Using Headlights While Having Windshield Wipers Going

[wubism]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Overland Park, Kansas

On 4/12/12 @ 3:25PM I was pulled over and issued a ticket for not having my headlights on while operating my wind shield wipers.

Ordinance 12.04.144(a) $121.00 fine. ( http://www.opkansas.org/City-Governm...and-Violations )

It was daylight outside, and there was a very fine mist of rain. I was just leaving a fast food place, less than 1 block from my house. I was pulled over for no other reasons, nor given any other tickets.


After doing some investigating online I found some interesting things online in regards to this law.

http://apps.opkansas.org/City-Govern...-17/PSC-C4.PDF

12.04.144 When Lighted Lamps Required; Visibility Distance and Mounted Height of
Lamps.

(3) when windshield wipers are in continuous use as a result of rain, sleet or
snow.

Law enforcement officers shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating subsection (a)(3).

What are my options here? The court date was set for 5/7/12 @ 2:30pm and I will be out of the state on my honeymoon. Is it possible to move up the court date?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I found the actual statute: http://www.opkansas.org/Doc/TITLE-12-TRAFFIC.pdf

12.04.144 When Lighted Lamps Required; Visibility Distance and Mounted Height of
Lamps.
(a) Every vehicle, except as provided in subsection (b), upon a highway within this state,
at all times shall display lighted head and other lamps and illuminating devices as
required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked
vehicles:
(1) From sunset to sunrise;
(2) when due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions,
including smoke or fog, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly
discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead; or
(3) when windshield wipers are in continuous use as a result of rain, sleet or
snow.
Stop lights, turn signals and other signaling devices shall be lighted as prescribed for
the use of such devices.
(b) Motorcycles, motor-driven cycles and motorized bicycles manufactured after January
1, 1978, shall display lighted head and tail lights at all times that such vehicles are
operated on any highway.
Law enforcement officers shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating subsection (a)(3).
(History: K.S.A. 8-1703; Ord. TC-1260,GGG §1, 2006; TC-1260,FFF §11, 2006; TC-1260 §144,
84)

[Speedy Gonzalez]

That has to be about THE dumbest piece of "law" I've ever seen.

[PTPD22]

That has to be about THE dumbest piece of "law" I've ever seen.

LOL. I have to agree. Seems like a dumb law to begin with...and, why pass a law and then say it is only enforceable with a warning citation?

OP, that line about the warning citation should get this dismissed. Contact the court right away and they will likely reschedule your appearance date around your honeymoon.

[That Guy]

LOL. I have to agree. Seems like a dumb law to begin with...and, why pass a law and then say it is only enforceable with a warning citation?

OP, that line about the warning citation should get this dismissed. Contact the court right away and they will likely reschedule your appearance date around your honeymoon.

Well, hold on now... It isn't that bad of a law and here is why, lets say you got in your car and started driving, it was "lightly misting" as the OP described it.... All of a sudden (and we all know how the weather can change drastically in a heartbeat), it is pouring rain, or it gets really foggy, or it starts hailing, or [insert your least favorite inclement weather description here]... Now you continue to drive without head lights even though we all know that under you have to slap some drivers around before they see you, and should not expect it'll be any different because of bad weather and reduced visibility! On most vehicles, both controls are within close proximity to each other, make it a habit!


I can tell you that in California, (at least Southern California) makes a lot of sense especially because people panic when it starts to rain... They could panic, I don't care... But when they panic and drive like idiots...

Here is out version:

24400.

(a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), "inclement weather" is a weather condition that is either of the following:

(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.

Not relevant, I know.... That is why its in grey



Back to the topic at hand.... If you read 12.04.144, then you must read 12.04.145.... (I'll admit that for the life of me, I cannot figure out what they are trying to say)!

12.04.145 Visibility Distance and Mounted Height of Lamps.

(a) Whenever any requirement is declared in this ordinance as to the distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within such lamps or devices shall be visible, said provisions shall apply, during the times stated in 12.04.144 in respect to a vehicle without load upon a straight, level, unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions unless a different time or condition is expressly stated.
(b) Whenever any requirement is declared in this ordinance as to the mounted height of lamps or devices, it shall mean from the center of such lamp or device to the level ground upon which the vehicle stands when such vehicle is without a load.

OP, that line about the warning citation should get this dismissed.

In a rush today PTPD22, aren't you...

