Daylight Headlight Zones

[bcjack]

Are the "Daylight Headlight Zones" a recommended or advisory deal or is the use of headlights during the day in these zones mandatory?

If mandatory, what CVC Section is violated when they are not used?

[RodeoChippie]

It depends, are the signs white with black letters or yellow with black letters? If they are yellow/black its advisory if its white black it regulatory. I would think it would be a violation of 21461(a) VC, fail to obey a regulatory sign, unless there is something specific to daylight headlight zones. There aren't any of those in my area so I've never written a ticket for that.

[dw]

They are mandatory, the signs are black and white regulatory markings. Apparently they were not enforceable however, under CVC 21461(a), so a new law was passed specifically relating to the zones. I'm sure someone who works an area with such zones can tell us what is is. Maybe they could also explain to me why 21461(a) does not apply, seems to me it should.

[Your Mentor]

I've never heard of an alternate section and have used the regulatory sign section without incident. Oops. We have a problem with Oregon drivers not turning on their headlights in snow or rain and that relatively new section has caused more grief on the shoulder as a result. But the daylight headlamp section is so obvious. People blatently ignore it. That or the average citizen doesn't know the difference between a regulatory sign (black and white) and a cautionary sign (black over yellow).

[Mac]

The signs are regulatory (black and white), so it definitely is mandatory to use your headlights in those sections of roadway and you can be cited for failing to do so. 21461(a) is the section I've always used also.

[NWTSCL]

21461(a) says that the signs must be in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual.

They are not a part of the the list of approved Regulatory Signs (Table 2B-1) of the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/pdf-index.htm

Nor had they been a part of the Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/signchart.html

Daylight Headlight regulatory signs did not exist in the California Uniform Sign Chart that was released in 1990. But they were later released in the 2006 version as S30-1, S30-2, S30-3, S30-4, S30-5.

[Your Mentor]

Thank you for that excellent breakdown. So what would be the appropriate section? <he asks without looking it up himself>

[NWTSCL]

Beats me! I only know what I posted because I used to work signs with Caltrans. :smile:

[dw]

Thank you for that excellent breakdown. So what would be the appropriate section? <he asks without looking it up himself>

I'm pretty sure it was in the digest of new legislation this year... I don't have it in front of me and can't find anything online.

[G-Man]

Thank you for that excellent breakdown. So what would be the appropriate section? <he asks without looking it up himself>

I think it is still 21461(a). After the Uniform traffic control portion it states "..., or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official." which those signs are.

[PapaBear]

Regulatory/Daylight headlight sign specifications:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/S30-1.pdf

Notice at the bottom where it lists the colors: Black lettering on white background; ergo, section 21461(a) VC applies. "Failure to follow regulatory signs requiring headlghts to be lit during daylight hours!"

Also note that the date at the bottom is Jan 1996.

[bcjack]

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Bail Schedule...21461 (a) $171.00

How often is this enforced?

Thank you all for your info.

[CHPUSMC]

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Bail Schedule...21461 (a) $171.00


I have to go back to my cadet days with the local PD...isn't that more common to be written for bicycles then motor vehicles?

[2100VC]

Section 21461 was amended in during the 2004 legislative session and was effective Jan 2005. This prevents a city, county or the state from just making up whatever sign they want. You can't just put up a black and white sign that says "No Nose Picking" and enforce it.

Anyway, that sign has been an approved sign for a number of years. Caltrans put out a sign chart in 1990 and then all of the sudden they started updating it every couple of years ('04, '06). (Probably in response to this section) It can still be an approved sign without updating the sign chart immediately.

I have to go back to my cadet days with the local PD...isn't that more common to be written for bicycles then motor vehicles?


I would say this section is used for motor vehicles more. The most (in)famous of these would be "No Right Turn on Red" or "Right Lane Must Exit".

