Law change - Daytime headlights and ban on handheld devices

[sleemanj]

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


Also included in the rule change is a requirement for motorcyclists and moped riders to use headlights during daylight hours.

(From November 1)

Most everybody does anyway, but worth mentioning.

[robo555]

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

Personally I do this anyway, the headlight is on every time I ride, it's now the law.

Regarding the cellphone ban...wonder how that would affect *555, it's a bit tricky to give descriptions and number plates if you need to pull over first.

[duckonin]

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

Personally I do this anyway, the headlight is on every time I ride, it's now the law.

Regarding the cellphone ban...wonder how that would affect *555, it's a bit tricky to give descriptions and number plates if you need to pull over first.

The power gurus are back into it, coming up with more non enforceable bits of legislation, cell phones that is..First they (police) have to catch the offender and prove they were using the mp.....The meaning is all good though...

Headlights on for MB's yep,but then not many ride now without having them on..

[one fast tl1ooo]

I do, can't turn it off anyway.:whistle:

[Hailwood]

*555 and 111 calls are exempt from the ban

[ukusa]

*555 and 111 calls are exempt from the ban

Have they been deemed to be not dangerous to dial?

[snuffles]

who rides with no headlight on......not that it actually stops the bastards from running you down....Ive even taken to dressing and a day glow suit with a flashing light on my head......maybe we should ban cellphones in cars ?????????

[slofox]

......maybe we should ban cellphones in cars ?????????

I suppose we could always mail the phone on ahead...

[Swoop]

Also in the Harold. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10590559)


The Road User Rule also included a requirement for motorcyclists and moped riders to operate headlights during daylight hours.

"The number of motorcycle crashes has increased rapidly in recent years as motorcycle usage has grown in popularity again.

"This requirement will help to ensure that motorcyclists are visible to other road users."

[slofox]

"This requirement will help to ensure that motorcyclists are visible to other road users."

Always assuming that other road users have their eyes open....debatable at best...

[BiK3RChiK]

Yep, we have our headlights on all the time. It's quite surprising to me though, that so many don't.:blink:

I think it's a good thing........

[2wheeldrifter]

I do, can't turn it off anyway.:whistle:

Yeah how many have the option (without tampering) to turn it off these days?

[PrincessBandit]

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. Think I read that confiscation is on the cards as most people would rather pay a fine than not use their phone in the car, so the dreaded "c" word (which students already loathe when you relieve them of their ipods and mp3 players during class) looks to be coming our way.

Also compulsory headlights during daylight hours for motorbikes.


Noted too in another side headline that 12 - 24 year olds suffer from "no-mo-phobia" i.e. not having a functioning mobile in their possession. Wft?
How the hell did us oldies cope in the days of yesteryear - I'm sure we must have had some social life, and it certainly didn't revolve around a small plastic beeping burping trilling illuminated block of technology.

Sheesh.

[Dargor]

The news paper doesnt say anything about no riding and texting, were all good.

[kingofjustabout]

I always have my lights on so it doesn't really change much for me, except the potential for a ticket if I somehow forget to leave them on...

I think the roads would be even safer for bikes if we were allowed to carry sawn-off shotguns to fend off idiot cage drivers :2guns::ar15:

[jetboy]

I'd rather ride with my headlight on, I always do (I can turn it off but the switch is permanently set to ON)...and I think if other bikers have theirs on then maybe the dumbass tintops will associate headlight + daylight = motorcycle

[Hitcher]

What about a rule to stop wankers in cars driving around with their headlights on during daylight hours?

[YellowDog]

Always assuming that other road users have their eyes open....debatable at best...
Lights are on, but no one's home.

[boomer]

flouros next, we can all look like hitcher then !

[Hitcher]

A kneejerk political reaction. Dumb law, because it's unenforceable. If people are so stupid that they need a law to stop them doing something that logic and reason suggests they shouldn't be doing anyway, then we're doomed.

If having a law makes people sleep better at night, so be it. I guess now drivers can use their handhelds to dob in other drivers they see driving around using handhelds -- god forbid, they could even use the camera in their handheld to snap photos of offenders and then send those to *555.

[Mully]

Apparently Nov 1 marks the start of the ban on use of hand held mobiles for talking and texting while driving.

Also compulsory headlights during daylight hours for motorbikes.


Meh. Not arguing with either. But neither will achieve much. My light is always on and it doesn't make me more visable.

But what about older bikes which can't run their lights all the time?

[jafafour]

Finally!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10590559

[Max Preload]

Just more window dressing on the real problem - lack of proper driver training & testing. I guess I'll just have to text discreetly instead from now on...

[Drunken Monkey]

And from the Stuff.co.nz report:

"Also included in the rule change is a requirement for motorcyclists and moped riders to use headlights during daylight hours."

[StoneY]

But what about older bikes which can't run their lights all the time?

Come again? Like what bike cant run its headlight dude?
I have seen a lot of old motorcycles as my dad and older brother were aficiondo's of the old British bikes (I mean 1960's oil leaking, bone shaking Thunderbirds, Cubs and Gold star's)
Never seen one of them unable to keep its light on.........

[Mully]

Come again? Like what bike cant run its headlight dude?


I dunno. I've never seen it either - I've just seen people here bitching about it previously.

And I wanted to fit in with the cool kids......

[jafafour]

My light is always on and it doesn't make me more visable.

yes it does :yes:

[spookytooth]

flouros next, we can all look like hitcher then !

don't even joke about it

[jafafour]

Mully: My light is always on and it doesn't make me more visable.

yes it does :yes:

[zeocen]

What about a rule to stop wankers in cars driving around with their headlights on during daylight hours?

Come again? I'm quite happy with riding around and seeing car headlights on, so long as they're on dip. In some conditions, I can see the sparkle of a headlight on objects before the vehicle comes around the corner, gives me some piece of mind for blind corners - it has never hindered or blinded me when they eventually do come around the corner, either.

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.

[YellowDog]

If car drivers can't speak on the phone or send a text message whilst driving, does this mean that they will suddenly develop the ability to look left and right as well as over their shoulders before manouevring?

[Jizah]

flouros next, we can all look like hitcher then !

And flags too!

[sunhuntin]

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

i think hitchers comment has something to do with the idea that car headlights being used during daylight make our lights less visible.

[MSTRS]

Mully: My light is always on and it doesn't make me more visable.

yes it does :yes:

No. It doesn't. We've been through this a million times before.
If 'they' are not looking now, what makes you think a headlight on will make them look in future? There are very few bikes on the roads these days whose riders leave their light off, and the ISIDSY brigade make no distinction.
FWIW - I agree that lights should be on (for motorcycles) in the forlorn hope that it will make a difference, but don't expect that it will make me visible.

[Conquiztador]

And 20 demerits and $80 fine if you are caught doing the unforgivable!

[James Deuce]

Every accident I've had on a bike, my headlight has been on.

I've never had an accident while I've been riding around with my headlight off. Even at night.

[MSTRS]

Correct SH. Lights on is supposed to make a vehicle more visible. For motorcycles that means a point of difference to cages. Debatable at best. If cages are on too, there goes any point of difference.

[Badjelly]

i think hitchers comment has something to do with the idea that car headlights being used during daylight make our lights less visible.

And that would bother the car drivers in question because...?

[sAsLEX]

and Rear Fog lights on eurotrash cars!? Turn the fuckin thing off !

[RantyDave]

Dumb law, because it's unenforceable.
Yebbut if J. Fuckwit esquire is involved in an accident of any description while talking on the phone they are now screwed. This will do for me :)

Dave

[James Deuce]

Yebbut if J. Fuckwit esquire is involved in an accident of any description while talking on the phone they are now screwed. This will do for me :)

Dave

You leave me out of this!

[RantyDave]

've never had an accident while I've been riding around with my headlight off. Even at night.
Now now MrD ... no picking on the hard of thinking.

Dave

[YellowDog]

Every accident I've had on a bike, my headlight has been on.

I've never had an accident while I've been riding around with my headlight off. Even at night.
For essential research purposes, perhaps we should all try the same?

[xgnr]

shit...maybe the stupid laws about extra riding lights being illegal might be re-thought.... ooooh what about making HID's legal??

nah

that would make us more visible...

Now you will have to prove you had your light on when the tosser crashes into you.

[BiK3RChiK]

A kneejerk political reaction. Dumb law, because it's unenforceable. If people are so stupid that they need a law to stop them doing something that logic and reason suggests they shouldn't be doing anyway, then we're doomed.

If having a law makes people sleep better at night, so be it. I guess now drivers can use their handhelds to dob in other drivers they see driving around using handhelds -- god forbid, they could even use the camera in their handheld to snap photos of offenders and then send those to *555.

Well, perhaps, but...................

...................a lot of people these days seem to be devoid of common sense.

I think it's a good thing, but just like any law, it'll be broken. At least now, if an accident is caused because someone is on their phone or texting, then the cops have another law to ping them on. Not that they didn't before!

[popelli]

A kneejerk political reaction. Dumb law, because it's unenforceable. If people are so stupid that they need a law to stop them doing something that logic and reason suggests they shouldn't be doing anyway, then we're doomed.



so drink driving laws using this logic are a knee jerk reaction

and yet people texting whilst driving have been proven in "laboratory tests" to be worse than drunk drivers

like most driving laws its unenforcable becuase there are no police out on the roads, a few undercover mufti cars and they could catch a lot more offfenders - if they had the political will to do so

[James Deuce]

Well, perhaps, but...................

...................a lot of people these days seem to be devoid of common sense.

I think it's a good thing, but just like any law, it'll be broken. At least now, if an accident is caused because someone is on their phone or texting, then the cops have another law to ping them on. Not that they didn't before!

You'll also have to prove that your headlight was on at the time you t-boned the car that just pulled out of the intersection in front of you. I forsee a number of people not getting insurance because the car driver says they didn't see you and didn't see any headlight. Said headlight is now shattered glass and plastic of course.

[Leyton]

Now you will have to prove you had your light on when the tosser crashes into you.

Drivers receive even more FAIL points because the rider was abiding by the law as opposed to a recomendation (And common sence) hehe

I think it is a good idea. I wonder what the fine is if your cought without the light on ?

[Max Preload]

Yebbut if J. Fuckwit esquire is involved in an accident of any description while talking on the phone they are now screwed. This will do for me :)

How is this different to before when if you crashed into someone while talking on a cellphone you'd get a careless use?

[F5 Dave]

Bingo Jim. That is why the law for lights on sucks because car drivers will use it. He didn't have his light on it's his fault, how could I have seen him? he didn't have his light on, it's the law. As opposed to they didn't look, or rather didn't register the bike as a threat.

[MSTRS]

You'll also have to prove that your headlight was on at the time you t-boned the car that just pulled out of the intersection in front of you. I forsee a number of people not getting insurance because the car driver says they didn't see you and didn't see any headlight. Said headlight is now shattered glass and plastic of course.

I believe the cops can tell if an indicator was in use at time of accident. Surely this would apply to headlights as well?

