WSP encounter

slapmonkay said:

Lighting requirements and restrictions are found in RCW 46.37.xxx

If I remember correctly. You have 2 headlights, 2 aux lights (fog less an x" from road), and 2 spot/passing lights (higher than x" from road).

Click to expand...

Not at the same time. As amleven & I pointed out, no more than 4 white lights at the same time. Got nabbed & dressed down for this a while back (on a deserted country backroad where I was bothering no one except, apparently, for the ICSO deputy sitting by the road with no lights on).

TechnoWeenie said:

driving lamps are not to be used with fog lamps anyway (read the law). Auxiliary passing lamps are a different story.

Click to expand...

Which, again, is a ******** law. As long as I'm not blinding oncoming or leading drivers with them, how many lights I have on the front of my rig is my business, since it harms no one.

Same with HID retrofits. Properly installed and aimed their glare is a minor annoyance. Minor annoyances are part of driving. Idiots driving with high-beams on, too much weight in the back, or that awful single cockeyed headlight pointing off some weird direction are far more blinding, and thus likely to cause actual harm. Since I put my HID's on, I've yet to have a single arsehole or deer jump out in front of my bike on a dark night.

Metalhead47 said:

Which, again, is a ******** law. As long as I'm not blinding oncoming or leading drivers with them, how many lights I have on the front of my rig is my business, since it harms no one.

Same with HID retrofits. Properly installed and aimed their glare is a minor annoyance. Minor annoyances are part of driving. Idiots driving with high-beams on, too much weight in the back, or that awful single cockeyed headlight pointing off some weird direction are far more blinding, and thus likely to cause actual harm. Since I put my HID's on, I've yet to have a single arsehole or deer jump out in front of my bike on a dark night.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree HOWEVER, how many people approach you at night with improperly installed or adjusted lights?

One thing to consider. A police officer has to have a reason to stop a vehicle while he's patrolling the highway. One of the things they learn quickly is that minor traffic or equipment violations are a very valid reason to stop a driver. That gets them the ability to check their license status, insurance card, and give a quick look at anything that's in the open or can be smelled.

I used to ride with WSP Troopers that weren't big on the License Plate light excuse but too many lights, too bright lights, and lots of burned out headlamp/tail light stops often resulted in arrests for outstanding warrants (some felony, not just traffic), DUI's, and even drugs visible from the outside of the car.

What's amusing is the number of people that are going about illegal activity or have warrants for their arrest, and will drive around in an "attention getting car" with super bright or Blue headlights, expecting to stay below the radar of all the patrol officers out on the road. You'd think they'd prefer a Buick Regal or old Chevy Lumina if they wanted to be "Stealth".

amlevin said:

I tend to agree HOWEVER, how many people approach you at night with improperly installed or adjusted lights?

Click to expand...

I see far more of these types than the add-on HID kits.

As to the rest of your statement, you're opening up a whole new can o' worms there. My own opinions on harassing people for simple possession of "illegal" drugs are well documented elsewhere. As to the rest, well.... If nothing else, there are plenty of stories on this board of LEOs finding "Reasons" to question someone where none actually exist...

amlevin said:

Fail to see the logic here. Speeding ticket is probably $124 or so. Maybe doubled if in a "Safety Zone". A Lawyer probably doesn't even shake your hand for less than twice that amount and it goes up from there if he has to show up in Court.

If the person hasn't had a ticket or accident for years and years, it probably falls into the Insurance Company's "forgiveness policy" that gives you one "boo-boo" in a 3-5 year period.

Hiring a Lawyer to fight this sure seems like a waste of money, that is unless this ticket puts him "over the top" and he is going to get his D/L suspended.

Sure, Lawyers have to eat too but over a simple speeding ticket when you haven't had one in years sure seems foolish.

Click to expand...

what happens if you get another ticket 8 months from now? All of a sudden that "forgiven" ticket comes back to bite you......

A *good* traffic lawyer will charge you around $250. So yes double, but worth it (IMHO) to avoid potential future insurance premium increases and a clean record (I've been pulled over and told "since you have a clean record, I am going to let this slide")

Metalhead47 said:

Because only rich folk with $50,000 luxury cars should get adequate light to drive by on dark country roads, us peons should be happy with 30-year-old technology that only illuminates that deer when it's too late...

