Watch out for NJ's wipers on / headlights on law

[Rich Dean]

This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of
headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were
required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I
forget exactly which one) and also anytime between one half hour past
sundown to one half hour before sunrise.

In the last week one of our local police officers decided to issue
summonses to drivers who failed to obey this new law. From what I
understand it's not a moving violation so no point would be assessed and
since it's not a major violation the only time a court appearance would
be needed is if the person plead guilty which is their right to do so.
So he didn't check the little box "court appearance required."

Well a few days after sending the paperwork to the muncipal court, he was
advised that by order of New Jersey's Administrative Office Of The
Courts, all summonses for not turning on headlights while driving with
wipers on are "court appearance mandatory." This means that the driver
has to go before the judge even if the driver is from hundreds of miles
away, and our court is only two nights a month. Failure to appear means
that the municipal court judge will issue an arrest warrant, then the
driver's hometown police will come knocking on the door or if stopped for
any traffic violation might be arrested on the spot.

Hearing this, I called my district state senator's office. He had
sponsored the bill making this law in New Jersey. I don't believe that
the legislation included a provision for mandatory court appearances just
for not turning your headlights on in the daylight rain. I am told that
running a redlight or careless driving isn't a mandatory court
appearance.

Not only does the mandatory appearance inconvenience the people
summonsed, but the taxpayers also lose as the police officer usually gets
overtime for court (in our area a 3 hour minimum at $35 an hour), all for
a $65 ticket.

So when driving in the rain in New Jersey, better make sure to turn on
your headlights -- and remember to turn them off when you park, unless
they automatically do so.

[draco]

Rich Dean (rich...@intercall.com) wrote:
: This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of

[Andrew Gideon]

In article 7...@news1.intercall.com, Rich Dean <rich...@intercall.com> writes:
>This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of
>headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
>neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were
>required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I
>forget exactly which one) and also anytime between one half hour past
>sundown to one half hour before sunrise.
>

You don't remember the distance, and lots of people (including
myself) would find judging that condition to be difficult even
if we did know the distance. Therefore, I think the new rule
a perfectly reasonable law.

The only sad part is that a law is required to make people do
the reasonable. But that is a completely different topic.

[...]

I cannot speak to the rest of your posting. It may be that
there is some confusion regarding the enforcement of this
law. Hopefully, it will be resolved quickly.

>So when driving in the rain in New Jersey, better make sure to turn on
>your headlights -- and remember to turn them off when you park, unless
>they automatically do so.

I certainly agree with this!

Drive safely, all...

Andrew

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4s9nrt$a...@gnews2.voicenet.com>, 'draco'
<simo...@voicenet.com> wrote
>Rich Dean (rich...@intercall.com) wrote:
>: This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of

>: headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
>: neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were
>: required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I
>
>

<snip>

We know what he wrote, because we read it ourselves. Did you intend to
make a comment on it?
>

--
Stephen Dolphin

[Rich Dean]

Rich Dean <rich...@intercall.com> wrote:
>This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of
>headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
>neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were

>required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I forget exactly which one) and also anytime between one half hour past
>sundown to one half hour before sunrise.
>

Today I entered NJ via an interstate highway. Now the welcome signs also
admonish drivers to obey our "wipers on, headlights on" law. Last year
these locationss announced that the Garden State hosted world cup soccer,
in the early 90's that NJ was first to ratify the Bill of Rights, and
before that how NJ was the third state to ratify the US Constitution.

Would somebody please tell what is such a big deal over headlights on in
the daytime when it's raining to warrant all this fuss? We NJ taxpayers
are not paying for this much publicity on Megan's Law which should be
announced at our borders, or the law dictating an extra jail term when a
gun is used in a crime, etc.

Or perhaps it would really be fair to the motorists entering NJ to let
them know that if they are responsible for a hazardous material (hazmat)
spill of anything more than several fluid ounces that they will be hit
with a clean up bill that could be a minium several hundred dollars?
Usually these incidents are from motor vehicle accidents and usually the
insurance carrier will pay for it, but not always.

[Kevin M. Agard]

Rich Dean wrote:

> Today I entered NJ via an interstate highway. Now the welcome signs also
> admonish drivers to obey our "wipers on, headlights on" law. Last year
> these locationss announced that the Garden State hosted world cup soccer,
> in the early 90's that NJ was first to ratify the Bill of Rights, and
> before that how NJ was the third state to ratify the US Constitution.
>
> Would somebody please tell what is such a big deal over headlights on in
> the daytime when it's raining to warrant all this fuss? We NJ taxpayers

If they are going to enforce such a law, they really do have an obligation to
post. The same was true when the seatbelt laws went into effect. Posting the
signs saves far more than it would cost in challenges in court if they didn't.

Besides, the purpose is motorist safety. The signs may get them to turn on
their lights, which is the real goal.

--
Keep safe!

=====================================================================
Kevin M. Agard, BS, EMT-P Carlstadt, NJ
=====================================================================
Director | Chair
Emergency Medical Training Associates | National Paramedic Society
mailto:aga...@cybernex.net | Sysadmin - NAEMT On-line
http://cybernex.net/~agardk/ | 1-201-896-1500 www.naemt.org
=====================================================================

[Thomas G. Spalthoff]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> wrote:
>Just sounds like another excuse to pull over cars for spot checks! and
>also another revinue getter!

Yup - I ken never figgur why dem polece gots ta tell me what I kin and kin't
do. All dese laws fer no darn reson.

--Tom

>mailto:eins...@connettion.com
>http://connettion.com/~einstein

>
>On 15 Jul 1996, Rich Dean wrote:
>
>> Rich Dean <rich...@intercall.com> wrote:
>> >This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of
>> >headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
>> >neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were
>> >required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I
> forget exactly which one) and also anytime between one half hour past
>> >sundown to one half hour before sunrise.

Thomas G. Spalthoff "Moderation seems to be the key"
t...@planet.ho.att.com J. Buffett

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4sg90m$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, "Thomas G. Spalthoff"
<t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote

>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>,
>Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> wrote:
>>Just sounds like another excuse to pull over cars for spot checks! and
>>also another revinue getter!
>
>Yup - I ken never figgur why dem polece gots ta tell me what I kin and kin't
>do. All dese laws fer no darn reson.
>
>--Tom
>

You elected them. ;-)

>

--
Stephen Dolphin

[chr...@mars.superlink.net]

"Kevin M. Agard" <aga...@cybernex.net> wrote:

>If they are going to enforce such a law, they really do have an obligation to
>post. The same was true when the seatbelt laws went into effect. Posting the
>signs saves far more than it would cost in challenges in court if they didn't.

>Besides, the purpose is motorist safety. The signs may get them to turn on
>their lights, which is the real goal.

Ok, then where is the no rape sign?? they enforce that right?? Ok, bad
example, that's criminal....Hmm....Ok, Where is the no switching lanes
without a directional sign?? They enforce that and I never saw a sign?
Face it, the law is silly and so are the signs. No wonder it is so
expensive to drive in NJ..

Chris

[Thomas G. Spalthoff]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960717...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com>
<Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>
<4sg90m$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> <Vi9diiA94$6xE...@delphis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
>there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
>laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!

Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
every Canadian car you see has its lights on).

So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.

The reason for this?

It saves lives. The numbers say so.

What's the problem?

--Tom

[William Joel Hickey]

Jim Miller Jr. (jmil...@lsfcu.org) wrote:
: Thomas G. Spalthoff<t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:

: >Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

: >
: >Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
: >equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
: >started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
: >countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
: >every Canadian car you see has its lights on).
: >
: >So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
: >cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
: >regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
: >
: >The reason for this?
: >
: >It saves lives. The numbers say so.

: BS. The numbers from those countries show nothing more than a short term
: improvement. The long term effect is that people will not notice a car whose
: lights are on if all cars headlights are on. Take a look again at those
: countries who have done this long term. There safety rates have steadily
: reverted to what they were before implementing this. Now drivers just
: lose the option of putting their headlights on to make them more visible
: than the surrounding traffic.

: If you read the studies done to support the US adoption of this system, not
: one of them took into account whether there would still be a difference if
: ALL cars had their lights on.

: |Jim Miller, Jr. <jmil...@lsfcu.org> Systems Administrator|
: |Liberty Savings Federal Credit Union Jersey City, New Jersey USA|
: |Eagle Scout - '88 Vigil - '94 Meechgalhukquot-"Redheaded One"|
: |Advisor, Explorer Post 348 Hudson Liberty Council, BSA|
: |http://www.njaccess.com/jim/ ENTP.cabal and 70.cabal|

As a canadian who drives on the highhway a fair bit, I have to disagree with your
opinion on the effectiveness of headlights. They work. After about 5 years of
having the law in effect, I still find caars with headlights much more
noticable than cars with out lights. They really do make that big a difference,
especially in rain. And, if you looked at the statistics, aat least for where I
live (in Newfoundland), you would find that after an initial drop in accidents,
the rate of accidents has continued to fall. So, for something that doesn't work,
it works pretty well.

Joel Hickey
6th St John's Rovers
Ground Search and Rescue

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <4sio0s$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,

Thomas G. Spalthoff <t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:

}In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960717...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com>
} <Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>
} <4sg90m$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> <Vi9diiA94$6xE...@delphis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}>I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
}>there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
}>laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!
}

}Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

You mean the law requiring headlights when windshield wipers are used?
Ever heard of a sunshower? Or... bug hits your windshield, you use
the washer to get it off, and you get pulled over.

}Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
}equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
}started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
}countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
}every Canadian car you see has its lights on).

It's the law in Canada and a few Scandinavian countries, but there's
no such law in the US nor in many European countries.

--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

[Laura Sabel]

russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>You mean the law requiring headlights when windshield wipers are used?
>Ever heard of a sunshower? Or... bug hits your windshield, you use
>the washer to get it off, and you get pulled over.

Don't worry, it's not that bad. You don't have to turn your headlights
on if you're just cleaning your windshield; just if it's raining (or
snowing) hard enough to have the wipers on steadily.

New York has had this law for several years now. I was skeptical at first,
but now I'm a believer. When it's raining and overcast, it's much easier
to see other cars that have their headlights on, especially cars coming up
behind you -- most cars don't have wipers on the rear window, and it doesn't
take much rain on the window to reduce visibility.

I suppose enforcement might be stricter in New Jersey, but in New York
I doubt that anyone ever gets a ticket for forgetting to turn their lights
on when it's raining; I've never even gotten pulled over for it. I've had
a passing police car flash its lights at me, though.

-Laura
sa...@cs.cornell.edu

[Mark Weinstock]

In article <4sh7i6$9...@earth.superlink.net>,
chr...@mars.superlink.net spake thusly:

Those things aren't posted because they're the law everywhere. How owuld
you feel if you entered a state and didn't know that you couldn't make a
right on red, then got nailed for it? You'd be pissed, right? That's all
they're trying to do - let you know about a law that may not be in place
in other states.

As for why? I think someone else answered it pretty clearly. There's always
some shmuck who can't understand that lights aren't always so that YOU can
see better. *Sometimes* they're so OTHER can see YOU.

Why is there a law that says you have to turn your lights on at night? If
you use infra-red glasses, you can see fine, right? So why should you be
burdened with the expense of turning you lights on, and draining your
battery, or wasting your gas? It's called public safety. Believe me. I'm
no nut that says people need to be totally protected from themselves and
everything around them. But I'd at least like to see the jerk who's gonna
plow into before he actually hits me. Maybe *I'll* be able to avoid *him*.

