Ticket for not having my lights on

[CompletelyNumb]

People should have full headlights on 24/7. Problem solved.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Is it common for an Auto light setting not to illuminate the tails? That seems kinda stupid.

I've never seen this on any of my cars. I do wonder why some Fords I see and some Nissans run with what appears to be full front lights (not DRL) and nothing out back. Seems so odd.

[Asian_defender]

Originally posted by Traffic_Cop


$115. . No demerits. Its classified as an equipment violation.

at $115 with no demerits why would anyone waste their time?
you didn't have your headlights on and a police officer called you out on it and gave you a ticket. I bet you were off on your way in less than 5 mins after he told you what you did and gave you your ticket
Should be lesson learned and move on.

[revelations]

- its an equipment violation

- lights on in the day has been proven for decades to reduce collisions, most Northern European countries have strict laws about 24/7 lights on.

- cops can choose what laws to enforce and my guess with his attitude, S1 probably had some other reason to them to do so (history of tickets?)

[killramos]

Originally posted by revelations


- lights on in the day has been proven for decades to reduce collisions, most Northern European countries have strict laws about 24/7 lights on.

To be fair in some of those countries the sun doesn't rise for a significant portion of the year

[A2VR6]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Is it common for an Auto light setting not to illuminate the tails? That seems kinda stupid.

I havent heard of that before. In fact I know for my car (BMW) the rear tails are illuminated regardless if the the headlights are in auto or not, on or off.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Traffic_Cop


Yes there is. Sec 55.1. Alberta use of highway rules of the road regulation clearly states " a person must not have the motor vehicle in motion unless the daytime running lamps are alight"

Thanks for that.

55.1 If a motor vehicle is equipped with daytime running lamps
installed by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, a person must
not have the motor vehicle in motion on a highway unless the
daytime running lamps are alight.

Just to clarify, the traffic act states that DRLs must be on ONLY if DRLs were installed by the manufacturer in the first place. So by my interpretation of the law, if you imported a car from the US without factory DRLs and they were installed after market to pass OOP, then you are free to disable them after OOP and it would not break the law.

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by clem24


Thanks for that.



Just to clarify, the traffic act states that DRLs must be on ONLY if DRLs were installed by the manufacturer in the first place. So by my interpretation of the law, if you imported a car from the US without factory DRLs and they were installed after market to pass OOP, then you are free to disable them after OOP and it would not break the law.

Not sure if i impressed myself or just realised how sad i am. I recited that section and wording from memory. Only missed a few of the exact wording. LOL

[eblend]

Sorry to hear OP, but glad they are cracking down. It's retarded how many people drive with their lights off. Hell I don't remember a car I or my dad ever owned that didn't have auto lights, yet I notice a bunch of Civics and Toyota don't have this standard.

I just curse my way all the way down the road until the idiots are gone. I noticed like otheres that people don't even look at you when you honk at them when you pull right up next to them...

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
People should have full headlights on 24/7. Problem solved.

But the added fuel cost! lights do cause the engine to use more fuel. A minuscule amount but fuel none the less. This is why manufacturers are always striving to make more efficient DRLs. That combined with less drag, automatic light sensing headlights, more efficient AC etc etc can reflect in lower MPG on the spec sheet. It all adds up.

But I do think DRLs should be mandatory and tickets like this should be issued. I can't stand it when I am on a two lane highway during the day, want to pass and see a grey vehicle off in the distance in the other lane passing someone else only to realize once I am passing that its some 1985 crapwagon heading towards me without running lights. With DRLs you can quickly determine if the car in the distance is passing or heading towards you. Same goes when the sun is in your face. You can see an oncoming car's DRLs but not the car itself.

DRLs should be mandatory at all times and if you don't have them turn your lights on. When everyone else expects your car to have DRLs but you don't it can create dangerous situations.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by eblend

I noticed like otheres that people don't even look at you when you honk at them when you pull right up next to them...

It's likely because they think you are pissed at them for something and they don't want a confrontation so they just ignore you.

[E46..sTyLez]

Originally posted by Moonracer


It's likely because they think you are pissed at them for something and they don't want a confrontation so they just ignore you.

This. They see you...they are just shitting their pants lol.
I had a cop pull up next to me one time, and I knew he was there, he pulled right along side me and kept the same speed. I just looked straight forward lol.

Once he threw on his cherry's I looked over and he indicated to put the window down then said "Talk about distracted driving, I have been right next to you for about a kilometer and you haven't even looked over".
I said I was paying attn to the road. Then he said, "well, slow it down". I said yes sir, and obliged.
Worst part, we were cruising at about 60km/h on 52nd for this whole encounter...

[jacky4566]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
People should have full headlights on 24/7. Problem solved.

Agree. If motorbikes are required why is this optional for cars?

Also just for fun frizzlefry I did some searching and found this
Alternator Efficiency Reduces Fuels Cos

Using some magic rounding.

Medium car using 14 amps = $88.90/ ~100,000km

So is the cost of an xbox game worth more than your safety? But I see your point.

[JustinMCS]

Originally posted by Dumbass17
I was following a lady last night, pitch black out.
And she's got her front lights on but of course her car doesn't have taillights running with the Auto setting that so many people take as the holy grail.
Anyways, I highbeamed flashed her about 40 times and then got beside her. I tried to get her attention so she'd look over and I could tell her to turn on her lights. Nope. Nothing. Just tunnel vision staring straight ahead and completely oblivious to life around her.