[zeocen]

i think hitchers comment has something to do with the idea that car headlights being used during daylight make our lights less visible.

Ah, fair call. Motorcycle lights are usually higher up than an average car's light, though. If one was driving around the right-hand wheel of the road then our lights could be thought of as a 4x4 or similar. I don't think just because everyone's lights are on, that ours are immediately exempt.

[oldrider]

What will they think of when every vehicle on the road has their headlights on?

Will they make motorcycles turn their lights off during the day, so that they will be noticed? (this actually works now, believe it or not!)

How many new laws have you seen politicians bring in to counteract a perceived problem and it has succeeded?

New Zealand is choked with infective laws,

Police are understaffed and unsupported,

Legal system and judiciary are almost disfunctional,

Corrections is run by and for the benefit of the criminals,

Governments come and go, (is there really any clear difference between Labour and National lead governments today?)

Nothing really changes! (Well, for us anyway)

How clever is that?

New Zealand desperately needs a proper spring clean! :brick:

[RantyDave]

How is this different to before when if you crashed into someone while talking on a cellphone you'd get a careless use?
Ahhhhh, dunno. I had no idea you did. Score!

[Max Preload]

Ahhhhh, dunno. I had no idea you did. Score!

So then that would make it a largely pointless regulation other than a $80 infringement fee and 20 demerits.

Driving while talking on a cellphone is something you can either do or you can't, like backing a trailer. It's just another feelgood measure that lacks any substance. I can still eat a pie while changing the radio station and drinking my coke while driving, and yet that's strangely somehow safer.

Mind you, anything that takes the focus off just exceeding an arbitrary speedlimit is good... :shifty:

[gegvasco]

A view from across the Tasman where mobile phone use is already banned...

This is a good thing. Trust me. It is so noticeable when someone is on their phone. They often veer all over and often out of their lane. Their speed control is appalling which means they are often speeding without knowing it (which even goes against many motorcyclist's justification for it) and often fall below the speed limit thereby holding everyone else up. They don't look properly before they change lanes or pull out because they are too busy having an argument with their spouse about what's for dinner. Given we are one of the most vulnerable road users on the roads, and mobile phone inattention often causes minor lapses, it is motorcyclists that have the most to lose most often and are hence most at risk from mobile phone use.

And as mentioned, in regards to ability to control a vehicle and detect, assess and react to dangerous situations, people on mobile phones have the same ability as someone with 4 beers under the belt. Texting is even worse because even their subconscious can't save them because their eyes are inside the car.

Trust me, making this illegal is a good thing. And it can be enforced. Put a cop on a city intersection footpath and as the drivers pull up on their phone...ping. They aren't going anywhere. I've seen this in action in Sydney. Works a treat.

[xgnr]

Bulb blows... pull over to the side of the road and ring AA or carry a spare right? Like you will even know when it happens.

Why make it compulsory if everyone is doing it anyway?

Havn't "they" just told us that we get killed cos we are riding bikes that are too powerful and we are now too old (or words to that effect)

I don't get this law TBH what is it trying to do? Just another thing that makes it our responsibility to prove that we had our light on...


imagine this at the accident scene...

"I didn't see the bike Orrficer"

"Was the headlight on?"

"Errrr not sure.... um don't think so... I didn't see him eh so prolly didn't"

(great might be a way out of this)"

[sunhuntin]

Ah, fair call. Motorcycle lights are usually higher up than an average car's light, though. If one was driving around the right-hand wheel of the road then our lights could be thought of as a 4x4 or similar. I don't think just because everyone's lights are on, that ours are immediately exempt.

mstrs has it correct. so many cars come with lights hardwired, its taken away one of our only "oi, im riding here!" defenses. like the old saying about too many cooks spoiling the broth, too many lights destroy the purpose.

[Owl]

No. It doesn't. We've been through this a million times before.
If 'they' are not looking now, what makes you think a headlight on will make them look in future? There are very few bikes on the roads these days whose riders leave their light off, and the ISIDSY brigade make no distinction.
FWIW - I agree that lights should be on (for motorcycles) in the forlorn hope that it will make a difference, but don't expect that it will make me visible.

I had to give way to a motorcyclist a few weeks ago (early morning) and he was almost invisible.
I saw him, in fact I watched him approach, but I was blown away by how well he blended in with the road. Every other vehicle had their lights on and were of course easy to see, but not this dude.
I just hope he made it to wherever he was going, because he certainly wasn't doing himself any favours.:no:

[Max Preload]

I believe the cops can tell if an indicator was in use at time of accident. Surely this would apply to headlights as well?

They can - oxidation and deformation of the filiment. Will they? Most likely not unless it's a death or serious injury.

Easiest way to prevent the he said/she said would be have an automatic headlight relay that by-passes the switch if your bike isn't always lights on from factory.

[p.dath]

The power gurus are back into it, coming up with more non enforceable bits of legislation, cell phones that is..First they (police) have to catch the offender and prove they were using the mp.....The meaning is all good though...

Headlights on for MB's yep,but then not many ride now without having them on..

I think you'll find rather than looking for people to pull over it will be used as an additional aide to fine people in dubious circumstances.

For example, someone has an accident using a cell phone. Rather than a generic change of careless driving they can probably be charged with the more specific cell phone legislation.

Or if the Police see someone weaving across the lanes they can stop and fine them. It just makes it easier for them when there is a specific offence rather than using a blanket all law (like careless driving).

[Max Preload]

They often veer all over and often out of their lane. Their speed control is appalling which means they are often speeding without knowing it (which even goes against many motorcyclist's justification for it) and often fall below the speed limit thereby holding everyone else up. They don't look properly before they change lanes or pull out because they are too busy having an argument with their spouse about what's for dinner.

Because they're veering and slowing they've stood out so you've looked to see why. For every one of them, there are plenty who are talking on their phone and aren't doing any of those things.

[munterk6]

I guess your insurance wont pay out if you have a prang whilst talkin on the celphone....GOOD :crazy:

[Aaron_newrider]

There are much more important motorcycle laws that need to be changed, other the "ride with your headlight on". Such as the 70k Learner rule and more rider training laws for younger riders.

My 2c.

[BiK3RChiK]

I guess your insurance wont pay out if you have a prang whilst talkin on the celphone....GOOD :crazy:

Good point! Another out for insurance companies....

[James Deuce]

They can - oxidation and deformation of the filiment. Will they? Most likely not unless it's a death or serious injury.

Easiest way to prevent the he said/she said would be have an automatic headlight relay that by-passes the switch if your bike isn't always lights on from factory.
Thta's not the point being discussed. Insurance Companies are looking for excuses to not pay out and will accept the word of an unreliable witness over hard-wired on from the factory headlights.

[Rayray401]

Just to make this clear, they do mean that as long as you talk on speakerphone/handsfree system its still ok right?

[James Deuce]

Just to make this clear, they do mean that as long as you talk on speakerphone/handsfree system its still ok right?

Hands-free kit only. Speakerphone on a handheld is still out.

[Ragingrob]

How can a cop prove that you had a cellphone in your hand when you were "simply scratching my head"?

How would a cop see the teen texting down by his lap?

Is reading a text counted as "texting"?

What are they gonna ban next, talking to the passenger?

So women can still put on their makeup while driving?

People can still devote most of their concentration on changing the song on their ipod touch?

Dumbass law.

[Ragingrob]

Hands-free kit only. Speakerphone on a handheld is still out.

How they hell would they distinguish those in terms of pulling people over?!?!

:bash:

[zeocen]

I can see where you're coming from, however I don't think that it's a finite argument on us becoming 100% concealed, if we're being hidden then we should take it upon ourselves to make sure we're not hidden, I find simply obeying the two second rule gives me enough room behind the current vehicle to be seen by on-comers, I'm sure there are also other ways to go about being seen if you are worried about drivers not seeing your headlights amongst others.

[James Deuce]

How can a cop prove that you had a cellphone in your hand when you were "simply scratching my head"? I don't like it when other people scratch my head when I'm driving. How DO you put up with it?

How would a cop see the teen texting down by his lap? Yes - the phone would be visible under the floor of the car.

Is reading a text counted as "texting"? Yes.

What are they gonna ban next, talking to the passenger? I'm working on it. It's worse than using the phone.

So women can still put on their makeup while driving? Yes. Women have special rights in NZ.

People can still devote most of their concentration on changing the song on their ipod touch? That's different, music is more important than life itself.

Dumbass law. Of course. It's written to protect dumb-arses.

Laws are cool.

[James Deuce]

How they hell would they distinguish those in terms of pulling people over?!?!

:bash:

Really easily. Impound the car and inspect it.

[Spyke]

I think lights on all the times stupid. lets all keep the headlights on full all the time untill they realise it just causes more shit.

[McWild]

There was no need to make it compulsory.

Why does parliament seem to think there's no problem that can't be fixed with a new law?

[sunhuntin]

Now you will have to prove you had your light on when the tosser crashes into you.

there are tests that can be done on lights that can tell whether they were on or not at the time of an accident. the wires inside react differently i think.

this new law makes me glad my light is hardwired. i often forgot about the lights on the ginnys.

[CookMySock]

Have they been deemed to be not dangerous to dial?Nah they have been deemed to be ineffective. :pinch:

Our 250 learner bikes have a light switch, so it is possible to actually turn the lights off completely - inadvertently making the bike non-legal, and in my opinion, non-safe.

I'm going to try making a relay harness that runs off the stator. The idea is the lights come on and stay on when the engine starts, regardless of the position of the light switch. If the rider wants the lights on with the engine stopped, they just flick the switch on, or else leave it on auto.


Steve

[Naki Rat]

......Easiest way to prevent the he said/she said would be have an automatic headlight relay that by-passes the switch if your bike isn't always lights on from factory.

Permanently on headlights are a pain in the arse and at times potentially hazardous. My current employer has recently had the company vehicles modified to be 'full time lights on' as a large client of ours demands this of all contractors :tugger:

The result is that it is no longer possible to 'flash' other motorists to alert them to hazards or to signal them that you intend to let them into traffic. Flicking from low to high beam in daylight just doesn't cut it like a full on/off, and besides one of the vehicles is permanently on low beam by default anyway. My solution has been to select the Park setting when driving but a mediocre solution at best :angry2:

Net result of making everybody drive with lights on permanently is that the intended point of difference eventually is lost. So what then, fit all vehicles with flashing beacons? And the population just gets dumberer and dumberer :argh:

Having said that though I will be continuing to ride with lights always on and hopefully there will be less tossers out there to dodge as they piss about with their phones. Cellphone ban is spot on :niceone:

[sunhuntin]

ive found when riding, if there are other vehicles around me with their lights on, im more likely to be pulled out on. strange, and i dont know why, but thats how it seems to be. i always think what others around me would like in terms of visibility, and i try to accomodate that by shifting in my lane to where ever seems to make their visibility easier.
i find it the same when looking down a long straight in town. if the only lights oncoming are scooters, i can see them blocks away. if there are cars with lights, the scooter is harder to pick. on the street im thinking, i have perfect visibility for long distance. im thinking those from side streets, their visibility would be more than halved.

