I fear you are right. My dad was a cop on the same road for 20 years and he never wrote for lights as long as something was on.

 

Most idiotic thing i have ever read... no such law exists in colorado. NOW if there were a strech of highway that was marked "NEXT 10 MILES Passanger must give Oral - Violaters will be prosecuted"... The GF and I would have to take the Long way to dinner!

GL with the ticket... I know if it is the LAW, they dont much care what others didnt get caught for, only what you DID get cought For. If you had your parking lights on then i would fight it.. MOST new car manufactors Daytime running lights are not their headlights and if they are they are dimmer then the headlights on. If the "FACTORY LIGHTS DONT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW" Doubt they can actually ticket you for a car that MEETS ITS required standards of when it was manufactored... 10-14yrs ago (same with emissions.. they meet the standards required when it was manufactored). I would fight the ticket..

S

 

For NV, what's the NRS # on your ticket?

 

It's your DRLs he didn't "like". They're not headlights. If you had your headlights on, he would have "liked" them.

Pay the ticket.

 

I don't seem to get hassled in my car. Sounds like he was fishing.

 

I have traveled that road a ton of times and there is a section where you have to have your head lights on, Not the daytime running lights.
It seems you did break the law if you didn't have your lights on, Just pay up.

 

Got it. DRLs are not synonomous with headlights so if "headlights" are required, DRLs won't cut it. The DRLs on C5s are glorified blinkers so I can see that being especially scrutinized as compared to many other DRLs which actually do run the regular headlight or at least a bulb within the headlight housing.

That being said, that is a crap ticket.

 

And asking a cop why he didn't pull over the other guy(s) will always get you a ticket, even if he was just planning on giving you a warning.

 

:agree: Yeah, that one's right on up there with asking them why they don't go chase real criminals.

In any case, I'm betting the sign didn't say DRLs on. Probably more like "Headlights on".....fail.

 

This is probably a stupid question, but why do they require you to drive with your headlights on on a specific section of road? I could understand it if visibility is limited by certain weather conditions, but it seems a bit silly to require motorists to have their headlights on if conditions don't merit it.

 

There is an area on Rt 15 between Frederick MD and Leesburg, VA. Same deal - headlights on. The road is perfectly straight and flat but does occasionally fog. Only occasionally. Really doesn't make sense there either.

 

You need to hammer that dumbass in court.

 

It's a two lane highway with the speed limit from 65-75 mph. Lot's of them out here in Nevada. It's just a safety precaution. I always turn mine on and will usually run the high beams in the daytime. I've come to close to being hit from passing cars coming at me. I always wonder when I see cars without their lights on when it clearly states it's a "Daytime Headlight" section of the highway why they aren't on. Is it that hard to reach up and flick a switch? Never heard of anybody getting a ticket, though.

 

Did a little research and found the signage (and pictures of the road) that requires headlights for 144 miles on that stretch of road. I understand the safety thing, but ticketing someone for having their DRL's on instead of their headlights seems a little bit too much. I guess it is what it is.

 

I too think it's a bit much, but the more I think about this one, the more I'm inclined to believe there's another possibility at work here namely, the officer was pulling (or about to pull out) onto the roadway, and may have only seen the OP's Vette at the last second, having to stop suddenly or maybe he was startled a bit, and got a bit irritated. Wouldn't be the first time a ticked-off cop decided to stop someone for what would otherwise be a very minor thing because it involved him personally.

Btw, the LEO did NOT ticket him for having his DRLs on (which come on automatically anyway) but rather, he ticketed him for not having his headlights on, as required. Big difference.

 

I would go to court and go one of two ways.

1. I would look at where the sign is located in relation to your stop...if there was an on ramp between the sign and your stop location, and you MAY have gotten on and not been able to see the sign, then you cannot be held liable for it, as it's a special condition for that section of road. I'd also point out that GM pioneered daytime running light technology, and petitioned the NHTSA to run daytime running lights, but the petition was denied due to excessive glare. As a result, GM researched and found that the most effective and visible light were the ambers. (All this is documented and on the internet).

2. I'd argue that I was aware of the sign, but then reference the GM information about DRL's and amber being adequate, etc. I'd further plea that due to the flip up design of the headlights creating drag, and knowing that GM's research held that the DRL's were the safest implementation that you went that route.

In the end, technically you're guilty, but you can't just go in there with a "duhhh". I'd argue based upon the misinterpretation of the law and the sign itself. I'd point out that the case here wasn't an issue of you having no lights on, it's a dispute of what the factory provides as a legal Daytime Running light versus what the officer self interpreted.

If you get a reasonable judge, it's possible. I'd also take pictures of the car with headlights on, and with the drl's on...maybe play with the lighting conditions in which you take the pic and see where you can find a similar output, or even a condition where the DRL stands out more. A little legwork to do, but it's worth it if you're looking at 4 points.


Lastly, was the officer pulling out of an actual side road, or pulling out from the grass or something? To me, this would be an issue I'd possibly bring up, depending on the condition. If there's a slight berm, and he's pulling from grass, he's potentially causing a danger and tried to turn the blame towards you. Also, did the officer have his headlights on?

I've argued many cases in court against officers and won. Here in PA we have a tiered bs court system, and at the first "magistrate" level, you basically lose automatically...but at the appeals court (a real judge), you can win...and I do...often. Don't be scared to present your case.

 

You guys are too damn funny! The judge won't even ask the cop he will ask the OP if he had his headlights on in that headlight required area? NO? then pay the fine, loose your time away from what you were doing to try and get out of a $75 ticket ? really???? Like I said above these headlight on areas in our area are because of many , many past fatalities do to dumb A$$'s trying to pass were they should not and most likely paid the price for it or an innocent person or family in the other car DID! Sure they rarely ticket people for this but maybe there LEO was having a bad day or almost didn't see the Vette? who knows or cares? I frequent these roads almost daily and turn the lights on out of habit?
Still sorry to the OP sucks for sure!

 

I understand. I spent many years as a patrol officer and it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, particularly at 3 p.m. on a sunny day. I'm sure they can write tickets for that specific violation all day long, especially to those who don't travel that road frequently.

 

on the bright side at least the cop didn't shoot you...or your dog...or your car

 

That is just totally stupid. I know in South Carolina you have to have your headlights on if it is raining...Sounds like he was just looking for a reason to pull you over. I would go to court and fight the hell out of that.