Paybacks a bitch!!!

[Detector]

Thats called Daytime Running Lamps(DRL) and mine has the same. From my manual.

Your vehicle is equipped with DRL

The DRL system will make your low-beam headlights come on as a reduced brightness when the following conditions are met:
* The ignition is on,
* the exterior lamps control is in AUTO or the parking lamps only position(the only other option is light on)
* the light sensor detects daytime light,
* the parking brake is released

When the DRL system is on, the taillamps, sidemarker lamps, parking lamps and instrument panel lights will not be illuminated.

[Jolly Rancher]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I wonder if you could request a meeting with the city attorney or his assistant prior to court and get them to dismiss the ticket.

Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of trying to prove a point?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

Thats called Daytime Running Lamps(DRL) and mine has the same. From my manual.

Your vehicle is equipped with DRL

The DRL system will make your low-beam headlights come on as a reduced brightness when the following conditions are met:
* The ignition is on,
* the exterior lamps control is in AUTO or the parking lamps only position(the only other option is light on)
* the light sensor detects daytime light,
* the parking brake is released

When the DRL system is on, the taillamps, sidemarker lamps, parking lamps and instrument panel lights will not be illuminated.

And as previously posted by Army from the laws of the State:

"(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."

If you had only the auto headlights that GM supplies, then your lights were not on as you admit and therefore were not on in compliance with the law.

Sheesh, you screwed up. I agree the officer pulling you over was being petty but to deny you were not in compliance is another story. You, not your car's sensor, are responsible to ensure your lights are on.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

And as previously posted by Army from the laws of the State:

"(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."

If you had only the auto headlights that GM supplies, then your lights were not on as you admit and therefore were not on in compliance with the law.

Sheesh, you screwed up. I agree the officer pulling you over was being petty but to deny you were not in compliance is another story. You, not your car's sensor, are responsible to ensure your lights are on.

Look at the pictures on this thread, visibility did NOT warrant the need for the headlights to be on. Windshield wipers have nothing to do with this as nowhere does it say his wipers were on, in fact it has been strongly hinted by Zeb that the wipers weren't on.

[lurker]

Doe$ anyone remember that the city received a 'grant' granting the cop$ permi$$ion to go out and write ticket$ for $eatbelt violation$?

As usual, follow the money.....

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by Jolly Rancher

Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of trying to prove a point?

He wouldn't get far with Malone anyway!

[Detector]

As bubba said wipers never were in the picture. Mine weren't on and there was no mention of wipers only the "I did not have my headlights on."

I believe she saw I had no taillights and assumed I had no headlights because there is no doubt my headlights were on.

Here's my dilemma. I'm hoping I can plead not guilty to the no headlights but guilty to the seatbelt charge. I know I might be able to get the seatbelt charge dropped but I don't want that. Call me stupid but it's a matter of principle. We have too many people not being held accountable for their mistakes because of a technicality, and I don't want to be one of them.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Detector

As bubba said wipers never were in the picture. Mine weren't on and there was no mention of wipers only the "I did not have my headlights on."

I believe she saw I had no taillights and assumed I had no headlights because there is no doubt my headlights were on.

Here's my dilemma. I'm hoping I can plead not guilty to the no headlights but guilty to the seatbelt charge. I know I might be able to get the seatbelt charge dropped but I don't want that. Call me stupid but it's a matter of principle. We have too many people not being held accountable for their mistakes because of a technicality, and I don't want to be one of them.

You are a noble man!

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Bubba

You are a noble man!

I agree, Detector is noble....He's a member of The Adams Family DA-DA-DA-DUM - "click-click" but I don't think his head needs to sit on the trophy shelf of the Seatbelt Police.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Look at the pictures on this thread, visibility did NOT warrant the need for the headlights to be on. Windshield wipers have nothing to do with this as nowhere does it say his wipers were on, in fact it has been strongly hinted by Zeb that the wipers weren't on.

Then it becomes a question of who's judgement is correct. The officer's or Detectors?

If I recall correctly the initial complaint, other than the insuation of getting pulled over because he complained about a slow moving police officer, was that his lights were on tho the cop said they weren't. We all agree GM has for some years wired their cars so that the headlights come on automatically day or night. The other lights may come on automatically if sensors detect it being dark enough but in this case that did not happen and using the law that Army posted, only having the headlights on is not in compliance. One of my car has daytime running lights too, and two have sensors that turn all lights on when the photocells indicate the light is dropping. Regardless I have to remember to turn them on manually when I get into a rain shower or fog.
How many times have you been behind cars on wet pavement that are tossing up spray and it becomes hard to see the car if their lights are off?

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. Most of my experiences with traffic enforcement in Kansas were positive and generally involved speed. I got lucky and only got written warnings and in a few other cases where they could have wrote me a ticket they just signaled me to slow down and kept going.