Paybacks a bitch!!!

[Tee]

I had to go to Norton and Oakley today. All the way up there visibility was very bad. I must have passed 30 vehicles with their lights off. It's especially dangerous to drive with your lights off on the hiway in low visibility because no matter how bad the conditions, there is always that brave nut that thinks he can safely pass to get around some 30 mph driver. I flashed (blinked my lights) at every driver idiot driver that had their lights off and maybe only 1/2 turned their lights on. I think it is poor judgement to drive with your lights off in poor visibility on the hiway. I don't think it really matters that much in the city since most people don't use the oncoming lane to pass other vehicles.

If I were you Detector, I'd contest it and take your pictures to court. The worst that could happen is the fine would stick. The best that could happen is the officer would not show up and you'd get it dismissed. You could always talk to the DA and see if he thinks it is worth setting a trial date for- he'll probably dismiss it if you show him your pictures and tell him you were in the city with your lights set to auto.

[TexKan]

Do your officers get paid for court time?

[K C Muffin]

Yeah. About that "just pay the ticket and hush" thing....I finally got my itty bitty speeding ticket set aside. The fine would have been just under $125 plus some court costs. Damn thing ended up costing $350. But it won't appear on my MVR or my insurance. That was what I wanted for an end result. Now, I can go out and speed again! Ha ha - I have slowed down a lot. I just wish I didn't drive so much for work now.....That darned speed creeps up on me on the highway. I been using the cruz control a lot more!!!

[NoLongerInRadioGuy]

Yes, we do get paid for court time if it falls outside of our normal working hours.

I talked to the officer who wrote the ticket that this whole thread started about. She was working a special patrol for seat belt and child restraint enforcement, as was adverised in the Daily Globe. Since the no seat belt charge is a secondary offense (officers cant pull over for it alone), she showed on the ticket the reason for stop, which is not operating headlights when windshield wipers were on. She also mentioned that your passenger was not wearing a seat belt either and could have been cited, but the one she wrote you was the last ticket she had with her....

[Highwayman]

She ran out of tickets? Sounds like a busy day!

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by NoLongerInRadioGuy

Yes, we do get paid for court time if it falls outside of our normal working hours.

I talked to the officer who wrote the ticket that this whole thread started about. She was working a special patrol for seat belt and child restraint enforcement, as was adverised in the Daily Globe. Since the no seat belt charge is a secondary offense (officers cant pull over for it alone), she showed on the ticket the reason for stop, which is not operating headlights when windshield wipers were on. She also mentioned that your passenger was not wearing a seat belt either and could have been cited, but the one she wrote you was the last ticket she had with her....

There you have it Detector, take it to court and fight it, you might just get the seatbelt dropped as well. Since the statute about headlights clearly says when wipers are on continuous, since it was only a heavy fog/mist this morning you can easily argue that your wipers were on intermittent, which is not continuous, you shouldn't be charged with that. Then since you shouldn't have that there would have been no reason to pull you over for the seatbelt, since it is said above that you can't be pulled over for that alone.

PS. Use Rain-X, then you will rarely need wipers to be used. I have been in storms with it on my windshield and everybody else has their wipers going full blast, and mine are not on or on intermittent at most. That stuff works great!

[Detector]

I wonder how they plan to enforce that "continuous wiper" thing. Seems too me it's going to turn into a officer: "you had them on" citizen: "no I didn't" and of course we know where the judge will side. For example in my case, I turned on my wipers just to clear my windshield after setting in the parking lot. After that they were not needed except for the slowest delay.

I guess I could ask to see the cars video because I'm very sure my lights were on. Hell my lights stay on in broad daylight. Maybe thats why she was chuckling.

Thanks NLIRG. I can understand the seatbelt ticket but I still don't get why the no lights ticket and not just a warning. I can see why she would have been out of tickets. I've told quite a few people about this new headlights wiper law and not a one knew anything about it. Kind of cheap to pass a new law and not inform the public in my opinion. Again, another reason why it should have been a warning instead of a ticket.

Since the statute about headlights clearly says when wipers are on continuous, since it was only a heavy fog/mist this morning you can easily argue that your wipers were on intermittent, which is not continuous, you shouldn't be charged with that.

I guess someone needs to put the new statute to the test in court.

[wordsmythe]

They'll just tell you that your wipers were turned to an on position and not being operated manually...Good luck fighting it.

[Detector]

They'll just tell you that your wipers were turned to an on position and not being operated manually...Good luck fighting it.

Probably, but I do have a witness that was with me at the time. I also have a pristine ticket that should show signs of moisture if it was raining. Also out of the 4 vehicles in the picture only one seems to have the wipers on and that could have easily been intermittent or manual.

[Cally]

Detector, another thing to take note of in your pictures, the street lights don't appear to be on.