Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Re: Headlights plus windshield wiper law

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free CarKB.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: Headlights plus windshield wiper law

Earl Grieda12 Jan 2005 15:51
> >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.

Dave Close12 Jan 2005 07:19
>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.
Signature

      Dave 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 Grieda08 Jan 2005 07:30
> 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

Michael Adams07 Jan 2005 18:45
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.

John R Cambron07 Jan 2005 14:03
> 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.

Signature

John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore.


Michael Adams07 Jan 2005 02:41
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

Lobotomy Clinic04 Jan 2005 01:31
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."

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©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.