights are not required if the inclement weather only requires "intermittent" wiper operation, a wiper mode most newer vehicles have. See AB1854. We've only gotten along without such a stupid law for over 100 years. "Simitian said the law was proposed by two women." This just goes to show how p*ssified California males have become to roll over and play dead with this nonsense. This bill was authored by the same guy that wrote the law which did not pass AB45 requiring hands-free cell phone use in cars, even though EVERY study has shown that there is no difference in vehicle control whether the person is using the phone hands-free or not. The only thing that works is getting people OFF THE PHONE. It's the distraction of the phone, you dunce! The Democrats either can't or choose not to read scientific studies. Michael > The bill states the following: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Michael It is a know fact that California has been ahead of the rest of the country in bringing new laws and regulations on to the books both good and bad. In this particular case California is behind the rest of the country. Maryland has had a wiper on headlights on law for more the 2 years, along with a number of other states. SignatureJohn in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore. It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean an actual scientific study with a control group, with scientists or engineers proving that the results are statistically significant. This is just another example of where people assume something is good, because it "sounds good". That's not science. That's assumption. Example: center high mounted stop lamps. It had a positive effect for a few years, and now we are right back to where we started without them, because people compensated. NHTSA is the first to admit it. So no, we were not behind, unless you consider making laws because something sounds good being behind. Michael Adams > > Michael > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore. >It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any >positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean an >actual scientific study with a control group, with scientists or engineers >proving that the results are statistically significant. It doesn't take a study or any rocket scientist to say that the headlights-on-in-rain law is good. If people would only use common sense and turn their lights on in the rain so they can be seen....not so they can illuminate their own way in daylight.....maybe fewer collisions might occur. All too many neutral color cars on the road that just blend into the gray conditions of a rainstorm....turn the lights on, you see 'em. No lights, they blend in. That is completely your opinion, and is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. They said the exact same thing about the high mounted center brake lights. They also said the same thing about hands-free cell phone use in cars. Guess what? They didn't work. People are not machines, and they compensate, sometimes for the worse - but, of course, you don't want to hear that. It is this type of BULL HEADED NON-SCIENTIFIC thinking that results in silly laws like the ones we have. We need more people in this country taking science and statistics classes, so we can stamp out this type of ignorant thinking. Michael Adams > >It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any > >positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > gray conditions of a rainstorm....turn the lights on, you see 'em. No > lights, they blend in. > That is completely your opinion, and is not backed up by any evidence > whatsoever. They said the exact same thing about the high mounted center [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Michael Adams Mike, just TURN YOUR DAMN LIGHTS ON so people can see you! Judging from your posting, you need all the brightness you can muster, so turn them on! As Steve posted, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, with lights on, people can see you better than without them. Florida has had such a law for the past 40 years, so get over it! > > >It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any > > >positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > gray conditions of a rainstorm....turn the lights on, you see 'em. No > > lights, they blend in. >Mike, just TURN YOUR DAMN LIGHTS ON so people can see you! Judging from >your posting, you need all the brightness you can muster, so turn them >on! As Steve posted, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out >that, with lights on, people can see you better than without them. > >Florida has had such a law for the past 40 years, so get over it! Florida? ewwww. Most things in Florida are over twice that age. Glad it's on the other side of the country. Signature"If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot 'em?" Excuse me? What is your scientific background? Folks, this is the sort of ignorance that results in laws like this. You give people so many examples, and yet they keep coming back with "it doesn't take a rocket scientist". The results come back exactly the opposite of what they predicted, and yet when another issue comes up, they ignore their previous failings, and return with the same ignorant response, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist". Everything is DUMBED DOWN to rote responses. Let me put it to you this way. Would you honestly forego your entire income for the next ten years on a bet that