Re: Headlights plus windshield wiper law
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
| Scott Lurndal | 10 Jan 2005 20:09 |
>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
|
| Orval Fairbairn | 08 Jan 2005 04:01 |
> 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. |
| Michael Adams | 08 Jan 2005 01:48 |
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. |
| Steve Hoskins | 07 Jan 2005 21:20 |
>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.
|
| Michael Adams | 07 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 Cambron | 07 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 Adams | 07 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 Clinic | 04 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:
|
|
|