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.

"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.

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.  

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."