What if the officer cited because, in his opinion, (the "mist" the OP referred to, was in fact "fog") and "due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, including smoke or fog, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead ".... As for the warnign citation part... If you look at the list of codes and associated fines on the page the OP linked,

[wubism]

Thanks for the replies. As for the "fog" counter-argument. This happened at 3:30pm. There wasn't any fog, and it is extremely unlikely for their to be fog at that time.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Well, hold on now... It isn't that bad of a law and here is why, lets say you got in your car and started driving, it was "lightly misting" as the OP described it.... All of a sudden (and we all know how the weather can change drastically in a heartbeat), it is pouring rain, or it gets really foggy, or it starts hailing, or [insert your least favorite inclement weather description here]... Now you continue to drive without head lights even though we all know that under you have to slap some drivers around before they see you, and should not expect it'll be any different because of bad weather and reduced visibility! On most vehicles, both controls are within close proximity to each other, make it a habit!

I don't buy that for one hot minute. 99% of cars today have Daytime Running Lights, and have had them since the mid the late 90's early 2000's. Both of my vehicles always have them on. Can they be disabled? Yeah, on most models... but the "law" still remains crap as far as I am concerned. Some local town judge saw a way to make some money and exploited it with the city council.

[lostintime]

Strange law, probably not even known to exist. Not too surprising considering it's Johnson County, KS.

[That Guy]

As for the "fog" counter-argument. This happened at 3:30pm. There wasn't any fog, and it is extremely unlikely for their to be fog at that time.

Its not a "counter argument". From what you posted:

Ordinance 12.04.144(a) $121.00 fine.

12.04.144 When Lighted Lamps Required; Visibility Distance and Mounted Height of
Lamps.
(a) Every vehicle, except as provided in subsection (b), upon a highway within this state,
at all times shall display lighted head and other lamps and illuminating devices as
required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked
vehicles:
(1) From sunset to sunrise;
(2) when due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions,
including smoke or fog, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly
discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead; or
(3) when windshield wipers are in continuous use as a result of rain, sleet or
snow.
Stop lights, turn signals and other signaling devices shall be lighted as prescribed for
the use of such devices.
(b) Motorcycles, motor-driven cycles and motorized bicycles manufactured after January
1, 1978, shall display lighted head and tail lights at all times that such vehicles are
operated on any highway.
Law enforcement officers shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating subsection (a)(3).
(History: K.S.A. 8-1703; Ord. TC-1260,GGG §1, 2006; TC-1260,FFF §11, 2006; TC-1260 §144,
84)

You can deny that the officer has that as an option; you can go to court expecting he'll testify to "rain" when it was only "mist" according to you.

As for the time of day, sure, you can use that to refute any claims that it was not between sunset to sunrise and therefore 12.04.144(a)(1) isn't an option. As for fog, why is it "extremely unlikely" for it to be foggy at at 3:30pm??? I am not a meteorologists but I assume that given the right amount of moisture in the air, at the right temperature along with a certain range of atmospheric pressure, I suspect it might get foggy regardless of the time of day. I'm not sure what the time of day/night has to do with weather conditions, but hey this is not Kansas.

I don't buy that for one hot minute. 99% of cars today have Daytime Running Lights, and have had them since the mid the late 90's early 2000's. Both of my vehicles always have them on. Can they be disabled? Yeah, on most models... but the "law" still remains crap as far as I am concerned. Some local town judge saw a way to make some money and exploited it with the city council.

And that same 99% of cars, has the auto headlights as part of the daytime running lights setting; that too can be disabled on most models... why not repeal the laws regulating vehicles having to have headlights on during darkness? I mean that too can be interpreted as official malfeasance!

Should we discuss "seat belts" or "emissions and exhaust" next? Your choice; because closer to 100% of cars are manufactured with systems that are compliant and have been since before the mid 90's. Can those be disabled/modified/deleted/replaced? Sure... But the law remains the law, whether we like it or think its crap!

And no, its not a greedy manipulative local town judge who concocted the whole idea... Believe it or not, it is a Kansas statutes as well: 8-1703. When lighted lamps required.

Strange law, probably not even known to exist. Not too surprising considering it's Johnson County, KS.

Says the village idiot from bumm-fvck-Iowa. Had you bothered looking, you would see that your state has almost identical requirements (with the exception of 500' versus 1000')...

