Law change - Daytime headlights and ban on handheld devices

[scumdog]

Really?.......fuck I'd do it all the time just to fuck the coppers off:devil2:

Nice troll but just in case any KB numpty gives any credence to what you have posted:

As peasea rides off into the distance the cop mutters "I gave that dude $150 ticket for not wearing his helmet but man I ever fucked off 'cos I can't give him any demerits"

Pfft, like THAT'S ever going to happen, as if any cop even cares......he's handed out his ticket, no credit for dishing out demerit tickets.:devil2:

[scumdog]

I handed over my Visa card. It's what they're really after at the end of the day, isn't it?

NOT if it's in tatters financially-wise like mine:crazy:

[saltydog]

[QUOTE=peasea;1129355634]Don't have to; I ride without a lid sometimes, it feels great. I did it just last w/e. [QUOTE]

Wouldn't even contemplate it here.
Rode accross Bali, Lombok and Sumbawa plenty of times so i know the feeling, but over there (indonesia) it's SWEET AS to bribe your way out of a ticket.
Many a time I have asked the the Indonesian copper "how much is my problem?"

[peasea]

NOT if it's in tatters financially-wise like mine:crazy:

I think at the time it had a 20k limit. Dangerous.......I trimmed it back to 5, that's heaps.

[James Deuce]

And another thought...
What about insurance cos? Will they use this headlight law to weasel out of paying up for bent/broken bikes?
I already thought of that 200 posts ago. Keep up!

[MSTRS]

I already thought of that 200 posts ago. Keep up!

Ooops - so you did. Blame the early-onset alzi...alsem...forgetfulness

[James Deuce]

I blame the BP. :shifty:

[SixPackBack]

Nice troll but just in case any KB numpty gives any credence to what you have posted:

As peasea rides off into the distance the cop mutters "I gave that dude $150 ticket for not wearing his helmet but man I ever fucked off 'cos I can't give him any demerits"

Pfft, like THAT'S ever going to happen, as if any cop even cares......he's handed out his ticket, no credit for dishing out demerit tickets.:devil2:

No troll. Thumbing my nose at the storm troopers in Hazzard would sting their precious ego's



NOT if it's in tatters financially-wise like mine:crazy:

Seriuosly man-get a real job, one that pays.

[Genestho]

Why would the MOT have authority in cases like this? When it is be their job to advise and enforce only.

What I mean is, if you don't get a reply from NZTA...
Then perhaps you go up to the next level, it's like anything isn't it?
Not happy with the service, you ask for the manager.

At the very least this may encourage NZTA to respond to enquiries and/or submissions.
Again, I have never dealt with NZTA, only MOT! So I can only base my opinion on that.
Your submission/s will be on record!

[MaxB]

Crash at Invercargill last night at 6:30pm

Motorbike heading down road, car pulls out of driveway.

Only spots bike at last moment and stops.

Bike didn't.

Rider has leg injuries.

Bike did not have headlight on.

Maybe the lights-on law might have prevented this??

Maybe he should have had his headlight on anyway? Dusk is about 6.30 at this time of year, sunset is before 6.00. Don't you have to put your lights on 30 mins after sunset? Pretty close one.

Maybe he might have avoided a crash with a lights on law but in my experience cars are still going to pull out because of carelessness and arrogance. Heaps of drivers don't give a crap about bikes headlight or not.

[scumdog]

Maybe he should have had his headlight on anyway? Dusk is about 6.30 at this time of year, sunset is before 6.00. Don't you have to put your lights on 30 mins after sunset? Pretty close one.

Maybe he might have avoided a crash with a lights on law but in my experience cars are still going to pull out because of carelessness and arrogance. Heaps of drivers don't give a crap about bikes headlight or not.

ghah, thud!:shutup:
THAT is the whole purpose of my post - to point out a hard-wired headlight would very likely have prevented the crash.

[MaxB]

I was replying to the bit below.



Maybe the lights-on law might have prevented this??

My point was that his mistake was already covered under existing laws. It was dusk he should have had his lights on. Nothing to do with the new law.

I take your point that a hard wired headlight would have saved his forgetting but they are still not compulsory under the new law.

Maybe the pain will teach the rider a lesson?

[StoneY]

Not sure why you would want them to turn their headlights off? Not attacking your statement, just seriously interested in why.

Edit - I think they're actively endorsing this, also. I noticed on a trip to Whangamata the, "Power Nap" signs have been replaced with headlight-on signs.

Many NZ companies who have overseas liability insurance companies, are now being told to run with headlights on 24/7 for all company vehicles- it gets them a big discount on vehicle and public liability premiums and excesses-

European trend- some study ages ago showed company vehicles with lights on all the time crashed less -
Especially company employees, may of whom only drove the company truck/van/moped and had no private vehicle- the skills of these drivers were questionable from lack of regular use but the lights factor swung the majority opinion

I was with a company the read into this and made us all go lights on daytime, back in 01!

