Bill says hit those headlights

teacel · Feb 16, 2004

All vehicles would be required to use their headlights during bad weather under a bill introduced in California.

Existing California law requires all vehicles to be equipped with headlights and to use them in darkness, with the exception of motorcycles. AB1854, introduced by Assemblyman Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, would also require use during inclement weather, which the bill defines as “a weather condition rendering a driver's visibility from a motor vehicle insufficient to clearly discern a person or another motor vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet.”

[font color="red" size="4"]ALL STATS NEED TO PASS THIS BILL!!!!

geo · Feb 16, 2004

in va if you have to used windshield wipers head lights have to be on
also in new york and couple other states to

D Green · Feb 16, 2004

You mean, California legislators did a good deed??

Tony, I agree. Every state should have a similar law. A headLamps on during inclement weather bill was introduced into the Tx legislature last year, but failed to pass. Darned if I know why. Now, we'll have to wait until next year to try again. (Our state legislature only meets every other year. At least we feel our wallets are safe for one year, anyway :7 )

Dennis

RichM · Feb 17, 2004

Florida has that law,if your wipers are on,headlights must be on, and they enforce it big time.

guest · Feb 17, 2004

>Existing California law requires all vehicles to be equipped with >headlights and to use them in darkness, >>with the exception of >motorcycles.

What's up with that?... I hope the motorcycle exception means they are required to have a headlight at all times?

What amazes me most about this is that Arkansas passed that bill years ago. Wow, we were ahead of someone in "something"...lol

teacel · Feb 17, 2004

I do think you are right about the head lights being on all the time on the bikes.

While out on a short 100mile trip earlier I was thinking about this new bill. My thought was guided to the auto makers. They have the power to do a lot of things that some of those government officials WE put into office don’t use the brains god gave them to do.

Wouldn’t it be a simple task for the auto maker to have a wire connected to the wipers so when the vehicles wipers come on in the slow, fast, or delayed position the head lights come on in that vehicle automatically? What would be so hard about doing that MR. GM or FORD??? After all isn’t this all about safety?

Twmaster · Feb 18, 2004

Most new cars (every GM model also currently) already have 'daytime running lights' which is legal for the wipers on lights on laws. Even my 1997 Astro has DRL.

Also for those keeping score Maryland also has this law regarding headlights on in bad weather.

--
Mike N

teacel · Feb 18, 2004

If you take a look at the 03 and 04 they stopped with the day time running lights or added a shutoff switch

Twmaster · Feb 19, 2004

No they didn't Tony. The amber lights are now the DRL's. I checked.

--
Mike N

Weave · Feb 20, 2004

Headlights have been bound to the ignition of motorcycles by DOT regs in the USA since 1978, and are required for street cycles in all states and must be on at all times the bike is ridden on the street.
The DRL requirement for cars and trucks was scrapped by the DOT in 2002 as the conclusion was it was not doing anything to reduce accidents, and in some cases was causing accidents. My '01 Columbia has them, the '02's+ don't. My '02 Ranger pickup does not have DRL's.
It would be very easy for the auto makers to bound the headlights to the wiper circuit, but that has not become an issue in enough states at this point for the DOT to require it.

-Weave-

Twmaster · Feb 22, 2004

Well ain't that sumthin

The DOT giveth and the DOT taketh away!

Even if the next new van I buy does not have DRL I will still be driving with my lights on.

--
Mike N

OntarioVanMan · Feb 22, 2004

DRL's are law in Ontario...have been for years. Insurance Stats claim they do some good. Inclement weather or not. Lights are wired to the ignition switch but run on lower amps. No one I know has had premature battery life that I know of.

GroundHawk · Feb 22, 2004

I'm not so sure that it should be a law. Its just like the seat belt law,yes thay are needed but do I need someone forcing me to wear them and than when I get stopped for anything other than the seat belt if I don't have it on I get the big bonus----I can see the police now just waiting for a bad day weather day,especially us that live in those bad weather areas. Just a thought.

guest · Feb 22, 2004

My comment on that would be that the lack of a seat belt only dangers the person who isn't wearing it. I strongly oppose the seat belt law myself. The DRL's make you more visible to other drivers, which in turn may prevent someone from pulling out in front of you or countless other accidents in which case could injure occupants of both vehicles. I support the DRL laws because, although it isn't your fault someone pulls in front of you, if you have DRL, the accident could possibly be avoided.

I am not so strong on forcing you to have your lights on if your vehicle doesn't have automatic DRL, simply because, as you stated, the police could have a ticket parade with drivers who simply forget to turn their lights on. It also seems to me that what constitutes limited visibility would be a very shady area to get into.

Arky

GroundHawk · Feb 22, 2004

Arky,you are right and with head lights on is a very good thing,and they should come on in bad conditions but like I said to be force is another issue. One thing for sure I don't know if they make a kit to convert cars with headlight that don't come on when the cars is running but I would love to own a company that install them in states that makes this a law.

RichM · Feb 22, 2004

About a year ago I was stopped in my car for going slightly too fast in a school zone. Received a warning for that and a $55 ticket for not wearing a seat belt. I was just keeping up with traffic through the school zone but I was pulled over for no seat belt . Where I live they cannot stop you for not wearing a seat belt but they can stop and warn you for another violation and ticket you for the lack of a seat belt.POED big time for sure.

GroundHawk · Feb 22, 2004

Thats what I'm talking about,I had a head light out,loud exhaust,quess what? The only ticket I got was the seat belt,bigger fine.Oh well what can we do----Another thought---we got hours of service---tell me something how many hours can a doctor work in ER??? HUUUMMMM. You ask"What type of man am I" I'm not a man,I'm HAWK

highway star · Feb 23, 2004

I'm in Canada a lot and something I've noticed with DRLs is people forgetting to turn on the lights. No tail lights can be very dangerous in limited visabilty situations.

ACE · Feb 23, 2004

It may be safer running with lights on , but every law that is passed takes away a little more of our freedom and puts it in the hands of a person who can make a judgement call on the way you act,look, speak and etc. We need to make these decisions ourselves if you want to run with your lights on then do it. We can not take all the dangers out of the world by passing laws.