Crazy driving laws in your state or country

I run into this problem all the time. Car sitting at intersection, can't see opposite side of car. If they have a turn signal on, I can't see it. It used to be turn signals were mounted on front, where you could see them from most angles. I assume the car is sitting there deciding what to do.

I think cars that don't have lights on have a problem being seen easily, when other cars have them on. And there are those who don't know when to turn their lights on. My truck does everything automatically, lights full on as it gets dark.

Greg

tes:

A lot of the "glare" problem came from the idiocy of making the DRLs use high beam. I still wonder what genius came up with that stupidity.

Harry K

For a while, before I read about the lower-left-corner-OK thing the only place to put it was on the tray-thingy between the front seats. REALLY a dangerous place to put it -- not only do you have to shift focus from far to near, you have to look down roughly at your knees to read it.

AND if you want to actually carry anything useful in the bed of your half-ton pickup, you have to get a COMMERCIAL license for it. This is thanks to the union(s), Sort of like

You can set it on your dashboard, assuming you have a suitably horizontal surface, or on the windshield in the lower driver-side corner.

I got one of those sandbag-like mounts for my 4.3" Garmin and can now stuff it down into the driver-corner. I wish the screen were bigger, though; 10" would be nice.

Maryland has this law too. I actually think it's a good idea.

How about on the front offside quarter glass (assuming the vehicle has one)?

I assume that the California law is so framed in order to stop drivers making adjustments to the GPS whilst on the move. But nothing can stop the driver making adjustments to a satnav built into the dashboard...

This is one of the problems with rules of this sort. Vehicles differ so much in windscreen size and rake angle. The screen on my car is so deeply raked that I cannot reach its lower edge from the driver's seat (and I'd need arms five feet long to reach the lower edge on the opposite side of the car). The quarter glass (part of the body shell, not the door) seems a good compromise.

IPad.

Hmm... But surely it's only easy to see if you take your eyes completely off the road?

I have this superstion about it being unlucky not to look where I'm going...

Balls. Ever see a Saturn?

nate

Nope, Section 26708 of the Vehicle Code requires the driver to have a clear view through the side windows as well as the windshield.

Well, having been driving for over fifty years I suspect I have. I do not ever recall a 'glare' problem from DRLs of any vehicle approaching me. Further, I do not recall any vehicle with DRLs using full power high beams. Virtually every vehicle on the road today with DRLs do not use their main headlight system. They have separate DRL lighting systems, and have for years. Of course, if you fixate on the lights of oncoming vehicles then that is your problem. You get a heck of a lot more glare on sunny days from the sun bouncing off the windows and shiny paint surfaces than you will from DRLs.

On the rare occasions that I use my phone as a satnav, I mount it over the speedometer.

Ah...

This bit might be useful...

QUOTE: (12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver *or* in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield

*nearest* to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated. ENDQUOTE

Obviously of more use with a non-severe rake to the windscreen.

Hmmm... I suppose I *could* use my phone as a satnav...

I have seen it with many vehicles that use high beams for DRLs. Saturns being the most noticeable and the absolute worst (and also they're easily identifiable because the lights are set so closely together.)

This much is true, but some of them are very close to full power, or at least appear that way.

This is contrary to my experience. The majority use either low beams (which I really don't have a problem with - but the question then becomes, why not just manually turn on your low beams, and then you get the conspicuity benefits of having sidemarkers and taillights as well?) or high beams, with most of the remainder using the turn signal bulbs, which causes other problems.

No they don't and no they haven't. The only exception I can think of is GM trucks from a few years back (and maybe still?)

In the case of some of the poorer high beam implementations (and they're all poor,) both are true, and only one of them is aimed directly into my eyes when the vehicle is oncoming.

nate

Who are you going to believe, Nate Nagel, functionally illiterate k00k and driving expert with a fistful of tickets, or your lying eyes?

The NHTSA received, **and responded to**, literally, 'hundreds of complaints"... prior to 1998... so Nate must be right!

-----

- gpsman

> -----

Ignorant people like you are probably the reason Daniel doesn't hang out with us anymore. NHTSA's response was inadequate, as is yours. First of all, this does not address all of the poor implementations of DRLs that do not meet the "new" standards that are still on the road; shame on NHTSA for agreeing to allow the incredibly poor early implementations in the first place. Secondly, it does not prohibit high beam implementations, nor does it prohibit turn signal implementations, which are two of the three most common (the other being low beams, which as I've said, are for the most part acceptable.)

Finally, NHTSA has shown an unwillingness to mandate or even allow "E-code" or ECE compliant headlight beam patterns which would effectively address another major failing of theirs, the poor beam pattern that they mandate which is a leftover from the 1940 introduction of the 7" round sealed beam headlight. Mandating E-codes would a) harmonize the US market with the rest of the developed world, at least the portion that drives on the right hand side of the road, b) reduce glare for motorists and c) improve the ability of motorists to see at night.

nate

Daniel Stern, the unaccredited automotive lighting expert?

I'm not finished.

Really? They didn't mandate a total recall of all vehicles with DRLs due to hundreds of complaints? How odd.

Never bothered me.

To whom...?

Yeah? How much slower and more cautiously do you motor day/night to compensate for all that bullshit? -----

- gpsman

Before you accuse others of not being qualified to express an opinion, you should have the credentials to pronounce yourself more qualified than they. You don't have jack shit for credentials other than being a known internet blowhard.

(proving your ignorance)

They should never have been allowed to have been built in the first place.

Because depending on what persona you're using now you were a truck driver or a fleet manager or a car salesman (never mind that you're clearly not qualified to be any of them)

To me, which is what really matters to me. But also to those who are real experts in the field, and/or have understood the factors at work. It's simple logic - if low beams are not glaring to oncoming traffic at night, then even full power (never mind reduced power) low beams therefore are not glaring during the day or twilight.

I *do* find myself having to slow (and do the "stare at the white line" thing, which surely isn't as safe as actually looking ahead) when traveling on unlit 2-lanes after dark when there is oncoming traffic. For my part, all of my personal vehicles that have been capable of being retrofitted with E-codes have been for a decade or more, so I'm doing my own part to improve the situation.

If you like paying more for shittier equipment, by all means, encourage NHTSA to keep the status quo...

nate