Inliners International Forums General Discussion Bench racing New California law?

Gentlemen;

Today here in California a law takes effect that requires a driver to turn on the headlights when the wipers are in (continuous)operation.

It just "boggles" the mind, the types of BS that these (explitive deleted)in government will dream up. This is just another method of waisting fuel to generate more fuel taxs for them. :p

John M...

While Fla Has a Law If It's Raining The Lights Must be On. Not That I've ever seen a cop Out in
the rain writing a Ticket LOL as if their going to get wet.
#3220 }[oooooo]

I know, but it is just another way the gov. can collect money for nothing.

Out new Governot here is fixing a lot of this BS and getting a lot of oposition for it.

JM....

New Jersey is the same. Wipers on, lights on.
The law has been on the books a few years now. I have no idea if it has improved safe driving in NJ.

John,
Most states have this law. I'm surprised that the Peoples Republic of California wasn't first!!
I've noticed that here in Fl. most people, including the police, ignore this law as well as signaling, stopping before a rt. turn on red, speeding, seat belt usage, etc. I guess those laws are for everyone else but "me" - at least that seems to be the common perception.
Off my soapbox now......
Jim

It's "the peoples republic of Mexifornia".

The Feds simply refuse to stop the 'invasion'. It's even made it all the way up here. Big protest @ Home Depot a few weeks back.

It's written into our state Constitution too but nothing is ever done.

JM......

You've got to be kidding?

With approximately 50% compliance, road deaths in Australia dropped about 30% the first year of mandated belt wearing.

Dear Ray;

Most people I know use seat belts as a matter of common sense.

My gripe is that the law specificaly states "seat belt", but the cops can stop you if they can't see the shoulder strap. The Judge will "throw out" the case because of that. Most don't know this & and pay the $250.00.

Here generally It's just a mechanicism to gain money for local government.

During a trip to New York (up state) I noticed almost no one used them.

JM....

I can drive in a blinding rainstorm with Rainex / no wipers. Will they still arrest me?

In a "blinding rainstorm" they won't see you, even in California.....

JM.....

Yes, all but a very small number of my friends did at that time too, even before the law came in. But there is a great number of the 'unwashed' out there who want to either defy the law or prove they are better than others or something.

I can't see why anyone would have only a lap strap on and no shoulder belt. It's much safer with that.

Doesn't work like that here... policing and fines, except for parking, are all state matters. And, like drink driving used to be, there would be police around who sympathise with non-wearing and turn a blind eye to it... just warn the driver... as long as they got a couple of other things to fine them for, of course!

You'd never find that here now. Like I said, when it was first compulsory (1970 in most states) there was about 48% wore them properly (that excludes those who wore the old non-retracting belts loose), now it would be more like 98% or even 99%.

Retracting belts helped a lot, but education campaigns and a few fines here and there did the rest. I've diligently worn them since the first car I bought that had them installed... early 1968. Had to fit them to the next car or two, but after that they were always there.

When it comes to legislative or policing moves aimed at road safety, this was the first one ever to result in a significant reduction in death and injuries. Ten years on the second one arrived here... random breath testing. It was equally spectacular, 30 - 35% off the top of the number killed each year. Most people now hardly ever drink and drive, many who do get caught.

There are still a large number of crashes involving drink drivers, however, highlighting how dangerous those few who do it become.

All other legislation allegedly aimed at reducing deaths and injuries on the roads have been totally unsuccessful. Outright speed limits in at least one state saw an immediate increase in the number of deaths.

I have no comment regarding the headlights with wipers situation. But as far as every other moving vehicle violation I imagine it is just a matter of ratio. Unless you live in vacuum someplace off the well travelled path you'll notice the number of cars driving on any given highway or secondary road at any given point in time has increased dramatically in the last 10 years or so. The number of police and sheriff types that patrol these roads has not increased in the same proportion. Is it any wonder why people run red lights or stop signs, pass over a double solid line, pass on the right or better still in the breakdown lane of a highway? Posting speed limits or lane use restrictions on most roads seems like such a waste of the highway departments time. No one pays much attention to them. Even fewer drivers have any hint of the right of way laws that govern a 4 way stop intersection. Let's not even mention who has the right of way at a cross intersection - the vehicle going straight or the oncoming vehicle attempting to turn left in front of it. The closest thing resembeling driver to driver courtesy seems to the single fingered salute.