:banghead:

Click to expand...

you can get a used 2007ish Infiniti for 20K. Even new Subaru Imprezas have HID options now from the factory.

Nice sob story though....

jddssc121 said:

you can get a used 2007ish Infiniti for 20K. Even new Subaru Imprezas have HID options now from the factory.

Nice sob story though....

Click to expand...

Uh huh. And what if I don't want a 5 year old out-of-warrantee luxury car that's incredibly expensive to fix, and incredibly hard to work on for the shade tree mechanic?

My vehicles are all paid for. I shouldn't need another $300 a month loan for another 5 years to be able to see adequately in the dark.

Not a sob story any more than our complaints about needing a gov't permission slip to put a coat over our sidearms is. What I do with my vehicle is my business and no one else's as long as it's not directly harming or endangering anyone else. Which my headlights do NOT.

I don't see an RCW saying lights needs to be approved lighting by NHTSA. I see candlewatt, distance and height requirements but thats it. So unless there is a fed driving around writing ticket for the federal law I don't see it being an issue by state law.

I would be interested if anyone found what RCW one would be in violation of or what the officer writes a ticket up for...

In my opinion it seems the statement on the wsp site is more a scare tactic since the state does not actually have an RCW that restricts HIDs or custom lighting to enforce (that I have found). Perhaps the candlewatt limitation but thats the closest I can find. However, I would ask that they test another production car with HID's and tell me there candlewatt which they state is legal. Also, I wonder if they actually carry a meter around that mesures candlewatt's and how often its re-configured/certified.


When you have a question about the law what is the first thing you do... Oh yeah I got it, ask a cop they know all.
^ When I ask for a cite, I don't mean WSP website.

Metalhead47 said:

What I do with my vehicle is my business and no one else's as long as it's not directly harming or endangering anyone else. Which my headlights do NOT.

Click to expand...

"NHTSA found that an HID conversion headlamp exceeded the maximum candlepower by over 800 percent."

I've been blinded enough times by clowns in their 2002 Civic w/ their HID conversion to agree w/ the current HID rules.

jddssc121 said:

"NHTSA found that an HID conversion headlamp exceeded the maximum candlepower by over 800 percent."

Click to expand...

So? And which system, specifically, is that "an" referring to? There are dozens. None of which is any more than a minor annoyance when properly installed and aimed. A minor annoyance is not endangering anyone, it's a part of driving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Metalhead47 said:

Uh huh. And what if I don't want a 5 year old out-of-warrantee luxury car that's incredibly expensive to fix, and incredibly hard to work on for the shade tree mechanic?


.

Click to expand...

PS - that was one option. As mentioned, Subaru, Ford, Chevy, etc, all offer HIDs now. All I'm saying is that your statement of only the "rich" $50K car owners can have HIDs is false.......

Metalhead47 said:

So? And which system, specifically, is that "an" referring to? There are dozens. None of which is any more than a minor annoyance when properly installed and aimed. A minor annoyance is not endangering anyone, it's a part of driving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

As a said - "I've been blinded enough times by clowns in their 2002 Civic w/ their HID conversion to agree w/ the current HID rules."

slapmonkay said:

I don't see an RCW saying lights needs to be approved lighting by NHTSA. I see candlewatt, distance and height requirements but thats it. So unless there is a fed driving around writing ticket for the federal law I don't see it being an issue by state law.

I would be interested if anyone found what RCW one would be in violation of or what the officer writes a ticket up for...

In my opinion it seems the statement on the wsp site is more a scare tactic since the state does not actually have an RCW that restricts HIDs or custom lighting to enforce (that I have found). Perhaps the candlewatt limitation but thats the closest I can find. However, I would ask that they test another production car with HID's and tell me there candlewatt which they state is legal. Also, I wonder if they actually carry a meter around that mesures candlewatt's and how often its re-configured/certified.


When you have a question about the law what is the first thing you do... Oh yeah I got it, ask a cop they know all.
^ When I ask for a cite, I don't mean WSP website.

Click to expand...