321.384 When lighted lamps required.

1. Every motor vehicle upon a highway within the state, at any time from sunset to sunrise, and at such other times when conditions such as fog, snow, sleet, or rain provide insufficient lighting to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet ahead, shall display lighted headlamps as provided in section 321.415, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as hereinafter stated.
2. Whenever requirement is hereinafter declared as to the distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which such lamps or devices shall be visible, said provisions shall apply during the times stated in subsection 1 of this section upon a straight level unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions unless a different time or condition is expressly stated.

[S13, §1571-m17; C24, 27, 31, 35, §5044; C39, §5033.04; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.384]
For applicable scheduled fine, see §805.8A, subsection 3

Its a bottomless pit... Your ignorance, that is!

[lostintime]

Says the village idiot from bumm-fvck-Iowa. Had you bothered looking, you would see that your state has almost identical requirements (with the exception of 500' versus 1000')...

321.384 When lighted lamps required.

1. Every motor vehicle upon a highway within the state, at any time from sunset to sunrise, and at such other times when conditions such as fog, snow, sleet, or rain provide insufficient lighting to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet ahead, shall display lighted headlamps as provided in section 321.415, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles as hereinafter stated.
2. Whenever requirement is hereinafter declared as to the distance from which certain lamps and devices shall render objects visible or within which such lamps or devices shall be visible, said provisions shall apply during the times stated in subsection 1 of this section upon a straight level unlighted highway under normal atmospheric conditions unless a different time or condition is expressly stated.

[S13, §1571-m17; C24, 27, 31, 35, §5044; C39, §5033.04; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.384]
For applicable scheduled fine, see §805.8A, subsection 3

Its a bottomless pit... Your ignorance, that is!

First of all, the implied profanity simply isn't needed. Overland Park is an upscale, almost entirely white, very safe, midwest suburb. These strange laws are mainly enforced in such places where there is very little real crime to worry about. Hard to see this being enforced in the lower-income portions of Kansas City metro.

So you know. I'm not from Iowa, went to high school/college in Iowa, yes. I lived in Chicago for several years as well before deciding to come back because I have family here.

And, you're usual reversion to standard personal insults. That little rural state of Iowa is actually more liberal than most. Ripley himself could marry here for example.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Most states have this law - or something relatively similar. It's part of the NCUTLO's Model Traffic Code (which is now the NCUTCD - National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). These are the same guys that put together our "beloved" MUTCD, as commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration and the NHTSA.

WA (and Iowa) has the barebones - or model law:

RCW 46.37.020: Every vehicle upon a highway within this state at any time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of one thousand feet ahead shall display lighted headlights, other lights, and illuminating devices as hereinafter respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles, and such stop lights, turn signals, and other signaling devices shall be lighted as prescribed for the use of such devices.

With "unfavorable atmospheric conditions" such as rain, snow, etc., anyone can be cited (to the best of my knowledge) across the entire nation. Yes. This does happen.

Do I agree with this law? H*LL YES. The NHTSA has actually completed a number of studies that conclude driving with your headlights on can reduce your chance of an accident by up to something like 60%. I don't know if that's the correct number, as I don't have the studies in front of me, but that's the gist of it. Driving with your headlights on is, believe it or not, SAFER. Insurance companies have produced the same results. Even BC has a law that requires headlamps to be operating at all times... They're not just making this stuff up!

The same NHTSA has done studies that conclude that speeding, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. Crazy, right? In one of those studies they concluded that most of the dual-vehicle accidents are due to another vehicle failing to keep right or lack of operative headlights on one or both of the vehicles.

Interesting how the stuff actually has a purpose! I don't have these studies, and TBH I'm too lazy to look them up on a Saturday night. But do a few google searches and see what you find.

My "distrust" in law enforcement personnel does not come from being ticketed a few times. It comes from corruption or a complete lack of understanding in the legislature's intent. No. Speeding is not dangerous by itself - That's just what your department, legislature and society wants you to believe because the insurance companies push millions of dollars a year into the enforcement of speeding. What IS dangerous is weaving in and out of traffic while speeding because every single car on the interstate is in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit. Maybe you could do your job and make the highways safer by enforcing a law like RCW 46.61.100 - keep right except to pass?

But I digress. In summation? ENGINE ON - LIGHTS ON. REPLACING A BULB IS MUCH CHEAPER THAN REPLACING A LIFE.