Remember, for the purposes of this section even the arrow signs for lane use, up on the signal lights poles at intersections, fall under this section. (but more correctly 22101)

It is definitely a valuable section but I have disagree with its use for daylight headlamp sections. 21461 carries a point count and what exactly is unsafe about driving with your headlights off during the day? Don't get me wrong, I think motorist should pay attention to the signs but I have to disagree with this application.

Can you drive safely during the day with your headlights off? Yes = Fine + 1 point

Can you drive safely in the carpool lane with only one occupant? Yes = Fine + 0 point

Can you drive safely in the rain with your headlights off? Yes = Fine + 0 point

Hmmmmmm? Remember ?.the person who needs to be stopped is the one passing unsafely or running a stop sign entering the highway.

It should be placed in section 24400 which carries a minimal fine and no point. It could read like this:

24400. (a) During darkness, inclement weather or as indicated by an official traffic control device pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 21461, a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be equipped with at least two lighted headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1,1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.

I'm pretty sure it was in the digest of new legislation this year... I don't have it in front of me and can't find anything online.

Nothing relating to headlamps and/or signs was in the digest. Maybe they left it out but I don't think so.

Just a thought. It would be an extremely easy fix and I personally would feel much more justified citing it.

2100VC

[NWTSCL]

21461 carries a point count and what exactly is unsafe about driving with your headlights off during the day?
It has been determined that certain circumstances create unsafe conditions, not only for yourself and persons in your vehicle, but for other motorists around you. In daytime headlight areas, a sufficient number of collisions have occurred that have caused death, injury, and property damage that it was decided these areas are unsafe to drive without your headlights at any time, and such collisions significantly decrease when headlights are used.

[SweetTaterPie]

21461 carries a point count and what exactly is unsafe about driving with your headlights off during the day?
It has been determined that certain circumstances create unsafe conditions, not only for yourself and persons in your vehicle, but for other motorists around you. In daytime headlight areas, a sufficient number of collisions have occurred that have caused death, injury, and property damage that it was decided these areas are unsafe to drive without your headlights at any time, and such collisions significantly decrease when headlights are used.

I happen to work in an area that has two "Safety Corridors" requiring daylight headlight usage, and a reduced speed (50MPH on divided section of 101, 2 lanes in each direction). Failure to use headlights within the corridor is cited CVC 21461(a), speed, obviously, CVC 22350. However, opinions among the Area officers vary, weighted decidedly toward the opposed, on citing the headlight section. The initial "Safety Corridor" was established within a divided area of 101 (two lanes each direction) that lies between the cities of Eureka and Arcata. Several high profile collisions at cross street intersections, always right-of-way-related PCFs, fanned the flames of public outrage and forced both Cal-Trans and CHP to push the Corridor issue. Funny thing is that specified violations within the Corridor carried doubled fine amounts, while the very right-of-way violations that spurred creation of the Corridor were not included in that list: drive at 60MPH, pay a doubled fine amount, violate someone's right-of-way, the predominant factor in every major collision within the Corridor, pay regular if you're cited. The speed enforcement is made difficult also. What section do you use on graves shift, when there are five cars on the road, inclusive of you, and no cross traffic? Should you cite when five over, ten over, twenty or more?, and what section do you use? It's not a max zone, it's that gray area of close to freeway speed but not quite there. My partner and I were debating the issue last night. He is pro cite at 64 MPH at 0300 with no traffic. I cannot consciously cite some poor sap for doing 64 miles per hour on a deserted section of road designed to be freeway, but posted at 50. Is the 50 for all times of night and day, and if so, what happened to the term prima facie?