[oldrider]

ghah, thud!:shutup:
THAT is the whole purpose of my post - to point out a hard-wired headlight would very likely have prevented the crash.

I don't think it would have made a bit of difference, most cars don't even respond to your headlight, even if you are manually flashing it at them!

Why do they make headlight and brake light oscillators illegal and pass a law like this?

If every vehicle has their headlights on it's back to square one, what's the point of difference?

More motorists today notice you if you have your light switched "off"! I know because I have tried that too!

Has anything been done about the L plate 70kph law?

I bet there were more submissions on that than anything else to do with bikes but have they acted on that?

If people had respect for the road laws we wouldn't even be having this thread!

The majority of drivers in NZ break the law at some time because they are not taken seriously, why? because most of them (the laws) are stupid and unfounded!

We need a clean out, fewer laws and harsher "standard" penalties, consistent legal system and judicial response and support for the police and mutual respect will maybe, just maybe, be re-established!

[scumdog]

I don't think it would have made a bit of difference, most cars don't even respond to your headlight, even if you are manually flashing it at them!

More motorists today notice you if you have your light switched "off"! I know because I have tried that too!!

It WAS 6:30 at night in Invercargill John, well into headlight time, the driver would not have expected any vehicle without headlights on to suddenly hove into view!:eek5:

[Genestho]

Just regarding Cellphones.

Not that long ago Paula Rose requested that roadusers use the *555 number, if I recall - it was around the fatal at Taupo, where the driver of the Mercedes had been witnessed driving like a munter - prior to the smash that killed another driver.

She has also made comment on the law change regarding cellphones this week.

Does she need to be putting out a press release advising road users what to do about *555? (If someone has already then I've missed it, if there is a link could someone please post? Cheers!)

As I advocate the use of this, I'd like to be able to advise the public correctly!!!

[oldrider]

It WAS 6:30 at night in Invercargill John, well into headlight time, the driver would not have expected any vehicle without headlights on to suddenly hove into view!:eek5:

Just another "death by vehicle" suicide mission then I guess!

Can't remember, was he successful? :weird:

"NO", Just checked again, car driver should have beat him to death with his wheel brace, then everybody would have been happy!

[peasea]

Just regarding Cellphones.

Not that long ago Paula Rose requested that roadusers use the *555 number, if I recall - it was around the fatal at Taupo, where the driver of the Mercedes had been witnessed driving like a munter - prior to the smash that killed another driver.

She has also made comment on the law change regarding cellphones this week.

Does she need to be putting out a press release advising road users what to do about *555? (If someone has already then I've missed it, if there is a link could someone please post? Cheers!)

As I advocate the use of this, I'd like to be able to advise the public correctly!!!

I thought (forgive me if I'm wrong) that to use the cell phone for an emergency while driving was exempt. Shouldn't the *555 system only be used for emergencies, like getting drunks and other twats off the road asap?
If that's the case, no problem.

[MSTRS]

Many NZ companies who have overseas liability insurance companies, are now being told to run with headlights on 24/7 for all company vehicles- it gets them a big discount on vehicle and public liability premiums and excesses-

European trend- some study ages ago showed company vehicles with lights on all the time crashed less -
Especially company employees, may of whom only drove the company truck/van/moped and had no private vehicle- the skills of these drivers were questionable from lack of regular use but the lights factor swung the majority opinion

I was with a company the read into this and made us all go lights on daytime, back in 01!

Ah, I see where the confusion has come from. We've all heard the term 'Lights on, nobody home'...
Management was alluding to this in an effort to have employees pay attention when driving. In typical braindead cager fashion, it was assumed that 'lights on' meant those of the car...in which case, said drivers could otherwise carry on as normal...

[Genestho]

I thought (forgive me if I'm wrong) that to use the cell phone for an emergency while driving was exempt. Shouldn't the *555 system only be used for emergencies, like getting drunks and other twats off the road asap?
If that's the case, no problem.
Looking even at this media report, it does look that way eh?
Might check on it further, just to make triple sure

[peasea]

Looking even at this media report, it does look that way eh?
Might check on it further, just to make triple sure

If you could, that'd be helpful for all. Cheers

[Slyer]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111897770
Bit too far? :P

[twotyred]

more motorcycle laws made by non motorcyclists,putting the blame on riders,why legislate when 90% of riders already use their headlights?

After an accident the offending cage will now say "he didn't have his headlight on'" and it will be a legitimate reason why they didn't see you and the onus will be on you to prove you did.

