Editorials

"An Informed Voter Is The Best Defense Against Bad Government"

Public comments on HB 44 the proposed "headlights law",

between various authors & Representative Stevens

Dear Rep. Stevens: Headlights?  Why not extend this to interior lights of all vehicles, homes, etc., especially the Police cars that hide from light. How many more jails will be needed for laws like this? We think because of this and similar minutia, the legislative season should be cut to from 120 days to 120 hours. How about introducing a 120 hour legislative season bill?

You hit a good point....we DON'T NEED ANY MORE NANNY LAWS!  Here is what one National organization said about this issue:

Suns Up-Lights Off-Thank You!

One of the pervasive urban myths plaguing our highways and byways is the belief that daytime use of headlights reduces motor vehicle accidents. It all started with a Greyhound Bus Company public relations gimmick to promote its "safety image." There was an apparent reduction in bus accidents and the conclusion was made that the daytime headlight use must be the reason. There was a burst of publicity and daytime headlight use was christened as a great highway safety strategy. A subsequent study, slightly more thorough, determined that daytime headlight use on busses had no effect on accident frequency. THAT study never got much attention.

Think about this; if you can't see a bus during the daytime, because it doesn't have its headlights on, there is a greater problem at play here than "visibility."

Next, there were mandates of daytime headlight use in a few tundra laden Scandinavian countries. Subsequent government sponsored studies proved the government was inspired in its mandating of daytime headlight use. Again, subsequent review of these favorable DRL studies indicated the high probability that factors, other than daytime headlight use, were responsible for any reduction in accident frequency. The same scenario was subsequently repeated in Canada---the government mandates vehicles be equipped with automatic daytime running lights (DRLs) and lo and behold government studies find that DRLs may be responsible for saving the human race from roadway annihilation.

Auto manufacturers, never loath to exploit a fad or pose for holy pictures, climbed on the DRL bandwagon and hyped the safety benefits of irritating other drivers by shining headlights in their eyes, during daylight hours.  General Motors has been most aggressive on this front with their Saturn products winning the award for "most obnoxious cars to meet on the highway.  " While seldom admitted, the primary motivation for putting DRLs on American market cars is that it saves money. Rather than building one lighting system for Canada, where DRLs are mandated, and a different system for the US market, GM decided to save a few bucks by just installing the DRL equipped system on both the US and Canadian models.

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal, but the meaning was strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.

Because DRLs negatively affect other motorists, versus the owner of a DRL equipped vehicle, they should be omitted from all new cars by government mandate. Vehicles already equipped with DRLs should be recalled and the DRLs disconnected. Furthermore, all states should explore legislation that limits daytime headlight use to low beam or parking lights. The government, in concert with various corporate interests has sold the driving public a bill of goods that doesn't live up to its advertised claims. It seems only fair that the government and the same corporate interests undo the damage they have done.

Thanks for your comments.  We are still researching the issue but you make a lot of sense about just passing more laws.  Keep in touch.  Gary

Dear Representative Stevens,
As a pilot, I got into the habit of turning on all my lights before moving the aircraft.  I do the same in my car, and for the same reason. It makes me more visible to everyone else.  With our adverse weather and daylight conditions, it only makes sense to turn on every light possible to alert others of our presence.  While I would strongly encourage everyone do the same, I don't think it needs to be a law.  We have too many nanny laws now, and don't need any more.  Every study proves these kind of laws don't really work, it just turns stupid people into criminals.  If the legislature would put more energy into removing nanny laws from the books, we probably wouldn't need to send so many people to AZ!  If someone wants to be less visible to others, let them take their chances in the sky's and highways of Alaska.  They will be able to see me whether it's a law or not!

This is simply a safety issue.  We are researching other states - which one require lights, how effective is it, does it reduce accidents.  Stay tuned. Regards, Gary Stevens

Representative Stevens,

May I ask you the reasons for submitting HB 44?  At whose request was this made?  'm puzzled as to why this is even being submitted, since there was no noticeable improvement in traffic safety along the Seward Highway, after headlights were required there.

This should be a NON-ISSUE in a state when during the heaviest traffic use, we have 20 or more hours of DAYLIGHT. During the dark months there is not really enough traffic (outside Anchorage) to make this necessary. 

If you want to address this issue to ANCHORAGE traffic, that's one thing, but to make it a law for the entire state is simply not necessary.  Enforcing this in the remote villages will be hard to do, and it's not needed on rural areas roads, either.

Many people view this as just another way for troopers to stop vehicles on the pretext of failure to have headlights on, and open the door for other intrusive searches.

There are FAR more important things to take care of, than creating further requirements and restrictions on driving, and the money for signs to implement this could be far better spent on more critical areas of the budget.

Return to Editorial Index Page