In the long run having the lights and wiper law on the books might just end up as more ink on a page. I have to wonder how many won't bother and also who will be there to cite them when they ignore it?

Mike G ( 4355 )

Gentlemen;

Most all of the traffic laws are necesary to keep things safe/orderly. Imagine trying to park in a lot W/O any lines.

In the the last 10 years (or so) here, the State has been 'hard pressed' to ballance their budget. The same is true for Cities & Counties who constantly beg for money from the state and get a percentage of traffic fines.

For several decades + (state & local)law enforcement personnel have used a simple formula called the "enforcement index". This 'formula' says that for every fatal or injury collision there should be X # of moving violations written for a given area(s).

This was/is NOT a quota system but a means for police administrators to place their manpower correctly in the dangerous areas.

This always worked well until local Gov. started losing $$$ due to state budget cuts. In addition we had a Governor that over hired state employees and took from the Cities. To compensate for this the legislature began adding laws (non moving)to our Vehicle Code.

After the Recall Election we have a new Governor now & he is fixing what he can.

John M....

While the varying laws cited in this forum may not always be followed, if you are in an accident or caught in a traffic check the fines are very heavy for violation. So it is worth it money wise to comply. In NJ our recent cell phone usage law is not evenly applied currently, however in investigating any accident for prosecution one of the first things suppoened are a drivers cell phone usage during that time.
If common sense won't work maybe the loss of driving privileges and money will.

it is called freedom of choice. if i decide not wear a seat belt and get hurt then it is on me.
headlights on do not make much differance. i ride a harley when the key is on the head light is on. and they still pull out in front of me like i am not there. now a laser death ray mite make a differance. but when you are using a cellphone then you are a risk to others even if they have their belts and head lights on. there is too much goverment control in our lives.

I think using a phone is less of a problem than it's made out to be, myself. Laws against that, outright speed limits on open highways and the requirement to come to a dead stop and stop signs I don't agree with. Please don't ask why I don't agree with the latter...

But not wearing a belt is an imposition on others if you're injured in an accident because you didn't have on on. Somebody has to pay your medical bills, after all. And somebody has to tend you, visit you in hospital, take care of your affairs or your job.

Let's face it, they are instrumental in saving thousands of lives around the world every week. Why not encourage yours to be one of them?

HMMMM,

I wonder why convertibles are not required to have roll bars and wear helmets and lights on?

You can justify wearing belts and not using lights or using lights and not wearing belts.

I use belts and had to install them on my 56 Chevy PU and my 62 Chevy II.

My problem is “and freedom for all”. Bit by bit we are losing more and more freedoms. It seems like nobody gives a crap. I love the USA, but I feel more restricted now than ever before. This country, USA, has become so petty and selfish that I am embarrassed. What happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?”…”Ask not what America can do for you but what together we can do for the freedom of man?”.

In CA we now have to smog all cars 1976 and newer. Seriously, how many pre 1976 cars do you see out there? No Asian cars or nearly none.

WHEN IS IT EVER GOING TO QUIT!

I was ready to explode, I feel better now.

Luis

My comment was about not coming to a complete stop.

I don't know if your laws require that someone who's at a stop sign has to then give way to all comers after stopping... ours does.

This means that a 'give way' sign would suffice, with the exception that one doesn't have to come to that complete stop.

Coming to a complete stop, of course, [i]increases[/b] the time it takes to subsequently clear the intersection... or reach speed in a line of traffic. It reduces the ability to blend in with a line of traffic.

To my way of thinking, there should be no 'stop' signs, only 'give way' signs.

