[UberRoo]

So when I have to pay an inspection fee because I bought wider tires, can I send the bill to you?

Originally posted by mohrds
These are not new laws, they are updating existing laws to be more on par with the rest of the world.

I don't want to be like the rest of the world! I want to be like the United States is, (or used to be.) How about these regulations from Australia? It's naive to think more laws will not be added. Moreover, adding more provisions to the current laws amounts to the same thing. Oh, and the title of this thread is "Its about time the US looks at new lighting rules!"

"In Germany and throughout Europe, customising laws are an important factor in vehicle modification. After WW II, a technical proving institute known as TÜV came into being, putting many restrictions on cars and parts in Germany. For example, car owners are issued complete car identification papers with all the technical data such as height, weight, wheel and tyre size, motor etc, for each car. All custom parts used on the car must be listed in the paperwork. Each vehicle is inspected by TÜV every 2 years. All custom parts must be tested and approved by TÜV or the cars don't pass the inspection. If illegal parts are found on a vehicle they must be removed, and the owner is subject to losing the vehicle registration and insurance." www.englishpages.de/hamburg/travel.htm

Whee! That sounds like fun, doesn't it? I love Big Brother.

There did not receive freedom, the freedom was there, it was just not cost effective to pursue. The general public doesn't accept radical change.

No. As I recall - and I may be wrong - but as I recall, sealed beam headlights were mandated by the government. The reason the mandate was recalled is because it adversely affected the manufacturer's ability to create aerodynamic and fuel-efficient cars. (Hello fuel crisis!) When the freedom to build quality light fixtures was restored, lighting improved. I would say HIDs and projector assemblies are a pretty well-accepted and radical change compared to the previous standards.

Lights under a certain candlepower are considered marker lights and are only restricted in color (white or yellow in front, red or yellow in rear).

They are now.

Modification will not be illegal if you conform to the regulations. You can do what I did and re-title you car as a custom (modified) vehicle and be allowed to do whatever you want if it matches the regulations.

Is there anyone here who loves emissions testing? If our regulations start looking like European regulations, when you install upgraded brake rotors, wider tires, a spoiler, or any number of other things, you get to have your vehicle inspected. As much as I love dealing with the local state patrol, paying them a visit for anything other than a VIN inspection seems like a complete waste of time. (Especially since in my area, they're only open Monday and Thursday, 10:00am through 2:00pm with an hour lunch in the middle - and if they don't have time for you today, tough luck.) Here's Britain's scheme: http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/hgvpsvop...lterations.htm

Experimentation will always be done. But, perhaps with better worded regulations, experimentation will be done in the labs, not on the roads as a lot are now.

No. That sucks. I should have the right to test things however I want within the guidelines of our current laws. That's like telling musicians to keep it in the studio until they get a contract.

not wattage, intensity.

I believe you are right. (I do think there is some regulation that uses wattage as a measure. Maybe for incandescent headlamps?)

The laws are archaic and contribute to the problem.

Yes, laws do contribute to problems. I think the most adaptable laws are the ones which rely on the officer's discretion. Though prone to abuse, they are a great catch-all. A law so black-and-white that it does not provide for an arbitrator's discretion is unheard of. How does this not cover the glaring headlight problem?

"...driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver." (RCW 46.37.230)

Originally posted by UberRoo
If anyone really feels this is a serious problem, wouldn't the logical place to start be with the people who aren't enforcing our current laws? I really wish people would stop chipping away at out freedoms. If ya give 'em an inch...

Originally posted by mohrds
The freedom to glare oncoming drivers? You are blowing this way out of proportion.

Did I somehow miss the part about how our current laws prohibit lights that glare and affect oncoming drivers? I'm angry that I can't ride my motorcycle without a helmet. I don't wear it because the law requires that I do, but rather because it's the smart thing to do. I'm angry that I'm now forced to wear my seatbelt. I wore it before there was a law, but I'm furious that my personal freedom would be infringed in such a bold and blatant manner. I don't want more laws. We have enough lousy ones already. I don't want a bloated system of vehicle inspections for minor modifications like Britain and many other countries have. I can't think of any recent laws that actually improved anything. I'm sure there are some, but I can think of many that we'd be better off without.

I am not blowing this out of proportion. Is the world getting more dangerous? No. Then why all the new laws? Why do we have a jay-walking law? Are you incapable of crossing the street without special lines to guide you? My dog can cross the street safely, AND HE'S A DOG! Anyone who is oblivious to the fact that roads are full of fast-moving, dangerous vehicles wizzing back and forth is also quite likely to be unaware of the jay-walking law. I'm insulted that somebody thinks I'm too stupid to cross the street without my own little lane. It concerns me that someone might actually ticket an adult for crossing the street without the assistance of a timed light. Bicyclists must now wear helmets. How long until pedestrians will also be required to wear them? More than 50% of fatalities in car accidents are a direct result of head trauma. How soon until we'll be required to wear helmets in our cars? Imagine cutting fatalities in half! We don't need more laws.