Headlights on

[george formby]

Very sorry if I'm the last person here to find this out but as of Sunday it is compulsory for post 1979 motorcycles to ride with their headlights on. Page 2 of todays Herald, listed among other law changes. It's the first I have heard of it becoming mandatory. I hope their will be some leniency from the tax collectors.....:whistle:

[MSTRS]

I hope their will be some leniency from the tax collectors.....:whistle:

Hope is all you have, if you ride 'dark'.

[george formby]

Very sorry if I'm the last person here to find this out but as of Sunday it is compulsory for post 1979 motorcycles to ride with their headlights on. Page 2 of todays Herald, listed among other law changes. It's the first I have heard of it becoming mandatory. I hope their will be some leniency from the tax collectors.....:whistle:

Anybody know why this thread is not showing up under new posts? Am I being a numpty?

[NighthawkNZ]

Anybody know why this thread is not showing up under new posts? Am I being a numpty?

because you have already read it???

[White trash]

Anybody know why this thread is not showing up under new posts? Am I being a numpty?
It will be now again.

you're welcome

[psycho22]

First I heard too but I knew it was in the works.

I always ride with the light on anyway.

[george formby]

It will be now again.

you're welcome

Thank you, I'm easily confused.

[awayatc]

Thank you, I'm easily confused.


wasn't there a saying about "lights on, but........."?

[ukusa]

it would be crazy to ride without them on.

[Dirty_Harri]

Very good law to implement!

[CookMySock]

If you have limited power, remember that discharge headlamps only draw 35 watts and put out twice the light and half the heat. The bike won't look very retro though, with its sooper dooper bright headlight though.

Steve

[george formby]

I always ride with my light on & on my current bike it's permanently on. Saves me forgetting. I was a little suprised that the only thing I have heard about it becoming compulsory I found buried in a cellphone related article. If riders are to be penalised from 1st Nov for not using their headlight a little more heads up from the powers that be would have been appreciated. Should I be cynical about the lack of publicity with this?

[Slyer]

If you have limited power, remember that discharge headlamps only draw 35 watts and put out twice the light and half the heat. The bike won't look very retro though, with its sooper dooper bright headlight though.

Steve
You'll also blind all oncoming traffic if you're a moron and did a straight swap without replacing the lightbulb housing.

[Insanity_rules]

Well the lights are now on...........but is anyone home?

[martybabe]

Very sorry if I'm the last person here to find this out but as of Sunday it is compulsory for post 1979 motorcycles to ride with their headlights on. Page 2 of todays Herald, listed among other law changes. It's the first I have heard of it becoming mandatory. I hope their will be some leniency from the tax collectors.....:whistle:

Nah, I didn't know either. I've ridden with my headlight on in the day since forever ago, the difference now though is, when my bulb goes once a year, it has turned form a minor inconvenience into a road traffic violation. yeeha

[Muppet]

Most of the bikes I have owned have their headlight on automatically, I can't help but think this is another 'you're on a bike so it's your fault' law if you're with me? Why not make it compulsory for all vehicles to have their headlights on. I mean there's more car crashes than bikes crashes.

[davereid]

You have a late model bike.. 2 out of three of my bikes simply cant manage to run with the light on all the time. I will be able to comply with the law by putting a very low wattage headlight bulb in.

It will be fine as long as I dont expect to be able to see in the dark.

Such is the price of safety !

[monkeymcbean]

Most of the bikes I have owned have their headlight on automatically, I can't help but think this is another 'you're on a bike so it's your fault' law if you're with me?
Why not make it compulsory for all vehicles to have their headlights on. I mean there's more car crashes than bikes crashes.

I personally don't like the idea of cars with headlights as it makes it harder to see a single light of a bike agmongst all the other lights, just a perception :blink:.

[duckonin]

I personally don't like the idea of cars with headlights as it makes it harder to see a single light of a bike agmongst all the other lights, just a perception :blink:.

Yes but those in a car will still see a headlight hopefully, if not:mad: lights on lifts the image of all vehicles, even in dence traffic....:2thumbsup

[Mikkel]

You'll also blind all oncoming traffic if you're a moron and did a straight swap without replacing the lightbulb housing.

Don't worry, he's been elaborating on here about how he's always on high-beam anyway... so no big difference there. And no, don't waste your time on it, he won't get it.

[TygerTung]

You have a late model bike.. 2 out of three of my bikes simply cant manage to run with the light on all the time. I will be able to comply with the law by putting a very low wattage headlight bulb in.

It will be fine as long as I dont expect to be able to see in the dark.

Such is the price of safety !

Well if they can't run with the light on all the time, chances are they are pre '79 so you are sweet as anyway!

[Laxi]

i found out about this 2 weeks ago, about the same time i found out it wasn't already a law:pinch:

[CookMySock]

You might also be able to add some running lights and fit ultrabright LEDs to them. These draw about 1 watt and add nothing to your night vis, but otherwise stand out like dogs balls and quite likely the cops won't stop you for "no lights on". So you draw only 2 watts continuously and leave your 55 watt headlight off. Also change your combination tail/brake light for a LED unit as well - these draw like half a watt compared to 5 watts.

You might have to unplug your heated pink knickers too.. :whistle:

Steve

[oldrider]

More people will see you if your lights are "not" on now, because they get used to everyone else having theirs "on".

What's the point of difference now?