[dmc]

So having your lights on is going to make people better riders?

Or the inept car drivers will not run you down because you have your headlight on? They struggle to keep their cars on the road so your headlight isn't going to make much difference in them hitting you.

[Hitcher]

and Rear Fog lights on eurotrash cars!? Turn the fuckin thing off !

That got another hobby horse of mine really excited. Its nostrils are flaring in anticipation. Rear foglights and car headlights on during daylight are the motoring equivalent of a fluoro vest.

[Ragingrob]

There are much more important motorcycle laws that need to be changed, other the "ride with your headlight on". Such as the 70k Learner rule and more rider training laws for younger riders.

My 2c.

Older riders don't need training?

[CookMySock]

lets all keep the headlights on full all the time untill they realise it just causes more shit.Have you tried this? Go out on a sunny day and leave your headlights on fullbeam (for purely scientific purposes only!) and ride for three hours. I bet you don't get one complaint.


Easiest way to prevent the he said/she said would be have an automatic headlight relay that by-passes the switch if your bike isn't always lights on from factory.I'm gunna make one.


If 'they' are not looking now, what makes you think a headlight on will make them look in future?What if you get a welder and put a headlamp reflector on it? Do you think that would not be instantly obvious to everyone remotely in line of sight to it? Welcome to HID - well into the "WTF is that?" category, and guaranteed to alert any half-asleep cager.


Steve

[Hitcher]

I think it's a good thing, but just like any law, it'll be broken. At least now, if an accident is caused because someone is on their phone or texting, then the cops have another law to ping them on. Not that they didn't before!

It's too late. Cellphones and texting are now an essential part of many people's lives -- they expect to be immediately contactable and can't imagine life without this amenity. I don't expect to see any statistically significant reduction in road accidents or deaths after 1 November. This is dumb law.

[Aaron_newrider]

Older riders do need training, yes, but older riders don't think they are invincible (usually?) and don't do dumb immature shit

If we make the teenagers actually train to ride a motorcycle before we let them loose on the road there wouldn't be so many who think the are invincible.

:)

[Voltaire]

I was in Ireland when they introduced a hand held phone ban, mobile companies made lots selling hands free kits.
I don't think it makes any difference whether you are holding it or not, its the distraction of your mind being elsewhere that is the problem.

Interestingly they banned smoking in the workplace at around the same time...technically truck drivers could be fined...then sent to jail....where they could smoke as much as they liked as jails were exempt.

[StoneY]

Permanently on headlights are a pain in the arse and at times potentially hazardous.

Net result of making everybody drive with lights on permanently is that the intended point of difference eventually is lost.

I believe the headlight law refers to only bikes? (may be mistaken....)



It's too late. Cellphones and texting are now an essential part of many people's lives -- they expect to be immediately contactable and can't imagine life without this amenity. I don't expect to see any statistically significant reduction in road accidents or deaths after 1 November. This is dumb law.


So doing nothing about the under 25's who I see in 400hp rotaries, head down texting at 120kmh on the motorway is preferable? Sorry bro, im on the side of this new law, its a good un

Just coz they're now essential life accessories don't mean you and I should tolerate being placed at risk by texting drivers - its a genuine effort on behalf of the man for once, half assed or not:yes:

[PrincessBandit]

Just to make this clear, they do mean that as long as you talk on speakerphone/handsfree system its still ok right?

I imagine the test is is the phone still in your hand, even if it's not up to your ear? I use the earbuds which came with my phone sometimes, and can voice activate my phone to accept or decline calls (imagine that many peoples' can). I honestly can't see how this could be considered a hazard as it's no different from driving with a car full of distracting fighting kids in the back seat, or a talkative passenger in the front with you.

I have no hesitation in saying to the other person "hold on just have to .......[whatever].."

[Hitcher]

So doing nothing about the under 25's who I see in 400hp rotaries, head down texting at 120kmh on the motorway is preferable?

Please explain how the new law will do anything to meaningfully address the problem you've outlined? First they have to get caught, at which point they'll cop an instant fine for $80 and 20 demerits.

I don't buy the "But it's a start" or "It's better than doing nothing" arguments.

Don't misunderstand, I don't approve of cellphone use or texting while driving (even though I have on a couple of occasions indulged in the former). I just don't support dumb law that can't be effectively enforced or which will have little effect on changing people's behaviour.

[James Deuce]

I just don't support dumb law that can't be effectively enforced or which will have little effect on changing people's behaviour.

Exactly. Now, cellphones that explode when you travel faster than 25 km/hr would be a start!

[Madness]

It's just another weapon in the arsenal of the NZ Police. No doubt they'll use these new laws to alienate and harrass the motoring public even further.

[BiK3RChiK]

and Rear Fog lights on eurotrash cars!? Turn the fuckin thing off !

Take it out with your:ar15: Dunno what the purpose of them are anyway!

[Hitcher]

Why can't all cars be fitted with cellphone blocking technology? Make this a requirement for a WOF.

[James Deuce]

Because that would deprive the passengers of the right to use their cellphones.

Personally, I think we should spray an expanding permeable foam into peoples mouths so they can't talk while they are a vehicle passenger.

[nsrpaul]

what about vintage bikes with acetilyne lights like mine, prob safer with it off

[Ragingrob]

Why can't all cars be fitted with cellphone blocking technology? Make this a requirement for a WOF.

Sucks when you crash and are stuck in the car and need to use your phone :eek5:

[modboy]

I only have a high or low beam switch, lights on all the time anyway - I'm pissed I can't txt while buzzing along the Hutt Road at 110k tho...
:Punk:

[scumdog]

Why can't all cars be fitted with cellphone blocking technology? Make this a requirement for a WOF.

I reckon.

An electronic device that disabled phone reception/transmission unless the car was at a stand-still.:yes:

[James Deuce]

Sucks when you crash and are stuck in the car and need to use your phone :eek5:
Maaaan, people say I'm negative. All you see in anything are problems!

Solutions are the key!!

[peasea]

Take it out with your:ar15: Dunno what the purpose of them are anyway!

Maybe it's a guy thing?

[digsaw]

Old vintage bike,no lights fitted on a daylight wof.........HELLO WTF:whistle:

[Leyton]

what about vintage bikes with acetilyne lights like mine, prob safer with it off

roflacopter!

[StoneY]

Please explain how the new law will do anything to meaningfully address the problem you've outlined? First they have to get caught, at which point they'll cop an instant fine for $80 and 20 demerits.

I don't buy the "But it's a start" or "It's better than doing nothing" arguments.

I just don't support dumb law that can't be effectively enforced or which will have little effect on changing people's behaviour.

And the same thing was said when seatbelts in the back seat were enforced.....and helmets....I think its in the right spirit however anyone else sees it regardless how effective it will be or not

NZ just took 10 years to follow the other developed countries and do something about cellphones and road use

I still support this law, and that's why opinions are so wonderful, we all have em
;)

[digsaw]

Zacly :whistle:

[Ragingrob]

Maaaan, people say I'm negative. All you see in anything are problems!

Solutions are the key!!

Solution : We already have a charge for careless driving.

If people are driving 'carelessly', fine them, whether it's due to cell phone usage or not.

Leave the people who can still drive in a legal fashion whilst on their mobile.

[xgnr]

there are tests that can be done on lights that can tell whether they were on or not at the time of an accident. the wires inside react differently i think.


Yes true, but if not investigated by the serious accident crowd (i.e. you or somone else is dead) this probably won't happen... and you will have to prove it in your defense. Tough shit if the headlight wasn't smashed at the time of impact as there will be no evidence it was on apart from witnesses.

Dont get me wrong, I always ride with my light on but this law does worry me a bit about the possible implications.

Cheers

Stu

[sexy beast]

talk about riding and texting skills...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7amxE3RLAzQ



The news paper doesnt say anything about no riding and texting, were all good.

[Hitcher]

Sucks when you crash and are stuck in the car and need to use your phone

"Hi Mum. I'll be a bit late for dinner."

[zeocen]

Older riders do need training, yes, but older riders don't think they are invincible (usually?) and don't do dumb immature shit

If we make the teenagers actually train to ride a motorcycle before we let them loose on the road there wouldn't be so many who think the are invincible.

:)

Unfortunately, the thought of invincibility and lack of common sense is evident throughout the generations and holds no discrimination to any age bracket. I have seen the same idiotic behaviour in all ages of riders (including myself, I'm not immune to the red mist, either!).

I'm on the fence about the 24/7 headlight deal but I've personally never had trouble making out the difference between a motorcycle headlight and a car headlight during the day time, and only really mistake a motorcycle headlight with a 4x4 or Ute, or something similar. In either case I still see them and am still well aware of their presence.

But, then again, I my young, nubile body has 20/20 vision, maybe it's an old person's thing? :chase:

[Ixion]

..

But, then again, I my young, nubile body has 20/20 vision, maybe it's an old person's thing? :chase:

Uh, dude, y' might just want to go look up the dictionary definition of 'nubile'. Unless you're trying to chat up Carver.

[zeocen]

I'm trying to pretend I'm not getting wrinkles, here and am still in my teenage years!
Carver can look, but he can't touch.

[PrincessBandit]

"Hi Mum. I'll be a bit late for dinner."


or my version: me on the side of the motorway to hubby up in the States "Hi hon, just wanted to tell you the bike is still ridable......" all sorts of handy uses dem mobile phones. (Although I was most definitely stationary at the time)

[XRVrider]

A bloke in the UK (hand helds etc.. banned) was driving along with his wife who fed him a hot chip. He opened his gob, wife threw it in, he was travelling under a motorway over bridge with a cop on it, who saw this and him eating and pulled him, gave ticket etc... Eating and driving is banned there too.

Seen plenty of people on phones and 95% drive way worse, even with earpieces. A lady driving who's having a fag, doing her make up and looking and talking to her passengers drives much worse, but thats still legal. Hmm

[Kickaha]

who rides with no headlight on.
I do

I don't.....not that it actually stops the bastards from running you down...
that's why I don't, I'll take responsibility for my own safety and ride accordingly (with my headlight off)



Or the inept car drivers will not run you down because you have your headlight on? They struggle to keep their cars on the road so your headlight isn't going to make much difference in them hitting you.

I predict it will make fuck all difference, be interesting to see the accident stats 12 months after this comes in

[jafar]

New law to come into effect 1st November is for motorcyclists to be fined $100.00 for riding without their headlights on:argh:
No demerit points though.:woohoo:

[Leyton]

Yes true, but if not investigated by the serious accident crowd (i.e. you or somone else is dead) this probably won't happen... and you will have to prove it in your defense. Tough shit if the headlight wasn't smashed at the time of impact as there will be no evidence it was on apart from witnesses.

The same argument can be put to indicators aswell. Whilst my light on may alert me to alert drivers, it will not to those who are just shutoff.. like the bus driver last weekend that pulled out on me on a round about!! DOH :P

Sure its more pointless legislation, personaly it does not worry me. My lights cant turn off. And even in on the old bike I simply leave the switch on, and the lights turn off with the ignition.