--
Mark wo...@ritz.mordor.com mw...@andrew.cmu.edu
*********************************************************************
Random lie:
...then take a left. You can't miss it.
*********************************************************************

[Albert Einstein]

I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Stephen Dolphin wrote:

> In article <4sg90m$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, "Thomas G. Spalthoff"
> <t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote

> >In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>,
> >Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> wrote:
> >>Just sounds like another excuse to pull over cars for spot checks! and
> >>also another revinue getter!
> >
> >Yup - I ken never figgur why dem polece gots ta tell me what I kin and kin't
> >do. All dese laws fer no darn reson.
> >
> >--Tom
> >
> You elected them. ;-)
>
> >
>
> --
> Stephen Dolphin
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net
http://cuy.net/~einstein
http://cuy.net/~einstein/eintravel.html my travel bulletin board

[John P. Curcio]

In article <4sio0s$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, t...@planet.ho.att.com (Thomas G. Spalthoff) writes:

|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means it is
useless at best.

|> Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
|> equip their cars with Daytime Headlights.

Where in the hell did you hear this one? There are no such plans, according
to what I've heard. If you can give me proof of this, please do. Cite the
law, the bill, the reference, ANYTHING.

|> Volkswagon and Volvo have already
|> started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
|> countries for years.

Again, this is bullshit.

|> Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
|> every Canadian car you see has its lights on).

So, their elected leaders aren't too intelligent, either. And? Your point?

|> So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
|> cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
|> regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.

Bullshit.

|> The reason for this?
|>
|> It saves lives. The numbers say so.

What numbers? Show them to me. The numbers are half-baked at best.

|> What's the problem?

The problem is that idiots like you think that if we "dummy-down" the laws
and legislate common sense that it will make us all warm, fuzzy, and safe.
That just isn't the case. God put the sun in the sky so that we all could
see. Putting headlights on during the day is AT BEST useless, and more than
likely will have negative consequences. There is no miracle cure here.

-JPC

--
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio j...@philabs.philips.com Philips Labs Briarcliff Manor, NY
"The only thing the Democrats have to offer is fear itself"
"No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'" -BH

[John P. Curcio]

In article <tommy.8...@dnrc.bell-labs.com>, to...@dnrc.bell-labs.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
|> Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:

|> > I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
|> > there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
|> > laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!

|> I agree that the world would be a better place if we didn't legislate
|> behavior that should be considered common sense. But it appears that
|> there is no sense that is common among all of us.

That is truly a shame.

|> Since some people
|> don't turn their headlights when they ought to, they had to make it
|> law.

Here's a better idea. Let's revoke the licenses of the idiots, so those of
us who DO exhibit common sense are not affected.

|> It seems like a stupid law if there was already a law that said you
|> have to turn your headlights on when visibility is below a certain
|> level. But if you look at this as a rewording of the existing law, it
|> seems like a good rewording.

The results are the same. I don't know about New Jersey's law, but in New
York, if I put on my wipers to clean my windshield, I could receive a ticket
for not having my lights on. That is stupid.

[Jim Miller Jr.]

Thomas G. Spalthoff<t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:

>Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>

>Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to

>equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already

>started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European

>countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why

>every Canadian car you see has its lights on).
>

>So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
>cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
>regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
>

>The reason for this?
>
>It saves lives. The numbers say so.

BS. The numbers from those countries show nothing more than a short term

[Tom Reingold]

Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:

> I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
> there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
> laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!

I agree that the world would be a better place if we didn't legislate
behavior that should be considered common sense. But it appears that

there is no sense that is common among all of us. Since some people

don't turn their headlights when they ought to, they had to make it
law.

It seems like a stupid law if there was already a law that said you

have to turn your headlights on when visibility is below a certain
level. But if you look at this as a rewording of the existing law, it
seems like a good rewording.

An example of a redundant and baw law is the one they tried to pass in
NYC. Bicycle riders were riding very dangerously, so the city banned
bicycles from certain avenues. Besides the fact that it discriminated
against the decent cyclists, all they had to do was enforce the
existing traffic laws on the offending cyclists. Pulling you off the
avenue for just being there is no easier than writing a ticket for
running a red light. (The ban was reversed.)
--
Tom Reingold, Bell Labs, Crawford | Are you having a happy new year yet?
Hill Laboratory, Holmdel, NJ, USA |
to...@bell-labs.com |

[Bailey Brown]

t...@planet.ho.att.com (Thomas G. Spalthoff) wrote:

>Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

I think the problem is that the law is not stupid with respect to what
it requires you to do, but that pulling people over and issuing a
mandatory court appearance for such a minor infraction is stupid.

I would think that signs reminding people would be good enough.

Also, other drivers flashing their lights at oncoming vehicles who
forgot to turn them on would help.

I think this is a good thing to do. I've been using my headlights in
rain ever since I started driving 14 years ago. I think it was the
law in Tennessee when I started driving, but I've never heard of
anyone being pulled over for not doing it. It seems that almost
everybody did as I kind of freaked when I moved to another state and
not many drivers turned on their headlights in rain.

I am not as convinced that daytime running lights are such a good
idea. It will make motorcycles less visible indefinitely, and older
cars less visible for a long time to come (i.e. you will get used to
cars having their DRLs on and may not notice one that doesn't).

At least having DRL standard for everybody will solve the rain issue
and also make GM stop running those stupid commercials about their
DRLs.

Bailey

--
http://www.blarg.net/~bailey/

[John R. Ord]

Arkansas did the same thing and had the same visability laws. I think it would
be great if instead of daylight driving lights they started to ad a system where if
you turn your wipers on you headlights come on. Here it makes since do to
the down pours that plague the south with a fury
John R. Ord, REMT/FF

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960717014017.10973A-
100...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion
.com> wrote

>I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
>there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
>laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!
>
>
>

>> >Yup - I ken never figgur why dem polece gots ta tell me what I kin and kin't
>> >do. All dese laws fer no darn reson.
>> >
>> >--Tom
>> >
>> You elected them. ;-)
>>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Dolphin

Seems what you need is intelligent legislators that make intelligent
laws and get rid of a few stupid laws.
>
>

--
Stephen Dolphin

[cvi...@forest.drew.edu]

In article <4slf91$a...@news1.intercall.com>, Rich Dean <rich...@intercall.com> writes:
> joh...@cris.com (John C - NJ) wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
> I would hope that this law is not being enforced, and most cops that I
> have talked with tell me they are not going to get out in the rain to
> write tickets for something this stupid anyhow.

Why would you hope this law is not being enforced? Having come
from a state (TN) where that law was already in place, it makes sense.
Under heavy rain condition, it is A LOT easier to see other cars if they
have lights on. And seeing other cars makes for safer driving.

> Another thing about headlights on the daylight is that many whose lights
> don't go on or off with the ignition or wiper switches have come back to
> dead batteries after parking. I also believe that many drivers now
> adjust their mirrors to kill the glare from the lights reducing the
> visibility in their rearview defeating the purpose. Futhermore, a friend
> who owns an auto parts business, tells me that sales of headlight bulbs
> are on the increase.

Simple solution: Learn to remember to turn off your lights. Wow,
that's hard.

And as for adjusting mirrors, well, there is no need to do that,
if people don't have their highbeams on. If someone is going to do that,
they would have them adjusted anyway from night driving.

Chris

[Lloyd R. Parker]

Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com) wrote:
: It's the law in Canada and a few Scandinavian countries, but there's

: no such law in the US nor in many European countries.

:

Georgia has required lights on when raining since the 60s. Signs on the
interstates tell you this as you enter the state.

[cvi...@forest.drew.edu]

In article <31EE78...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Tony Esporma <antonio...@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> My car has a nice switch for the headlights and there's a brain between
> my ears with a reasonable cognitive ability. If I feel that its too
> dark outside or that conditions warrant it, then I use the switch to
> turn on the lights.

Well, just because you are intelligent doesn't mean that EVERYONE
is. If you do it already, then there is nothing to worry about!

> Also in some roads, headlights must be turned on. There are big
> signs for this. As well as the signs requiring that you turn them
> off once away from such areas.

I have never seen these sorts of signs.

> In regards to New Jersey, what if you put that stuff on your
> windshield which makes water sheath off cleanly? Then you don't
> need wipers not headlights. Yet, you'd want headlights on due to
> bad visibility... So, you see the fallacy of this type of law,
> it presuposes that if it rains, you'll have your wipers on. Maybe the
> law should be written to reflect rain?

The primary reason for turning lights on isn't so you will see
better, but rather that other people will see you better. Whether or not
you have wax on your car doesn't do a damn thing if I am trying to see
you.

Chris

[Albert Einstein]

I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
laws not more. This is just stupid!

On 17 Jul 1996, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> In article <4sio0s$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,

> Thomas G. Spalthoff <t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:

> }In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960717...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com>
> } <Pine.LNX.3.91.96071...@white.connettion.com>

> } <4sg90m$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> <Vi9diiA94$6xE...@delphis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> }>I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
> }>there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
> }>laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!
> }

> }Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>

> You mean the law requiring headlights when windshield wipers are used?
> Ever heard of a sunshower? Or... bug hits your windshield, you use
> the washer to get it off, and you get pulled over.
>

> }Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
> }equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
> }started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
> }countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
> }every Canadian car you see has its lights on).
>

> It's the law in Canada and a few Scandinavian countries, but there's
> no such law in the US nor in many European countries.
>
>

> --
> Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Albert Einstein]

But people in Canada dont drive as good as people from NJ! hehehe

On 17 Jul 1996, William Joel Hickey wrote:

> Jim Miller Jr. (jmil...@lsfcu.org) wrote:

> : Thomas G. Spalthoff<t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:
>
> : >Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
> : >
> : >Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to

> : >equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
> : >started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
> : >countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
> : >every Canadian car you see has its lights on).

> : >
> : >So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most

> : >cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
> : >regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
> : >
> : >The reason for this?
> : >
> : >It saves lives. The numbers say so.
>
> : BS. The numbers from those countries show nothing more than a short term
> : improvement. The long term effect is that people will not notice a car whose
> : lights are on if all cars headlights are on. Take a look again at those
> : countries who have done this long term. There safety rates have steadily
> : reverted to what they were before implementing this. Now drivers just
> : lose the option of putting their headlights on to make them more visible
> : than the surrounding traffic.
>
> : If you read the studies done to support the US adoption of this system, not
> : one of them took into account whether there would still be a difference if
> : ALL cars had their lights on.
>
>
>
> : |Jim Miller, Jr. <jmil...@lsfcu.org> Systems Administrator|
> : |Liberty Savings Federal Credit Union Jersey City, New Jersey USA|
> : |Eagle Scout - '88 Vigil - '94 Meechgalhukquot-"Redheaded One"|
> : |Advisor, Explorer Post 348 Hudson Liberty Council, BSA|
> : |http://www.njaccess.com/jim/ ENTP.cabal and 70.cabal|
>
>

> As a canadian who drives on the highhway a fair bit, I have to disagree with your
> opinion on the effectiveness of headlights. They work. After about 5 years of
> having the law in effect, I still find caars with headlights much more
> noticable than cars with out lights. They really do make that big a difference,
> especially in rain. And, if you looked at the statistics, aat least for where I
> live (in Newfoundland), you would find that after an initial drop in accidents,
> the rate of accidents has continued to fall. So, for something that doesn't work,
> it works pretty well.
>
> Joel Hickey
> 6th St John's Rovers
> Ground Search and Rescue
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4slv6t$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Lisa Pavlov
<lhpa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>In <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>

>j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:
>
>>|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>>

>>Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
>>headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
>>was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means
>it is
>>useless at best.
>

>I disagree with you. I live in New York where we have this law. As a
>result, I (and many others) learned to drive (or have become accustomed
>to driving) this way...so now we do it automatically. You can say the
>same thing about seatbelts. There are some who may refuse to do
>it...for one reason or another. But a great many more people will do
>it automatically cause that's the way they learned, because it becomes
>a habit, and because, just maybe because, they don't want to risk
>getting a ticket. The more people that do it, the better off we all
>are. Period. You can still drive without the lights and risk getting
>a ticket...that's your choice. But more people on the roads will have
>their lights on due to this law. That's great.
>
>BTW, even before seeing this thread I put my lights on with the
>wipers...why? I never knew NJ was different than NY (so this law makes
>no difference to me)!
>
>Lisa
>
>I put my lights on when light is fading onwards, this includes heavy
rain. It is not law in the UK, but people still do it out of common
sense.

