Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 27, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

It's already a federal law. Why do you want this? Is it maybe because then tickets can be written to folks that are driving older cars and forget to turn them on? Then you can whack them with the "driver responsibility/ripoff fees. Do you idiots have no shame, is there anything you guys won't do to try to steal our money? pathetic!!!!

This is stupid! Why on earth would I need my headlights on in broad daylight. If you can't see me coming then, get your eyes checked.

to write you tickets. Oh, by the way, you now have to pay two fines. hehehe If these guys were doing this in the real world they would be arrested for stealing. "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor objectively interpreted-and you can create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt." Ayn Rand ATLAS SHRUGGED

More headlights in the dump, oh what about global warming this produces heat? This is just stupid. How many accidents is cause by people not seeing a car in broad day light? That is people that wasn’t talking on the cell phone or doing anything other then driving. If this was for when it rains or snow it would be good. With the head lights on, your alternator works more so your motor works harder burning more gas (global warming) doesn’t Canada have this law? Get rid of cell phone use. Sen. Michael Prusi what a waste of time, the people of this state pay you to think of this. Oh, how about running with our four ways on, or better yet a strobe light on every car. Is there a head light manufacturer in the U.P? You want to make driving safer sit in on driver training cases and see what they DON’T teach new drivers. If you need headlights in day light to see a car you shouldn’t be driving. In the end the only reason I can see for this is to generate revenue. Change it to driving during certain weather conditions and it would be a good bill.

With headlights on during a sunny day, drivers wearing sun glasses may actually find it relatively more difficult to see other targets including bicycles, people, and deer. When this legislation doesn't work will law be created to put lights on them? Stop the foolishness now and vote no on this one.

Appears to regard bicycles as vehicles. If so, bicycles would be covered under this legislation and would be required to run with lights on while on the road.

Federal law? I don't think so.

Don't these people realize that it takes more energy, or in this case fuel, to operate a motor vehicle with its headlights on!!!E10 fuels already lower the gas mileage by 25 to 30%!!!!

and is Sen. Prusi going to come mine and others aid when my battery is dead because ours lights were LEFT ON by mistake when we get out of our cars? Not everyone's car notifies them of lights being on when the car is exited. Older model do not! But of course, alot of older model cars are owned by low income folks... and who cares about them?! They can probably flag down somebody to give a jump for free. Just hope their not robbed or assaulted while their waiting! Hell, if this law gives them too much hassle, they can always take the bus, right?

How about just leaving it up to survival of the fittist.Anyone with a drivers license should be capable enough to know when to turn on there lights.Its just another reason to give the law a reason to pull you over.

So now we are going to start to regulate common sense.

Every accessory on your car uses fuel when it is operated. If you leave the lights on in your house day and night, you'll see the results in your electric bill. If you leave the lights on in your car day and night, you'll see the results at the gas pump. It seem odd that legislators are mandating that cars get better fuel mileage, while at the same time mandating that fuel is wasted.

If daytime running lights were mandatory in the U.S. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year? For several years now Canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. Any time the car is running the headlights are on, but the taillights and other lights are off. You have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. Studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents (although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents, and a good example of the "law of unintended consequences"!). The US has not adopted this law, but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. Headlights require power, and a car's engine produces power using gasoline. If you make a few assumptions, it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. A typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. Let's say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. To calculate the energy used, we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. According the to NHTSA, vehicles in the US drove 2,560 billion miles in 1997. We need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. Let's guess 30 mph, which means each mile takes two minutes. That makes 5,120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. Now if each car normally drives at night about half the time, that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. Multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4,260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. The U.S. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. Now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. A gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy, but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. First the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. Car engines don't do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power, and the rest is wasted as heat. After the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. Now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. The alternator does this a lot better than the engine, but it is still only about 70% efficient. In the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. To calculate how many gallons of gas this is, you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. If daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the U.S., we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. That's only a couple gallons for each vehicle, but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. At $1.50 a gallon, that's $600 million per year. Looking at it another way, an extra 8 billion pounds of Carbon Dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law. It's an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like, "let's have everyone turn on their headlights all the time" can have a real cost when you try to implement it! Whether the benefit is worth the cost is an important question in almost any public policy decision.

Even the I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-helmet motorcycle crowd recognizes the value of running with lights on during the daytime. It helps ensure you'll be seen by other drivers on the road. The lights on for safety idea has been around for 40 years or more, at least. It's a good idea that almost certainly prevents some accidents when practiced. But, just as I believe wearing seat belts is a smart, rational thing to do, I don't believe the state should mandate it. So I don't believe the state should mandate running with headlights at all times. A more reasonable thing might be to require headlights (and tailllights) during periods of low visibility. Some states, for example, require headlights to be on whenever windshield wipers are being used. (signed) A Conservative Taxpayer For Responsible Government

 

I have always thought that having headlights on all the time would be the very best thing.  People now drive around in the morning or late afternoon without their light on.  Just because a person can see does not mean that you can be seen by the other drivers.  As we all know a lot of our side and back windows are somewhat tinted also.  So this makes it hard at time to even know that you have a person driving behind you.  Also, a lot of the vehicle now-a-days have lights on when you start up your car.  Some of the little bit older ones just have the headlights on and no taillights which kind of defeats the purpose. 

 

I live up here in the "snow belt" and you would be supprised to see how many people don't turn on their headlights when it is snowing.  You are driving and all of a sudden there is a car right in front of you, or coming towards you.  Please pass this law.  Thank you.

 do we get to force POLICE CARS to keep their flashing lights on at all times too? we need to see where they are on the road as well.

they put those lights on there for a reason. why not make them use them like we have to use our headlights?

both ideas are equally silly, but, while we are being silly, we may as well be EQUALLY SILLY TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

now then, silliness over.. for the time being. at least untill they come up with another silly piece of legislation.