[The Stranger]

Personally I do this anyway, the headlight is on every time I ride, it's now the law.



Sure, as we all should if we like our skin, however now the onus just moved from them to us. Why?
To save us from ourselves?
Why stop at headlights? Why not mandatory leathers, gloves, boots and glow vest, with flashing lights? Shit how about just ban bikes altogether.
Ok, ok, I think headlights on bikes at all times is a good idea, but a law to tell us so, I'm not so sure personally.

[jafar]

So you blow a bulb on the way home in the middle of the day & Mr plod can stop you & give you a FINE FOR $100.00 :argh:
I ride with my light on anyway, the bike is wired that way, but to make it an OFFENCE punishable by way of fine is just another nail in the coffin of civil liberties.:angry2:

Next will be COMPULSORY DAYGLO :bash:

I :love: NZ the land of the free:pinch:

[The Pastor]

its not about weather or not riding with a light on is good or not, its what happens when you have a bike as your only means of transport and you dont have a working headlight. and its a summer day........

HELLO DEMERITS!

Yay! new laws! woohoo! i love being told what to do!

[jafar]

its not about weather or not riding with a light on is good or not, its what happens when you have a bike as your only means of transport and you dont have a working headlight. and its a summer day........

HELLO DEMERITS!

Yay! new laws! woohoo! i love being told what to do!

NO DEMERITS on the new law, just a $100.00 fine

[StoneY]

My last input to this topic:

I was a truckie with 1.5 MILLION accident free KMs when Telecom went Digital to compete with Vodafones text deals

I had a 25 year old sales rep drive under my 38 ton truck,(on the Taka's no less) because he was reading a text his boss sent him- he now has permanent wheels- attached to his chair :pinch:
He considered himself an excellent driver- with 5 hours practice every day he may have been :Oops:


80 buck and 20 demerits - if it saves ONE of my 3 teenagers from injury, pain or death- its well worth the dented pride of all these fucktards who think it shouldnt apply to them:angry2:

[Soul.Trader]

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

[Usarka]

A piece of spineless legislation. I thought we voted Labour out last year????

Yes texting is bad, ban it. But talking on the phone can be dangerous hands free or not. The only reason I can see apart from bribery & corruption for not banning all telephone calls while driving is that those with hands free kits are more likely to be business people.

ie. we're happy to compromise on road safety if it's done by people who might be on the phone for work purposes.

(before you have a whinge read the research)

[Usarka]

Exactly. Now, cellphones that explode when you travel faster than 25 km/hr would be a start!

Cellphones that just randomly explode would be even more fun!

[Beeza]

I own a number of older classic bikes where the charging system is simply not designed to keep the battery charged at low-speed stop-start city running if the headlight is on. It works as designed out on the open road at a decent speed, but in town it runs the battery down so badly the bike won't start. So it is IMPERATIVE that all older bikes (say over 25 years) are exempt from the proposed all-day headlight law. That way, if your old bike has a charging system that can cope, you can run with the light on. If it is doubtful, you run with the light off. It's your choice.

[MikeL]

to make it an OFFENCE punishable by way of fine is just another nail in the coffin of civil liberties

Quite right. Too many Nanny-State regulations brought in by liberal lefty tree-hugging politicians. Oh wait, that can't be right. This is a National government. What on earth are they thinking of? Next they'll be telling us we can't have the tax cuts we were promised...

[PrincessBandit]

But, then again, I my young, nubile body has 20/20 vision, maybe it's an old person's thing? :chase:

I'm still trying to bring my bpm down after that comment!! :msn-wink: don't be such a tease.


I'm trying to pretend I'm not getting wrinkles, here and am still in my teenage years!
Carver can look, but he can't touch.


Maybe he won't be able to help himself though...


Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic.

Seems to be a typical knee jerk reaction, assuming the worst. I'd have thought that riders would be amenable to doing anything at all to visibly highlight their presence on the road, regardless of whether it was a commonsense thing or pissy rule that we now have to follow. The fact that we currently have drivers who are blind as a bat to other cars etc. as well as motorbikes who already travel with headlamps on during daylight hours means that in reality nothing much will change. The 'no headlight' excuse to get out of fault would be a pretty weak attempt at blame shifting. The only road users, other motorcyclists included, likely to come at it are probably ones who'd use any little technicality to save their own skins even if they knew they were entirely to blame for an accident.

[Swoop]

This morning's Harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10590719) states the following:

Transport Ministry figures show the number of motorcyclists killed or injured rose 48 per cent in two years, from 896 in 2005 to 1328 in 2007.

1328 MOTORCYCLISTS killed in 2007??????? Just motorcyclists?

I think a statistician has been holding a key down on his calculator.:bash:



New Zealand is choked with infective laws,
I was enjoying the very subtle methods being used in this campaign. The radio station has been inserting a campaign of "distracted drivers are dangerous drivers", obviously coming from the "pre-legislation" phase of implementation. They have to soften us up and have us all "thinking right" when the law is announced...

[CookMySock]

if it saves ONE of my 3 teenagers from injury, pain or death- its well worth the dented pride of all these fucktards who think it shouldnt apply to them:angry2:Yup.

Cmon you biker idiots, why they hell is "all the cagers putting their cellphones down" a bad thing for bikers ?

It's not is it. It's a fucking good idea, and you are far better off for it.


Steve

[PrincessBandit]

Why don't we just have a chip put into people's brains which activates once they sit in the drivers seat of any vehicle. It turns off all ability to do anything other than look at the road and operate vehicle controls. No speaking, no reaching for anything outside the limit for handbrake (not even radio control knobs...). From the time the ignition switch activates our brains go into "drive mode" and we are incapable of doing any other small task.

Somehow I think there'd still be accidents!

People are designed to multitask, some better than others. FFS, the rate we're going we will have robots to drive all our vehicles.

[Laava]

Ooooooooh! Lots of unhappy people in here innit? Wouldn't like to be the cops having one more responsibility tacked on to their list! I bet none of them are looking forward to ticketing people for this.

[ready4whatever]

that means insurance wont pay out if your headlight is off in an accident

[PrincessBandit]

And yes, I am aware of accidents caused by people texting while they've been behind the wheel of a car. People are also killed though by drivers who run up onto footpaths while they grope around for their bottle of L&P and take their eyes off the road while doing it.

[skidMark]

Not good for people with anything 85 ish or earlier, the charging circuit is often not up to it...

Now al we need is mandatory riding gear... for ALL riders, including scooter riders....

Helmet Jacket gloves pants and boots.

Most of you will have a cry going ohhh but it will steer new riders away rider choice, 250's are to expensive to afford gear as well etc etc...

well im sick of my ACC levi through the roof and squids riding like fuckwits with nothing but a lid.

Skid.

[Soul.Trader]

[QUOTE=PrincessBandit;1129353657]I'd have thought that riders would be amenable to doing anything at all to visibly highlight their presence on the road, regardless of whether it was a commonsense thing or pissy rule that we now have to follow. [QUOTE]

You would be wrong. One of my first posts on this forum was to query why almost all motorcycle gear is black, being the same colour as the road and the most difficult colour to discern at any distance. The thread went for many pages, most of which was post after post vilifying me for making such an assertion that, as much as everyone here likes to bitch about not being seen by other motorists, most don’t do what they should be doing to make themselves more visible.

Then again I’ve come to expect such idiocy from this forum, hence I rarely visit any more.

[The Stranger]

So you blow a bulb on the way home in the middle of the day & Mr plod can stop you & give you a FINE FOR $100.00 :argh:


Ah, that's not the problem is it. If you have an accident with another vehicle - regardless of fault - say they pull out on you from a side street, or change lanes on you, it just became your fault instead of theirs.
The onus for safe driving just shifted from them to us. Why? because we ride motorbikes, just as we are the only recreational group with their own ACC levy the onus for someone elses mistake is on us.

[The Stranger]

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

We know it happens now. You have a defence if say you pull a U turn and collect someone who doesn't have their headlights on, but should have.
Why do you expect they have a headlight law?
So as people know they need headlights after dark? - I think most know that don't they. It's so another motorists can see you, if they can't because of this it becomes your fault. You think this situation will be any different because?

Let's assume it is purely to save us from ourselves as you suggest. In my view that is MORE dangerous, as noted why stop there, how about yellow helmets, glowvests, gloves, boots, full leather - or banning motorcycles altogether.

Either way, as a law it stinks.

[Usarka]

He's right, ride at night with no headlight and it'll be your fault if some one turns in front of you.....

[The Stranger]

You would be wrong. One of my first posts on this forum was to query why almost all motorcycle gear is black, being the same colour as the road and the most difficult colour to discern at any distance. The thread went for many pages, most of which was post after post vilifying me for making such an assertion that, as much as everyone here likes to bitch about not being seen by other motorists, most don’t do what they should be doing to make themselves more visible.

Then again I’ve come to expect such idiocy from this forum, hence I rarely visit any more.

And a good job that is.
Odd thing, that bikie gang members seem to have no trouble being seen. Let me know how many you see wearing glow vests or yellow helmets will ya.

[p.dath]

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

Take a read of this article:
http://www.openroad.com.au/motoring_roadsafety_headlightssafefeature.asp

It's been studied many times. The result is nearly always that having a headlight on (including with cars) increases your visibility. The difference is sufficient that it prevents many accidents.

Many European countries also require cars to drive with their headlights on as well - so great is the effect.

[p.dath]

Quite right. Too many Nanny-State regulations brought in by liberal lefty tree-hugging politicians. Oh wait, that can't be right. This is a National government. What on earth are they thinking of? Next they'll be telling us we can't have the tax cuts we were promised...

You do need to remember that it is a balance between allow people to do what they want versus the safety of others.

In this case it is simple. Getting everyone to do the *simple* act of turning on their headlight during the day will stop a lot of people getting needlessly injured.

[skidMark]

Ah, that's not the problem is it. If you have an accident with another vehicle - regardless of fault - say they pull out on you from a side street, or change lanes on you, it just became your fault instead of theirs.
The onus for safe driving just shifted from them to us. Why? because we ride motorbikes, just as we are the only recreational group with their own ACC levy the onus for someone elses mistake is on us.


Ahhh if you are trying to say in the eyes of the law we are at fault if a car doesn't see us and pulls out you need to puff puff pass mate.

it is exact same as car, we just get smashed up and broken instead, if that car pulls out when it is meant to be giving way to a vehicle etc then they/the drivers insurance company pays for your bike

either that or you are trying to say more that society sees it as our fault, in which case you are partially correct, but when it comes down to it they may nt see us, but by law it isn't our probem that they don't bther t look. We have as much right to be n the road as anybody else does.

[usa-vtwin]

My bike has lights on whenever running by default. Do most new bikes have that set up?