--
Stephen Dolphin

[Albert Einstein]

Yes the NJT and GSP are known places where police like to pull over cars
to check for drug trafficing. This law is stupid because it is common
sense. People should be able to judge when they need their lights on.
It is a mere revenue generator for the sate and another reason for cops
to pull someone over. This country needs less laws! This is one of the
stupidest laws I have ever heard of!

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, John C - NJ wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Mr. Dean was wrong. The fine for not using your headlights when it's
> raining is $ 42 with no court appearance required. BTW, very few
> places are enforcing this new law. You've got more of a chance of
> getting a ticket from a trooper on the NJT or the GSP.
>
> On 13 Jul 1996 20:34:02 GMT, Rich Dean <rich...@intercall.com>

> wrote:
>
> >This past January, New Jersey became the 18th state to require use of
> >headlights when windshield wipers are used. This law really wasn't
> >neccessary because we already had it on the books that headlights were
> >required anytime visibility was less than either 1000 feet or 500 feet (I
> >forget exactly which one) and also anytime between one half hour past
> >sundown to one half hour before sunrise.
> >

> >In the last week one of our local police officers decided to issue
> >summonses to drivers who failed to obey this new law. From what I
> >understand it's not a moving violation so no point would be assessed and
> >since it's not a major violation the only time a court appearance would
> >be needed is if the person plead guilty which is their right to do so.
> >So he didn't check the little box "court appearance required."
> >
> >Well a few days after sending the paperwork to the muncipal court, he was
> >advised that by order of New Jersey's Administrative Office Of The
> >Courts, all summonses for not turning on headlights while driving with
> >wipers on are "court appearance mandatory." This means that the driver
> >has to go before the judge even if the driver is from hundreds of miles
> >away, and our court is only two nights a month. Failure to appear means
> >that the municipal court judge will issue an arrest warrant, then the
> >driver's hometown police will come knocking on the door or if stopped for
> >any traffic violation might be arrested on the spot.
> >
> >Hearing this, I called my district state senator's office. He had
> >sponsored the bill making this law in New Jersey. I don't believe that
> >the legislation included a provision for mandatory court appearances just
> >for not turning your headlights on in the daylight rain. I am told that
> >running a redlight or careless driving isn't a mandatory court
> >appearance.
> >
> >Not only does the mandatory appearance inconvenience the people
> >summonsed, but the taxpayers also lose as the police officer usually gets
> >overtime for court (in our area a 3 hour minimum at $35 an hour), all for
> >a $65 ticket.
> >
> >So when driving in the rain in New Jersey, better make sure to turn on
> >your headlights -- and remember to turn them off when you park, unless
> >they automatically do so.

[John P. Curcio]

In article <4slv6t$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Lisa Pavlov <lhpa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>
>j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

>>|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

>>Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
>>headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
>>was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means
>>it is useless at best.

>I disagree with you. I live in New York where we have this law.

I also live in New York, for what it's worth...

>As a
>result, I (and many others) learned to drive (or have become accustomed
>to driving) this way...so now we do it automatically.

Are you telling me that you needed a law to tell you that you had to
put your headlights on when visibility required it? That's how I am
reading what you wrote.

>You can say the
>same thing about seatbelts. There are some who may refuse to do
>it...for one reason or another.

This is quite a different situation; you are looking at it from the
wrong angle. If someone doesn't want to wear a seat belt, fine. That
should be their prerogative (except if that person is a minor, for
which parents should be held accountable if they don't belt in their
children). If another person doesn't wear his seatbelt, why do I
care? It will have zero impact on me.

Here comes the difference. If someone doesn't on his headlights when
visibility is reduced, it affects me. However, if someone is that
STUPID he doesn't know enough to do so, he shouldn't have a license.

>But a great many more people will do
>it automatically cause that's the way they learned, because it becomes
>a habit, and because, just maybe because, they don't want to risk
>getting a ticket.

Fear is supposedly the rationale behind speeding tickets as well;
since 94% of all drivers on New York's rural interstates exceeded the
speed limit in 1993, I would say the evidence is strong that fear does
not deter drivers from disobeying stupid laws.

>The more people that do it, the better off we all are. Period.

Why do I give a damn if some idiot doesn't wear his seatbelt? It's
just natural selection in progress.

>You can still drive without the lights and risk getting
>a ticket...that's your choice. But more people on the roads will have
>their lights on due to this law. That's great.

It is still not a reason to pass a law. It is nothing more than a
feel-good measure, legislation of common sense (which never works),
and furthermore, it is unnecessary.

>BTW, even before seeing this thread I put my lights on with the
>wipers...why? I never knew NJ was different than NY (so this law makes
>no difference to me)!

That's exactly why we don't need the law.

[Tony Esporma]

William Joel Hickey wrote:
>
> Jim Miller Jr. (jmil...@lsfcu.org) wrote:
> : Thomas G. Spalthoff<t...@planet.ho.att.com> wrote:
>
> : >Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
> : >
> : >Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
> : >equip their cars with Daytime Headlights. Volkswagon and Volvo have already
> : >started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
> : >countries for years. Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
> : >every Canadian car you see has its lights on).
> : >
> : >So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
> : >cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make everyone,
> : >regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
> : >
> : >The reason for this?
> : >
> : >It saves lives. The numbers say so.
>
> : BS. The numbers from those countries show nothing more than a short term
> : improvement. The long term effect is that people will not notice a car whose
> : lights are on if all cars headlights are on. Take a look again at those
> : countries who have done this long term. There safety rates have steadily
> : reverted to what they were before implementing this. Now drivers just
> : lose the option of putting their headlights on to make them more visible
> : than the surrounding traffic.
>
> : If you read the studies done to support the US adoption of this system, not
> : one of them took into account whether there would still be a difference if
> : ALL cars had their lights on.
>
>

> As a canadian who drives on the highhway a fair bit, I have to disagree with your

> opinion on the effectiveness of headlights. They work. After about 5 years of
> having the law in effect, I still find caars with headlights much more
> noticable than cars with out lights. They really do make that big a difference,
> especially in rain. And, if you looked at the statistics, aat least for where I
> live (in Newfoundland), you would find that after an initial drop in accidents,
> the rate of accidents has continued to fall. So, for something that doesn't work,
> it works pretty well.

Well, may in be in the Great White North it might make sense to use
your headlights all the time, but I assure you, I don't see why
there has to be such a law at all.

My car has a nice switch for the headlights and there's a brain between
my ears with a reasonable cognitive ability. If I feel that its too
dark outside or that conditions warrant it, then I use the switch to
turn on the lights.

Also in some roads, headlights must be turned on. There are big

signs for this. As well as the signs requiring that you turn them
off once away from such areas.

I'm getting tired of all this 'Mommy Government' crap laws. It would
seem like the polity is more concerned with addressing 'feel good'
stuff that dealing with the real ills of our society.

In regards to New Jersey, what if you put that stuff on your
windshield which makes water sheath off cleanly? Then you don't
need wipers not headlights. Yet, you'd want headlights on due to
bad visibility... So, you see the fallacy of this type of law,
it presuposes that if it rains, you'll have your wipers on. Maybe the
law should be written to reflect rain?

Perhaps the best action would be not to pass this type of harebrained
laws and let the officer use their judgement by enforcing existing
laws on headlight use.

tony

[Lisa Pavlov]

In <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>
j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

>|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>

>Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
>headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
>was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means
it is
>useless at best.

I disagree with you. I live in New York where we have this law. As a

result, I (and many others) learned to drive (or have become accustomed

to driving) this way...so now we do it automatically. You can say the

same thing about seatbelts. There are some who may refuse to do

it...for one reason or another. But a great many more people will do

it automatically cause that's the way they learned, because it becomes
a habit, and because, just maybe because, they don't want to risk

getting a ticket. The more people that do it, the better off we all
are. Period. You can still drive without the lights and risk getting

a ticket...that's your choice. But more people on the roads will have
their lights on due to this law. That's great.

BTW, even before seeing this thread I put my lights on with the

wipers...why? I never knew NJ was different than NY (so this law makes
no difference to me)!

Lisa

--
Lisa Pavlov, hospital-based health planner & volunteer (and paid too) EMT
Our Virtual Home Address is at http://pages.prodigy.com/village/
but you can also email me at lhpa...@ix.netcom.com
I live in country-music deprived NYC where ILMSPR!!
but I hang out at USENET: rec.collecting.villages
Stripes: DS (B+S+W)t H+C .6 Y++ L- W- C+++ I++ T++ A++
E-- H+ S++ V-- F Q P B+ PA+ PL++

[Rich Dean]

joh...@cris.com (John C - NJ) wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Mr. Dean was wrong. The fine for not using your headlights when it's
>raining is $ 42 with no court appearance required. BTW, very few
>places are enforcing this new law. You've got more of a chance of
>getting a ticket from a trooper on the NJT or the GSP.

My information is not wrong according to a number of violations bureaus
and municipal court administrators that I have now surveyed. They all
tell me they think it's stupid to require court appearances but they have
to do what the state court administration tells them to do. In NJ out of
500+ municipal courts, 400+ are online with the state and they can not
process a ticket without it going through the computer. Apparently those
not online are not doing as they are supposed to according to my sources,
and they might be in trouble when audited.

I would hope that this law is not being enforced, and most cops that I
have talked with tell me they are not going to get out in the rain to
write tickets for something this stupid anyhow.

Another thing about headlights on the daylight is that many whose lights

don't go on or off with the ignition or wiper switches have come back to
dead batteries after parking. I also believe that many drivers now
adjust their mirrors to kill the glare from the lights reducing the
visibility in their rearview defeating the purpose. Futhermore, a friend
who owns an auto parts business, tells me that sales of headlight bulbs
are on the increase.

But perhaps I should have kept quiet on this and just let people get
written up and then find they have to go to court. Failing to appear
results in a warrant. Municipal court warrants can't be served out of
state but those outside NJ can be arrested if located within the borders
anytime when a warrant is active and their privilege to drive in NJ may
be suspended.

[Tom Reingold]

j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

> |> Since some people
> |> don't turn their headlights when they ought to, they had to make it
> |> law.

> Here's a better idea. Let's revoke the licenses of the idiots, so those of

> us who DO exhibit common sense are not affected.

By law? I thought you're opposed to useless laws. How do you word
such a law? Licenses held by people with an idiocy quotient of greater
than 100 shall be revoked? How do you measure idiocy, if not by
behavior? I've noticed that the voters have shown that they want the
"right" to drive, no matter how bad they are at driving. This is a
political problem, not a technical one. The "road test" in Rahway is a
track test, with no traffic to deal with.

> |> It seems like a stupid law if there was already a law that said you
> |> have to turn your headlights on when visibility is below a certain
> |> level. But if you look at this as a rewording of the existing law, it
> |> seems like a good rewording.

> The results are the same. I don't know about New Jersey's law, but in New

> York, if I put on my wipers to clean my windshield, I could receive a ticket
> for not having my lights on. That is stupid.
>
> -JPC

If you're really worried about this, I submit that you have time for
worrying. :-)

[cvi...@forest.drew.edu]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960718...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:
> I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> laws not more. This is just stupid!

Fine, it is stupid for you, because you already do it. But if it
makes so much sense, why when it is raining do I see most cars WITHOUT
their lights on! What is logical and makes sense for one person, doesn't
mean it makes sense for everyone.

Chris

[Aino Mere]

NJ has long been known for its tendency to legislate for idiots -
remember the "runny eggs" law?

I have nothing against safety, but it's MY responsiblity, not the
government's. Once upon a time, there used to be this wonderful thing
called education . . .