This. It's another one of those "selective or enforcement" things someone else mentioned. I got pulled over once in Oak Harbor at 3 in the morning for having a headlight out. It was a faulty ballast that liked to shut off when switching from hi beam to low. Explained & demonstrated all that to the cop & left without so much as a warning, even when it was plainly obvious and I admitted to having HIDs. Then there's the dozens of cops I've passed since I put these things in. Obviously not a major distraction or danger to anyone if they continue to ignore me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jddssc121 said:

As a said - "I've been blinded enough times by clowns in their 2002 Civic w/ their HID conversion to agree w/ the current HID rules."

Click to expand...

And how do you know they were hid kits? Did you stop and inspect them? Could have been hid-look bulbs, higher wattage bulbs, or just some young punk driving with his high beams on.

And my other statement still stands. It still requires spending tens of thousands for a new car for one feature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Metalhead47 said:

And my other statement still stands. It still requires spending tens of thousands for a new car for one feature.

Click to expand...

So Do Air Bags - How dare those rich people get a safer car than me
So does Direct Injection - How dare those rich people get a more efficient engine than me
*gasp* So does a brake force distribution system??? oh noes! *head explodes*

jddssc121 said:

So Do Air Bags - How dare those rich people get a safer car than me
So does Direct Injection - How dare those rich people get a more efficient engine than me
*gasp* So does a brake force distribution system??? oh noes! *head explodes*

Click to expand...

And once again, if I wish to install any of those things - or not to - on my 20 year old rig, that's my business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Metalhead47 said:

None of which is any more than a minor annoyance when properly installed and aimed. A minor annoyance is not endangering anyone, it's a part of driving.

Click to expand...

False.

Factory options use projectors, providing a sharp cutoff.

Aftermarket HID kits put out 3x more light, with no way to limit or focus it, and the source of the light is in the wrong spot,and even aimed low, can still cause significant glare.

These are 'properly aimed'..






I'm sure you notice the artifacts above the main beam. That's glare that cannot be removed. It's a byproduct of an enclosure designed for a different type of light source.

Light source, filament placement, enclosure design, all come into play. It's not just 'a brighter bulb'.


and projectors......

no glare, sharp cutoff...

TechnoWeenie said:

False.

Click to expand...

No, true. They are a minor annoyance that is simply part of driving, like any other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Metalhead47 said:

No, true. They are a minor annoyance that is simply part of driving, like any other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Opinions have no place and are completely irrelevant in a factual argument.

It is a FACT that they produce high amounts of glare, blind drivers, make it hard for others to see, are not street legal because of the aforementioned issues, etc.

The fact that you find it 'only a minor annoyance' is irrelevant.

TechnoWeenie said:

Opinions have no place and are completely irrelevant in a factual argument.

It is a FACT that they produce high amounts of glare, blind drivers, make it hard for others to see, are not street legal because of the aforementioned issues, etc.

The fact that you find it 'only a minor annoyance' is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for someone to cite me an RCW. You guys keep saying HID specifically are illegal but have not provided evidence to prove it. A site with an FAQ opinionated anwser without cite does zero to prove it.

At this point, YOUR posts are just opinions not fact. It's legal until proven illegal with a cite and proof IMO.

RCW 46.37.005
State patrol — Additional powers and duties.


In addition to those powers and duties elsewhere granted, the chief of the Washington state patrol shall have the power and the duty to adopt, apply, and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations (1) relating to proper types of vehicles or combinations thereof for hauling passengers, commodities, freight, and supplies, (2) relating to vehicle equipment, and (3) relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this title with regard to vehicle equipment, as may be deemed necessary for the public welfare and safety in addition to but not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

The chief of the Washington state patrol is authorized to adopt by regulation, federal standards relating to motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any amendment to said act, notwithstanding any provision in Title 46 RCW inconsistent with such standards. Federal standards adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to vehicles manufactured in a model year following the adoption of such standards.

[1987 c 330 § 706; 1985 c 165 § 1; 1982 c 106 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 145 § 56; 1967 c 32 § 49; 1961 c 12 § 46.37.005. Prior: 1943 c 133 § 1; 1937 c 189 § 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6360-6; 1927 c 309 § 14, part; RRS § 6362-14, part. Formerly RCW 46.36.010.]