[BiK3RChiK]

My last input to this topic:

I was a truckie with 1.5 MILLION accident free KMs when Telecom went Digital to compete with Vodafones text deals

I had a 25 year old sales rep drive under my 38 ton truck,(on the Taka's no less) because he was reading a text his boss sent him- he now has permanent wheels- attached to his chair :pinch:
He considered himself an excellent driver- with 5 hours practice every day he may have been :Oops:


80 buck and 20 demerits - if it saves ONE of my 3 teenagers from injury, pain or death- its well worth the dented pride of all these fucktards who think it shouldnt apply to them:angry2:

This is why I like the law! If it saves either or both of my teenagers, it's well worth it...

[skidMark]

He's right, ride at night with no headlight and it'll be your fault if some one turns in front of you.....


i'm talking about daytime you pillock given that is what the thread is regarding as we already have them on at night

[CookMySock]

Odd thing, that bikie gang members seem to have no trouble being seen.The reason for that, is they polarise everyone heavily because of their actions. They travel at a higher speed, weave around like an axe murderer, and generally make it look like they are going to kill everyone.

I use the same technique, but just not anywhere as extreme. Gangsters do it because they are actually like that in real life. I do it because it works.

Steve

[skidMark]

My bike has lights on whenever running by default. Do most new bikes have that set up?


yes....
first seen in jap bikes 1991 ish

[The Stranger]

Ahhh if you are trying to say in the eyes of the law we are at fault if a car doesn't see us and pulls out you need to puff puff pass mate.




You're doing 90kph in a 50 zone and someone pulls out of a side street on you - who's at fault? If you have any doubt try it. Assuming your speed can be determined, you will be found at fault. Why do you think they have laws Mark? Oh what the fuck am I asking you for.

In this case (daytime running lights) the other motorist will have a legal defence of "I didn't fucking see you".

[MSTRS]

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.
As others have said, it is the case during the hours of darkness. As for daytime, any excuse to shift blame will be grabbed with both hands.



You would be wrong. One of my first posts on this forum was to query why almost all motorcycle gear is black, being the same colour as the road and the most difficult colour to discern at any distance. The thread went for many pages, most of which was post after post vilifying me for making such an assertion that, as much as everyone here likes to bitch about not being seen by other motorists, most don’t do what they should be doing to make themselves more visible.

Then again I’ve come to expect such idiocy from this forum, hence I rarely visit any more.

In this world of bright and confusing colours, black can be a 'hole' that stands out. Black is a threatening colour. The laws of diminishing returns are upon us...

[Jantar]

Posts on headlight use have been moved to their own thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=105494

[skidMark]

You're doing 90kph in a 50 zone and someone pulls out of a side street on you - who's at fault? If you have any doubt try it. Assuming your speed can be determined, you will be found at fault. Why do you think they have laws Mark? Oh what the fuck am I asking you for.

In this case (daytime running lights) the other motorist will have a legal defence of "I didn't fucking see you".


yes you will be found at fault but at what point did your post state the rider in this situatin would be in the breach of any road laws...

man lay off the fucking drugs. :eek5:

[Goblin]

About bloody time!

Will this new law apply to truckies using hand held RTs?

[skidMark]

In this case (daytime running lights) the other motorist will have a legal defence of "I didn't fucking see you".


Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

[MSTRS]

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

Not necessarily. Would be tried as a defence by the other party, for sure. And would no doubt be noted by attending cops as a 'contributing factor'.
As with all nit-picking, doubtful laws...this one would be right up there in terms of futility.

[Jantar]

Come again? Like what bike cant run its headlight dude?
I have seen a lot of old motorcycles as my dad and older brother were aficiondo's of the old British bikes (I mean 1960's oil leaking, bone shaking Thunderbirds, Cubs and Gold star's)
Never seen one of them unable to keep its light on.........

There were a few bikes (pre mid 1970s) that only had 50W lighting coils in their magnetos. This was sufficient to just maintain the battery with headlights running on dip along with tail light instruments etc, but took charge out of the battery on high beam. Continuous running with lights on would drain the battery over time. For most bikes it is only after the boom of the late 1960s early 1970s that magnetos were replaced with alternators and a reasonable electrical could be maintained.

However that wasn't the end of the problem. many of the lighting systems designed for bikes had a limited bulb life. I can think of one type of bulb used in some early Yamahas that only had a 20 hour rating. The sealed beam unit in my RE5 has a 100 hour rating and they aren't manufactured anymore.

That fact that a bike is able to run its headlights all the time doesn't mean that it was designed to do so.

[The Stranger]

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on?

See post number 75 dickhead.

[The Stranger]

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

Why would I put it in my first post in this thread. It makes no mention of liability under the law you fooken clown.

[BiK3RChiK]

Whether headlights are on or not, a motorcyclist should be riding as though no one can see them anyway and be prepared for moronic drivers around them. At least, this is what I have read over and over. As it is, if a vehicle fails to give way and they are in the wrong, it doesn't matter whether they say they saw you or not... they are still in the wrong! Trying to make a defense of 'They didn't have their headlight on' is bogus IMO.

Headlights on for motorcyclists is going to be the law from November 1 and it's not going to make one iota of difference to me, since I ride with my headlight on all the time anyway...

[BiK3RChiK]

There were a few bikes (pre mid 1970s) that only had 50W lighting coils in their magnetos. This was sufficient to just maintain the battery with headlights running on dip along with tail light instruments etc, but took charge out of the battery on high beam. Continuous running with lights on would drain the battery over time. For most bikes it is only after the boom of the late 1960s early 1970s that magnetos were replaced with alternators and a reasonable electrical could be maintained.

However that wasn't the end of the problem. many of the lighting systems designed for bikes had a limited bulb life. I can think of one type of bulb used in some early Yamahas that only had a 20 hour rating. The sealed beam unit in my RE5 has a 100 hour rating and they aren't manufactured anymore.

That fact that a bike is able to run its headlights all the time doesn't mean that it was designed to do so.

Surely this has been taken into account in the legislation? Maybe it needs to be drawn to the attention of MP's or is it too late?

It seems to me that it would be kind of like the seatbelt legislation for pre- 19?? vehicles that weren't fitted with them...

Does anyone know anything about this?

[skidMark]

Why would I put it in my first post in this thread. It makes no mention of liability under the law you fooken clown.


your post was a jumble of incoherent statement with no backing or explination...

its like reading a school report draft by a 5 year old

[BiK3RChiK]

About bloody time!

Will this new law apply to truckies using hand held RTs?

Short answer is no..

[MisterD]

Short answer is no..

Two-way radios specifically excluded from the ban - probably more to do with cops than truckies though...

[skidMark]

Surely this has been taken into account in the legislation? Maybe it needs to be drawn to the attention of MP's or is it too late?

It seems to me that it would be kind of like the seatbelt legislation for pre- 19?? vehicles that weren't fitted with them...

Does anyone know anything about this?

i'd be in agreement of any bike prior to say 1980 (or whatever is most viable)

you have the problem though that cops dnt exactly know bikes... you would get stopped everytime you passed a copper...

my only thought would be some kind of tag or sticker in a clearly visable place, (perhaps on the headlight itself)

kind of like a disabled parking type thing where a cop can see it as he drives past and go ahhh he has an old bike kind of thing...

just an idea...

[Atlas]

I ride a '51 BSA regularly on the road and use the lights only when I absolutely have too. Not everyone owns a modern that can run lights at all times. Its just another excuse to blame bikers when tin top owners don't pay attention to driving and actually look where they're going.
I've been hit (in 30 years of regular riding) by 3 cars while riding bikes, in none of those incidents would lights have made a difference as the drivers were all simply NOT paying attention, - checking mirrors, looking both ways etc. The last time on my GSXR1100 I had my lights on, as I did when hit riding my VFR750.

This rule is bullshit. :argh:

[The Stranger]

your post was a jumble of incoherent statement with no backing or explination...

its like reading a school report draft by a 5 year old

You were my target audience, no point going above that age now was it?

[Voltaire]

I recall that the lights on rule was in Germany 20 years ago when I was touring around, I complied until my BMW battery went flat riding around Munich, after that I didn't bother....no one cared.

Seeing at the Police can't cope with what they have to do already....can't see them paying much attention to old bikes with no headlight on.
maybe when you are being grilled by the cop you can point out all the drivers on their mobiles.
I used to drive a 54 Beetle and drove it around with no seatbelt....much like a former MP...because I was entitled too, got pulled over a couple of times and it took a bit of explaining. In hindsight not a great idea....I would not do it now....wheres my slippers...?

[Ixion]

I ride a '51 BSA regularly on the road and use the lights only when I absolutely have too. Not everyone owns a modern that can run lights at all times. Its just another excuse to blame bikers when tin top owners don't pay attention to driving and actually look where they're going.
I've been hit (in 30 years of regular riding) by 3 cars while riding bikes, in none of those incidents would lights have made a difference as the drivers were all simply NOT paying attention, - checking mirrors, looking both ways etc. The last time on my GSXR1100 I had my lights on, as I did when hit riding my VFR750.

This rule is bullshit. :argh:

At least your Beeza probably has a magneto. Spare a thought for the poor sod on a 5T or 6T Triumph with 6V dynamo charging and coil ignition!

This is going to be a real pain for classics. Will it mean that the present daylight WoF exemption for machines too old to have effective lights will no longer be available?

A lot of the 'middle aged' Jap bikes , the era with electric starter only and no kickstart , but weak charging systems, can run the battery down if used for prolonged periods at low speeds (like, round town).

I foresee a lot of bikers having to bump start their machines

I am investigation the possibility of finding LED lights that will comply with the rules.

[Goblin]

So how about *555? Will cops still tell drivers to stay on the phone and follow an alledged offender til they arrive? How will this work for concerned drivers who see a possible drunk driver weaving through traffic?

[MikeL]

The concerns about older bikes with electrical systems not designed for continuous headlight operation are valid, and I hope that some allowance or exemption can be applied here. The other worry is about bulb life. I may be wrong, but I have a suspicion that bulbs for lights on bikes that have the headlight permanently on may be longer life than others. I know that I have replaced the bulb on my Honda (not hardwired) twice already, but not on my Yamaha, although it has done almost the same mileage. It's not a problem provided the replacement bulbs are readily available, but for some older bikes this may be an issue.

[2wheeldrifter]

Just wondering... Is it true that it's harder to judge the speed of an oncoming vehicle with it's headlight/s on? Remember some years back that there was some form of debate about it.

Must admit though, with these new high powered lights they can be bloody blinding even during the day.... or is that just me with my screwed up eyes!? :pinch:

[skidMark]

You were my target audience, no point going above that age now was it?


Nah thats the age of the girls you date.

[Atlas]

If they don't have an exemption for classics this is a nasty option, fifties and earlier machines had shitty 6v magdyno's that were made by the prince of darkness and even 60's bikes (which had better generators and 12v) were often vibrators that shook the bulbs to bits (and encouraged bolts to fall off).
I dont fancy being considered at fault simply cos my battery had gone flat or my bulb had fallen to bits half way to the cold kiwi.
I usually check my headlight works every 6 months when I see the nice WOF man.

I thought we'd got rid of Helen's PC mob, but sadly the bureaucrats remain.