So living by these rules, it wouldn't impose any cost on anyone. It would be beneficial all round.

But why drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator?

I came onto our local freeway today, and as I blended in behind a Holden V8 utility I was aware I was getting spray over my car. I pulled to the side a little and saw the car was dumping stacks of fluid onto the road, so I drove alongside the guy to tell him, blowing my horn and gesturing.

All the while he was on the phone, it took him an age to respond, then he pulled up. Even then he finished his conversation before he spoke to me.

The V8 was in dire straits... it had dumped all its oil and water... and the fool hadn't noticed a thing!

But that doesn't mean there aren't others who are capable of driving and talking on the phone. I drive vast distances frequently, trips that might be up to 1200 miles in one stint. Talking on the phone on those long lonely runs helps me stay alert.

Glad to hear you'r safer, Walt!

I've heard this kind of thing many times, but I have frequently seen cars that you'd think nobody would ever get out of alive and you find that the occupant/s were barely scratched.

Another one is 'what if the car catches fire' or 'what if the car goes into a river?'

Frankly, you're more likely to be unhurt and capable of doing something about it if you're wearing a belt.

I personally witnessed at fairly close quarters (there was probably not more than ten people closer than me) the very accident that led to the compulsory use of harnesses in open race cars.

This occurred at Lakeside Raceway in 1968, and it was horrendous. Niel Allen, driving a little McLaren openwheeler, had been fastest the previous day. During the official qualifying he went wide on the fastest corner on a racing circuit on the Australian mainland, we saw a puff of dust rise above the embankment that hid that detail from us.

Then he came back into view... upside down, backwards and over twenty feet up in the air! The car tumbled and bounced and rolled and discarded pieces for another hundred and fifty yards, when it was over there was only the cockpit monocoque around him, the engine, suspension units and wheels, even the back of the chassis along with the rollover bar were torn out.

He had a sprained or broken finger...

Racing drivers had for years said they would prefer to be 'thrown clear'... Masten Gregory used to jump out just before the point of impact... just look at the change in the numbers of deaths in openwheeler racing since that time, however.

Ray,

Hopefully people in Australia are better drivers and the courts are smarter than they are here in the States.

My beliefs are that adults should only wear belts or helmets if they want and you should not need a permit to carry a gun, however in our society many are too stupid to handle the responsibility. I like Darwinism, but if the fools do not do it right and just maim themselves we all pay, especially when lawyers get involved. I can see people in California getting tickets when they use their windshield washers without lights on, but the person reading a book and using a cell phone while crusing down the freeway at 70 causing accidents left and right just goes on with life.

At this point in time, the laws have gone overboard protecting the lowest functioning IQ; hopefully the tide will turn towards more personal responsiblity in the very near future.

AMEN; Let all hope for that day.

JM.........

I'm originally from CA. and have seen my fair share of insane drivers. But believe me when I say this, the people here in Wild, Wild, Wisconsin, are the worst drivers I have ever seen.
No courtesy, no yeilding, stopping, no brains of course, and if they are not going 20 MPH over the limit, they are going 20MPH under. They pass on blind curves, double lines, intersections, shoulders, etc. I just re-newed my license a week ago and listen to this. I had to take an eye test and I have no problem with that. I read all of the lines, saw the flashing lights, and described all of the colors correctly. The last test was a decending size of letters in 3 groups. I read all of them except the last group was a double image. I adjusted my glasses but it didn't help. I told the clerk that the image was doubled and I could not read it. She said no problem, you passed! Now I know why the drivers here are all over the road.
Don't get me started on the dummies eating, drinking, smoking, telephoneing, and having sex while driving. No kidding!
I say the first offense, you have to bike it for a week. The second offense, you bike it for a month. The third, you walk! If you're caught driving while your priviledge is revoked, you go and sit in jail for 3 days. If caught again 3 months. Then we'll see how many repeat offenders we have!

RapRap
1940 ChoppedChevyCoupe

GeeeeeeZ chopped are you sure your Not In Fla.
LOL Sounds a lot like it.