Aino

[Justin P. Norfleet]

r...@cbran.cb.att.com (Robert Neinast) wrote:

> Here's another reason that it is stupid. I rarely if ever use
> my wipers. Why? Rain-X. So, according to this law, I don't need
> to put on my headlights when it is pouring.

You know, as insipid as this entire thread is, I can't help but get
involved. So, Robert, does that mean you won't put your headlights
on if it's raining; just because you don't have to? Most people would
agree that that is somewhat irresponsible. It's akin to saying
'To hell with other drivers. I'll drive how I want and if they don't
like it they can get off the sidewalk.'

> The stupid law assumes that drivers aren't smart enough to know when
> they need lights.

Exactly. That is exactly 100% correct. We have the law because there
is a large enough percentage of drivers that are don't get it. The
intent of the law is not so that the cops can screw you, or so that
a town can make money or so that the government can take away your
freedom. (If they passed a law saying you had to breathe would you
stop just to spite the government?)

The intent is to make people aware that they need to put their lights
on. So why not a public information campaign? Because there is no
incentive for the stupid people to comply.... there needs to be some
recourse against those who are irresponsible and reckless. You may
not ever have to enforce the law, but when people are aware of it
(thanks to the media, and discussions like this) and know the
consequences they will likely comply, making the highways a safer
place for all. And if you don't like it, try to get a ticket; fight
it in court and try to make a constitutional case of it.

I bet they had all the same arguments when they decided to make it
a law to put brake lights on cars. "Brake lights don't do me any
good. I can't even see them. Screw the other drivers if they can't
tell I'm braking."

Anecdotal evidence:
In New York people use their headlights more when it's raining than
they used to. And they are easier to see. Really.

Recently I drove to Mass. and it was raining... once you got into Mass.
there were much fewer people with their lights on and their cars were
harder to see.... hmmmmm....

later...
justin
--
Justin P. Norfleet/ jp...@cornell.edu/ The world's only 1 line .sig

[Justin P. Norfleet]

nja-...@ix.netcom.com(Aino Mere) wrote:

> I have nothing against safety, but it's MY responsiblity, not the
> government's.

BZZZZZZZZ. Wrong answer.

Your personal safety is your responsibility. The safety of everyone
else (i.e. protecting the public from you and your neighbor) is the
responsibility of the government. Really.

[Robert Neinast]

In article <jpn1-19079...@cu-dialup-0728.cit.cornell.edu>,

jp...@cornell.edu (Justin P. Norfleet) says:
> r...@cbran.cb.att.com (Robert Neinast) wrote:
>
> > Here's another reason that it is stupid. I rarely if ever use
> > my wipers. Why? Rain-X. So, according to this law, I don't need
> > to put on my headlights when it is pouring.
>
> You know, as insipid as this entire thread is, I can't help but get
> involved. So, Robert, does that mean you won't put your headlights
> on if it's raining; just because you don't have to?

So, do you have a comprehension problem? Nowhere did I say that.

I gave a clear case of when the law says I DON'T have to use my
headlights, yet any intelligent person would use their headlights.
Does that give you a hint that maybe there is something wrong with
the law? If there are situations that requires headlights, say
that, but don't tie it to something else that may or may not be
related.

> > The stupid law assumes that drivers aren't smart enough to know when
> > they need lights.
>
> Exactly. That is exactly 100% correct. We have the law because there
> is a large enough percentage of drivers that are don't get it.

How elitist of you.

> The intent is to make people aware that they need to put their lights
> on. So why not a public information campaign?

Why not? Why hasn't it been tried except for your unwarranted assumption
that there are too many stupid people out there?

Because there is no
> incentive for the stupid people to comply.... there needs to be some
> recourse against those who are irresponsible and reckless.

Sure. Make it an incentive that actually has a cause and effect
relationship, like you need to use your headlights when visibility
is less that 1000 feet. Couple that with a public awareness
campaign as to what that looks like, and you'd be surprised what
it accomplishes.

> I bet they had all the same arguments when they decided to make it
> a law to put brake lights on cars. "Brake lights don't do me any
> good. I can't even see them. Screw the other drivers if they can't
> tell I'm braking."

Now you're really heading into left field. I have no objection
to requiring cars to have running lights on all the time. Yes, it
increases visibility and safety, just as brake lights do. What
I object to is a law that says "if A, then B", when it is really
"C" that implies "B".

Have fun,
Bob
--
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (nei...@lucent.com)
Lucent Technologies - Bell Labs (Columbus, OH)

[Justin P. Norfleet]

opr...@mailbox.syr.edu wrote:

> Justin P. Norfleet (jp...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : Your personal safety is your responsibility. The safety of everyone

> : else (i.e. protecting the public from you and your neighbor) is the
> : responsibility of the government. Really.
>

> Could you explain the gun and marijunana laws for me then?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

Nope, sorry, those laws are just stupid. We should probably have a
law against politics (or at least politicians).

[Robert J. Guiles]

[John P. Curcio]

In article <tommy.8...@dnrc.bell-labs.com>, to...@dnrc.bell-labs.com (Tom Reingold) writes:

|> j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

|> > Here's a better idea. Let's revoke the licenses of the idiots, so those of
|> > us who DO exhibit common sense are not affected.

|> By law? I thought you're opposed to useless laws. How do you word
|> such a law? Licenses held by people with an idiocy quotient of greater
|> than 100 shall be revoked? How do you measure idiocy, if not by
|> behavior? I've noticed that the voters have shown that they want the
|> "right" to drive, no matter how bad they are at driving. This is a
|> political problem, not a technical one. The "road test" in Rahway is a
|> track test, with no traffic to deal with.

This is part of it. Unfortunately, most states in the US treat a drivers
license test like it were a walk in the park. Driver education is minimal at
best. A properly designed drivers test would include city and highway
driving as well as the typical parallel parking, 3-point turn, etc.
Knowledge of the law would be included as well, in the form of a written
test. And I don't mean the crap that they do now for learner's permits,
where about 25% of the questions deal with drugs and alcohol.

This would take out a good amount of the idiots on the road. From this
point, we could attack the rest with reasonably written laws, not laws that
try to make up for a lack of common sense.

|> > The results are the same. I don't know about New Jersey's law, but in New
|> > York, if I put on my wipers to clean my windshield, I could receive a ticket
|> > for not having my lights on. That is stupid.

|> If you're really worried about this, I submit that you have time for
|> worrying. :-)

No, I just envision the day when some dimwit cop with a bug up his ass pulls
this sort of crap on someone for no other reason than he decides he doesn't
like the color of the guy's hair.

[H.B. Elkins]

nja-...@ix.netcom.com(Aino Mere) wrote:

>NJ has long been known for its tendency to legislate for idiots -
>remember the "runny eggs" law?

>I have nothing against safety, but it's MY responsiblity, not the

>government's. Once upon a time, there used to be this wonderful thing
>called education . . .

Once upon a time, there also used to be a thing called personal
freedom, and also something called personal responsibility...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Card-Carrying Conservative from Winchester, Ky.
"You must have the courage to believe the truth" -- Rush Limbaugh
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
!!! David Lee Roth is back in Van Halen -- There IS a God !!!

hbel...@mis.net <or> HB...@aol.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

[John P. Curcio]

In article <9T0hMwAS...@delphis.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Dolphin <dol...@delphis.demon.co.uk> writes:

|> Since when have the general driving public been logical and not needed
|> laws to prevent them doing stupid things?

Since when have laws prevented stupid people from doing stupid things?

[Aardwolf]

Stephen Dolphin wrote:
> Since when have the general driving public been logical and not needed
> laws to prevent them doing stupid things?

Since when have laws ever prevented stupid people from doing stupid
things? (Laws are not gonna suddenly make idiots become intelligent.)
Or ANY people from doing stupid things?

Aardwolf.

[Bob Goudreau]

Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com) wrote:
: : It's the law in Canada and a few Scandinavian countries, but there's

: : no such law in the US nor in many European countries.

: :

: Georgia has required lights on when raining since the 60s. Signs on the

: interstates tell you this as you enter the state.

Uh, Lloyd? He was talking about the laws in Canada, Sweden, etc. that
mandate that all new cars have DRLs, *not* the "lights on in rain" laws.
DRL mandates are indeed rare outside the countries he cited.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

[John Kirk]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960718...@white.connettion.com>,

Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> wrote:
>I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
>raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
>laws not more. This is just stupid!
>

If it's logical to drive around in the daylight with your headlights on
in case you may not be seen.
Why don't you drive around with your brakes on
in case you run into something.

Cheers John

[Albert Einstein]

absoulutely correct!
Like I said this law is nothing more then another reason for a cop to
pull a car over. They may see 4 youths in a car it is drizzling no
lights on and now the copp can pull them over and see what evil they
could get into!

On 19 Jul 1996, Robert Neinast wrote:

> In article <4snv86$2...@med20.crosfield.co.uk>,

> Heh, heh.

>
> Here's another reason that it is stupid. I rarely if ever use
> my wipers. Why? Rain-X. So, according to this law, I don't need
> to put on my headlights when it is pouring.
>

> I can just see being stopped by a cop.
> Cop: "Your headlights aren't on."
> Me: "That's OK, my wipers weren't on."
> Cop: "No problem." (Yeah, right.)

>
> The stupid law assumes that drivers aren't smart enough to know when
> they need lights.
>

> Regards,

> Bob
> --
> ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
> Robert Neinast (nei...@lucent.com)
> Lucent Technologies - Bell Labs (Columbus, OH)
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Albert Einstein]

Oh GOD!? I dont know where some of you get your analogies from. A
traffic light is a way of rotating right of ways in an efficient way
(theoreticallty). You anology is has nothing to do with the subject.

On 19 Jul 1996, Tom Reingold wrote:

> Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:
>
> > I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> > raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> > laws not more. This is just stupid!
>

> It is logical that when another vehicle is coming along on another
> road, you should stop for it or it should stop for you, depending on
> the moment. We should get rid of traffic lights.

> --
> Tom Reingold, Bell Labs, Crawford | Are you having a happy new year yet?
> Hill Laboratory, Holmdel, NJ, USA |
> to...@bell-labs.com |
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Albert Einstein]

It is people like yourself who have killed this country. It is strange
how our country lead this great fight that costed 100s of billions of
dollars against totalitairian countries but we(well we without the
me)want more laws to tell us what we can and cant do. I think that if
they put it on the drivers manual and put the signs up on the parkway and
turnpike and "educate" the public about how cars with lights on are less
likely to get into an accident, that would be enough. As for making it a
law .... definitely not! There are way too many laws already. We dont
need more we need less. Check out my national Party Homepage

http://einstein.cuy.net/~tom/national.html

On 19 Jul 1996 cvi...@forest.drew.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960718...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:
> > I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> > raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> > laws not more. This is just stupid!
>
>

> Fine, it is stupid for you, because you already do it. But if it
> makes so much sense, why when it is raining do I see most cars WITHOUT
> their lights on! What is logical and makes sense for one person, doesn't
> mean it makes sense for everyone.
>
> Chris
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Aardwolf]

Justin P. Norfleet wrote:

> Exactly. That is exactly 100% correct. We have the law because there

> is a large enough percentage of drivers that are don't get it. The
> intent of the law is not so that the cops can screw you, or so that
> a town can make money or so that the government can take away your
> freedom. (If they passed a law saying you had to breathe would you
> stop just to spite the government?)

So what? just take the idiot drivers off the road don't make us suffer
because of their ineptitude. I for one REFUSE to be bound by laws
designed to protect idiots from themselves! I use my own common
sense, which many times is beter than that of dummbed-down laws or
safety devices. This is not to say I won't necessarily do what the
laws say, if it is common sense, but I certainly will not slavishly
obey them just because they are there. And if anyone doesn't like it
they can go to hell.

Aardwolf.