[CookMySock]

Two-way radios specifically excluded from the ban - probably more to do with cops than truckies though...It's quick and easy to throw the mic on the seat if you need both hands, and its quick and easy to find it again. Traditionally, if you put your cellphone on the seat beside you, and are guaranteed to never see it again.

Also, two-way radios are for professionals to use, and with any luck they have more than half a brain than an know-it-all idiot-consumer does. They should anyway, since they do it for a living.

Steve

[Badjelly]

Also, two-way radios are for professionals to use, and with any luck they have more than half a brain than an know-it-all idiot-consumer does. They should anyway, since they do it for a living.

Just as, in the case of cops, their superior skills and experience let them do U turns where no other driver can. ;)

[The Stranger]

Nah thats the age of the girls you date.

So I take it that's why you are behaving like a 5yr old girl then, trying to lure me into a date. Damn you're a sick fuck.

[ready4whatever]

cant do anything without a fine these days

[cambridgedan]

i have ma lights on anyway lol

[Metalor]

IT's a good idea i reckon. I can't turn mine off if the bike is on, but always had the light on when riding the volty.

[skidMark]

So I take it that's why you are behaving like a 5yr old girl then, trying to lure me into a date. Damn you're a sick fuck.

Admit it, it's working.

[Genestho]

A kneejerk political reaction. Dumb law, because it's unenforceable. If people are so stupid that they need a law to stop them doing something that logic and reason suggests they shouldn't be doing anyway, then we're doomed.

If having a law makes people sleep better at night, so be it. I guess now drivers can use their handhelds to dob in other drivers they see driving around using handhelds -- god forbid, they could even use the camera in their handheld to snap photos of offenders and then send those to *555.

**Wades In*** (You've been waiting for me eh Hitch? :blip: )
I'm on the fence and can see both sides!!!!here (http://www.psychologymatters.org/driverdistract.html).



A copy and paste from a post I made, from an earlier thread.

"David Strayer, PhD, of the Applied Cognition Laboratory at the University of Utah has studied cell-phone impact for more than five years. His lab, using driving high-fidelity simulators while controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, has obtained unambiguous scientific evidence that cell-phone conversations disrupt driving performance. Human attention has a limited capacity, and studies suggest that talking on the phone causes a kind of “inattention blindness” to the driving scene.

Strayer and his colleagues compared data for hand-held and hands-free devices and found no difference in the impairment to driving, thus, they say, raising doubts about the scientific basis for regulations that prohibit only hand-held cell phones

Drivers should also be aware that whether a cell phone is hands-on or hands-free makes no difference in terms of mental distraction.
According to the research, the mental activity of conversation, whether in person or over the phone, is what takes one's mind off the road. What happens in the head happens regardless of what happens with the hands."

I found it interesting they say "Disturbingly, forthcoming research will show that talking on a cell phone (even hands-free) hurts driving even more than driving with blood alcohol at the legal limit (.08 wt/vol). When talking on a cell phone, drivers using a high-fidelity simulator were slower to brake and had more “accidents” than when they weren't on the phone. Their impairment level was actually a little higher than that of people intoxicated by ethanol (alcohol)."

[Stirts]

New law to come into effect 1st November is for motorcyclists to be fined $100.00 for riding without their headlights on:argh:
No demerit points though.:woohoo:

I find it hard to believe that any rider doesn't ride with their beams on (http://www.giant-nipples.com/98/giant_nipples03.jpg)

EDIT: now read Metalors post again :rofl:

[Hitcher]

The evils of texting or using a cellphone whilst driving are unchallenged by me. The science on this is largely unequivocal. My beef is about unenforceable law and law that is highly unlikely to change the behaviours of the general public, bless them.

[Leyton]

There should be a ban on rolling smokes or eating a pie while riding, Anyone do that ? :shutup:

[Badjelly]

My beef is about unenforceable law...

Cop sees someone driving in a somewhat dopey way and notices (as I do quite often) driver is holding cellphone to ear. Cop stops car and issues ticket.

In a few cases, later on, recipient of ticket challenges it saying, "I wasn't using a cell phone." Cop says, "Yes he was." Judge believes cop.

Unenforceable?

[Leyton]

<img src="http://www.scholastic.ca/titles/hennypenny/images/hennypennycvr.gif"></img>
:sherlock:

[Genestho]

My beef is about unenforceable law and law that is highly unlikely to change the behaviours of the general public, bless them.
Agreed, but you're assuming everyone with their scratch n win weetbix card license, is of the same level of intelligence, maturity and skill, or actually care about other people on the roads! And we both know that's not true.

I do like your idea of technology addressing this in the car and WOFs, if there's Alcohol Interlocking Devices, then there will be technology to address this too.

Not sure if it's researched anywhere else in the world. (I shall do a Google!)
How it works is, you need proven research and trials that are successful, and successfully implemented. We usually follow Australia, at least.

[CookMySock]

[trimmed irrelevant LOL] My beef is about unenforceable law and law that is highly unlikely to change the behaviours of the general public, bless them.Many people are resistant to this approach, I agree, but for quite a few it does work. They might be lemmings for this to work, but hey some people are!

In addition, what other approach could be taken? Do you have a suggestion?

I submit, it would not be hard to legislate that all new mobile phones sold not show recieved txts until they were stationary, or allow incoming calls unless they were connected to a proper hands-free unit.

Steve

[Disco Dan]

I thought it was quite interesting that the news segment showed someone driving using a handfree kit - but actually using one hand to hold the mic closer to their mouth....

Last time I used my handsfree kit (PM me if you want a bluetooth one, I have heaps) I had to search through the menu on my phone, turn on bluetooth, switch on the ear piece, pair them both (requuired both hands to hold down buttons on both devices at same time) them put thing in my ear, find somewhere to put phone.... all while driving???

[CookMySock]

I thought it was quite interesting that the news segment showed someone driving using a handfree kit - but actually using one hand to hold the mic closer to their mouth.... That is because they cant hear the person on the other end. The natural reaction is to speak louder into the microphone or draw it closer. Of course the person at the far end gets shouted at, so they move their microphone away from their mouth, and the person at the other end can't hear them, so they....


I had to search through the menu on my phone, turn on bluetooth, switch on the ear piece, pair them both (requuired both hands to hold down buttons on both devices at same time) them put thing in my ear, find somewhere to put phone.... all while driving???My bluetooth is always on, already paired, and powers on and connects when I remove it from the charger (where it lives when not in use.)

Steve

[The Stranger]

I found it interesting they say "Disturbingly, forthcoming research will show that talking on a cell phone (even hands-free) hurts driving even more than driving with blood alcohol at the legal limit (.08 wt/vol). When talking on a cell phone, drivers using a high-fidelity simulator were slower to brake and had more “accidents” than when they weren't on the phone. Their impairment level was actually a little higher than that of people intoxicated by ethanol (alcohol)."

Do the statistics show this. Cellphone usage in a vehicle, at least around Auckland is rampant, yet anecdotally at least, we don't seem to se anywhere near the accident stats we see associated with alcohol.

[scumdog]

Do the statistics show this. Cellphone usage in a vehicle, at least around Auckland is rampant, yet anecdotally at least, we don't seem to se anywhere near the accident stats we see associated with alcohol.

A lot of 'oops' are never reported as cell-phone related.

[Genestho]

Do the statistics show this. Cellphone usage in a vehicle, at least around Auckland is rampant, yet anecdotally at least, we don't seem to se anywhere near the accident stats we see associated with alcohol.
That's a very good question!

I've never found crash stats available in the public arena relating to cell phone usage.

But, neither have I looked too hard, or asked for them, anybody can under the Information Act Request. Also there will be a consultation paper in September that people can have a look at and submit to.

Looking at media reports I found these stats

In New Zealand - 2005
10 people were killed and over 90 people were injured in crashes where distraction due to cellphone use was a factor.

In 2007, six Kiwis died and 96 were injured in similar circumstances
"This is compared to two cellphone-related fatalities in 2000."

In New Zealand - 2008
one person died and 116 were injured in crashes in which a driver’s attention was diverted by a cellphone or other communication device.



Just that looking at that info, there is no comparison in the crash rates between cellphone usage and drink driving in NZ

The way it looks to me is that the evidence is anecdotal (Could be wrong:Oops:) and mounting. I am sure somewhere the data will be available, perhaps it will be released with the consultation paper.

Have a look at this (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/CrashFacts/) though, indicates to me that cell phone data is not officially shared.

As I understand, it's only a recent development to have police searching cars for phones at crashes, and it looks like police have to obtain warrants to gain access to the cellphone. So perhaps the evidence is lower and not available publically due to these two points? And the point SD made above? (SD?)

Just out of interest, I note labour led this iniative with a $50 fine and 25 demerits.

[Swoop]

So how about *555? Will cops still tell drivers to stay on the phone and follow an alledged offender til they arrive? How will this work for concerned drivers who see a possible drunk driver weaving through traffic?
Bonus points for the plod. One ticket for the drunk and another for the member of the public on the cellphone.
Donut time arrives early that day!

[Genestho]

Bonus points for the plod. One ticket for the drunk and another for the member of the public on the cellphone.
Donut time arrives early that day!


Yea funny one eh.
I had a friend who called *555, when a car burned past on the left of him, dangerously weaving in and out of traffic with the license plate wired on around the towbar.

"Are you on a handheld device??"
"Oh, is it Illegal?"
"No, but pull over please, and can you please give us the location of the car?"
(As it burned off into the horizon....:pinch:)

People will just have to pull over

[The Stranger]

People will just have to pull over

Can just see what is going to happen. People will pull over on the motorway to take a call. Oh well.

[Genestho]

Can just see what is going to happen. People will pull over on the motorway to take a call. Oh well.

Well...what do they do though, either way the law is damned if it do and damned if it dont!
And you can't take it further (ie, banning kids, hands free, pies, conversations, ciggies etc etc) because seriously where do you stop, we need to keep emphasis on warrants obtaining cellphones, because if we don't - where does that end..

But then on the other hand it looks to me that MOT are trying to address crashes caused by cellphones on limited data collection, and following Aus, which implemented this law back in 2000 I think? So, yea. That's my take on it. I'm done:yes:

[The Stranger]

A lot of 'oops' are never reported as cell-phone related.

Valid point.


That's a very good question!



To be sure, I'm not questioning the decision or the logic of the proposed law, quite the opposite, I'm all for a ban on cell phone usage in vehicles - especially after having to avoid a bus weaving all over the motorway whilst the driver was using his cell phone. That said, there are other distractions that could be addressed too (such as people applying mascarra whilst driving on the motorway perhaps), but it's a good start.
It is this passage "Disturbingly, forthcoming research will show that talking on a cell phone (even hands-free) hurts driving even more than driving with blood alcohol at the legal limit (.08 wt/vol)." that I find a touch difficult to swallow.

[Genestho]

Those excerpts are taken from the link I posted.

Did you have a read through the article of the link I posted, based on Strayers research, conducted over 5 years!

