Charged with violating 24400 (b) : Operating without headlight in inclement weather.

[xylene]

Automatic lights and wipers are garbage.

Turn your lights on. Not hard.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, did you catch the post where the op stated the letters R W L were on the cite for weather, road, traffic conditions. Do you have an interpretation?

If I could see where on the cite they were, maybe. Otherwise it's pure guesswork as the notes an officer makes are for HIS recollection, not anyone else's. We all have our own shorthand. It could be (R)ain, (W)est (for direction traveled), and (L)ight (for traffic).

 

[eecraft]

Why would =you think it is the job of the police to listen to your excuses? Arguing on the side of the road is both unsafe, and generally unproductive. It is unlikely that anything the officer says will change your mind and all it will do will be to distract the officer from what he is doing. As a note, this is a tactic taken by many who wish to do officers harm, so part of training generally includes NOT engaging the suspect in a debate on the side of the road.

Details are relevant again. We were on a city surface street, and I had pulled into a strip mall parking lot.

And I wasn't arguing, but merely pointing out to the officer that I had been diligent about this by using automatic features. The lighting dial on my vehicle is very conveniently located close to the driver window, and I was able to point the exact setting out to the officer. I don't know what the equivalent term for 'exercising reasonable effort' or 'negligence beyond reasonable doubt' is in traffic policing. But if it is anything like the other parts of our justice system, I had (more than) met it in my view.

This is getting down to: 'the timing threshold for continuous operation of windshield by your vehicle manufacturer does not meet my interpretation of the standard'. Law just says continuous, so we are indeed discussing what the word continuous means to different people - 3 seconds? 15 seconds? 1 minute? Hence, nit-picking. (I'm considering you - specifically CdwJava - to be a reasonable person of the system.)

This is indeed why I believe the officer had pre-judged the situation. If, for example, I had the headlights dial to 'off' or if the ran had been continuous - as it was later in the day at about 3:30 or 4pm and onwards for a few hours - same street, same speed etc - then I believe that officer would be entirely correct in making the citation.

And if 'give citations, don't ask questions' is the policy - then the rest of the system needs to be not biased against the citizen. (I'm using the word bias in the same sense as you have before).
Not that I have a lot of familiarity with the other segments of the justice system (was on a jury couple of years ago, that is the majority of it) - but I'm not seeing where the equivalents of 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'reasonable doubt' are in the traffic system.

Let me contrast this with a very positive experience with the police that I did have >20 years ago, different state and my car at the time did not have GPS or any of the things that we now do that make things easier. Was a stick shift too. It was late at night that we were returning from visiting a friend in a different town about 40 miles away. I was lost trying to find the freeway, an officer pulled me over - to the side of the road. That was a situation you might call dangerous (compared to a parking lot in the middle of a town in the middle of the day). He asked me several questions, then said "your driving appeared to be that of a drunk driver". I can easily see how that was possible given that for a few blocks I would hesitate on a turn or take it abruptly hoping to find something recognizable on a map we had. Then he said "Don't think this is the case." and then actually gave me directions and a general advice to not make those types of hesitant driving moves should I ever be lost again as it had led him to a wrong initial assumption.

 

[justalayman]

Maybe he saw your wipers run once or twice due to the rain and noticed your lights not on. That is sufficient to issue the ticket. Since you said you were going to pay it any discussion is meaningless.

 

[eecraft]

If I could see where on the cite they were, maybe. Otherwise it's pure guesswork as the notes an officer makes are for HIS recollection, not anyone else's. We all have our own shorthand. It could be (R)ain, (W)est (for direction traveled), and (L)ight (for traffic).

They are in the " Comments (weather, road, traffic)" box.

The direction was due south. I would've guessed W for wet, but that's almost the same as rain?
I had thought R=rain (weather), W=wet (road), L=light(traffic) as that matches the box title.

Traffic was certainly light, even by the standards of that particular road.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Your argument does not appear to be that you were not in violation of the law, but that your judgment was better than the law. Having driven millions of miles without a chargeable accident, I can think of several times, usually at night, I drove in snow whiteout or in heavy fog with my headlights off and my 4 ways on to maximize visibility at posted speed, while being followed by a train of vehicles who felt safe following my taillights/flashers, because it was clear I knew what I was doing to maximize visibility. That does not mean I was not breaking the law and could have received a ticket for it. You need to understand the difference between the two.

 

[eecraft]

Maybe he saw your wipers run once or twice due to the rain and noticed your lights not on. That is sufficient to issue the ticket. Since you said you were going to pay it any discussion is meaningless.

I think the part in bold is exactly what happened. It was drizzling for a few minutes and then stop etc. In retrospect, having a video of it would've been perfect.