At least running the HID during the day may not be so targeted now...

so much for National not being nanny state governing...

[MSTRS]

so much for National not being nanny state governing...

I don't think it is helpful to rail about this or that party in these sort of cases. The numpties at NZTA are the ones to blame.

[skidMark]

more motorcycle laws made by non motorcyclists,putting the blame on riders,why legislate when 90% of riders already use their headlights?

After an accident the offending cage will now say "he didn't have his headlight on'" and it will be a legitimate reason why they didn't see you and the onus will be on you to prove you did.

At least running the HID during the day may not be so targeted now...

so much for National not being nanny state governing...


Because the reaity is they are doing it to keep us safe, then people like you get all upset... because yu think its just another thing to conform to, i think it is a VERY wise move.... one that wil save lives.

And what do you mean regarding the HID lights, why would it be "targeted", you need to elaborate on reasons why it was targeted etc, or it is an incomplete post

[James Deuce]

Because the reaity is they are doing it to keep us safe, then people like you get all upset... because yu think its just another thing to conform to, i think it is a VERY wise move.... one that wil save lives.


No it won't. It will make not a blind bit of difference. Most new motorcycles are bereft of a light switch and the accident rate for motorcycles is going up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I've never had an accident with my headlight turned off, even at night. All my accidents on the road have included a lit headlight on the bike I've been riding.

[Markw336]

well just your lights on full beam lol soon everyone will complain then they will take that law away

[peasea]

No it won't. It will make not a blind bit of difference. Most new motorcycles are bereft of a light switch and the accident rate for motorcycles is going up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I've never had an accident with my headlight turned off, even at night. All my accidents on the road have included a lit headlight on the bike I've been riding.

And I had an accident with no lid on my bonce that resulted in no brain injuries. I'm no sillier now than when I was at my siliest, blahlalahoomtang!

[peasea]

No it won't. It will make not a blind bit of difference. Most new motorcycles are bereft of a light switch and the accident rate for motorcycles is going up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I've never had an accident with my headlight turned off, even at night. All my accidents on the road have included a lit headlight on the bike I've been riding.

You must crash a lot.

[peasea]

more motorcycle laws made by non motorcyclists,putting the blame on riders...

Mate, it gets better!

I wrote a submission for a car-related regulation change a while back and discovered that out of the four (or was it five?) people making the change only one actually drove!

How many bureaucrats do you think ride motorcycles? I'd guess FUCK ALL!

It's about time a biker made their way to the Beehive.

[skidMark]

No it won't. It will make not a blind bit of difference. Most new motorcycles are bereft of a light switch and the accident rate for motorcycles is going up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I've never had an accident with my headlight turned off, even at night. All my accidents on the road have included a lit headlight on the bike I've been riding.


Well i think it helps, when i ride with my headight n owbeam during the day everybdy puls out infront of yu i ride with high beams during the day and the problem goes away, you are trying t get the light in thier eyes ie high beam... noot light the rad on low beam, high beam isnt blinding during the day, but it does the job

[Usarka]

I thought (forgive me if I'm wrong) that to use the cell phone for an emergency while driving was exempt. Shouldn't the *555 system only be used for emergencies, like getting drunks and other twats off the road asap?
If that's the case, no problem.

The message has always been: if it's an emergency use 111.

[MSTRS]

I've just been having a bit of a cleanup of old emails and I came across a couple I sent to TVOne Closeup in response to the segment/s about car headlight use.

Dear sirs

I have been following this issue with much interest, and not a little trepidation. I have my own ideas about what is 'wrong' on our roads, but will elaborate on headlight use only.

Obviously, being seen is highly desireable, but what motorcyclists would seem to experience is that 'other motorists' are not looking. For that reason it has long been a recommendation (not law) that motorcycles have their headlights on at all times. There is little in the way of research to prove that lights-on makes a huge difference for motorcycles, because we are still so often not seen. Being small (non-threatening?) and difficult to gauge in terms of proximity, approach and speed are huge factors in accidents stats. But at least our headlights go some way towards helping to make us stand out better.

It is the call for car headlights on that worries me. Because that will remove the one point of difference that motorcyclists have.
Yes, motorcyclists make up only 2% of the vehicle fleet, but we have the same rights to be on the roads as anyone...it is what we can do to decrease our vulnerability that is being threatened here.

Last year NZTA asked for submissions on the subject of Motorcycle headlights being made compulsory. The below was mine...

Whilst I agree with the intent behind having headlight on, obviously only a motorcyclist can know whether this makes any difference. Having ridden motorcycles for some 35 years, it is my observation that to make any difference to being visible, the headlight must be on high beam. With the poor statistics of car drivers not seeing motorcyclists, and the often poor headlights on motorcycles (particularly older models), then I suggest that if fulltime use of headlights is to be made compulsory, then daytime use of the highbeam is the only realistic measure.