turning on headlights during the rain will reduce accidents, over a statistically significant amount of time, with a statistically significant result? Think about it before answering. I don't think even you would be that stupid. So if you aren't willing to bet your income, then even you think there IS SOME PROBABILITY that the result may not be positive. You just answered your own question. This is why we do studies on human behavior, and human factors. Other than a few people who think they are "experts" on the subject here on this forum, there is a lot we don't know without studies. Therefore, it is prudent to do those studies, BEFORE making law. I can't wait for you Mr. "Get Over It" to get your first ticket for forgetting to turn on your windshield wipers, because it is raining, AND the sun it out at the same time. At the rate this state is relying on ticket money, by 2010, that ought to be about a $400 ticket, and a day in traffic school. Michael Adams > > That is completely your opinion, and is not backed up by any evidence > > whatsoever. They said the exact same thing about the high mounted center [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > gray conditions of a rainstorm....turn the lights on, you see 'em. No > > > lights, they blend in. > Excuse me? What is your scientific background? 1. 40 years as an aerospace engineer (yes, a real-live "rocket scientist"!), including satellite detection of missile launches against background clutter. Short answer: The brighter the object, the easier it is to detect and assess threat. 2. 45 years of flying airplanes, so I SHOULD know what shows up and what doesn't. 3. Studied human factors in college. Now, Michael, what is YOUR scientific background, now that I have revealed mine? > Folks, this is the sort of ignorance that results in laws like this. You > give people so many examples, and yet they keep coming back with "it doesn't > take a rocket scientist". The results come back exactly the opposite of > what they predicted, and yet when another issue comes up, they ignore their > previous failings, and return with the same ignorant response, "it doesn't > take a rocket scientist". Everything is DUMBED DOWN to rote responses. It is ignorance like Michael shows that complains about seatbelt usage, too. > Let me put it to you this way. Would you honestly forego your entire income > for the next ten years on a bet that turning on headlights during the rain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your income, then even you think there IS SOME PROBABILITY that the result > may not be positive. You just answered your own question. I turned mine on in the rain, even when I lived in California. It is part of "see and be seen," just good, common sense. Are you willing to bet your life on your reduced visibility to other drivers due to leaving your lights off in the rain? Just what does it cost you to turn the damn things on in the rain? > This is why we do studies on human behavior, and human factors. Other than > a few people who think they are "experts" on the subject here on this forum, > there is a lot we don't know without studies. Therefore, it is prudent to > do those studies, BEFORE making law. It doesn't take much study to see that it is a good idea. > I can't wait for you Mr. "Get Over It" to get your first ticket for > forgetting to turn on your windshield wipers, because it is raining, AND the > sun it out at the same time. At the rate this state is relying on ticket > money, by 2010, that ought to be about a $400 ticket, and a day in traffic > school. I turn mine on in the rain -- law or no law -- it is just good sense. >Mike, just TURN YOUR DAMN LIGHTS ON so people can see you! Judging from >your posting, you need all the brightness you can muster, so turn them >on! As Steve posted, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out >that, with lights on, people can see you better than without them. Actually, it is well documented that the military has used lights in the daylight as a primitive stealth mechanism on airplanes as far back as WWII. Turn the lights on so you _won't_ be seen seems counterintuitive, but it is a fact. So a rocket scientist may not, indeed, agree with you. >Florida has had such a law for the past 40 years, so get over it! Florida had laws banning interracial marriage for over 100 years, and it was a bad law, too. scott > >Mike, just TURN YOUR DAMN LIGHTS ON so people can see you! Judging from > >your posting, you need all the brightness you can muster, so turn them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So a rocket scientist may not, indeed, agree with you. Those experiments were with the sun behind the aircraft. We don't have much sun when it is raining. Don't draw conclusions until you have read the damn report! BTW, the Awards Committee is taking applications for future Darwin Awards from those who leave their headlights off when it is raining. Any volunteers out there? > >Florida has had such a law for the past 40 years, so get over it! > > Florida had laws banning interracial marriage for over 100 years, > and it was a bad law, too. > misc.transport.urban-transit But some of FL's laws are good ones! CA has some pretty bad ones, too, but headlights in the rain isn't among them. > BTW, the Awards Committee is taking applications for future Darwin > Awards from those who leave their headlights off when it is raining. Any > volunteers out there? I think the "excellence" rule <http://darwinawards.com/rules/rules2.html> would