I can see that pulling over somebody on that alone is one of the ways in which people are made aware to be careful of driving in the rain. Where I'm struggling with is from there on:
- Either the officer should complete the determination more carefully. As in, in this case, that I had made reasonable efforts to account for inclement weather.
(So it deserves a warning, perhaps, if the efforts were not entirely adequate.)
- Or the rest of the system needs to not be biased against the citizen. Which it seems to be.

This is unfortunate for all of us, ultimately. Traffic is how we interact with police most often (going by statistics). And if we can't have a traffic justice system that listens to the citizen, then its hard for the citizen to trust that system, and that transfers to a lack of trust in the police.

The reason I decided to pay the fine is taking this thread as a proxy, I doubt I will get some sort of fairness out of this system. And that rankles, and leads to the negative thoughts about the police.

 

[CdwJava]

And I wasn't arguing, but merely pointing out to the officer that I had been diligent about this by using automatic features.

Relying on automatic features can still get you in trouble. It is still your responsibility to make sure the law is adhered to. Yes, it is arguable whether or not the section was violated or not, but, relying on automatic systems is not a defense.

This is getting down to: 'the timing threshold for continuous operation of windshield by your vehicle manufacturer does not meet my interpretation of the standard'. Law just says continuous, so we are indeed discussing what the word continuous means to different people - 3 seconds? 15 seconds?

If it's sufficient for the wipers to be in an "On" position instead of the manual "Mist" (a one time swipe of the wipers) then that is often going to be considered enough to count as "on" (continuously). At least that's how I see it.

And if 'give citations, don't ask questions' is the policy - then the rest of the system needs to be not biased against the citizen. (I'm using the word bias in the same sense as you have before).

I didn't say you could not ask questions, only that the officer is not obligated to debate or discuss the matter on the side of the road. If your defense was that the system would automatically do, then you are essentially admitting that the lights were not on.

If you go to court, the officer will explain what he saw, and you will explain why you believe the elements of the offense were not met and the court will render a decision. As I have never seen one of these in court, I have no idea how it might turn out. Though, if the officer insists that the rain was sufficient to require wipers and you had them activated, then you will likely lose. But, maybe not.

Let me contrast this with a very positive experience with the police that I did have >20 years ago, different state and my car at the time did not have GPS or any of the things that we now do that make things easier. Was a stick shift too. It was late at night that we were returning from visiting a friend in a different town about 40 miles away. I was lost trying to find the freeway, an officer pulled me over - to the side of the road. That was a situation you might call dangerous (compared to a parking lot in the middle of a town in the middle of the day). He asked me several questions, then said "your driving appeared to be that of a drunk driver". I can easily see how that was possible given that for a few blocks I would hesitate on a turn or take it abruptly hoping to find something recognizable on a map we had. Then he said "Don't think this is the case." and then actually gave me directions and a general advice to not make those types of hesitant driving moves should I ever be lost again as it had led him to a wrong initial assumption.

That's great, and we do that sort of thing all the time. He stopped you because he thought you might be impaired, you provided a reasonable explanation for what he observed, and he let you go.

 

[eecraft]

Your argument does not appear to be that you were not in violation of the law, but that your judgment was better than the law. Having driven millions of miles without a chargeable accident, I can think of several times, usually at night, I drove in snow whiteout or in heavy fog with my headlights off and my 4 ways on to maximize visibility at posted speed, while being followed by a train of vehicles who felt safe following my taillights/flashers, because it was clear I knew what I was doing to maximize visibility. That does not mean I was not breaking the law and could have received a ticket for it. You need to understand the difference between the two.

Not quite, actually.

My primary argument is that I had made a reasonable attempt to comply with the law by using automatic features of my car. My secondary argument is that there was very little reason for me to use judgement to override an automotive system that seems to work. For e.g. if it was pouring hard - like it did about 5 hours later - and my lights were still not on (i.e. the automatic function was very clearly not working), only then my judgement would need to be considered.

My explicit due diligence after getting the ticket was to contact the manufacturer of the vehicle to double check that this works as it is expected to work. It does, though clearly California law needs interpretation of the word "continuous", and that this is very subjective.

My frustration is that there's no place in the system to even explain any of this to anybody. No room for 'reasonable doubt', no attempt to prove guilt beyond a few seconds of observation by a police officer, if that. In this specific case, I had been in the city of Saratoga for no more than 15-20 seconds or so, having approached from San Jose - where this officer had no jurisdiction.
(What if $300 was a big financial burden for me? What would cause me to trust this particular officer on a non-traffic matter?)

 

[CdwJava]

Actually, there is a place to make your argument as to justification - court. If the officer will not listen to your explanation, then you can give it a try in court.