Perhaps then, if cars go lights-on at all times, then to keep the point of difference, motorcycles must go hi-beam-on at all times?
The blue text was my submission to NZTA last Sept when m/c lights-on was being mooted. CloseUp was airing the proposal for cars to be legally bound to lights-on. I followed it up with

After emailing you last week on the subject of headlights-on as it is likely to impact (pun intended) on motorcyclists, and with your second follow-up screened (roadside with the cop) it has become quite obvious that not only are motorcyclists not seen on our roads, but that we are not seen or heard anywhere else either. So that cop thinks that if one life can be saved by daytime use of car headlights, it would be worth it. Really? How many more motorcyclists will die as a result of being invisible in a sea of headlights?
Perhaps someone was listening? So cars are left out of the equation. At least for the moment. I still don't think that compelling lights-on for m/cs will make a difference.
Eternal vigilance is our lot, eh?

[Atlas]

sadly the media is only focused on the cell phone side of the legislation which will be enough to push through ill thought out changes re bike headlights.

As has been said many times: for 90% of riders with hard wired lights or modern alternators running with lights high beam/fog or whatever... running lights isnt an issue, but for an old bike or scooter that has lights that are 6 volt or relate to engine speed we dont have any benefit of high beam. I recall doing a 12 hour endurance trial on my BSA where my passenger took a dolphin torch, it helped!
I did a run recently where from time to time I checked my headlight and it stayed intact and going, I was impressed.

This law wont stop me riding, but my lights have never been reliable and are largely for WOF compliance. So I may be getting some tickets in future I can do without.

But arent all bikers criminals anyway?

[Genestho]

sadly the media is only focused on the cell phone side of the legislation which will be enough to push through ill thought out changes re bike headlights.

As has been said many times: for 90% of riders with hard wired lights or modern alternators running with lights high beam/fog or whatever... running lights isnt an issue, but for an old bike or scooter that has lights that are 6 volt or relate to engine speed we dont have any benefit of high beam. I recall doing a 12 hour endurance trial on my BSA where my passenger took a dolphin torch, it helped!
I did a run recently where from time to time I checked my headlight and it stayed intact and going, I was impressed.

This law wont stop me riding, but my lights have never been reliable and are largely for WOF compliance. So I may be getting some tickets in future I can do without.

But arent all bikers criminals anyway?

Probably should have been some sort of heads up so people could've made submissions back last year from the Classics scene. No reason why anyone couldn't send a press release out there now, but I have a feeling it might not change anything. I fear it's too late - BUT, I have been known to be wrong before!
EDIT: Never too late!

[Kinje]

How does the hands free rule impact hands free systems for motorcyclists, eg bluetooth helmets?

It seems from one media report I've seen that only systems hard wired into cars may be used. Are systems that are built into helmets accepatable? What about other setups out there that people might use but are not built into the helmet?

[Ixion]

Probably should have been some sort of heads up so people could've made submissions back last year from the Classics scene. ..


We did .

[Genestho]

Oh, enmass? Were you consulted, was this as a group? Or as individuals?

[Nasty]

How does the hands free rule impact hands free systems for motorcyclists, eg bluetooth helmets?

It seems from one media report I've seen that only systems hard wired into cars may be used. Are systems that are built into helmets accepatable? What about other setups out there that people might use but are not built into the helmet?

Can't see it being an issue .. I have bluetooth and no one realises when i am talking except the person I am talking to. Its handsfree - and its not in a car.

[Swoop]

Some of us remember back when you didn't need a shoephone in your car. We had one at home, one at work and if needing to make a call on the move there were red boxes on the footpath containing a telephone, that you could drop a coin into (or tap...) to make a call.

Luckily modern shoephones have an "off" button. Main problem is that humans have a pre-disposition to answer the fucking things. (You can drive some people mad, sitting in a room with a ringing telephone, whilst you totally ignore it!).

[MaxB]

sadly the media is only focused on the cell phone side of the legislation which will be enough to push through ill thought out changes re bike headlights.

As has been said many times: for 90% of riders with hard wired lights or modern alternators running with lights high beam/fog or whatever... running lights isnt an issue, but for an old bike or scooter that has lights that are 6 volt or relate to engine speed we dont have any benefit of high beam. I recall doing a 12 hour endurance trial on my BSA where my passenger took a dolphin torch, it helped!
I did a run recently where from time to time I checked my headlight and it stayed intact and going, I was impressed.

This law wont stop me riding, but my lights have never been reliable and are largely for WOF compliance. So I may be getting some tickets in future I can do without.