[>]

snipped because I have no clue who penned the "educated comments" below:

> >>|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>
> >>Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
> >>headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
> >>was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means
> >>it is useless at best.
>

> This is quite a different situation; you are looking at it from the
> wrong angle. If someone doesn't want to wear a seat belt, fine. That
> should be their prerogative (except if that person is a minor, for
> which parents should be held accountable if they don't belt in their
> children). If another person doesn't wear his seatbelt, why do I
> care? It will have zero impact on me.
>

Zero impact on you?? Maybe you, but not me!! When someone loses control of their vehicle, I want them right behind the steering wheel. That's the only place they have a chance in hell of regaining control of
their vehicle. If they can retain control of their vehicle, maybe they won't come sailing across the median and plow my family and myself into OBLIVION!!! That's why I care!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Ferris

[Jason Low]

In article <4so42b$u...@news.icons.net>,
Tammy MacKenzie <mob...@icons.net> wrote:
>
>Canada requires lights on a half hour before dark & half hour after sunrise
>but not when it rains (I wish!). Keeping lights on during all daylight hours
>is promoted but not required.

Mostly correct. It's actually a half hour AFTER sunset and a half hour
BEFORE sunrise--believe it. And inclement weather IS included, I believe.

--
..J. lo...@cuug.ab.ca

[Tom Reingold]

Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:

> I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> laws not more. This is just stupid!

It is logical that when another vehicle is coming along on another

[Tom Reingold]

r...@cbran.cb.att.com (Robert Neinast) writes:

> [...]

> The stupid law assumes that drivers aren't smart enough to know when
> they need lights.

That assumption is correct.

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4sj4ou$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>, "John P.
Curcio" <j...@philabs.research.philips.com> wrote

>
>In article <tommy.8...@dnrc.bell-labs.com>, to...@dnrc.bell-labs.com (Tom
>Reingold) writes:

>|> Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:
>
>|> > I am not against all laws but I am against stupid laws!!! I think that
>|> > there are too many laws and we really dont need more but rather less
>|> > laws! Especiall one as stupid as this one!
>
>|> I agree that the world would be a better place if we didn't legislate
>|> behavior that should be considered common sense. But it appears that
>|> there is no sense that is common among all of us.
>
>That is truly a shame.

>
>|> Since some people
>|> don't turn their headlights when they ought to, they had to make it
>|> law.
>

>Here's a better idea. Let's revoke the licenses of the idiots, so those of
>us who DO exhibit common sense are not affected.
>

Presumably that would be a law enacted in order to enforce another law?

>|> It seems like a stupid law if there was already a law that said you
>|> have to turn your headlights on when visibility is below a certain
>|> level. But if you look at this as a rewording of the existing law, it
>|> seems like a good rewording.
>

>The results are the same. I don't know about New Jersey's law, but in New
>York, if I put on my wipers to clean my windshield, I could receive a ticket
>for not having my lights on. That is stupid.
>

>-JPC
>

Stephen Dolphin

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>, "John P.
Curcio" <j...@philabs.research.philips.com> wrote
>
>In article <4sio0s$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, t...@planet.ho.att.com (Thomas G.

>Spalthoff) writes:
>
>|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.
>
>Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
>headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
>was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means it is
>useless at best.
>

Alright then, lets repeal the law on murder, after all, it is mainly
stupid people that do it, so why restrict everybody just because of
them.

>|> Starting in 1997 (1998?), all automobile manufacturers will be required to
>|> equip their cars with Daytime Headlights.
>
>Where in the hell did you hear this one? There are no such plans, according
>to what I've heard. If you can give me proof of this, please do. Cite the
>law, the bill, the reference, ANYTHING.
>
>|> Volkswagon and Volvo have already
>|> started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
>|> countries for years.
>
>Again, this is bullshit.

Wrong. It is law in several European countries. I live in Europe. I
know.
>
>|> Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
>|> every Canadian car you see has its lights on).
>
>So, their elected leaders aren't too intelligent, either. And? Your point?
>

Why not join the club of intelligent law-makers and pass some laws that
protect the innocent instead of just protecting the rights of stupid
people?

>|> So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
>|> cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make
>everyone,
>|> regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
>
>Bullshit.
>
You really shouldn't just say bullshit to everything without explaining
your reasoning. It stifles rational debate.

>|> The reason for this?
>|>
>|> It saves lives. The numbers say so.
>
>What numbers? Show them to me. The numbers are half-baked at best.
>
If you have no knowledge of the numbers, how can you justify saying they
are half-baked?

>|> What's the problem?
>
>The problem is that idiots like you think that if we "dummy-down" the laws
>and legislate common sense that it will make us all warm, fuzzy, and safe.
>That just isn't the case. God put the sun in the sky so that we all could
>see. Putting headlights on during the day is AT BEST useless, and more than
>likely will have negative consequences. There is no miracle cure here.
>
>-JPC
>

To use your phrase, bullshit.

Putting on headlights during the day, in normal circumstances, would be
a waste of time. What we are talking about is when it is raining. I
asume you know that clouds (which give us rain) obscure the sun to a
greater or lesser degree. When the sun is obscrured to a greater degree,
it is dark. Hence the use of lights.

What the law is trying to do is to protect you from the idiots that
refuse to use their lights when it is dark. they had a law that allowed
people to decide for themselves when it was dark enough to warrant
headlights. People were too stupid to be able to decide that in a
sensible manner, so a criterion had to be set that was not quite so
ambiguous.

You will note that motorcyclists (at least in the UK, I don't know about
over there), wear reflective clothing. This is to reflect light. If
there is not much light, (ie it is dark), they cannot be seen very well
and get driven into, pulled out in front of and generally abused.

I cannot for the life of me see what the negative consequences of
turningh your headlights on will be. perhaps you could enlighten us with
your logic instead of just saying bullshit.

You really must get into the habit of justifying your arguements
ratioanlly. Any idiot can stand there and say bullshit, that just takes
a vocabulary of one word. It takes an intelligent person to debate. Let
us know which you are by an example.
Stephen Dolphin

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960718014342.14495A-
100...@white.connettion.com>, Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion
.com> wrote

>I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
>raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
>laws not more. This is just stupid!
>
>
>

Since when have the general driving public been logical and not needed
laws to prevent them doing stupid things?

Stephen Dolphin

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <1996Jul18.161351.143904@forest>, cvi...@forest.drew.edu
wrote
>In article <31EE78...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Tony Esporma
><antonio...@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>> My car has a nice switch for the headlights and there's a brain between
>> my ears with a reasonable cognitive ability. If I feel that its too
>> dark outside or that conditions warrant it, then I use the switch to
>> turn on the lights.
>
> Well, just because you are intelligent doesn't mean that EVERYONE
>is. If you do it already, then there is nothing to worry about!
>
>> Also in some roads, headlights must be turned on. There are big
>> signs for this. As well as the signs requiring that you turn them
>> off once away from such areas.
>
> I have never seen these sorts of signs.

Perhaps if you switched on your headlights, you would. ;-)
>
>> In regards to New Jersey, what if you put that stuff on your
>> windshield which makes water sheath off cleanly? Then you don't
>> need wipers not headlights. Yet, you'd want headlights on due to
>> bad visibility... So, you see the fallacy of this type of law,
>> it presuposes that if it rains, you'll have your wipers on. Maybe the
>> law should be written to reflect rain?
>
> The primary reason for turning lights on isn't so you will see
>better, but rather that other people will see you better. Whether or not
>you have wax on your car doesn't do a damn thing if I am trying to see
>you.
>
>Chris

Stephen Dolphin

[Tammy MacKenzie]

In article <4slois$6...@larry.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com) wrote:
>: It's the law in Canada and a few Scandinavian countries, but there's
>: no such law in the US nor in many European countries.
>:

Canada requires lights on a half hour before dark & half hour after sunrise

but not when it rains (I wish!). Keeping lights on during all daylight hours
is promoted but not required.

I think the law is extremely reasonable - it's the enforcement method
that is not.
Tammy
Ottawa

[Robert Neinast]

In article <4snv86$2...@med20.crosfield.co.uk>,
jw...@crosfield.co.uk (John Kirk) says:

> In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960718...@white.connettion.com>,

> Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> wrote:
> >I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> >raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> >laws not more. This is just stupid!
> >

> If it's logical to drive around in the daylight with your headlights on
> in case you may not be seen.
> Why don't you drive around with your brakes on
> in case you run into something.

Heh, heh.

Here's another reason that it is stupid. I rarely if ever use
my wipers. Why? Rain-X. So, according to this law, I don't need
to put on my headlights when it is pouring.

I can just see being stopped by a cop.
Cop: "Your headlights aren't on."
Me: "That's OK, my wipers weren't on."
Cop: "No problem." (Yeah, right.)

The stupid law assumes that drivers aren't smart enough to know when
they need lights.

Regards,

[Lisa Pavlov]

In <4sm848$8...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>

j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:
>

>In article <4slv6t$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Lisa Pavlov <lhpa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>

>>j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

>>As a
>>result, I (and many others) learned to drive (or have become accustomed
>>to driving) this way...so now we do it automatically.
>
>Are you telling me that you needed a law to tell you that you had to
>put your headlights on when visibility required it? That's how I am
>reading what you wrote.

No, but I'm saying that that being taught to do it (since NYS has the law) helps
it to become an automatic response. Which is a good thing. Of course I put my
lights on when I feel that "visibility requires it". But obviously people here
are commenting that they see many cars on the road without lights in the rain
(not in NY though). So some people do not necessarily remember to do it -- so
anything that helps it to be an automatic response (like the law in NY) ensures
that all of us are safer.

>>You can say the
>>same thing about seatbelts. There are some who may refuse to do
>>it...for one reason or another.

>
>This is quite a different situation; you are looking at it from the
>wrong angle. If someone doesn't want to wear a seat belt, fine. That
>should be their prerogative (except if that person is a minor, for
>which parents should be held accountable if they don't belt in their
>children). If another person doesn't wear his seatbelt, why do I
>care? It will have zero impact on me.

Well not exactly zero impact--you're leaving out the costs involved (which
society pays) when someone is seriously injured because they're not wearing a
seatbelt--and what about those infrequent occasions when someone is able to
maintain control of their vehicle (due to wearing a seatbelt) despite someone
hitting them and thereby avoids other accidents.

But, yeah, I'll agree with you that the seatbelt analogy is not perfect...In fact
there's more reason for this law than the seatbelt law if you use the "i could be
affected" argument.

>Here comes the difference. If someone doesn't on his headlights when
>visibility is reduced, it affects me. However, if someone is that
>STUPID he doesn't know enough to do so, he shouldn't have a license.

Well, OK, so what you're saying is...instead of getting that ticket, the people
should have their licenses revoked if they're caught without lights on when a cop
thinks they should have had them on. You're right that would get a lot of stupid
drivers off the road...it would also get a lot of the rest of us off the road
(which should be a boon to the public transportation business :-) )...

And, what you're saying is that whenever any of us do anything "stupid", then I
guess we should all have our licenses revoked (or does your statement just apply
to visibility and headlights stupidity). And I guess you'll be the only one on
the road since you're the only driver who has never done anything stupid while
driving. Aah, now there's your motive...you want to be able to zip along on the
highways unfettered by traffic!!

>>But a great many more people will do
>>it automatically cause that's the way they learned, because it becomes
>>a habit, and because, just maybe because, they don't want to risk
>>getting a ticket.
>
>Fear is supposedly the rationale behind speeding tickets as well;
>since 94% of all drivers on New York's rural interstates exceeded the
>speed limit in 1993, I would say the evidence is strong that fear does
>not deter drivers from disobeying stupid laws.

Well, I see lots of people with their lights on in NYC while its raining. I
drive a lot in NJ and can't say the same. You're right though...its probably not
the fear. Its probably the fact that they bet whacked in their pocketbook.

>>The more people that do it, the better off we all are. Period.
>
>Why do I give a damn if some idiot doesn't wear his seatbelt? It's
>just natural selection in progress.