And, to clear up a misconception, CA peace officers have jurisdiction most everywhere in the state for offenses committed in their presence. Had the deputy observed you committing a violation in San Jose, he could have stopped you there even if you did not pass into his primary jurisdiction. And since both cities are in Santa Clara County there wouldn't be a jurisdictional issue at all.

 

[eecraft]

Relying on automatic features can still get you in trouble. It is still your responsibility to make sure the law is adhered to. Yes, it is arguable whether or not the section was violated or not, but, relying on automatic systems is not a defense.


If it's sufficient for the wipers to be in an "On" position instead of the manual "Mist" (a one time swipe of the wipers) then that is often going to be considered enough to count as "on" (continuously). At least that's how I see it.


I didn't say you could not ask questions, only that the officer is not obligated to debate or discuss the matter on the side of the road. If your defense was that the system would automatically do, then you are essentially admitting that the lights were not on.

If you go to court, the officer will explain what he saw, and you will explain why you believe the elements of the offense were not met and the court will render a decision. As I have never seen one of these in court, I have no idea how it might turn out. Though, if the officer insists that the rain was sufficient to require wipers and you had them activated, then you will likely lose. But, maybe not.


That's great, and we do that sort of thing all the time. He stopped you because he thought you might be impaired, you provided a reasonable explanation for what he observed, and he let you go.

I agree with the first bolded sentence. Specifically using yesterday, if I was at the sample place, same speed at ~ 4pm (when it was raining continuously, without interpretation) - if my lights were not turned on in the automatic setting - that might have been an example of that. A verbal warning also would've been more than enough, such as "Can you check that your car will actually do what you think it does?" or "Next time, just turn on your lights." - depending on if that officer believes in technology or not.

I think, perhaps naively, that the second bolded sentence ought to be the norm, not an exception. That leads to fair justice systems, and to trust in the police. In the > 20 year old example the officer went beyond letting me go. He solved my immediate directions problem and gave me valuable advice that made me a better driver in many situations where I was lost after that. That exceptional going beyond does not have to be the norm, but certainly accepting reasonable explanations isn't as much to ask. (In this case, the head light dial was easily visible to the officer from where he stood and I was able to point to the 'auto' setting. )

 

[eecraft]

Actually, there is a place to make your argument as to justification - court. If the officer will not listen to your explanation, then you can give it a try in court.

And, to clear up a misconception, CA peace officers have jurisdiction most everywhere in the state for offenses committed in their presence. Had the deputy observed you committing a violation in San Jose, he could have stopped you there even if you did not pass into his primary jurisdiction. And since both cities are in Santa Clara County there wouldn't be a jurisdictional issue at all.

Thanks, good to know about jurisdiction. Not that I have any intent to finesse on that

On the bolded part: That's what my thinking had been yesterday when I joined this forum. Now, I've decided against it - mostly based on believing after some investigation - that the system is indeed too complex and biased in favor of the officer. And my perception of having drawn a short straw in terms of encountering a fair officer. About the only thing I have to add is that I've checked with the manufacturer of the vehicle.

But, as you pointed out - that still leaves open the interpretation of the word "continuous". I can talk to the manufacturer again and find out that continuous to them means "X number of seconds", and I don't have video proof that the rain yesterday was less than that X. Which in any case the officer can say his interpretation is less time than that of the manufacturer.

 

[eecraft]

Relying on automatic features can still get you in trouble. It is still your responsibility to make sure the law is adhered to. Yes, it is arguable whether or not the section was violated or not, but, relying on automatic systems is not a defense.


If it's sufficient for the wipers to be in an "On" position instead of the manual "Mist" (a one time swipe of the wipers) then that is often going to be considered enough to count as "on" (continuously). At least that's how I see it.

The wipers were also on auto, and in my vehicle intermittent rain triggers a few swipes too.

Manufacturer service line specifically said: if wipers are detected to be continuously on, then the headlights will also turn on if they have been set to auto. Both were set on auto.

The issue is that "continuous" is subject to interpretation in the vehicle code. This is why I am not pursuing the court option.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It is a moot point, no different than the lights not coming on within the prescribed time near dusk and you relying on an automatic feature. Just because your car has an automatic transmission with cruise control does not give you the right to speed "accidentally".

 

[eecraft]

It is a moot point, no different than the lights not coming on within the prescribed time near dusk and you relying on an automatic feature. Just because your car has an automatic transmission with cruise control does not give you the right to speed "accidentally".

Again, not quite.

There are times published for sunrise & sunset, so it is a relatively precise quantity not subject to interpretation like the word "continuous" is in 24400.
(And there are accuracy of time guard bands specific to a geography for those sunrise/sunset times.)

Speed is published on all highways and on most major roads and important zones (like schools). That's even a bit more easier to be in compliance with than 30 minutes after/before sunset/sunrise.