But arent all bikers criminals anyway?

According to this:

http://landtransport.govt.nz/rules/q-and-a/road-user-amendment-rule-2009.html#4

pre 1980 bikes are exempt so you can breath easy. There is a thread over in Classics about it.

[Ixion]

According to this:

http://landtransport.govt.nz/rules/q-and-a/road-user-amendment-rule-2009.html#4

pre 1980 bikes are exempt so you can breath easy. There is a thread over in Classics about it.


However, no such exclusion is to be found in the Draft Rule (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/docs/draft-road-user-amendment.pdf). I'll believe it when I see it

[Atlas]

What with the contradiction between the Q&A section on the LTSA site and the Yellow draft legislation, I rang the LTSA and the call centre advised that the Q&A only came out last week so is current while the draft correspondence can be expected to be updated. They expect the exception to stand.

The Q&A says: How will the Rule be amended in relation to the use of headlamps on motor cycles and mopeds?

Mopeds and motorcycles riders are required to ride with their headlamps on or, if fitted, daytime running lamps, during daylight hours. This requirement applies only to riders of mopeds or motorcycles manufactured after 1 January1980.:bleh:

So when some tin top runs me down and says "ha! you didnt have your lights on", with my dying breath I can reply "my bikes pre '80 so you're getting a ticket..." before going to the great winding road on the other side.:laugh:

[swbarnett]

some study ages ago showed company vehicles with lights on all the time crashed less -
There is a problem with this type of study. The results are inconclusive and cannot be relied on. Is it that having your lights on makes you safer or is it that only careful drivers run with their lights on?

[peasea]

Eternal vigilance is our lot, eh?

Always has been, always will be.

[Hinny]

I think women look better with their headlights on.

[SixPackBack]

I think women look better with their headlights on.

Only on full beam:sunny:

[Swoop]

It appears that more rules are appearing, especially so for psyclists.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591473

Banning hand-held phone calls while driving and requiring motorcyclists to ride with lights on at all times are just two of a raft of road-user rule changes.

Eighteen other changes coming into force on November 1 will run the gamut of life on the road, from towing speeds to child-safety locks in taxis and the use of motorcycles on footpaths to deliver mail or newspapers.

Three are aimed at giving cyclists more riding flexibility, but another prescribes a $100 fine for anyone riding a bicycle, mobility scooter or skateboard at a hazardous speed on pathways shared by pedestrians.

A definition of just how fast is hazardous is absent from Transport Agency background information, although 10km/h is proposed as the maximum for motorcycles or mopeds using footpaths with the permission of local councils for delivery purposes.

Vehicles towing others without rigid towing systems will also be restricted to a maximum 50km/h, compared with 90km/h for hauling trailers on towbars on the open road.

Cyclists will be able to make "hook turns" at four-way intersections, meaning they will be able to accomplish a right-turn in two manoeuvres, starting by veering left into a side street.

They must then wait at the head of the side street for a green light before riding straight across an intersection.

The Transport Agency says the double manoeuvre may often prove safer for cyclists than expecting them to move from the extreme left of an approach road to the centre line, across two or more lanes of traffic, before turning right.

Nor will cyclists be required to offer hand signals where they risk losing control, although the agency says they should still try to give other road users clear indications of their intentions.

An existing requirement for cycle lights to illuminate the road up to 100m ahead at night will also be relaxed, so they need only be visible for that distance, although an infringement fee of $150 will remain.

Cycling Advocates Network spokesman Stephen McKernan said these were all sensible measures, and he also welcomed a 50m limit on how far general traffic will be allowed to travel in shared bus and cycling lanes to allow them to turn left or to park.

But Auckland City transport spokesman Councillor John Lister said cyclists had to be mindful that the rules were for everyone and it would be unacceptable for them to begin "hook turns" against red lights, which he understood was a common cause of complaints from other road users.

The Transport Agency says motorists will also be required to give way to people who are "obviously" waiting to use a pedestrian crossing, rather than waiting for them to set foot on the crossing before stopping.

Taxis will be allowed to use child safety locks, but only at a passenger's request and an agency-approved sign must be displayed at the outer door handle. That follows concerns raised by passengers about possibly being locked in, or feeling trapped.

In other changes, vehicles carrying officials - such as fisheries officers - authorised to stop drivers will be allowed to display blue beacons as clear signals of their powers, and buses will no longer have to stop at level crossings controlled by flashing lights unless these are operating.

The agency says that follows reports of motorists overtaking buses that have stopped, perhaps unaware they did so as a legal requirement.

Veteran motorcycling safety consultant Alan Kirk is pleased with a change allowing riders to use lights on both sides of their machines to offer greater visibility than single headlights.

