Paybacks a bitch!!!

[Detector]

"(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."

This may be the case IF continuous wipers were involved, but wipers were never mentioned as the reason for needing headlights. In fact the question was asked if fog was the reason and the answer was yes. The wiper concept only came up after the pictures showed fog was not a reason to have the lights on. Wipers were not mentioned because my wipers were not on.

Every resource I have found about lights and fog say nothing about taillights, only headlights must be on.

I do agree she needed a reason, besides the seat belts, to pull me over and no headlights was the only one she could come up with. I still don't believe it was a valid reason, especially to ticket. Had I got a warning for the lights and a ticket for the belts this thread wouldn't exist.

[dustinwadams5]

Where is the arguement here, look at the pictures that he posted. Headlights were not needed and wipers were never mentioned so she had a poor excuse for pulling him over and he should get the no headlight ticket dropped. He could probably get the seatbelt one dropped along with it, but like they said very noble thing to pay the ticket because he knew he did wrong when he could probably get it dropped as well.

Good Luck Detector!

[Zeb]

The thing that bothers me is what Radio said. If she in fact said anything about wipers, it was because he/someone told her what was being said on here.

Or if she really did stop him for that reason, she could have explained why they needed to be on, but she didn't do any of that.

She told him she stopped him for no headlights, without explaining why they were needed. When she returned I asked her if the headlight ticket was because of no headlights in the fog? She said yes (Up until that time we had no idea why they had to be on)

She never , ever said anything about WIPER(s) ever as "NIRadio" would like you to believe. And they were not on anyway.

[Detector]

As you can see the ticket plainly say "No Headlights" not no taillights



If you pull someone over for a made up reason just to write a ticket for a known violation that is low but not surprising. You pull someone over for a made up reason AND site them for it thats just wrong.

[lurker]

FWIW, this evening is heavily overcast and about half of the drivers had their headlights on during my drive home at 5:50. Tonight's sunset is at 6:20 but that isn't really the point ....

Of the half of the drivers without the courtesy of turning on their headlights was a cop.


Not a shining example.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

As you can see .

it still does not change my basic tenet but if the police officer wants to do a stupid thing on the ticket, then by all means have fun with it.

[Detector]

Personally I believe the cop wanted to write a ticket and detector became an easy mark on something that she would not normally bother with.

Not an easy mark. An easy mark she would have had a legitimate reason to pull me over. I think the office saw we had no seat belts and looking for a reason to pull me over she saw no taillights, assumed I had no headlights. I expect to be held accountable when I'm wrong(seat belts) and the officer should expect to be held accountable when wrong. We both made a mistake the only difference is I pay for mine.

NOTE: the reason car manufactures don't have the taillights on in the day with the headlights is because during the day they can be mistaken as brake lights.

[Captain Kemical]

Originally Posted by Detector

NOTE: the reason car manufactures don't have the taillights on in the day with the headlights is because during the day they can be mistaken as break lights.

Brake lights too!

[lurker]

OK. He clutched that one but it's no reason to bash him.

[Detector]

OK, give me a brake!