Ticket for not having headlights on during the day

[kfrank]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I received a ticket for CVC 21461(a) for not turning on my headlights. Apparently I passed a sign on the highway saying headlights are required. I did not see the sign and keep in mind it was clear and sunny. Also, I had a courtesy vehicle from my mechanic for the day(which says courtesy vehicle in large letters on the back windshield) that did not have day time running lights as my car does. Does anyone think I have a chance of getting out of this and if so how?
I can't believe I can get a point on my record for this.

 

[racer72]

Nothing in your post suggests the ticket is illegal or improper. You offer no evidence to suggest it should be dismissed. You should talk to a local attorney to discuss your options, they are more familiar with the local courts than a bunch of strangers on the internet.

 

[Jim_bo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I received a ticket for CVC 21461(a) for not turning on my headlights. Apparently I passed a sign on the highway saying headlights are required. I did not see the sign and keep in mind it was clear and sunny. Also, I had a courtesy vehicle from my mechanic for the day(which says courtesy vehicle in large letters on the back windshield) that did not have day time running lights as my car does. Does anyone think I have a chance of getting out of this and if so how?
I can't believe I can get a point on my record for this.

I can't find a regulatory sign in the MUTCD that says "lights are required". That must be a local or CALTRANS requirement. However, it would be interesting to ask the officer at trial to produce evidence that the sign is actually a regulatory sign.

I have seen these signs before. They normally have nothing to do with safety. The rules for when headlights must be used are clearly defined in the VC. Why in the world would it be necessary to run headlights when it is clear and sunny? And to write a ticket under such circumstances is little better than piracy IMO. This is clearly a case where the cop exercised poor judgment or the State is just trying to get into your backpocket.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Those signs are usually posted on highways that are single lane in each direction and that are out where dust storms can and do kick up fairly frequently.

Considering the fact that there are stretches of those highways where passing is allowed and if a driver chooses to do so, they are using the lanes designated for opposing traffic, I say they have a lot to do with safety!

A perfect example would be Hwy 138 west of the 15 Freeway (which is incidently refered to as "Death Highway" because of the number of deadly head-on collisions that have occurred on there).

Also, I'm not sure what part of Mojave you're in Jim-bo but IIRC I've seen them on portions of Hwy 58.

 

[kfrank]

Jim_bo/I got banned, thanks for your replies. It is in fact a single lane highway but it is the 65 north of Sacramento. I have never seen dust storms on it so my guess is it might be due to occasional fog. That is when they should ticket if they are going to. Not on a sunny day.

 

[The Occultist]

That is when they should ticket if they are going to. Not on a sunny day.

Did the sign state under what conditions the headlights must be used? Or simply state that headlights need to be used? Kinda important.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Jim_bo/I got banned, thanks for your replies. It is in fact a single lane highway but it is the 65 north of Sacramento. I have never seen dust storms on it so my guess is it might be due to occasional fog. That is when they should ticket if they are going to. Not on a sunny day.

You have to consider the fact that with sand storms, even with fog, it sneaks up on you at times... One minute, visibility is good, ...., then all of a sudden BBBAAAMMM!!! You're right in the middle of it.

Even when the weather is clear... You have to admit that you can see oncoming traffc from a farther distnce with headlight on as opposed to off.

Check it out the next time you're out there.

Did the sign state under what conditions the headlights must be used? Or simply state that headlights need to be used? Kinda important.

The ones I have seen make no mention of weather conditions.

 

[Jim_bo]

IGB,

There are standards in the VC that dictate when headlights are required. If fog or a sandstorm rolls in and BAM you are in the middle of it with reduced visiblilty, then the VC already demands you have your lights on. However, that has NOTHING to do with the situation at hand. Clearly a bright sunny day does NOT dictate headlight usage.

The issue at hand is... is the sign actually a regulatory sign? Or, is it an advisory sign? The language on the sign is irrlelvant, if it is not classified as a regulatory sign, then the OP did NOT have to obey it as per the VC.

 

[Zigner]

CVC
21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey
a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation
approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or
maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate
and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic
ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic
ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by
lawful authority of a public body or official.


And, the California MUTCD lists the sign (S30-1) requiring the headlights. It is a regulatory sign. OP, per his own admission, is guilty.

ETA: The PDF showing the sign is at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/S30-1.pdf

 

[Jim_bo]

Well... it appears that Zigner is doing his homework for a change instead of just throwing out a generic "YOU'RE GUILTY" verdict for every OP on this site. However, despite his zeal for a conviction, he has yet to see all of the evidence.


Kfrank, Now the question is: Did the sign in question say: DAYLIGHT HEADLIGHT SECTION or TURN ON HEADLIGHTS NEXT X MILES or TURN ON HEADLIGHTS??? The CAMUTCD recognizes only those three signs as regulatory. See the list at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/crossref-reg-ca.pdf . If the sign stated something else, then it was not a regulatory sign. Next time you drive by there, you should snap a picture of the sign.

 

[The Occultist]

Well... it appears that Zigner is doing his homework for a change instead of just throwing out a generic "YOU'RE GUILTY" verdict for every OP on this site. However, despite his zeal for a conviction, he has yet to see all of the evidence.

Wow, still throwing your insults out there, eh? Très gentil.

Next time you drive by there, you should snap a picture of the sign.

Woah, now you're advising somebody to take a picture while operating their vehicle??

 

[CdwJava]

I saw the signs just last night, in fact.

http://www.placer.ca.gov/News/2006/04 Apr/041106A.aspx

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

I saw the signs just last night, in fact.

Highway 65 Signs Unveiled

- Carl

Interesting article, Carl...but also irrelevant. The question at hand was simply, does the signs that the OP was accused of not obeying actually meet the requirements of being a regulatory sign? If so, he is likely SOL. If not, then he should rightly defend himself against an illegal ticket.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

he is likely SOL.

I would have to agree with Jim-bo...





Sorry, kfrank!

I just can't see any rhyme or reason as to why that sign, and many like it would not be as meeting the requirements of it being a regulatory sign! It is possible...

Actually... Naahh, I changed my mind, it is not possible!

 

[VeronicaLodge]

actually, lights on during sunny days can be quite helpful, the sun in certain directions can be quite blinding and can reflect off a gold or silver type car making it almost invisible unless the lights are on. I drive such a car that doesnt have daytime running lights and i turn my lights on every morning especially when its sunny out. i was hit a year ago by someone who was blinded by the sun and didnt see me.