[jubilant]

im not sure if these will be legal on the roads here, maybe someone with more knowledge could clear it up for us but im going to make one...

http://www.instructables.com/id/LED_Motorcycle_Headlight/

my hyo will have one modern part on it!!!

[skidMark]

I think women look better with their headlights on.


Lights are on, nobodys home.

[Max Preload]

It appears that more rules are appearing, especially so for psyclists.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591473

Banning hand-held phone calls while driving and requiring motorcyclists to ride with lights on at all times are just two of a raft of road-user rule changes.

Eighteen other changes coming into force on November 1 will run the gamut of life on the road, from towing speeds to child-safety locks in taxis and the use of motorcycles on footpaths to deliver mail or newspapers.

Don't rely in the Harold - journalists are fuckwits. Go to the source (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/docs/draft-road-user-amendment.pdf).


Veteran motorcycling safety consultant Alan Kirk is pleased with a change allowing riders to use lights on both sides of their machines to offer greater visibility than single headlights.

He's a fuckwit too.

[MSTRS]

He's a fuckwit too.

That he is...but in this case he is right. Could never understand why side-running lights were out.

[Max Preload]

That he is...but in this case he is right.

Indeed. I have to admit that as soon as I saw his name, I didn't read the rest of the sentence! :rofl:

[FastBikeGear]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2749138/Mobile-phone-ban-for-drivers-confirmed



(From November 1)

Most everybody does anyway, but worth mentioning.

I am well ahead of the game on this one already. I have wired my stebel air horn through my light switch. It now comes on with the light switch so it's on permanently.

I do seem to be getting noticed.

Hopefully the car drivers won't catch on to this and start doing it too - because then we won't be able to tell the difference between, bikes, cars and locomotives at level crossings.

[FastBikeGear]

One very good side effect of this law that I heard two cops joking about outside court yesterday is that they can now proesecute riders who flash their lights to signal a traffic officer

[MSTRS]

One very good side effect of this law that I heard two cops joking about outside court yesterday is that they can now proesecute riders who flash their lights to signal a traffic officer

I think you will find that they've always been able to do that. The charge is something like 'Interferring with an officer of the law performing his duties'.
Has always been a contentious issue, that one. Because by doing the flash-thing, it slows down the approaching motorist...which should be helping the cops to keep the roads safe. :laugh:

[Ixion]

Don't rely in the Harold - journalists are fuckwits. Go to the source (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/docs/draft-road-user-amendment.pdf).



.

Unfortunately, that's the draft from last year. Does anyone have a link to the revised version - ie as of now

[Motig]

So I guess I've got to stop holding the torch as a headlight ?

[Genestho]

:doh:

Sheesh, here was me searching in a rush, under a completely different search string!

Diverted Attention stats (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Diverted-Attention-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)

[Genestho]

Unfortunately, that's the draft from last year. Does anyone have a link to the revised version - ie as of now


Have had a nosey, can't find it myself, doesn't mean it's not in the public domain though, have just asked someone in the know to point out, where this final paper could be found.

Will post a link or the paper, if I can get the info. Or the answer if I can't get either!

[James Deuce]

So I guess I've got to stop holding the torch as a headlight ?

Yes. You'll have to tape it to your helmet.

[Big Dave]

Yes. You'll have to tape it to your helmet.


http://kiwiriderproducts.blogspot.com/2009/08/trailtech-helmet-hid-spotlight-kit.html

[Badjelly]

Unfortunately, that's the draft from last year. Does anyone have a link to the revised version - ie as of now

No, but here's my take on the relationship between the proposals put to consultation in September last year and what's now being talked about:


Oops. The documents I've been linking to on nzta.govt.nz date from September 2008 and refer to proposals for public consultation, the consultation to finish on 16 October 2008.

The government's announcement (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+confirms+new+cell+phone+rule) on 13 August 2009 is a further step in (some of?) the proposed rules coming into effect. From the Stuff article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2750651/Texting-or-talking-on-a-cellphone-while-driving-is-to-be-made-illegal) most of the changes originally proposed appear to have come through unchanged. However (as far as I can see) the priority for buses rule was dropped, and they've added a couple I didn't notice in the original proposal:

* The maximum speed for towing a vehicle with a non-rigid towing connection (such as a tow rope) will be 50kmh.

* Rules will be clarified for the use of shared pedestrian/cycle paths. All users will have to use the paths in a way that does not present a hazard to others. Where signs or markings give priority to either pedestrians or cyclists, users without priority must give way.

Oh, and they've dropped the 50 km/h speed limit for mopeds.

...

[90s]

Apparently Nov 1 marks the start of the ban on use of hand held mobiles for talking and texting while driving. Handsfree are exempt due to a number of businesses "needing" them as an important business tool.