Well, I do...since I'm going to pay for their collective injuries. But mostly we
were talking about the headlight thing. And yeah, I'd like to have more people
be visible on the road. For a number of reasons. Call me crazy but I'd like to
see the number of MVAs go down.

>>You can still drive without the lights and risk getting
>>a ticket...that's your choice. But more people on the roads will have
>>their lights on due to this law. That's great.
>
>It is still not a reason to pass a law. It is nothing more than a
>feel-good measure, legislation of common sense (which never works),
>and furthermore, it is unnecessary.

So, what you're saying is that its harmless. So why are you whining
about it!

>>BTW, even before seeing this thread I put my lights on with the
>>wipers...why? I never knew NJ was different than NY (so this law
makes
>>no difference to me)!
>
>That's exactly why we don't need the law.

Well you don't need the law for me...I never do stupid things on the
road ;-)

Lisa
--
Lisa Pavlov, hospital-based health planner & volunteer (and paid too) EMT
Our Virtual Home Address is at http://pages.prodigy.com/village/
but you can also email me at lhpa...@ix.netcom.com
I live in country-music deprived NYC where ILMSPR!!
but I hang out at USENET: rec.collecting.villages
Stripes: DS (B+S+W)t H+C .6 Y++ L- W- C+++ I++ T++ A++
E-- H+ S++ V-- F Q P B+ PA+ PL++

[John P. Curcio]

In article <8TphcvAm...@delphis.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Dolphin <dol...@delphis.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> In article <4sj4jl$2...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>, "John P.
|> Curcio" <j...@philabs.research.philips.com> wrote
|> >In article <4sio0s$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, t...@planet.ho.att.com (Thomas G.
|> >Spalthoff) writes:

|> >|> Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

|> >Because it won't do a damn thing. People who are too stupid to put their
|> >headlights on in the rain and fog won't change their behavior because a law
|> >was passed. This law attempts to legislate common sense, which means it is
|> >useless at best.

|> Alright then, lets repeal the law on murder, after all, it is mainly
|> stupid people that do it, so why restrict everybody just because of
|> them.

You haven't a clue. Laws do not prevent people from murdering others; morals
keep people from murdering. Those without morals who kill people are not
deterred by the laws, much in the same way that rapists aren't kept from
raping little old ladies.

Unfortunately, we can't legislate morality any more than we can legislate
common sense. The current penal system is based on trying to rehabilitate
the offender, which often doesn't work for precisely this reason-- the person
who commits the crime has no sense of morals with respect to what he's done.

A law which makes it a violation to drive without lights when the person
would not ordinarily use them (although use is warranted) will be ignored by
the very people it is aimed at. What does this do?

|> >|> Volkswagon and Volvo have already
|> >|> started doing this, mainly because it's been the law in most European
|> >|> countries for years.
|> >
|> >Again, this is bullshit.
|>
|> Wrong. It is law in several European countries. I live in Europe. I
|> know.

We are talking about DRL here. Please cite for me how many European
countries have mandated daytime running lights.

|> >|> Canada started doing it a few years back (which is why
|> >|> every Canadian car you see has its lights on).

|> >So, their elected leaders aren't too intelligent, either. And? Your point?

|> Why not join the club of intelligent law-makers and pass some laws that
|> protect the innocent instead of just protecting the rights of stupid
|> people?

That's my point exactly-- this is why we don't NEED such a law. The stupid
people are the ones who the lawmakers are looking to protect. If they really
cared about their constituents, they would remove such idiots from the roads,
not make all of us suffer at their expense.

|> >|> So basically, the law won't be much of an issue in years to come because most
|> >|> cars will already have their lights on. The law's intent is to make
|> >everyone,
|> >|> regardless of how old your car is, follow suit.
|> >
|> >Bullshit.
|> >
|> You really shouldn't just say bullshit to everything without explaining
|> your reasoning. It stifles rational debate.

My reasoning was given above. There are absolutely no plans to mandate DRL
anywhere in the US. Unless someone can come up with a citation of such a
system being implemented, the previous poster is just blowing smoke.

|> >|> The reason for this?
|> >|>
|> >|> It saves lives. The numbers say so.
|> >
|> >What numbers? Show them to me. The numbers are half-baked at best.
|> >
|> If you have no knowledge of the numbers, how can you justify saying they
|> are half-baked?

Just like the "55 saves lives" campaign that finally died last year. After
20 or so years of "speed kills" being shoved down our throats by the same
idiots who reap a fortune off of unreasonably low speed limits, people have
gotten to accepting it. This is much the same way that Canadians feel about
DRL; they have been force-fed them, and the propoganda states that they will
make everything warm and fuzzy. They won't. Stupid drivers will STILL do
stupid things. The only thing that will change is that the piss-poor excuse
of "Gee, I didn't see him coming, so I pulled out into his path" will be
invalid, and the idiot will have to think of another excuse.

|> >|> What's the problem?

|> >The problem is that idiots like you think that if we "dummy-down" the laws
|> >and legislate common sense that it will make us all warm, fuzzy, and safe.
|> >That just isn't the case. God put the sun in the sky so that we all could
|> >see. Putting headlights on during the day is AT BEST useless, and more than
|> >likely will have negative consequences. There is no miracle cure here.

|> To use your phrase, bullshit.

You're wrong.....

|> Putting on headlights during the day, in normal circumstances, would be
|> a waste of time.

Then why in the hell do you ignore this and take the side that DRL save
lives? You are contradicting yourself.

|> What we are talking about is when it is raining.

Not the previous poster. He was talking about DRL, which are activated
whenever the car is in motion.

|> I
|> asume you know that clouds (which give us rain) obscure the sun to a
|> greater or lesser degree. When the sun is obscrured to a greater degree,
|> it is dark. Hence the use of lights.

Here's the difference between you and me. I know enough, on my own, to turn
on my lights when warranted. I don't need a law that says I have to have
them on all the time. This would be similar to a law that says you must
sound your horn every five seconds, because a car on a side street might pull
out in front of you. The reality is that I will sound my horn if someone
tries to pull out in front of me ON MY OWN, since I have the intelligence to
know when to do it. The same is true about the use of lights!

|> What the law is trying to do is to protect you from the idiots that
|> refuse to use their lights when it is dark.

And what will go through this person's mind? "Gee, it is getting dark. I
ordinarily wouldn't use my lights, since I'm an idiot, but since my loving
government passed a law making it illegal not to, I will turn them on." This
law will have ZERO (or, if you prefer, NIL ;-)) effect on those whom it is
aimed at. That is, in my estimation, irresponsible.

|> people to decide for themselves when it was dark enough to warrant
|> headlights. People were too stupid to be able to decide that in a
|> sensible manner, so a criterion had to be set that was not quite so
|> ambiguous.

It is ambiguous, but in a different light. It states that I have to put on
my headlights when my wipers are on. That means that if I use my windshield
(windscreen) wipers to clean the bugs off, I must turn my lights on. This is
silly. It also means that if there is a slight drizzle, despite the
visibility not being affected, I must turn my lights on. That is silly. I
know when I need them, and I know when I don't. The law is useless and
unnecessary.

|> You will note that motorcyclists (at least in the UK, I don't know about
|> over there), wear reflective clothing. This is to reflect light. If
|> there is not much light, (ie it is dark), they cannot be seen very well
|> and get driven into, pulled out in front of and generally abused.

And??? It happens in daylight as well.

|> I cannot for the life of me see what the negative consequences of
|> turningh your headlights on will be. perhaps you could enlighten us with
|> your logic instead of just saying bullshit.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I was against putting
ones lights on; I merely stated that: 1. We don't need to have them on all
the time; and 2. We don't need ANOTHER law which is nothing more than what
common sense tells us. I am not in any way, shape, or form arguing against
putting one's headlights on when warranted.

|> You really must get into the habit of justifying your arguements
|> ratioanlly. Any idiot can stand there and say bullshit, that just takes
|> a vocabulary of one word. It takes an intelligent person to debate. Let
|> us know which you are by an example.

I think I have made myself quite clear.

[Joe Gadoury]

Regarding wiper laws in NJ, John Curcio wrote

> Nobody argued about whether or not putting one's headlights on at
> various times made sense or not. I think there is general agreement
> that headlights are important during heavy rain or fog conditions. To
> make it a law, however, is particularly bothersome to many of us. As
> I've said before, politicians are trying to legislate common sense.
> It can't be done.

Politicians are not legislating common sense, their legislating public
safety. The reality is that people do not put on their headlights during
the rain and fog, making it harder for other drivers to see them.
Accidents happen with many "I didn't see him" comments. Personally I'm
tired of pickup up bodies on the road side after accidents because they
could not see someone.

Laws are passed to protect the society as a whole, not to legislate
commen sense to the senseless.

--JAG

[Tom Reingold]

j...@philabs.research.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

> |> By law? I thought you're opposed to useless laws. How do you word
> |> such a law? Licenses held by people with an idiocy quotient of greater
> |> than 100 shall be revoked? How do you measure idiocy, if not by
> |> behavior? I've noticed that the voters have shown that they want the
> |> "right" to drive, no matter how bad they are at driving. This is a
> |> political problem, not a technical one. The "road test" in Rahway is a
> |> track test, with no traffic to deal with.

> This is part of it. Unfortunately, most states in the US treat a drivers
> license test like it were a walk in the park. Driver education is minimal at
> best. A properly designed drivers test would include city and highway
> driving as well as the typical parallel parking, 3-point turn, etc.
> Knowledge of the law would be included as well, in the form of a written
> test. And I don't mean the crap that they do now for learner's permits,
> where about 25% of the questions deal with drugs and alcohol.

My point is that the people seem to want the laws to be as lax as
possible, and the legislators seem happy to comply with these
wishes. Look at all the incompetent driving and unworthy vehicles
on the road. People don't care about inconsequential laws like
this, since it doesn't take them off the road. And as you point
out, the stupidest won't comply because they won't remember or
notice or think or whatever.

> This would take out a good amount of the idiots on the road. From this
> point, we could attack the rest with reasonably written laws, not laws that
> try to make up for a lack of common sense.

That would make sense. That's probably why it won't happen. I mean
the sensible laws probably won't happen. Taking the idiots off the
road definitely won't happen. There's enough proof. If someone gets
his license revoked for gross incompetence or negligence, even if he
has cost lives, he can appeal, claiming he has to get to work. And he
might even get his license back for this reason. Look, driving has
become a right, despite what it says in the first page of the driver's
manual. I'm not happy about this; I'm just observing it.

> |> If you're really worried about this, I submit that you have time for
> |> worrying. :-)

> No, I just envision the day when some dimwit cop with a bug up his ass pulls
> this sort of crap on someone for no other reason than he decides he doesn't
> like the color of the guy's hair.

Yeah, it could happen. But if he doesn't cite the wipers-headlights
law, he'll cite another.

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <31F019...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote

>Stephen Dolphin wrote:
>> Since when have the general driving public been logical and not needed
>> laws to prevent them doing stupid things?
>

>Since when have laws ever prevented stupid people from doing stupid
>things? (Laws are not gonna suddenly make idiots become intelligent.)
>Or ANY people from doing stupid things?
>
>Aardwolf.

If it prevents even 10& of stupid people from doing 10% of the stupid
things they do, that is a result. It may even prompt people who are not
stupid, but badly trained, from doing stuipid things. The law may prompt
somebody to think again.

One of those 1% may be the guy YOU will see coming at you one day
because he has his lights on.