[Big Dave]

You can quote all the statistics ever.

Anybody who has ridden around Auckland for long enough has been put in 'a situation' by someone drifting in to their lane whilst operating a hand held communications device.

Such incidents are clearly and notably less when riding on the other side of the Tasman - where the practice is illegal and Policed.

[Genestho]

Oh mate - speaking as a driver, I'm friggen sick of gits not watching or indicating because they're on their phone, watched an incident yesterday myself!
In saying that, I am guilty of taking calls while I'm driving, most times I pullover - which is what I'll do from now on.

[Big Dave]

Oh mate - speaking as a driver, I'm friggen sick of gits not watching or indicating because they're on their phone, watched an incident yesterday myself!
In saying that, I am guilty of taking calls while I'm driving, most times I pullover - which is what I'll do from now on.

Yes - I was meaning that the statistics are irrelevant to the reality.

It's a bit like the headlights and hi-vis thing. I agree that the measures improve the rider's chances and add safety, but they only make you easier to see if the driver looks in the first place.

The majority of close shaves I've had involved the driver not so much as turning their heads my way. I know because I have survived because I was watching them like a hawk. Not even a glance. Miles away.

When it does turn sour and the accident is reported the driver says 'I didn't see him' not 'Well actually, I forgot to look' or 'I wasn't paying attention anyway'.

Hello turn your headlights on.

The dude with the chocolate wheel and more stringent training are better ideas.

[Genestho]

Well said!:yes: Must spread before giving again!!!

[James Deuce]

Well said!:yes: Must spread before giving again!!!
Girls really shouldn't type that sort of thing on Internet forums.

[oldrider]

Girls really shouldn't type that sort of thing on Internet forums.

That deserves "universal" bling, sooooo diplomatically put James Deuce! :yes:

[Genestho]

Girls really shouldn't type that sort of thing on Internet forums.

:Oops: BLING Heading your way Sir!! :lol:

[BiK3RChiK]

Whatever happened to 'don't answer it!'? This is what I do if it's not convenient at home... that should translate to vehicles as well. I won't allow a little bleeping plastic thing to dictate to me my life! My kids would say... phones ringing!, and I'm like so? They'll leave a message or ring back if it's urgent.

[oldrider]

Posts on headlight use have been moved to their own thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=105494

That link doesn't open! :Oops:

[Usarka]

i'm talking about daytime you pillock given that is what the thread is regarding as we already have them on at night

Having trouble linking ideas, concepts, causes & effects?

[swbarnett]

People are designed to multitask, some better than others. FFS, the rate we're going we will have robots to drive all our vehicles.
The sad thing is this has already happened. Last I heard field trials of automated roads are underway in the states.

[swbarnett]

Anybody who has ridden around Auckland for long enough has been put in 'a situation' by someone drifting in to their lane whilst operating a hand held communications device.
I've been commuting in Auckland for over 20 years and I can't say that this has ever happened to me.

[MaxB]

I guess I might be one of the business users affected. I rely on giving quick replies to clients or they go somewhere else.

You don't need a hands free kit with some phones, it is built in. I got a good price on a phone that is totally hands free. It lives on clip attached to the sun visor. I just talk to it to bring it out of stand by and tell it to dial preset numbers. I never have to take my eyes off the road.

Overall I reckon the new phone law is a good one.

I don't think the headlight law is all that flash. They just dont seem to have thought it through. There should be exemptions if your bike is over a certain age (20 years say) or has a marginal charging system. The mopeds at work often have flat batteries in the winter.

The other point is that how would you even know your dipped beam has failed during the day? Anyone on tour could ride for hours between stops.

[peasea]

I guess I might be one of the business users affected. I rely on giving quick replies to clients or they go somewhere else.

You don't need a hands free kit with some phones, it is built in. I got a good price on a phone that is totally hands free. It lives on clip attached to the sun visor. I just talk to it to bring it out of stand by and tell it to dial preset numbers. I never have to take my eyes off the road.

Overall I reckon the new phone law is a good one.

I don't think the headlight law is all that flash. They just dont seem to have thought it through. There should be exemptions if your bike is over a certain age (20 years say) or has a marginal charging system. The mopeds at work often have flat batteries in the winter.

The other point is that how would you even know your dipped beam has failed during the day? Anyone on tour could ride for hours between stops.



I agree.

You could pop a bulb and the cops would not take any view other than to fine you, that's a fact. I think it's another revenue gatherer myself, but the phone thing while you're driving is a no-brainer. (That's why they employ the police to enforce the new law.)

I made a submission regarding the no-lights law as soon as I heard about the impending change to the regulations (did you?) and my argument was that the classic bike fraternity would be unfairly disadvantaged. There are many classics bikes out there that cannot run with the lights on for more than a few k's. I suggested a cut-off point of the mid-eighties, like the emissions thing, but it would appear that my submission fell on deaf ears.

Most modern bikes can sustain a 'lights on' rule but many classics' electrical systems are not up to it. It's going to be interesting to see how they cope.

Hands up those who made submissions!!!!

[cs363]

I agree.

You could pop a bulb and the cops would not take any view other than to fine you, that's a fact. I think it's another revenue gatherer, myself but the phone thing while you're driving is a no-brainer. (That's why they employ the police to enforce the new law.)

I made a submission regarding the no-lights law as soon as I heard about the impending change to the regulations (did you?) and my argument was that the classic bike fraternity would be unfairly disadvantaged. There are many classics bikes out there that cannot run with the lights on for more than a few k's. I suggested a cut-off point of the mid-eighties, like the emissions thing, but it would appear that my submission fell on deaf ears.

Most modern bikes can sustain a 'lights on' rule but many classics' electrical systems are not up to it. It's going to be interesting to see how they cope.

Hands up those who made submissions!!!!

We were discussing this today and you echo my thoughts to the letter peasea I can just imagine someone riding say Wellington to Auckland or whatever on a Sunday, blowing a headlight bulb and getting busted for it. Not so bad for modern bikes as you say, at least those that take an H4 bulb as you'll more than likely find one of those at a servo, but for anyone running odd bulbs or old bikes it's a bunch of unnecessary drama IMO.
Not to mention that with the campaign to encourage cars to light up during the day, the point of difference will be gone too.

I have to admit I didn't make a submission as I wasn't even aware of this until I saw the news article saying it was being introduced.

[peasea]

We were discussing this today and you echo my thoughts to the letter peasea I can just imagine someone riding say Wellington to Auckland or whatever on a Sunday, blowing a headlight bulb and getting busted for it. Not so bad for modern bikes as you say, at least those that take an H4 bulb as you'll more than likely find one of those at a servo, but for anyone running odd bulbs or old bikes it's a bunch of unnecessary drama IMO.
Not to mention that with the campaign to encourage cars to light up during the day, the point of difference will be gone too.

I have to admit I didn't make a submission as I wasn't even aware of this until I saw the news article saying it was being introduced.

AND that's the way those fuckers work!

You don't know until it's a done deal!

I actually don't mind riding with my light on, my bike is 'hard-wired' for it anyway. However, I used to ride a 1968 Triumph and the electrics were less than 'brilliant'. I feel for those guys/gals with classics and there should have been an exemption.

[cs363]

AND that's the way those fuckers work!

You don't know until it's a done deal!

I actually don't mind riding with my light on, my bike is 'hard-wired' for it anyway. However, I used to ride a 1968 Triumph and the electrics were less than 'brilliant'. I feel for those guys/gals with classics and there should have been an exemption.

As a matter of interest where was it advertised? Bastards..

I'm the same as you, both road bikes are hard wired anyway - and luckily both H4's. Definitely should have been an exemption for classics, say pre-1980 or something similar.
What is the penalty if caught riding without a headlight on?

[CookMySock]

I think you guys are making too much of this headlight thing.

Firstly, a little bit of thought (someone has suggested superbright white LEDs) will probably offer a good solution (and maybe save someones life) and also I don't think a cop is going to bust someone heavily for a blown filament.. Even now, if you stopped for not indicating and its just a bulb they will tell you go sort immediately and not book you.

Also if your dip filament pops, just use highbeam.. No one cares that much during the day.

Steve

[cs363]

I think you guys are making too much of this headlight thing.

Firstly, a little bit of thought (someone has suggested superbright white LEDs) will probably offer a good solution (and maybe save someones life) and also I don't think a cop is going to bust someone heavily for a blown filament.. Even now, if you stopped for not indicating and its just a bulb they will tell you go sort immediately and not book you.

Also if your dip filament pops, just use highbeam.. No one cares that much during the day.

Steve


It's not so much the headlight thing itself, as you make valid points regarding alternatives - though even then there may be some issues for (much) older bikes.
It's more the way it was sneakily put through and the fact it's one more thing to be hassled over. Not to mention the fact I'd thought we'd left this sort of nanny state crap behind us with the change of government.

Seems to me it might have been more effective to just make it a WOF requirement that the headlight is permanent on for bikes registered after a certain date as there are obviously bikes built to this spec for many markets already. Rather than making a somewhat heavy handed ruling that it's a ticketable offence not to have a headlight on at all times on all bikes as seems to be the case.

It would be good if someone can clarify the exact ruling and penalties, as all the reports I've seen so far are a bit vague on this.

[scumdog]

The sad thing is this has already happened. Last I heard field trials of automated roads are underway in the states.

Just look at the list of 'aids' in a modern vehicle - they do all but drive the p.o.s for us.
i.e.:

Terrain Response Systems
Hill-descent aids,
Stability control
Traction control
ABS
Rain-sensing wipers
Cruise control
Automatic headlight switching
etc,etc

and to a lesser extent:

Heated exterior mirrors (that probable never get used)
Headlight washers
Reversing sensors

[The Stranger]

Hill-descent aids,


All vehicles have this - it's called gravity.

[scumdog]

All vehicles have this - it's called gravity.

Ahh, but some come with 'Special Gravity'!

[peasea]

As a matter of interest where was it advertised? Bastards..

I'm the same as you, both road bikes are hard wired anyway - and luckily both H4's. Definitely should have been an exemption for classics, say pre-1980 or something similar.
What is the penalty if caught riding without a headlight on?

To be honest I don't recall seeing any ad's, I was forwarded an email about it and a link to make submissions. I took the time to write a submission and suggested a cut-off date of the mid-eighties. I think I mentioned it on kb, not sure, if I didn't; my bad. I did forward the emil to everyone I know with a bike though, many of whom own vintage/classic bikes.

It's like a lot of things; you don't hear about them until it's too late. Many years ago I was secretary of the American Classic Car Club and we got wind of some proposed emissions laws. The laws were going to be all-encompassing and you try finding good smog equipment for a 70's Yank tank. I drew up a letter that only needed signing and mailing and heaps of people fired it off to parliament. The laws now apply to mid eighties and newer vehicles only.

You CAN make a difference, but only if you have the information to act on and they HATE you getting that.

[Genestho]

I wonder if when consultation and submissions are called for, if we can have a sticky in this politics category?