I was involved in a fair bit of the research carried out on driver distraction in the mid-90s which is now being cited, and have kepot abreast with New Scientist's reports on things since, and one thing the media here has been reporting is quite inaccurate. The distraction from a hands-free is not as much or higher than from a call, but less. The big difference between other distractions mentioned in the popular press is that we are more in control of them and can switch attention away from them (eating, talking to passengers, using an ipod or radio) than we can from speaking on the phone (attention is captured). The reason hands-free is slightly less risky is that when attention is captured you still have physical control of the car, rather than not even be in control if fiddling with holding a handset. Txting needless to say is more dangerous than anything else.

[Badjelly]

Unfortunately, that's the draft from last year. Does anyone have a link to the revised version - ie as of now

This page is dated 14 August 2009:

http://landtransport.govt.nz/rules/q-and-a/road-user-amendment-rule-2009.html

It describes 19 provisions in an amended rule to come into effect 1 Nov 2009.

This page is dated 4 September 2008:

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/q-and-a.html

It describes proposed rules for public consultation ending October 2008.

You might think that this all makes some sense, but I couldn't possibly comment. :whistle:

[Ixion]

The page dated 2009 is a Question and Answer thing, not the actual rule.

I want a link to the actual legislation. The Q&A things are notoriously unreliable

[Badjelly]

The page dated 2009 is a Question and Answer thing, not the actual rule.

I want a link to the actual legislation. The Q&A things are notoriously unreliable

What Ixion wants and what Ixion can have are 2 different things. The latest copy of the rule amendment I have been able to find is the one dated September 2008 and linked to by Max Preload.

From the Q & A:

How can I obtain a copy of the amendment Rule?

A copy of the final amendment Rule will be available for purchase from selected bookshops that sell legislation or direct from Legislation Direct, telephone (04) 568 0005 when it has been signed. The Rule, together with information material, will also available on the Land Transport NZ website at www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules when signed.

[Ixion]

Yes, I know that. But it *isn't*. And surely it must have been signed if they are releasing it so publicly? And if it has not been signed who is to say that it
may not be amended between now and being signed .

[swbarnett]

The reason hands-free is slightly less risky is that when attention is captured you still have physical control of the car, rather than not even be in control if fiddling with holding a handset.
Holding a handset to your ear is not "fiddling" with it. Are you trying to say that a one armed driver (i.e. amputee) shouldn't be driving because they don't have control of the vehicle?

Also, not everybody's attention is captured. I've had my wife on the other end wondering why I was ignoring her because my attention was on the road where it belonged half way through the conversation.

The trouble with the research like that you mention is that, even if it is true for the "average" of a population, there are still outliers i.e. in this case, people that are perfecty safe using a phone while driving and those at the other end that shouldn't be driving anyway.

Laws like this just errode more civil liberties and achieve little. Life isn't meant to be perfectly safe anyway. How boring!

[scumdog]

I have been drinking and have experience to say that anything that detracts from focussing on the actual driving is bound to lead to tears.

Even groping the mrs is enough to get a bit of a swerve on.

Apparently.

[peasea]

I have been drinking and have experience to say that anything that detracts from focussing on the actual driving is bound to lead to tears.

Even groping the mrs is enough to get a bit of a swerve on.

Apparently.

Hmm, I detect a lull in the postings.
(Gone offline...)

"She wore a pearl necklace............"

Ooops.

[swbarnett]

I have been drinking and have experience to say that anything that detracts from focussing on the actual driving is bound to lead to tears.
While I agree with this it must be said that the level of distraction caused by any given activity will vary widely from person to person. I don't think mobile phones are the problem. If there is a problem at all it's that people that are distracted by them don't treat their driving with the attention it deserves in the first place. I still don't see how holding a phone to your ear and conversing while driving is any different to a one-armed driver talking to the passenger.

[peasea]

While I agree with this it must be said that the level of distraction caused by any given activity will vary widely from person to person. I don't think mobile phones are the problem. If there is a problem at all it's that people that are distracted by them don't treat their driving with the attention it deserves in the first place. I still don't see how holding a phone to your ear and conversing while driving is any different to a one-armed driver talking to the passenger.

One-armed drivers should never converse with their passengers and neither should they mastrubate while operating a motor vehicle.
OMG! I can see the headline; "One armed man crashes into mall killing sixty people while he's tossing off to a Madonna DVD in his Hummer and talking on his cell phone".

The cell phone would be the problem for sure!

Or....!

Not everyone can multi-task but I do agree that concentrating on the road while you're operating amotor vehicle is paramount. There would be individuals who can drive a car, masturbate, bake a cake and take a phone call all at once while driving, but not everyone. So; given the paramaters that the boffins are given cell phone useage while driving needs to be banned.

