Headlights vs running lights safety concern

my5cents
Guru
Posts: 8337
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by my5cents »

Bsuds : I think we are talking about two different things.

This started when johnp3 stated : “I would like to see the Daytime running law enforced” (Note : He DID NOT say “I would like to see driving without headlights at night, enforced”)

I replied that I didn’t think there actually was a law that required daytime running lights. Thus the police aren’t shirking their duties, there was not law to enforce.

Then you state :” The (“they”?) probably are because it's the same as no tail lights and a safety violation. So they could if they wanted.”

I commented that I didn’t understand what you were talking about because there is no requirement to drive with taillights on during the day.

Now you are stating that “I (you) never said daytime”. That’s what the conversation you joined was discussing, “daytime running”.

If someone does not have their “lights on” and it is dark outside that is and always has been a violation of “driving without headlights”.

As for driving at night with daytime running lights.... daytime running lights, on most vehicles, are NOT the low beam headlights on during the day. The daytime lights are the high beam filaments powered at a lower power. So not only are daytime lights not appropriate for night driving because the vehicle taillights are not illuminated but also the headlight are a) not the low beam lights and b) are not at full power.

I think we are in agreement, just were talking about two different issues and didn't realized it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by twobits »

Bsuds wrote:
Then call it a safety regulation and you can be ticketed for it. Tail lights at night (I never said daytime) or brake lights are safety violations if not working and so are DRL's.


What part of cars prior to 1989 that did not come factory equipped with DRL's are exempt from the regulation do you not understand? There are plenty of other examples on the road. Five mile per hour bumpers and shoulder vs lap belts come to mind. My 1964 has none of the above and is perfectly legal to register and operate.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Bsuds »

my5cents wrote:I think we are in agreement, just were talking about two different issues and didn't realized it.


Your right, my point was that cars equipped with DRL's that are not working could be stopped if the police decided too. Not that they ever would as there are much more important things to worry about. Day or night is irrelevant and I was only trying to make a point that if any light on a car is not working when it is supposed to work would be considered a safety problem. I realize that cars that never had DRL's or seat belts for that matter are exempt.
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Bsuds »

twobits wrote:What part of cars prior to 1989 that did not come factory equipped with DRL's are exempt from the regulation do you not understand?


Where did that come from? Did I ever say pre 1990 cars had to have them installed?
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by twobits »

Bsuds wrote:
Where did that come from? Did I ever say pre 1990 cars had to have them installed?


I think a few of us got confused about what you were trying to convey. It's all good.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Bsuds »

Yes, sometimes what is in a posters head and what gets written sometimes gets kerfuffled in translation. lol
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
Midnite
Fledgling
Posts: 240
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2011, 8:37 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Midnite »

As anyone who has imported a post 1990 vehicle from the U.S. would be aware, daytime running lights are not required there because the NHTSA does not require them. They do not feel any safety advantage is gained with the use of DRls. In fact many Americans disable the DRLs for various lame reasons like saving fuel or light bulbs. Ever hear "Sometimes you have to tell a fool they are being foolish" ? lol
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Bsuds »

They are required here and if you import it into Canada you will have to install them.

http://www.riv.ca/VehicleModifications.aspx
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
Midnite
Fledgling
Posts: 240
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2011, 8:37 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Midnite »

Bsuds wrote:They are required here and if you import it into Canada you will have to install them.

http://www.riv.ca/VehicleModifications.aspx


Did you read my post? This is why people would be aware of the difference between Canada and the US regulations. I just don't understand the American resistance to DRLs
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54926
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Bsuds »

Midnite wrote:As anyone who has imported a post 1990 vehicle from the U.S.


You started off with this and I was agreeing with you but most Canadians have never imported a car from the US or anywhere else for that matter, Just showing the regulation for those who might not believe. As for the Americans they are missing more than a few bright lights.
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
Tony
Übergod
Posts: 1296
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Tony »

="Midnite"
Did you read my post? This is why people would be aware of the difference between Canada and the US regulations. I just don't understand the American resistance to DRLs


The American mindset on DRL's is that it is their option and their right to be able to drive with or without light on, and the Government shouldn't have any say. They have the same mindset about healthcare. They feel and fear it is "socialistic".
Dizzy1
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10778
Joined: Feb 12th, 2011, 1:56 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by Dizzy1 »

my5cents wrote:The Federal law is that any vehicle built after December 1, 1989 be fitted with daytime running lights.

January 1st 1990.
Nobody wants to hear your opinion. They just want to hear their own opinion coming out of your mouth.
my5cents
Guru
Posts: 8337
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by my5cents »

Dizzy1 wrote:"my5cents"-The Federal law is that any vehicle built after December 1, 1989 be fitted with daytime running lights."
.
.
January 1st 1990.

We're splitting hairs here

The law actually applies to :
- "Vehicles sold in Canada, built after December 1, 1989"
- "all new vehicle made or imported into Canada after January 1, 1990"
- "vehicles that are imported into Canada that are more than 15 years old don't fall under Federal Jurisdiction"

So in December 1989 if you imported a vehicle into Canada (didn't buy it in Canada) that didn't have DTRL you could operate it without DTRL.

Why the two dates, who knows, it's the government.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
FSmith59
Banned
Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 10th, 2013, 5:01 pm

Re: Headlights vs running lights safety concern

Post by FSmith59 »

I read all the posts, all mind you I skipped over a bunch of the "regulation" parts.

Not once did I see any of you simply reply something like "it is dusk, turn on your damn headlights, and be aware of vehicles coming towards you and make sure you are using your low beams. If the road ahead is clear, fell free to use your high beams."

Every post seemed to "explain" why their smart vehicle knows when to use it's lights. Not a single post made reference to simply using your low/high beams like you are supposed to.

Idiot factor X's 10.
Post Reply

Return to “Central Okanagan”