Stephen Dolphin

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <4soprh$5...@newstand.syr.edu>, "Robert J. Guiles"
<opr...@newstand.syr.edu> wrote
>Justin P. Norfleet (jp...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>: Your personal safety is your responsibility. The safety of everyone
>: else (i.e. protecting the public from you and your neighbor) is the
>: responsibility of the government. Really.
>
>Could you explain the gun and marijunana laws for me then?
>
>Thanks,

Easy, Bob, they are designed to prevent you from running amok under the
influence whilst holding a gun.
>

Stephen Dolphin

[Peter Mlynek]

joh...@cris.com (John C - NJ) wrote:

> My favorite reason for not using your headlights when it's raining is
> that it'll use up the battery. Kind of like conserving energy in the
> home. HA !
>
> PS - For all of you dopes out there - the lights run off the generator
> when the engine is running. The battery is recharging at the same
> time.

I don't think that I understand. I would think that not using lights DOES
conserve energy. The fact that it does or does not come for the battery
is not relevant, since the electricity used to power the lights or to
chrge the battery comes from the engine which is powered by gasoline. The
electricity (though pretty small compared to moving of the car itself)
must come from somewhere. There ain't no free lunch. Or if I am a dope as
you state, please correct me on this point.

--Peter Mlynek

[Peter Mlynek]

t...@planet.ho.att.com (Thomas G. Spalthoff) wrote:

> Please explain why you believe [daytime headlights] to be a stupid law.
> ..... It saves lives. The numbers say so.
>
> What's the problem?

My problem with DLR is that they are obnoxious. I know that it is likely
that they save lives, and I know that it is better to have lights turned
on all the time, but it just makes me feel that I have less of a control
as when the lights are on or not, or that we are trying to engineer an
overly safe product instead of having safe drivers. I wish I could like
them, but for so illogical reason I don't. The problem is not with the
DLRs, the problem is with my attitude. Though I always wear a helmet
while biking and seatbelts while driving, I suppose that I would had been
against helmets and seatbelts when they first started coming out.

--Peter Mlynek

[Steve Masticola]

Has it occurred to anyone else yet that the daytime running lights
will make it harder for drivers to blink for speed traps?

[Kin Yan Chung]

In article <31F01A...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:
>So what? just take the idiot drivers off the road don't make us suffer
>because of their ineptitude. I for one REFUSE to be bound by laws
>designed to protect idiots from themselves!

I have seen good and bad arguments from both sides in this debate, but
something that really amuses me is how one can claim that being required to
turn on your headlights causes suffering. (Actually, at least one other
person has made that claim if I am not mistaken.) Come on, it's just a
simple turn of a knob.

--
Kin Yan Chung (kin...@math.princeton.edu) | Sydney _--_|\
Math Department, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544 | 2000 / \
WWW Home Page: http://www.princeton.edu/~kinchung | \_.--._/
I've got vi worked out.... :w :q :wq! ZZ ^Z ^D ^[[1 ^H ^C | v

[Mike Garvin]

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:51:44 -0500 "John R. Ord" <jo...@troi.csw.net>
writes:
>Arkansas did the same thing and had the same visability laws. I think
>it would
>be great if instead of daylight driving lights they started to ad a
>system
>where if
>you turn your wipers on you headlights come on. Here it makes since do
>to
>the down pours that plague the south with a fury

That type of thing is available from GALL's

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <31efeb64...@news.cris.com>,

John C - NJ <joh...@cris.com> wrote:
}
}My favorite reason for not using your headlights when it's raining is
}that it'll use up the battery. Kind of like conserving energy in the
}home. HA !
}
}PS - For all of you dopes out there - the lights run off the generator
}when the engine is running. The battery is recharging at the same
}time.

Hey, dope -- putting more load on the alternator causes the alternator
to put more load on the engine. There ain't no such thing as a free
lunch. Doesn't use up the battery (unless you don't turn 'em off),
but it does use energy.

--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <Duu9L...@scr.siemens.com>, Steve Masticola
<mast...@scr.siemens.com> wrote

>Has it occurred to anyone else yet that the daytime running lights
>will make it harder for drivers to blink for speed traps?
>

When i was in Malaysia, that was severly frowned upon by the Police, and
was an ioffence treated the same as speeding itself.

It could be called attempting to pervert the course of justice, which is
a crime in the UK. Admittedly normally used for things like rigging
juries, but technically applicable for headlight flashing. Or is that
another stupid law?
Stephen Dolphin

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <31F01A...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:

}> Exactly. That is exactly 100% correct. We have the law because there
}> is a large enough percentage of drivers that are don't get it. The
}> intent of the law is not so that the cops can screw you, or so that
}> a town can make money or so that the government can take away your
}> freedom. (If they passed a law saying you had to breathe would you
}> stop just to spite the government?)

}So what? just take the idiot drivers off the road don't make us suffer

}because of their ineptitude. I for one REFUSE to be bound by laws

}designed to protect idiots from themselves! I use my own common

Does that include the license laws, if the state decides that you're
an "idiot driver" by their criteria?

[Aardwolf]

That's like saying "if lowering the speed limit saves even one
person's life it's worth it". Then why don't we all just drive
everywhere at 5mph? Hell it'd be faster to walk at that speed so why
don't we get rid of motor vehicles? Then everyone will be nice and
cozy and legally safe, _and will never get anywhere_.

In resonse to your post, sorry, I'll thake the risk, to guarantee
personal freedom. The idiot in that scenario should be forcibly
removed from the roads for that level of incompetance. Odds are my
car will be far bigger than theirs' anyway ;-).

Aardwolf.

[Aardwolf]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> Does that include the license laws, if the state decides that you're
> an "idiot driver" by their criteria?

Yes if it comes to that but there is virtually NIL possibility of said
instance occurring (to me anyhow). Plus I'd rather not drive without
a license as it sets a bad example.

Aardwolf.

[Aardwolf]

Kin Yan Chung wrote:

> I have seen good and bad arguments from both sides in this debate, but
> something that really amuses me is how one can claim that being required to
> turn on your headlights causes suffering. (Actually, at least one other
> person has made that claim if I am not mistaken.) Come on, it's just a
> simple turn of a knob.

I don't mean that in any sense but to suffer indignity, something
which makes me more infuriated than just about anything else. But on
reflection I'd rather not rant. Just think of it as a statement.

Aardwolf.

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <4soinu$9...@lex.zippo.com>, H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net> wrote:

}Once upon a time, there also used to be a thing called personal
}freedom, and also something called personal responsibility...

Now, "personal responsibility" has been perverted into "obedience to
the law" and "personal freedom" is something that, according to the
President of the United States, the government must move to limit.

[Jason Low]

In article <31F176...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:

>In resonse to your post, sorry, I'll thake the risk, to guarantee
>personal freedom. The idiot in that scenario should be forcibly

Are you saying that the development of daytime running lights has
inhibited your freedom? If so, please tell me why you can't survive now
that your cars are starting to get DRLs on them.

What they use for pavement/asphalt here in Canada is a kind of an ashen
grey after it's been driven on for six months or so. Coincidentally most
grey cars seem to be the same shade as the road. With the right lighting
even a navy blue Crown Vic can be seen to blend into the road.

Since long before Canada ever mandated DRLs on vehicles sold in the
country, I found that I could see a grey car with its headlights on much
better than a grey car without. Or any other color, for that matter.

Or are you one of these people that thinks that this is a plot concocted
up by the lightbulb companies to sell more headlamps?

>removed from the roads for that level of incompetance. Odds are my

One thing we agree on is that many people aren't competent and should
lose their license.

--
..J. lo...@cuug.ab.ca

[Aardwolf]

I just don't like the fact that it implies someone knows better than
ME when MY lights should be on. Plus there are a few instances
running lights (and for that matter interior lights, like they used
to) should be able to be turned off---I'd like a switch. Also they
should be low beams---which WILL work just as well without hampering
the vision of other drivers. And they should not come on unless the
engine is running (unlike GM's setup).

Aardwolf.

[Aardwolf]

Tom Reingold wrote:
Look, lots of traffic
> disputes, especially parking lot collisions stem from "he was in my
> way" yet each person was in the other's way. So we form yucky stinky
> laws that let machines decide who has the way and who has to wait.

The only good traffic laws are ones that stem from the universal rule
of right-of-way, with VERY few exceptions. Superfluous lighting laws
and politically-set highway speed limits are not among them.

Aardwolf.

[Lynn Grant]

This thread has been going on for so long that I've forgotten
how it is that it has anythihg to do with misc.emerg-services.
Could someone please enlighten me?

Thanks,

Lynn Grant, EMT-A
Palatine, Illinois

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <31F27A...@well.com>, Lynn Grant <gr...@well.com> wrote

Yes. It was suggested that guns are good for EMS as a work-creation
scheme and that guns should be taxed to pay for a good EMS service.

I agree with that, but it has turned into a discussion on the second
amendment, somehow, which I don't agree with (or at least I don't agre
with the interpretation some people put on it).

That said, I shall not post any more to this thread.
(was that a cheer from 3,000 miles away that I heard?) :-)
Stephen Dolphin

[John R. Ord]

Oh, I didnt know that. Was really refering to thet now have mandated that all
vehicles by i believe 98 have DRL installed and think that they sdhould
mandate a type of switch that turns on the headlights with the wipers and
when the car is stopped the lights go out

[Tom Reingold]

Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:

> It is people like yourself who have killed this country. It is strange
> how our country lead this great fight that costed 100s of billions of
> dollars against totalitairian countries but we(well we without the
> me)want more laws to tell us what we can and cant do. I think that if
> they put it on the drivers manual and put the signs up on the parkway and
> turnpike and "educate" the public about how cars with lights on are less
> likely to get into an accident, that would be enough. As for making it a
> law .... definitely not! There are way too many laws already. We dont
> need more we need less. Check out my national Party Homepage

I will agree that education is more effective than laws in many cases.
But education is an attempt to make some knowledge common among all of
us. In other words, you can't expect some magical sense to be common
to all of us. John Curcio argued that common sense should be enough.
I'd love to see more public education on driving. There are a few
basic points that people seem to have totally forgotten. Like, be
courteous, signal your turns, and don't tailgate. Jeez.

[Tom Reingold]

Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:

> Oh GOD!? I dont know where some of you get your analogies from. A
> traffic light is a way of rotating right of ways in an efficient way
> (theoreticallty). You anology is has nothing to do with the subject.

> On 19 Jul 1996, Tom Reingold wrote:

> > Albert Einstein <eins...@white.connettion.com> writes:
> >
> > > I feel that it is a stupid law because it is logical that when it is
> > > raining and hard to see you put your lights on! Our country needs less
> > > laws not more. This is just stupid!
> >
> > It is logical that when another vehicle is coming along on another
> > road, you should stop for it or it should stop for you, depending on
> > the moment. We should get rid of traffic lights.

> > --
> > Tom Reingold, Bell Labs, Crawford | Are you having a happy new year yet?
> > Hill Laboratory, Holmdel, NJ, USA |
> > to...@bell-labs.com |
> >
> >

> mailto:eins...@cuy.net
> http://cuy.net/~einstein
> http://cuy.net/~einstein/eintravel.html my travel bulletin board

What I was saying is that not everyone's mind works like Mr. Spock's.
We don't follow logic, so we follow laws and hope the laws are
sensible. If not, we change them. If we thought we followed logic, we
might think of the selfish thing and hope that everyone sees things our
way, i.e. think "be reasonable, do it my way". Look, lots of traffic

disputes, especially parking lot collisions stem from "he was in my
way" yet each person was in the other's way. So we form yucky stinky

laws that let machines decide who has the way and who has to wait. You
would seem to argue that some magical common sense would let everyone
know what the right thing to do is, but there is no evidence this
works. People obey laws, not what you have on your mind or what I have
on my mind. Your philosophical arguments say that we don't need laws
to tell us what to do, and you point out that laws give police reasons
to abuse the public. The latter point is true, but that doesn't make a
strong argument for not making laws, mostly because the former point is
not true. We do need laws for some things.

[Tom Reingold]

Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:

> Tom Reingold wrote:
> Look, lots of traffic
> > disputes, especially parking lot collisions stem from "he was in my
> > way" yet each person was in the other's way. So we form yucky stinky
> > laws that let machines decide who has the way and who has to wait.