#3220 }[oooooo]

Where did you think they all came from Larry? (smile)



that was my truck which was stopped at a stoplight, just waiting for the light to change. The guy said he was "distracted"
Jim

Jim is most likely correct. Nice "Crush Zone". The last time I was in the Venice area of FL.(my mother-in outlaw lives there)I saw a lot of snowbirds (northerners) there.

Here's a photo of my then 1 month old Dakota pickup. I waited to get out of the driver's side and as the traffic opened up, I quickly got out, faced the pickup, and closed the door. Before I could close the door, a young women in a van, with 7 kids, took the door out of my hand with her outside mirror. The van whooshed by me so closely, the wind brushed my hair. To make a long story short, She was on the phone (with 7 kids in the van) and claimed she did not see me 6'-4" 250lbs, my bright red Dakota pickup, on a clear sunny day. To make things worse, I got a ticket(for almost losing my life )for getting out on the street side of my vehicle. Yes friends, in Wizconsin, there is a law that states you cannot get out of your vehicle on the traffic side. You must slide over and get out on the passenger side. I asked the officer, "Do you get out on the passenger side of your car?" and he said no.
My insurance had to pay for the whole repair($1400.). How about that and remember, the truck was only 1 month old. Well, it's used now!

RapRap
1940 ChoppedChevyCoupe

It makes you wonder: Did these people (lawmakers)get into the gene pool when the Lifeguard was off?

JM.......

It's strange how these laws come about isn't it?
Hard to fathom the thinking or lack of behind them. We in NJ have a similar law just as dumb. If a driver or passenger is exiting thru the driver side door "for any reason"(fire,
accident, gun point) that person has the responsibility to check thru the side door or rear view mirror for oncoming traffic to prevent just such an event as Walt had. In other words under all cicumstances the "exiter" is totally responsible for damages to his vehicle and the vehicle that hit his door. Is that screwed up or what?

Well the U.S. Sureme Court just rulled that local Gov. (Cities) can take private property to build malls or "whatever" the 'city' thinks would 'benifit' (them) the public. That (eminate domaine)used to be reserved for building freeways & such.

In my opinion; "government is out of control"!

Those of you that vote take caution in what you vote for. Those that don't, please register & study the ballot carefully before you do.

Take a moment for our fellows in the UK as well.

JM.......

John M.
I too use to live in Kommiefornia.Back in 1971 they passed a law that cars back to 1955 had to be smogged.You had to install a vaccum advance delay device(no vaccum advance until the engine reached 205 degrees) and and closed crankcase with a pcv valve.I was working in a wrecking yard at that time and seen alot of older cars with overheated engines and blownup engines from oil leaks from people not maintaining their pcv systems.Back then you went to a gas station for your smog checks.We had a friend that did our smog checks over the phone if yu know what I mean.My 56 Chevy that I had at the time had a 1954 Chevy 1-1/2 ton 261 engine in it(WINK WINK)so I did not have to get yearly smog checks.At that time they went by the engine in the car and not the car itself.I moved out of Kommiefornia in 1981 because of my other hobby (firearms) Back in the 1950s and early 1960s it was a good place to live.I still have fiends and family there,but I live in Washington State now.
EvilDr235

Hey Chuck;

I'm about to do the same, It's just to crazy.

I thought moving to the desert would do it & it has 20 years + but the "invasion" is here too.

We were exempt from all SMOG laws because of the weather/climate/geoghaphy (no need). That all changed when local Gov. needed State $$$ and 'of corse' Sacramento re-wrote the laws to give them and the 'locals' more power/fees (and that's the polite version).

I can't leagaly buy a gun anymore because the state won't accept my United States Pasport as ID.

Any other state will if I live there (rent) 90 days. But then It's ileagal to import anything, even a shotgun. FUBAR

Also: The '30 year rule' was just revoked. Now all vehicles (1975 & newer) must be "smoged", dismantled, registered out of state or "non-oped". FUBAR +1 more...

John M.....