The headlight usage issue is a wash. Increase visibility? Well, yes, if someone is looking past the front end of their car to begin with. But all experienced officers know that the vast majority of collisions occur because of inattentive driving to begin with, that the assigned PCF is merely the result of the inattention. What the Corridor has done is reduce collisions, but how? Traffic is now generally composed of tailgating, slower drivers during heavy commute times (yes, even up here we have commute). A reduction of serious injury collisions has occurred, but not because of headlight usage or slower traffic speeds. Rather, it occurred because drivers who once regularly crossed 101 are have stopped further futile attempts. Those drivers now use side streets and traffic flow on those side streets has increased. Use of headlights in foggy conditions and other inclement conditions (rain, dust storms, et cetera) makes sense. But until drivers open their eyes, care about someone other than themselves, and begin to drive their vehicles as if they could kill someone, we are merely redirecting a problem somewhere else: Cell Phone Law; Eating in the Car Law; Changing the Channel on the Radio Law; Thinking About an Argument with the Wife Law; Sneezing Law. The vehicle code is becoming a lot like firearms legislation; the people who were responsible drivers and gun owners before remain in that group, while the irresponsible and/or criminal drivers and firearms users remain irresponsible and/or criminal. You cannot legislate morality, you only clog the system for the moral. My considered opinion only.........

[Your Mentor]

Isn't that section of 101 a divided four lane? Most of the daylight headlight areas I've seen, or worked, were two lanes where headlights seriously make a difference.

I lived in Eureka in 1988 and remember a cyclist was clipped by a hit and run driver southbound on that section of 101. The car severed his leg below the knee and remained stuck between the front bumper and body until Eureka PD officers swarmed the house of the hit and run driver.

[Mary-1]

We have two roads where we have this. We cite 21461(a) v.c. You go to court a lot for this one. Also, per one of our judges, studies have shown that the headlight law lowers accident rates on two lane roads.

[SweetTaterPie]

Isn't that section of 101 a divided four lane? Most of the daylight headlight areas I've seen, or worked, were two lanes where headlights seriously make a difference.

I lived in Eureka in 1988 and remember a cyclist was clipped by a hit and run driver southbound on that section of 101. The car severed his leg below the knee and remained stuck between the front bumper and body until Eureka PD officers swarmed the house of the hit and run driver.

Yes, the section is a divided four lane. We have multiple continuous-broadcast RADAR displays--north and southbound, numerous blinking lights on every imaginable sign type, et cetera.

A need for Safety Corridors? No, just a problem with irresponsible Californians. I don't believe there are many citizens now, just a bunch of dependents, with their lips pursed, smacking greedily for the public ba ba.

[NWTSCL]

A need for Safety Corridors? No, just a problem with irresponsible Californians. I don't believe there are many citizens now, just a bunch of dependents, with their lips pursed, smacking greedily for the public ba ba.
That's a nice perspective for a public servant, or anyone, to have of the general public.

Studies have already shown that Safety Corridors help improve the driving safety for everyone. Aren't responsible Californians entitled to safe driving conditions? Or as your generalizing words seem to imply--do you feel that all Californians, which includes yourself, are irresponsible? Are people from other states or countries more responsible? Are they entitled to safe driving conditions while in California?

[PXRanger]

NW:
I'll have to assume your CALTRANS job does not involve dealing with the motoring public on the freeway because you'd understand exactly what Tater was talking about.

The first time I worked a construction overtime detail I had to handle a crash that happened in the "Cone Zone". Apparently the mile of tapering cones that the construction guys set out as a gradual merge weren't enough of a clue to my at fault driver that his lane was closing. Instead of taking responsibility he tried to blame the cone pattern and three directional signs that he passed prior to crashing.............in other words he pursed his lips and reached for his ba ba.

One of the many roles this forum serves is as a place for us to vent.... try to keep that in mind when critiquing someone else's comments. You'd have probably made a better point by sending him a private message.

[2100VC]

It has been determined that certain circumstances create unsafe conditions, not only for yourself and persons in your vehicle, but for other motorists around you. In daytime headlight areas, a sufficient number of collisions have occurred that have caused death, injury, and property damage that it was decided these areas are unsafe to drive without your headlights at any time, and such collisions significantly decrease when headlights are used.