This happens on the regular.

cool story bro

Originally posted by Dumbass17


Very common and yes, pretty bad design.
And alot of people don't realize it, they think that since their headlights are on and their dash is lit up, that they their tail lights are on. Nope. Not always the case

What cars do you drive? I highly HIGHLY doubt what you are saying. I have not been in ONE car that has AUTO headlights that work how you describe.

Auto headlights, as described by nearly every manufacturer, will switch on all of your lights, front and rear, when lighting conditions merit. How do you know if her lights are on auto?! If her front lights are on and her dash lights are on and no rear lights on, she's 100 percent in DRL mode (lights in the OFF position) or has an electrical fault.

[JustinMCS]

Also, I am surprised by a lot of the comments in this thread. If it is 4:15pm out, you don't need more than your DRLs on. Read the WHOLE TSA 55 (1) (c)

Use of lamps, etc.
55(1) At any time on a highway during the period of night time or
when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric
conditions, objects are not clearly discernible on the highway at a
distance of at least 150 metres ahead, a person shall not do any of
the following:

(c)have a vehicle in motion on the highway unless the tail
lamps, side marker lamps, identification lamps and
clearance lamps with which the vehicle is required to be
equipped under the Vehicle Equipment Regulation are
alight;

It's one thing to just read (c) by itself, that would lead you to believe that you must have all your lights on ALL THE TIME. But if you read it in conjunction with 55 (1) as you should, it says quite clearly at any time on a highway during the period of NIGHT or insufficient light.

When is 4:15pm in January "night" or "insufficient light"?

That's the argument here. This is a BS ticket.

[Stuart]

Originally posted by JustinMCS
Also, I am surprised by a lot of the comments in this thread. If it is 4:15pm out, you don't need more than your DRLs on. Read the WHOLE TSA 55 (1) (c)

Use of lamps, etc.
55(1) At any time on a highway during the period of night time or
when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric
conditions, objects are not clearly discernible on the highway at a
distance of at least 150 metres ahead, a person shall not do any of
the following:

...

That's the argument here. This is a BS ticket.

Until he shows the video we can only take his word that
a) It was not later than he said
b) There were no "unfavourable atmospheric conditions"
c) Objects were clearly discernible 150 m ahead
d) The cop said what is claimed

That is why we want to see the video.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by JustinMCS
Also, I am surprised by a lot of the comments in this thread. If it is 4:15pm out, you don't need more than your DRLs on. Read the WHOLE TSA 55 (1) (c)

Use of lamps, etc.
55(1) At any time on a highway during the period of night time or
when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric
conditions, objects are not clearly discernible on the highway at a
distance of at least 150 metres ahead, a person shall not do any of
the following:

(c)have a vehicle in motion on the highway unless the tail
lamps, side marker lamps, identification lamps and
clearance lamps with which the vehicle is required to be
equipped under the Vehicle Equipment Regulation are
alight;

It's one thing to just read (c) by itself, that would lead you to believe that you must have all your lights on ALL THE TIME. But if you read it in conjunction with 55 (1) as you should, it says quite clearly at any time on a highway during the period of NIGHT or insufficient light.

When is 4:15pm in January "night" or "insufficient light"?

That's the argument here. This is a BS ticket.

I would say that it's very subjective on what qualifies as inefficient light or "clearly discernible". I suppose the officer would have to prove objects were not clearly discernible at 150 meters as that figure is clearly stated in the TSA. I could see the officer's opinion that it was too dark being good enough if the TSA simply said "insufficient light" but it specifies 150 meters....so, as impractical as it sounds, i think the officer should prove it.

I don't know if a certain ambiant lumens number is mandated by the TSA or anything but my Audi auto sensing headlights would be on at 4:30 this time of year. But they probably low-ball the ambient lighting threshold by a bunch in order to meet every country's standards when it comes to requiring that headlights be on. They even turn on when I enter my very well lit parkade during the day.

[E46..sTyLez]

Look outside right now...pretty bright out still. BS ticket IMO.
I'm surprised how many people on here will back a cop 100% no matter what, like no bad tickets are ever issued or something.
You don't have to like the OP, but I think he is justified in calling this ticket silly based on what information we are given. IMO of course..

[Stuart]

Originally posted by E46..sTyLez
Look outside right now...pretty bright out still. BS ticket IMO.
I'm surprised how many people on here will back a cop 100% no matter what, like no bad tickets are ever issued or something.
You don't have to like the OP, but I think he is justified in calling this ticket silly based on what information we are given. IMO of course..

But why hold on to the video when it is available? the only reason I can think of is that it would contradict something he stated. Can you think of another reason?

[JustinMCS]

Originally posted by E46..sTyLez
Look outside right now...pretty bright out still. BS ticket IMO.
I'm surprised how many people on here will back a cop 100% no matter what, like no bad tickets are ever issued or something.
You don't have to like the OP, but I think he is justified in calling this ticket silly based on what information we are given. IMO of course..

agreed. If there is a dashcam video showing the conditions, that would help the rest of us base our opinion. Even as far back as Jan 1 had a sunset of 440pm and each day is about 2 minutes later.

If it was a blizzard condition, of course there needs to be lights on.