It's about idiot-proofing the planet. Air bags, seatbelts, crumple zones and much more besides make people in cars feel invincible, which is a bad thing for bikers.

In my experience kiwi bikers whinge a lot but do little to highlight their predicamant. BRONZ do what they can but it's a tiny voice in reality. Like drunk driving, it's a social attitude. Drunk driving is (thankfully) becoming less socially acceptable, which means that bikers will be safer on NZ roads when attitudes change, be they the attitudes of bikers themselves or car drivers.

I would challenge the NZ police to channel their rugby sponsorship funds into road safety lessons for car drivers to focus on bikers and their presence on the roads. How many bikers would that save versus rugby games played?

[Hinny]

One-armed drivers should never mastrubate while operating a motor vehicle.

Like drunk driving, it's a social attitude. Drunk driving is (thankfully) becoming less socially acceptable.

I would challenge the NZ police to channel their rugby sponsorship funds into road safety lessons for car drivers to focus on bikers and their presence on the roads. How many bikers would that save versus rugby games played?

Many a true word spoken in jest.

[James Deuce]

The job of the Police is enforcement. There are more suitable areas of Government to take up the education cudgel.

Senior Police management have said over the years, more than once, that driver/rider training makes drivers over confident so they do not endorse education.

[swbarnett]

There would be individuals who can drive a car, masturbate, bake a cake and take a phone call all at once while driving, but not everyone. So; given the paramaters that the boffins are given cell phone useage while driving needs to be banned.
So just beacuse some can't noone should? This is the number one reason I object to laws like this. They tar everyone with the same brush regardless of individual circumstances. And in this case there is the added fact that we already have laws to handle the cell phone problem (assuming for a moment that there is one). If a driver is found to be overly distracted why not just charge them with failing to give due care and attention (not sure of the correct wording)? Or, in more serious cases, careless or dangerous driving?


It's about idiot-proofing the planet.
This really makes me sad. Idiot-proof the planet and the entire population will become idiots.


...do little to highlight their predicamant.
Speaking for myself this is because I would rather ride than complain and don't consider that we have it all that bad. I look after myself on the road (bike or car) and don't expect anyone else to.



Like drunk driving, it's a social attitude.
The problem is that laws seldom change social attitudes.


I would challenge the NZ police to channel their rugby sponsorship funds into road safety lessons for car drivers to focus on bikers and their presence on the roads.
This has to be one of the most sensible suggestions yet.

[swbarnett]

The job of the Police is enforcement. There are more suitable areas of Government to take up the education cudgel.
In which case the Rugby money should be taken out of the Police budget as they obviously don't need it. It can then be given to the correct department to further driver education.

[KingJackaL]

I still don't see how holding a phone to your ear and conversing while driving is any different to a one-armed driver talking to the passenger.

The difference is with a passenger, you get some visual cues (facial expressions, body language), even though you don't look at them much.

Phone conversations require a lot more concentration than in-person conversations because of the lack of these visual cues (which transmit a lot of data).


Surely the current version of the Bill (or is it an Act now?) will be here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/
This site is only a short bit away from being THE authoritative source for NZ legislation (over and above the books!), so it should be very up to date.

Anyone know the name to search on?

[MSTRS]

This site is only a short bit away from being THE authoritative source for NZ legislation ...

Clarify. You do mean KB, don't you? :devil2:

[James Deuce]

In which case the Rugby money should be taken out of the Police budget as they obviously don't need it. It can then be given to the correct department to further driver education.

Certainly the case could be presented at the next budget round. Check with your MP.

[Mikkel]

The job of the Police is enforcement.

It would have been easy enough to throw a careless driving charge at anyone operating a cellphone while driving in a potentially hazardous manner.

That said, it is important that the government - not the police - sends a signal that use of mobilephones while driving is an issue that needs a addressing.

Also, police regulations are unlikely to change and apply a focus onto less lucrative enforcement policies unless a political pressure exists.

[swbarnett]

The difference is with a passenger, you get some visual cues (facial expressions, body language), even though you don't look at them much.

Phone conversations require a lot more concentration than in-person conversations because of the lack of these visual cues (which transmit a lot of data).
Sorry, but my eyes are on the road. If you're looking at the passenger (even occaisonally) while you're talking and driving the you need educating as to where your eyes are supposed to be. For me (and I suspect I'm not alone in this) a conversation is all verbal. Visual cues give information as to emotions but not content. I have proven this by that fact that I don't have to be in the same room to carry on a conversation with someone.

[Kickaha]

The Merkins are getting into it as well
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1409651.html
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html