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.

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?

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!

There are still laws regarding the use of high beams within a certain
distance of a vehicle ahead.

"Earl Grieda" <eBAYgrieda@BooHooyahoo.com> wrote:

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.

But -- tail lights are far brighter than those who insist on driving
dark in the rain! ;>)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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."