disqualify anything as mundane as driving without headlights in the rain during the day. Although driving without headlights in the rain during the day while using a laptop computer to discuss California's new wipers-on-headlights-on law on USENET, that might qualify... SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate." > http://darwinawards.com/rules/rules2.html The excellence clause: "The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. We are not talking about common stupidities such as falling asleep with a lit cigarette, or taking a bath with a radio. The fatal act must be of such idiotic magnitude that we shake our heads and thank our lucky stars that our descendants won't have to deal with, or heaven forbid, breed with descendants of the fool that set that hare-brained scheme in motion. The Darwin Awards contender is seldom a copycat. The death under consideration must reflect a unique manifestation of the grave lack of sense and misapplication of judgment indicative of a genuine cleansing of the gene pool. Using bullets as fuses, chewing blasting caps, re-enacting the William Tell stunt, or bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin Award activities. Oscar Wilde said, "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortuneŠ to lose both seems like carelessness." If you fry yourself along your parents while rewiring their outdoor hot tub during a rain storm, you may be eligible for a Darwin Award. Not a Darwin: College kids who drink themselves to death. " But can't we apply the "excellence" clause if the recipient *insists* that driving in the rain with headlights on is a bad idea? I grant that I am presenting a weak argument here for potential a Darwin award. > > http://darwinawards.com/rules/rules2.html > > The excellence clause: > "The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. snip > But can't we apply the "excellence" clause if the recipient *insists* > that driving in the rain with headlights on is a bad idea? These fools remind me of the fools of yesteryear who insisted that seat-belt laws would cause more deaths because the seat-belts would prevent you from being thrown clear of the accident. Scott, just ignore this troll. > > >Mike, just TURN YOUR DAMN LIGHTS ON so people can see you! Judging from > > >your posting, you need all the brightness you can muster, so turn them [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > But some of FL's laws are good ones! CA has some pretty bad ones, too, > but headlights in the rain isn't among them. >It doesn't take a study or any rocket scientist to say that the >headlights-on-in-rain law is good. >If people would only use common sense and turn their lights on in the >rain so they can be seen....not so they can illuminate their own way >in daylight.....maybe fewer collisions might occur. >All too many neutral color cars on the road that just blend into the >gray conditions of a rainstorm....turn the lights on, you see 'em. No >lights, they blend in. "Maybe" isn't good enough. You are supporting using the state's police power to enforce something because "maybe" it would help. The liberty of the people demands a higher standard. Now that many people have vehicles with daytime running lights, others have taken to turning on their ordinary headlights. It's like a bunch of lemmings plunging into the sea. Then when nearly everyone has lights on, others decide that ordinary headlights aren't enough and choose to use high beams day and night. Not only is that discourteous, it is also illegal when anywhere near another vehicle, coming or going. I am not aware of any exception in the law for high beams operated at less than full intensity; it's the aim which is prohibited. There could be some justification for using daytime lights on a lonely country road with little traffic. But using them on an LA freeway is no help to anyone. Is anyone in any doubt that there are lots of other cars on the freeway? If you can't see them without their lights, your eyesignt isn't good enough to be driving. All using lights on the freeway does is to blind the cars in front of you, forcing many to angle their mirrors to cut the glare. That certainly doesn't help you to be seen. SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke >others decide that ordinary headlights aren't enough and choose to use >high beams day and night. Not only is that discourteous, it is also >illegal when anywhere near another vehicle, coming or going. I am not >aware of any exception in the law for high beams operated at less than >full intensity; it's the aim which is prohibited. Most of the high beam drivers in the day time are driving GM and other vehicles that use high beams as daytime running lamps. GM successfully lobbied the governments of Canada and the US to allow high beams as daytime running lamps. Cheaper for GM, a glare annoyance for those who have to drive facing them in low light conditions. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >>others decide that ordinary headlights aren't enough and choose to use >>high beams day and night. Not only is that discourteous, it is also [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > daytime running lamps. Cheaper for GM, a glare annoyance for those who > have to drive facing them in low light conditions. The other brands offering daytime running lights (ALL high-beams) are VW, Volvo and Toyota. These are all high beams and will draw other drivers' eyes to them either direct or in rear view mirrors; dangerous and extremely annoying especially from high CG vehicles, ie. SUVs and pickups. On a new Camry, I insisted that the daytime running lights be disabled. Most, if not all models that have daytime running lights have some way to disable them (usually a jumper addition or removal on some circuit board) since it is still illegal to drive with high beams in some places. The manufacturers and dealers will not admit to this ability unless pressed. -jl John --Hans Blix and David Kay wouldn't know a weapon of mass destruction even if they stumbled over one. >> Most of the high beam drivers in the day time are driving GM and other >> vehicles that use high beams as daytime running lamps. GM successfully [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The other brands offering daytime running lights (ALL high-beams) are >VW, Volvo and Toyota. Most or all VWs sold in the US with DRLs use low beams. Older Volvos with DRLs in the US use low beams, but newer ones use high beams. Toyotas, Lexus, and BMWs with DRLs in the US use high beams. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >Most of the high beam drivers in the day time are driving GM and other >vehicles that use high beams as daytime running lamps. GM successfully >lobbied the governments of Canada and the US to allow high beams as >daytime running lamps. Cheaper for GM, a glare annoyance for those who >have to drive facing them in low light conditions. Traffic laws in the US are state laws, not federal. I find nothing in the California vehicle code which permits mis-aimed lights, period. Somebody, please give me a citation which overrides the actual law. Obviously, the law is not being enforced. Why not? SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke > It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any > positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean an > actual scientific study with a control group, with scientists or engineers > proving that the results are statistically significant. The next time you are driving in the rain try to pay attention to your surroundings. Unless your ignorance has made you completely blind you will actually notice that you can SEE cars with their headlights on both easier and sooner than cars with headlights off. Depending on the color of the car, the distance at which you will see the car without headlights will vary. In heavy rain on the freeway, with lots of spray, it is possible for cars without headlights to be invisible while only a few car lengths away. Earl G My word, what on earth did we do before this law? This is why many people aren't good drivers, and we need better driver training and testing. The conditions turn from bad to worse, and they keep going, usually at the same brain dead speed limit, regardless of conditions. The fog comes in, they keep going. The rain turns to a downpour. They can't see to the front or behind. They keep going. Even when it is prudent to wait out the storm, no, they just keep going. Michael Adams > > It doesn't mean it is good. Where's the data to show the law has any > > positive effect, and I don't mean some liberal car hating study? I mean [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Earl G >My word, what on earth did we do before this law? Those of us with common sense turned on our headlights in the rain, regardless of whether it was day or night. > "Michael Adams" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote : > > >My word, what on earth did we do before this law? > > Those of us with common sense turned on our headlights in the rain, > regardless of whether it was day or night. Now if they'd just do something about making freeway lane markings visible during rainstorms... SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================ "People are too stupid to realize they are." --JoHn DoH KeLm >> "Michael Adams" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Now if they'd just do something about making freeway lane markings >visible during rainstorms... Oh, do I ever agree with you there. Sure the Botts dots are nice...but many are missing and they cannot be seen in a heavy rain. Of course, Caltrans can't figure out what the hell they want to do. When I'5 was widened through Orange County in the mid-1990's, they put ONLY the Botts dots down. Many disappeared. Around 1997, they came along and sprayed white paint lines on top, making things better. But then, in 2000, then actually REMOVED the white paint lines and replaced all the broken/missing Botts dots. And guess what? In 2002, they came and resprayed the white paint lines again!!!!! > >> "Michael Adams" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote : > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And guess what? In 2002, they came and resprayed the white paint > lines again!!!!! That's sick. Smacks of lots more money than brains. In the rain the interrupted white lines are invisible, although the solid white line on the right edge of the road is conditionally acceptable. Groups of reflectorized raised thingies, possibly in colors, would be better than the dots. I'm truly surprised that a really good lane-marking method hasn't been invented yet -- even if we only get a few rainy days here, that's not true in most of the country. SignatureCheers, Bev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Calling someone an a.shole for being rude to a telemarketer is like accusing someone who's shot a burglar in his home of being a poor host." -- W.S.Rowell >In heavy rain on the freeway, with lots