NWTSCL:

In am totally with you on this. Like I said, I am in total agreement that Daylight Headlight Sections do make it much safer. That is why daytime running lights (drls) are in almost every new car. I just have an issue with the specific section used to enforce the daylight headlight section.

Which would you say is more dangerous?

1. Driving at night with your headlights off; or

2. Driving during the day in a daylight headlight section with your headlights off?

Everyone would have to agree that it is #1....hands down. If that is the case, why should the penalty be less severe (lower fine and no point) for the offense which is more hazardous.

I am just trying to be reasonable and fair. Like I said before, just a minor change to section 24400 and we're back in business.

2100:smile:

[NWTSCL]

2100VC,

I didn't realize the fines were different. Glad to say, I have never been cited for either. :smile:

[Mary-1]

In am totally with you on this. Like I said, I am in total agreement that Daylight Headlight Sections do make it much safer. That is why daytime running lights (drls) are in almost every new car. I just have an issue with the specific section used to enforce the daylight headlight section.

Which would you say is more dangerous?

1. Driving at night with your headlights off; or

2. Driving during the day in a daylight headlight section with your headlights off?

Everyone would have to agree that it is #1....hands down. If that is the case, why should the penalty be less severe (lower fine and no point) for the offense which is more hazardous.

I am just trying to be reasonable and fair. Like I said before, just a minor change to section 24400 and we're back in business.

2100:smile:

While I agree that driving at night with your headlights off is more dangerous then driving doing the day with them off. If you change the charge to section 24400 or another similar section with the same penalties (lower fine, no point) you are kind of defeating the purpose of having a daylight headlight section. If the penalties are not severe enough people will not comply and you will not see the same results in lower the accident collision rate.

And since we are at it. Driving without lights at night should have a higher fine and a point attached to it. Instead of lower the penalties of one we should be raising the penalties of the other.

[not5150]

"Studies have already shown that Safety Corridors help improve the driving safety for everyone. "

Cite your studies please. I'd be interested in looking at them.

[PapaBear]

Actually, I think the Daylight Headlight Zones are a good idea. I personally want to see what is coming at me and the headlights help. I hate to be surprized and hit without first seeing the hazard. :lol:

[SweetTaterPie]

I have never read a collision investigation state in its "cause" that a driver's failure to use his/her vehicle's headlights, while operating his/her vehicle in a Safety Corridor (which required daylight vehicle headlamp use), was the primary factor in the collision. These designated sections of road are generally two lane highways with cross traffic, or multi-lane, divided highways with cross traffic. 99% of the time the cause is a right-of-way violation on the part of the driver entering traffic or crossing it, from the intersecting road (secondary). That being said, I agree that headlights provide increased visibility, especially during inclement conditions; but continually legislating against the law-abiding driver, to mitigate the careless behavior of the violator, sews ill will among the good guys. Sort of like kicking your cat, because your dog crapped on the carpet. Many sections of California roadway--one in particular comes to mind in the Central Valley--were reconfigured (cross roads closed) to eliminate the inherently dangerous cross-street entry and traverse of divided highways. That's a solution that makes sense and does not penalize a conscientious driver. Moreover, it does not place law enforcement in the position of citing someone who is otherwise lawfully operating their motor vehicle.

[2100VC]

Sorry...I had to bring this one back from the dead. I was doing a little more reading and I forgot they changed up 24400 VC for 2007. I knew they cleaned up the inclement weather language but they actually made some very substantial changes.

Earlier in the thread we mentioned points/fines and it looks like it doesn't matter now.

New for this year, you need to specify 24400(a)(1) or (a)(2). The first is a correctable violation but the latter is now a mover.

So the moral of the story is:
Make sure you use the appropriate paragraph of subdivision (a) of 24400
I doesn't matter if you use 21461(a) for a Daylight Headlight Section violation now because if you don't have your headlights on when you are required to...(whether by sign or conditions) it is mover either way.