> The only good traffic laws are ones that stem from the universal rule

> of right-of-way, with VERY few exceptions. Superfluous lighting laws
> and politically-set highway speed limits are not among them.

Perhaps I could agree with you if you fleshed out your argument a bit.
I am upset by the way speed limit laws are drawn, without any engineers
any more.

What's your opinion of the practice of using headlights during periods
of low visibility? If you think it's a good idea, what do you think is
a good way to encourage it? Training? Propaganda? Let people
discover it themselves?

Someone suggested that training would work as well as or better than a
law. That might be true. I remember hearing that countries that have
education about birth control and family planning are just as effective
as China at controlling population. China has strict laws about how
many children you may have, yet their approach is not more effective.
So if this is what you are getting at, I'd like to see this discussion
continue. In other words, you could convince me that it's a better
idea than a statute.

[Stephen Dolphin]

In article <31F2BC...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote

>I just don't like the fact that it implies someone knows better than
>ME when MY lights should be on.

It is not just you, but all the millions of bozos out there that do need
telling. You will be able to see them coming and take evasive action as
they drive on your side of the road.

>Plus there are a few instances
>running lights (and for that matter interior lights, like they used
>to) should be able to be turned off---I'd like a switch.

Are you a secret agent or something?

>Also they
>should be low beams---which WILL work just as well without hampering
>the vision of other drivers. And they should not come on unless the
>engine is running (unlike GM's setup).
>
>Aardwolf.

Keep death off the roads - drive on the sidewalk.
Stephen Dolphin

[daniel Laflin]

In article <4sj708$j...@wanda.phl.pond.com> russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>From: russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto)
>Subject: Re: Watch out for NJ's wipers on / headlights on law
>Date: 17 Jul 1996 13:13:44 -0400

>}
>}Please explain why you believe this to be a stupid law.

>You mean the law requiring headlights when windshield wipers are used?
>Ever heard of a sunshower? Or... bug hits your windshield, you use
>the washer to get it off, and you get pulled over.

Seems to me if someone invents a switch to replace
Wiper switch, one which would automatically
turn on headlights anytime wipers are put on,
the person will clean up.

Many old cars out there that could use the modification,
hummm?

Wish I knew electronics.

[Albert Einstein]

I believe that the second law of thermodynamics sides with you on this!
Showing that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. If
the lights are on then they must be powered somehow! Either it wastes
gas or battery fuel..... some kind of fuel is burned!

On 20 Jul 1996, Peter Mlynek wrote:

> joh...@cris.com (John C - NJ) wrote:
>
> > My favorite reason for not using your headlights when it's raining is
> > that it'll use up the battery. Kind of like conserving energy in the
> > home. HA !
> >
> > PS - For all of you dopes out there - the lights run off the generator
> > when the engine is running. The battery is recharging at the same
> > time.
>

> I don't think that I understand. I would think that not using lights DOES
> conserve energy. The fact that it does or does not come for the battery
> is not relevant, since the electricity used to power the lights or to
> chrge the battery comes from the engine which is powered by gasoline. The
> electricity (though pretty small compared to moving of the car itself)
> must come from somewhere. There ain't no free lunch. Or if I am a dope as
> you state, please correct me on this point.
>
> --Peter Mlynek
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Albert Einstein]

Well I think that the big problem that I have with this law is that if
one forgets to turn their lights on in say a light drizzle (where it
doesn't mateter any how) They can get pulled over and ticketed! My
father was pulled over for driving in a light drizzle without his lights
on the day after the law went into effect. I think that the true reason
for this law is to give police another reason to pull over a car that
they would like to search. See I am pro freedom. I dont want to be
pulled over and asked where I am going and where I have been and to step
out of the car and have police go through my stuff etc .... just because
I forgot to turn on my lights durring a drizzle.

On 20 Jul 1996, Kin Yan Chung wrote:

> In article <31F01A...@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:
> >So what? just take the idiot drivers off the road don't make us suffer
> >because of their ineptitude. I for one REFUSE to be bound by laws
> >designed to protect idiots from themselves!
>
>

> I have seen good and bad arguments from both sides in this debate, but
> something that really amuses me is how one can claim that being required to
> turn on your headlights causes suffering. (Actually, at least one other
> person has made that claim if I am not mistaken.) Come on, it's just a
> simple turn of a knob.
>
>

> --
> Kin Yan Chung (kin...@math.princeton.edu) | Sydney _--_|\
> Math Department, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544 | 2000 / \
> WWW Home Page: http://www.princeton.edu/~kinchung | \_.--._/
> I've got vi worked out.... :w :q :wq! ZZ ^Z ^D ^[[1 ^H ^C | v
>
>

mailto:eins...@cuy.net

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <tommy.8...@dnrc.bell-labs.com>,

Tom Reingold <to...@dnrc.bell-labs.com> wrote:
}russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
}

}> In article <31efeb64...@news.cris.com>,

}> John C - NJ <joh...@cris.com> wrote:
}> }
}> }My favorite reason for not using your headlights when it's raining is
}> }that it'll use up the battery. Kind of like conserving energy in the
}> }home. HA !
}> }
}> }PS - For all of you dopes out there - the lights run off the generator
}> }when the engine is running. The battery is recharging at the same
}> }time.
}

}> Hey, dope -- putting more load on the alternator causes the alternator
}> to put more load on the engine. There ain't no such thing as a free
}> lunch. Doesn't use up the battery (unless you don't turn 'em off),
}> but it does use energy.
}

}In theory you are right but I read some articles where engineers
}calculated the difference in engine loads between running full lights
}and running no lights. It was around 1% or some other insignificant
}number. So never mind on that point.

They can calculate, but can they MEASURE? As soon as I turn on my
headlights at idle, the RPMs drop significantly until the engine
computer compensates. That tells me there's significant load there.

}I also read a suggestion that the increased heat in the headlamps dries
}up moisture and allows the lamps to last longer. I don't know if
}that's significant. But I run full headlights always (not highbeams),
}day or night, and have done this for five years and find myself
}replacing a lamp only about once a year. You tell me if that's too
}frequent, but it seems reasonably tolerable to me.

My original headlights lasted several years. In fact, they still
work -- I took them out to replace with Hellas, which have been
working for over a year.

[Tom Reingold]

rxy...@hertz.njit.edu (Rolan) writes:

> I have not personally read a copy of this law yet, but from what
> I'm reading here, it seems to me the law is stating that you are
> required to have your headlights on when your wipers are on.
> If that is so, lets say that it's a clear and sunny day and that
> I happen to have some dirt on my window, so I push the button on the lever
> causing my windshield fluid to squirt and my wipers to do their
> thing. Am I technically breaking the law because my wipers are on
> and my headlights not?

I think the law says something like "when conditions warrant use of the
wipers" so don't worry.

[Tom Reingold]

russ...@wanda.phl.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

> }In theory you are right but I read some articles where engineers
> }calculated the difference in engine loads between running full lights
> }and running no lights. It was around 1% or some other insignificant
> }number. So never mind on that point.

> They can calculate, but can they MEASURE? As soon as I turn on my
> headlights at idle, the RPMs drop significantly until the engine
> computer compensates. That tells me there's significant load there.

You can be a smart ass if you like, but your observation is not called
measurement. Ok, here are some back of the envelope numbers. The low
beams draw about 110 watts. One horsepower is about 750 watts. A car
engine under any significant load is putting out at least 20 HP or
15,000 watts. Add another 110 watts, and you've increased the power
requirement by 0.73 percent. Now if the engine were doing something
heavy like accellerating, the significance becomes less.

Why must you insist the load of headlights is significant in engine
wear or fuel economy? You have no reason to argue it is, except
perhaps that this thread is entertaining, which I will concede. :-)

> }I also read a suggestion that the increased heat in the headlamps dries
> }up moisture and allows the lamps to last longer. I don't know if
> }that's significant. But I run full headlights always (not highbeams),
> }day or night, and have done this for five years and find myself
> }replacing a lamp only about once a year. You tell me if that's too
> }frequent, but it seems reasonably tolerable to me.

> My original headlights lasted several years. In fact, they still
> work -- I took them out to replace with Hellas, which have been
> working for over a year.

I guess you're saying I'm replacing headlights too often, and perhaps I
am, but there are some variables, such as the type of lamp and the
amount of heat dissipation the particular model of car offers. It's
hard to say for sure how much extra wear daytime use gives headlamps.
I probably spend more money as a result of it but not a lot.
Accidents are expensive, however, and I can never be sure if I've
already prevented one.

[Jonathan Joshua]

John P. Curcio wrote:
>
> Such a system does exists. It is the same system that the vast
> majority of people use to turn on their headlights at night. It's
> called common sense.

This is the same common sense that people use to activate their turn signals
when changing lanes and the same common sense that people use to move out of
the left lane when someone wants to pass.

There are laws concerning the above actions. There are morons who are
clueless or just don't give a sh*t.

JOn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Joshua Principal Software Engineer
mailto:jjo...@tts.telerate.com Dow Jones Telerate

The preceeding remarks are my own and may not reflect
the opinions of my employer

[Scott Johnson]

[NJ law discussion deleted]

Hmm. The law seems vague to me. Perhaps the following would be better:

1) If ya have yer wipers on slow speed,, your low beams must be on.

2) If yer wipers are in fast speed, youer high beams must be on.

3) If ya use yer interval wipers, yer headlights must flash every time the
wiper blade wipes the windshield.

AND,

4) If ya got rear wipers and turn THEM on, yer taillights mustmust light up.

There. THAT sounds more reasonable.

:)

Scott

[Aardwolf]

Yes, I do think that good driver training is the answer--and not just
to that problem but a lot of them. I think you SHOULD use headlights
or running lights to increase visibility if it is not optimum. Driver
training (if driver education is improved as it needs to be) will
actually explain the reasons for doing this as opposed to effectively
saying "because I said so". In addition to not rubbing people the
wromng way, training may well show them something they didn't know
before but afterwards can see why it is a good idea.

Aardwolf.

[Aardwolf]

Stephen Dolphin wrote:
> >Plus there are a few instances
> >running lights (and for that matter interior lights, like they used
> >to) should be able to be turned off---I'd like a switch.
>
> Are you a secret agent or something?
>

No, but it is extremely obnoxois to drive into, say, astronomy
sessions or similar activities, blasting intense white light, for that
reason you drive into the lot with parking lights, turn courtesy
lighting off, and use flashlights with red filters (to preserve
everyone's night vision). And what about drive in movies? And what
if you have to follow someone without being seen? ;-)

Because of this (or regardless of it) I drive a 1994 Caprice 9C1--no
running lights (though I may have them added, low beams, controlled
with a switch), and a switch to disable courtesy lighting. And
alternating headlight flashers---really clears left-lane hogs outta my
way if I'm trying to pass someone ;-)

Aardwolf.

[John P. Curcio]

In article <tommy.8...@dnrc.bell-labs.com>, to...@dnrc.bell-labs.com (Tom Reingold) writes:

|> But look at it this way. Imagine if there were no "headlights on at
|> night" law. Then they'd have to cite you for something more nebulous,
|> like careless driving, which would be easier to refute. The driver
|> could say he knew what he was doing. By putting the law in black and
|> white, it makes things less ambiguous. And we could argue all day long
|> if we want (and we are anyway, huh?) and we could think of a case where
|> headlights are unnecessary at night, just as we can think of when
|> they're unnecessary in the rain. I think having a law is a lesser evil
|> than not having it.

The question is, though, is the law less ambiguous? In my estimation, the
New York state law isn't. I could get a ticket for not putting my headlights
on when I use the windshield washer. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, the
people that the law is aimed at are the ones that won't heed it anyway. It
will do no good.

-JPC

--
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio j...@philabs.philips.com Philips Labs Briarcliff Manor, NY
"The only thing the Democrats have to offer is fear itself"
"No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'" -BH