of spray, it is possible for >cars without headlights to be invisible while only a few car lengths away. On a FREEWAY, the only cars which matter are going the same direction as I am (excepting the very rare looney). So their headlights are shining in my rear view mirror, making it LESS likely that I can see the cars which really are in front of me. There's not much I can do about cars behind me so seeing them isn't very important most of the time, except when I want to change lanes. In heavy rain, my own headlights don't add much to my ability to see cars in front of me. Whatever the merits of using headlights in rain on "surface" streets, it is not clear to me that the argument is nearly so strong on a freeway. SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke > >In heavy rain on the freeway, with lots of spray, it is possible for > >cars without headlights to be invisible while only a few car lengths away. > > Whatever the merits of using headlights in rain on "surface" streets, it > is not clear to me that the argument is nearly so strong on a freeway. Headlights on also means tail lights on. Granted they are not as bright as headlights but do make it a bit easier to see the car in front. They also make it a bit easier to see a car in the side mirror with a quick glance. > > >In heavy rain on the freeway, with lots of spray, it is possible for > > >cars without headlights to be invisible while only a few car lengths [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > headlights but do make it a bit easier to see the car in front. They also > make it a bit easier to see a car in the side mirror with a quick glance. But -- tail lights are far brighter than those who insist on driving dark in the rain! ;>) "Earl Grieda" <eBAYgrieda@BooHooyahoo.com> wrote: >Headlights on also means tail lights on. Granted they are not as bright as >headlights but do make it a bit easier to see the car in front. They also >make it a bit easier to see a car in the side mirror with a quick glance. >But -- tail lights are far brighter than those who insist on driving >dark in the rain! ;>) These comments followed someone who asserted that lights made a car more visible on a freeway; that without lights, the car might be invisible. I responded that the cars I want to see on a freeway are those in front of me, and their headlights don't help in that respect at all. Orval seems fixated on the idea that someone wants to drive dark. Nothing of the sort was said by anyone in this thread, certainly not by me. But a red herring may be his only response to the irrefutable observation that headlights don't make you more visible to those who need to see you - when driving on a freeway. However, they can make others less able to see the cars in front of them by blinding them through their mirrors, especially if high beams or unusually bright lights are used. So not all lights are equally useful. Orval, do you use high beams day and night? Earl makes a more valid point. But tail lights come on with parking lights as well as head lights. Driving with parking lights is not legal in the US but is common in some other countries. Maybe it would be useful to add a switch to turn on ONLY tail lights. Some big trucks do that. While tail lights undeniably have benefits on a freeway, that benefit is probably cancelled by using high beams or extra bright headlights to get them turned on. I don't write to argue against using headlights at appropriate times, such as heavy rain. My complaint is the idea that lights are ALWAYS a benefit, so more of them must an even bigger benefit. That just isn't true. Motorcycle accidents are up now that they aren't the only vehicles on the road with daytime lights. Using the law to enforce sensible light use should be a two-way street: not only require lights when needed but also really enforce the alleged prohibition on deliberately blinding other drivers. SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke > "Earl Grieda" <eBAYgrieda@BooHooyahoo.com> wrote: > >Headlights on also means tail lights on. Granted they are not as bright as [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > if high beams or unusually bright lights are used. So not all lights are > equally useful. Orval, do you use high beams day and night? No. I regard highs in daytime the same as I regard them at night --- for seeing further down he road. I feel the same about others using them during the day -- perhaps substituting artificial brightness for a lack of their own. Don't tell me that low beams during the day blind you any more than they blind you at night. Talk about red herrings! > Earl makes a more valid point. But tail lights come on with parking lights > as well as head lights. Driving with parking lights is not legal in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > also really enforce the alleged prohibition on deliberately blinding > other drivers. There are still laws regarding the use of high beams within a certain distance of a vehicle ahead. >Don't tell me that low beams during the day blind you any more than they >blind you at night. >Talk about red herrings! My issue isn't with low beam lights, it's with high beams. Unfortunately, many of the daytime running light schemes use high beams. Notwithstanding their allegedly lesser intensity, their focus does still seem to cause problems for me and other drivers. The new law is encouragement to use lights all the time, even if that's not what it says. And the increasing prevalence of DRLs mean that other drivers are starting to also use high beams, day and night. Those high beams have normal intensity. It's getting hard to see anything else besides such vehicles, even any details of what those vehicles are doing. Yeah, I know there's a car there, but I can't look at it so I don't know what it's doing. How does that help anybody's safety? SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people." -- Grover Cleveland -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke > >Don't tell me that low beams during the day blind you any more than they > >blind you at night. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are doing. Yeah, I know there's a car there, but I can't look at it > so I don't know what it's doing. How does that help anybody's safety? I agree with you regarding DRL. I just purchased a new car and one requirement was that it did not have DRL. I was not aware that DRL were set to high-beam. On the surface that appears stupid. At least until someone provides a good technical reason as to why DRL high-beams are better than DRL low-beams. However, to be honest, I cannot think of a time that I was bothered by another car with DRL. In regard to using regular low-beam headlights when it rains I have no issue. As Orval says, if low beams do not bother you at night then they should not bother you during the day. Do DRLs go off when headlights (low-beam) are turned on. If so then there should not be any issue about being blinded by high beams if drivers have to turn their headlights on when it is raining. Unless they are dense and do not realize that their high-beams are on. Although every once in a while I do get in front of some fool who has his/her high-beams on, it is rare. What I find to be much more common is the home mechanic who cannot replace a headlight without getting it out of alignment. I seem to always have someone behind me who has one out of alignment headlight that shines directly into the rear view mirror. That should be a "one strike you're out" law for that offense. >I agree with you regarding DRL. I just purchased a new car and one >requirement was that it did not have DRL. I was not aware that DRL were set >to high-beam. On the surface that appears stupid. At least until someone >provides a good technical reason as to why DRL high-beams are better than >DRL low-beams. There isn't. Car companies (GM, Toyota, and BMW) use high beam DRLs because it costs them less (fewer complaints about headlamp bulbs burning out, since fewer people use the high beams on a regular basis). Some cars with DRLs use low beams (ok), turn signals (poor because of false signaling), or separate white lamps (ok). Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >>I was not aware that DRL were set >>to high-beam. On the surface that appears stupid. At least until someone >>provides a good technical reason as to why DRL high-beams are better than >>DRL low-beams. >There isn't. Car companies (GM, Toyota, and BMW) use high beam DRLs >because it costs them less... There is an excellent reason for using high beams in DRLs. DRLs are used so they can be seen. If you want a light source to be seen, you aim it at the obesrver. This is why traffic lights are aimed at the motorist and not towards the ground. And furthermore, if you want a light source to be seen in the daylight, you need to make it brigher than at night. If motorists are being blinded by DRLs, the problem is the intensity setting, not the beam alignment. Normal low-beam headlights are a very inefficient implementation of DRLs, costly both in light bulb life and in power consumption. Most of the light goes to light the road. This is fine at night when you do want to light the road, but a complete waste in broad daylight. As for the "car companies...use high beam DRLs because it costs them less" remark, note that it also costs the buyer less. Little savings in many places is how you get low-cost automobiles for the consumer. If automakers took all the advice that is freqently offered in these newsgroups, we would be paying at least double each time we bought a car. SignatureRahul >>>I was not aware that DRL were set >>>to high-beam. On the surface that appears stupid. At least until someone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >If motorists are being blinded by DRLs, the problem is the intensity >setting, not the beam alignment. High beam DRLs in the US are typically at 50% intensity (by wiring them in series, the cheapest way to use high beams as DRLs), which produces about four to eight times the amount of light needed to be effective as DRLs. I.e. it increases the glare problem without making them any more effective as DRLs. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. A series circuit with headlights???? In ba.transportation Dave Close <dave@compata.com> wrote: ... > Earl makes a more valid point. But tail lights come on with parking lights > as well as head lights. Driving with parking lights is not legal in the > US but is common in some other countries. I've often wondered what is the rationale for making it illegal to drive with parking lights. On 1/13/2005 4:28 PM Merlin Dorfman spake thus: > In ba.transportation Dave Close <dave@compata.