Link to the proposed law changes, link to consultations, link to submissions? Could even upload the submission papers, and bring research into it, so people can see what it's all about, then you can't say you wern't warned? Also I know there's a few media people here, maybe they could make the awareness factor through mags?

[scumdog]

You CAN make a difference, but only if you have the information to act on and they HATE you getting that.

I feel it more they just don't care...

[peasea]

I wonder if when consultation and submissions are called for, if we can have a sticky in this politics category?

Link to the proposed law changes, link to consultations, link to submissions? Could even upload the submission papers, and bring research into it, so people can see what it's all about, then you can't say you wern't warned?

Good plan Uncle Stan. If people aren't confident enough to write a submission one could be posted here for them to cut and paste. It doesn't matter if they're all the same just as long as there is a genuine signature and contact address on each submission. You don't even need a stamp to send a letter to parliament.

[Genestho]

Good plan Uncle Stan. If people aren't confident enough to write a submission one could be posted here for them to cut and paste. It doesn't matter if they're all the same just as long as there is a genuine signature and contact address on each submission. You don't even need a stamp to send a letter to parliament.

Exactly, could set up a template! And it is free postage!!!!

Look I'm not a professional, I just give it a crack. I've made two, and I rung a couple of people to make sure they were ok.

Anybody can make submissions!!!! It's all about having your say!

[scumdog]

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??

[peasea]

I feel it more they just don't care...

Possibly, although I'd be more inclined to think that they like to be seen to be doing something to justify their positions. If they pop their ugly wee heads above the smoke now and then and write up some rule/regulation or whatever they feel better about themselves and the dumb-arse populace thinks they are getting value for their tax dollar.

By 'they' and 'them' I mean the bureaucrats.

It doesn't matter which party is in power the bureaucrats will still be there, chipping away at rules and regulations without the need (more often than not) for any actual law changes or introductions. Muldoon was good at that.

[CookMySock]

It's more the way it was sneakily put through and the fact it's one more thing to be hassled over. Not to mention the fact I'd thought we'd left this sort of nanny state crap behind us with the change of government.I guess if people feel sensitive to this, then it might be important. For myself, I do not care what the government has to say. I do as I choose, but with respect for others rights. I find this does me, and others, well.


Seems to me it might have been more effective to just make it a WOF requirement that the headlight is permanent on for bikes registered after a certain date ...I almost said "please not another wof requirement" but I tend to agree with you.

Steve

[peasea]

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??

If it was a 1909 Douglas with an acetelyne headlight, I doubt it.

We had a bunch of Meriden Triumphs come over from Wellington not so long ago and I was amazed that none of them rode with their h/l on! Mind you, the electrical systems on those older Trumpys were never really up the task, especially around town with lower rpm etc. However, those bikes are not used daily and are ridden by experienced people. Maybe the crash victim you mention wasn't paying attention. Who knows?

Todays bulbs are less demanding opf charging systems, so unless your ride is REALLY old there's no excuse but what's next? Hi Viz jackets for all? A minimum area of reflective clothing?

Don't think they won't get to a point where they can dictate what you can and can't wear; Michael Laws has just done that.

[p.dath]

What's the deal with hands free kits. Are they banned or allowed?

[p.dath]

Does the legislation only ban cell phones, or are two way radios also banned?

[MSTRS]

To be honest I don't recall seeing any ad's, I was forwarded an email about it and a link to make submissions. I took the time to write a submission ...

As did I. I sent an email to info@nzta.govt.nz 20/908 when submissions were being called for. Of course I got no response...
Have a look here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1736414&postcount=1)

[MSTRS]

Exactly, could set up a template! And it is free postage!!!!

Look I'm not a professional, I just give it a crack. I've made two, and I rung a couple of people to make sure they were ok.

Anybody can make submissions!!!! It's all about having your say!

But when the 'ruling' goes against AND 'they' don't even bother to acknowledge receipt of your submission (effectively, you are ignored) is there any point?

[Genestho]

Funny, I agree with that, both my submissions - I was advised I would be consulted (not transport issues) and haven't been.

But with IID's, I am now liasing with someone in the right place, which makes things a bit easier, direct response and all that, and it is known I will publish what I'm told so I'm told what they want me to know! Or I'm asked to hold back until official announcements are made, which is fair enough in some cases.

Oh and I think you should be liasing with Ministry of Transport, not NZTA. And yes they do watch this site :)

[MSTRS]

Oh and I think you should be liasing with Ministry of Transport, not NZTA. And yes they do watch this site :)

But it was NZTA that was asking for submissions on the headlights issue...

[Genestho]

But it was NZTA that was asking for submissions on the headlights issue...

As I understand it, it is Ministry of Transport (along side other agencies) that lead the reviews, and TBH I've never dealt with NZTA except with educational things, and that is minimal contact.

[MSTRS]

So what you are saying is that (yet again) this govt dept misleads the public? Remember, NZTA is a merger of Transit and Land Transport. Transit looked after roads etc, and LT looked after the vehicle rules. Why would the MOT have authority in cases like this? When it is be their job to advise and enforce only.

[Ixion]

..but it would appear that my submission fell on deaf ears.

Most modern bikes can sustain a 'lights on' rule but many classics' electrical systems are not up to it. It's going to be interesting to see how they cope.

Hands up those who made submissions!!!!

Yep. Ignored, obviously.

[peasea]

But when the 'ruling' goes against AND 'they' don't even bother to acknowledge receipt of your submission (effectively, you are ignored) is there any point?

Your submission will be on record somewhere. I know how you feel but if we all did nothing all the time we would face even more legislation. Don't do nothing.

[peasea]

So what you are saying is that (yet again) this govt dept misleads the public?

It wouldn't do that, surely?:rolleyes:

We can soon look forward to heavier/longer trucks on our roads too. Heavier loads means more Road User taxes = more cash in the coffers. Longer trucks means more speed required to overtake them safely = more tickets = more cash in the coffers. :clap:

[saltydog]

Hey, I want the right to choose if I have my lights on or not.
I normally have them on all the time (even though the R1 is not hard wired) But sometimes I dont want them on.
I recently got snapped (28 days)on a windy hilly piece of road because my lights were visible the cop got a good visual and thus a radar reading. (deserted bit of road with NO traffic).
Around town I reckon lights on the bike are bit of a waste anyway....for me its all about letting the driver in your path know you are there. (I still hand signal when turning, I wave and qesture if I can see a car wanting to cut me off, etc)
Heres one for you...my bike has mirrored headlight protectors (powerbronze AUST) and unless they are taken off the beam from the lights is pretty minimal (although more visible if they were off), whats the copper going to say about those? How can he tell if my lights were on.
If I get pulled over, my light switch will be turned on as he's turning is car around and then its his word against mine?! WTF?
Wankers.

[peasea]

Hey, I want the right to choose if I have my lights on or not.
I normally have them on all the time (even though the R1 is not hard wired) But sometimes I dont want them on.
I recently got snapped (28 days)on a windy hilly piece of road because my lights were visible the cop got a good visual and thus a radar reading. (deserted bit of road with NO traffic).
Around town I reckon lights on the bike are bit of a waste anyway....for me its all about letting the driver in your path know you are there. (I still hand signal when turning, I wave and qesture if I can see a car wanting to cut me off, etc)
Heres one for you...my bike has mirrored headlight protectors (powerbronze AUST) and unless they are teken off the beam from the lights is pretty minimal (although more visible if they were off), whats the copper going to say about those? How can he tell if my lights were on.
If I get pulled over, my light switch will be turned on as he's turning is car around and then its his word against mine?! WTF?
Wankers.

I don't want to wear a helmet all the time but Nanny State says I must, even on my bicycle, to prevent head injuries. Funny how rugby players don't have to wear one yet they don't pay any ACC levies.

[MSTRS]

We can soon look forward to heavier/longer trucks on our roads too. Heavier loads means more Road User taxes = more cash in the coffers. Longer trucks means more speed required to overtake them safely = more tickets = more cash in the coffers. :clap:

OT - but also means more chopped-up roads = more bikes coming to grief.
Of course, 'they' will be able to say "If you'd had your headlight on, you'd have been ok...here's your ticket for Careless Causing Injury"
The roading authorities don't care about the ACC cost. They are only interested in ensuring that they get plenty of funding. Since ACC sucks away so much of the available govt funding, NZTA, MOT etc will keep doing whatever they can to ensure a steady cashflow inwards.
It's all connected.

[saltydog]

I don't want to wear a helmet all the time

Yeah but thats just silly no? Move to California

[MSTRS]

And another thought...
What about insurance cos? Will they use this headlight law to weasel out of paying up for bent/broken bikes?

[peasea]

OT - but also means more chopped-up roads = more bikes coming to grief.
Of course, 'they' will be able to say "If you'd had your headlight on, you'd have been ok...here's your ticket for Careless Causing Injury"

But, but, but.....they tell us the roads will be able to handle the extra loads. Bullshit. The roads can't handle what's being thrown at them now. The Heavy Transport Industry boffins are arguing that bigger loads will lead to fewer trucks on the road. Watch this space. The same HTI boffins claim that larger loads will help get our economy moving; hang on, if they say larger loads means less trucks doesn't that indicate that total cartage will remain roughly the same? Where's the growth? It's all spin to get the heavier loadings approved and truck numbers will continue to increase, there will be growth alright mark my words, and yes you're right, the roads will suffer further.

[peasea]

Yeah but thats just silly no? Move to California

Don't have to; I ride without a lid sometimes, it feels great. I did it just last w/e, not far though and I wouldn't push my luck in a built-up area. Tell you what; you hear every tinkle in your engine!

There's no demerit points so who cares?

[p.dath]

But, but, but.....they tell us the roads will be able to handle the extra loads. Bullshit. The roads can't handle what's being thrown at them now. The Heavy Transport Industry boffins are arguing that bigger loads will lead to fewer trucks on the road. Watch this space. The same HTI boffins claim that larger loads will help get our economy moving; hang on, if they say larger loads means less trucks doesn't that indicate that total cartage will remain roughly the same? Where's the growth? It's all spin to get the heavier loadings approved and truck numbers will continue to increase, there will be growth alright mark my words, and yes you're right, the roads will suffer further.

I wish we could invest money into rail rather than roads for heavier trucks. Rail was specially designed for moving these heavy loads.

And there is coastal shipping as well.

By investing so heavily in a narrow field you run the risk of damaging industries like rail and coasting shipping - and at the same time making things worse for everyone else.

[SixPackBack]

Don't have to; I ride without a lid sometimes, it feels great. I did it just last w/e, not far though and I wouldn't push my luck in a built-up area. Tell you what; you hear every tinkle in your engine!

There's no demerit points so who cares?

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

[peasea]

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

Last time I checked it was $150 cash up front.

OT: I wonder why, when you have very little chance of getting tickets thrown out, the cops don't have EFT-POS capability in their cars? Get it over and done with right there and then.

I can recall getting a ticket for the murderous speed of 117kph around National Park a few years ago and the cop looked confused when I handed over my Visa card. It's what they're really after at the end of the day, isn't it?