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've often wondered what is the rationale for making it illegal > to drive with parking lights. I would guess it's because they're insufficiently bright to be seen under many circumnstances, and therefore give drivers a false sense of visibility. I've often wondered why there's so much resistance on the part of drivers to do a reasonable, simple thing that costs nothing: turn on their damn headlights when common sense would dictate (raining, overcast, dusk or dawn). SignatureToday's bullshit job description: • Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management of the production Information Technology infrastructure. - from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org) >> ... Driving with parking lights is not legal in the >> US but is common in some other countries. > I've often wondered what is the rationale for making it illegal > to drive with parking lights. The rationale comes from the name, /parking/ lights. If you see a vehicle with parking lights on, you are supposed to be able to assume that that vehicle is parked - /not/ moving. Conversely, if you see a vehicle with headlights on, you should presume it is moving, not parked. Automatic daytime "running" lights do not light your taillights. So, if you rely on DRLs to comply with a law about using headlights with wipers, you won't improve your visibility to those behind you at all, while you may, depending on the aim of your lights, distract or blind others in front of you. SignatureDave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people." -- Grover Cleveland -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke >The rationale comes from the name, /parking/ lights. If you see a vehicle >with parking lights on, you are supposed to be able to assume that that >vehicle is parked - /not/ moving. Conversely, if you see a vehicle with >headlights on, you should presume it is moving, not parked. Except that hardly anyone uses them for parking any more. These days, a car with just the parking lamps on is probably one where the driver didn't turn/pull the headlamp switch on all the way (and is in a brightly lit area where it is less obvious that the headlamps are still off), or burned out both headlamps. >Automatic daytime "running" lights do not light your taillights. Some do; most don't. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. A friend of mine came back from France, and he said everyone drives with their parking lamps on at dusk. It is a matter of courtesy, and if you drive with your headlamps on, he said people will flash you. I wish we had this same sort of car culture here. Unfortunately, it appears that ours is "bigger and brighter is better", or "glare be damned"...one or the other, I can't remember. :-) Michael Adams > In ba.transportation Dave Close <dave@compata.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've often wondered what is the rationale for making it illegal > to drive with parking lights. > A friend of mine came back from France, and he said everyone drives with > their parking lamps on at dusk. It is a matter of courtesy, and if you > drive with your headlamps on, he said people will flash you. I wish we had > this same sort of car culture here. We do, if "flash" is a French word meaning "to indicate displeasure by means of an obscene gesture". > > A friend of mine came back from France, and he said everyone drives with > > their parking lamps on at dusk. It is a matter of courtesy, and if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We do, if "flash" is a French word meaning "to indicate displeasure by > means of an obscene gesture". I thought it meant opening one's raincoat to reveal one's private parts to the supposed horror of the onlooker. I guess you'd have to be a pedestrian to do that, though... SignatureCheers, Bev ================================================================= "There's an apocryphal (I hope not !) story about a Bristol bike thief found cold, wet and bedraggled one morning, D locked by the neck to a local bridge." -- Anon Driving with headlights on while it's raining is an obvious way to make your car more visible to others. Some of us seem to lack the common sense to make that decision, thus the law. You know what...the lawmakers may have inadvertently left a loophole for those who feel their "rights" have been violated. "The law states that drivers of all motor vehicles, except motorcycles, must turn on their headlights when they use their windshield wipers." Just drive with your windshield wipers off when it rains. > By Amy Oakes > UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > "The goal is not for everyone to get a ticket," he said. "The goal is > for everyone to drive safely." >> By Amy Oakes >> UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER >> January 3, 2005 >> As for enforcement, Ruano said, it will be at the officers' >discretion. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> "The goal is not for everyone to get a ticket," he said. "The goal is >> for everyone to drive safely." No, its just one more stupid &%$#*&% law that gives all the "Barney Fife" police in California out there another reason (probable cause ) for a traffic stop and search. Just like the seat-belt law which was modified just 2 years after voter approval for belt with primary violation to a "for non use of seat belt" only stops. Welcome to the New Police State- California Version 2.0 You can visit, but you can never leave. > No, its just one more stupid &%$#*&% law that gives all the "Barney > Fife" police in California out there another reason (probable cause ) > for a traffic stop and search. And this has NOTHING to do with broadcasting, so please don't post to a broadcasting newsgroup! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.