They should be making car drivers more aware that motorcycles are a legitimate form of transport!

And that they (motorists) should look out for them and give way when they should!

And keep left and let them through, not block their path because they themselves are stuck in a line up!

Oh, the list goes on and on! :mad: I'm getting excited now...........:calm: I'm going back to bed now! :sleep:

[scumdog]

Why not make it compulsory for all vehicles to have their headlights on. I mean there's more car crashes than bikes crashes.

Cos mainly it's the case of car drivers not seeing bikers - not the other way around.

[avgas]

They should be making car drivers more aware that motorcycles are a legitimate form of transport!

And that they (motorists) should look out for them and give way when they should!

And keep left and let them through, not block their path because they themselves are stuck in a line up!
Err sorry to poke a stick at correctness here old chap.
But are you saying that we are a legal form of transport that is allowed to bend the rules?
I mean I let bikes go past regardless, but "legitimate" and "splitting" should not be in the same sentence in my mind. Its like "safe" and "chainsaw".

[Bounce001]

A lot of bikes after 1980 have lights permanently on anyway. The trouble with pre 1980 bikes is that they have Mr Lucas (Prince of Darkness) wiring and are not reliable.

[oldrider]

Err sorry to poke a stick at correctness here old chap.
But are you saying that we are a legal form of transport that is allowed to bend the rules?
I mean I let bikes go past regardless, but "legitimate" and "splitting" should not be in the same sentence in my mind. Its like "safe" and "chainsaw".

Fair enough, feel free to poke away but safe and chainsaw are OK if you use it correctly!

Wouldn't want to be sharing a log with some people I have seen using them though.

I don't ride in the City or heavily congested roadways any more if I can avoid doing it!

It's like a mouse walking into a mince meat machine, I reckon!

Failure to keep left on open roads is the worst behaviour I observe these days.

[Mikkel]

More people will see you if your lights are "not" on now, because they get used to everyone else having theirs "on".

...not.

10 chars.

[Muppet]

Cos mainly it's the case of car drivers not seeing bikers - not the other way around.

Yeah that's true godammit!

[ukusa]

Most of the bikes I have owned have their headlight on automatically, I can't help but think this is another 'you're on a bike so it's your fault' law if you're with me? Why not make it compulsory for all vehicles to have their headlights on. I mean there's more car crashes than bikes crashes.

Wonder if there are stats on that as well.... how many motorcycle deaths involved bikes with the headlight off. I know it makes us easier to see, but normally the govt. tries to back up a law change with stats.

[mdooher]

Most of the bikes I have owned have their headlight on automatically, I can't help but think this is another 'you're on a bike so it's your fault' law if you're with me? Why not make it compulsory for all vehicles to have their headlights on. I mean there's more car crashes than bikes crashes.

Because European research (Sweden I think) suggests this makes motorcycles less visible

[BMWST?]

A lot of bikes after 1980 have lights permanently on anyway. The trouble with pre 1980 bikes is that they have Mr Lucas (Prince of Darkness) wiring and are not reliable.

most 80s bikes wont have permanent headlights,

[mdooher]

but "legitimate" and "splitting" should not be in the same sentence in my mind. Its like "safe" and "chainsaw".

Hmm ...California made splitting legal:Police:...reason...because aircooled bikes were overheating in traffic jams....local Govt got sued...result; instant law change.:Punk:

Mind you the lanes are wider in California....then again so are the cars ...and the bikers:eek:

[ready4whatever]

I wonder if it'll prevent more crashes, therefore acc levy could be cut? - yeah right

[lizardb0y]

I had absolutely no idea this was changing until just this minute. Thank Cthulu I already sold the Ducati.

[gammaguy]

it would be crazy to ride without them on.

no,but it would be crazy to think you have been seen just because you have it on.be paranoid and survive.
I have been riding non stop for 33 years WITHOUT LIGHTS.(i always use them if it is overcast/raining,or of course,Dark.)

the new law is bullshit.they cant see you if they arent looking/texting/arguing with the kids/daydreaming/stoned/drunk.or just dont care.

be aware and dont take anything for granted.

[davereid]

no,but it would be crazy to think you have been seen just because you have it on.be paranoid and survive.

They dont see trains, and they are bright red and have really big headlights..

I used to ride with light of,, then tap the "pass" button if I thought a driver had not seen me, it seemed very effective.

My new bike can't turn the light off, so I flash "hi" instead.

My only concern (other than the fact I will have to put day running lights on my older bikes, is that a right light distorts distance perception.

So even though you may be seen, your distance and speed may be misjudged.

[JohnC]

You have a late model bike.. 2 out of three of my bikes simply cant manage to run with the light on all the time. I will be able to comply with the law by putting a very low wattage headlight bulb in.

It will be fine as long as I dont expect to be able to see in the dark.

Such is the price of safety !

The law only applies to bikes first rego'ed after a set date,,,I think it's 1979,but best check that.
A number of the brittish bikes I've owned and one jap bike in particular I prefered to keep the light off for the reasons you mention.
Personaly I don't feel any safer with lights on or off,,,,I can just see it now,,,but he didn't have his lights on,,,so I ran him down,,,what a great excuse has just been provided to be yet a worst driver :blink:

[JohnC]

A lot of bikes after 1980 have lights permanently on anyway. The trouble with pre 1980 bikes is that they have Mr Lucas (Prince of Darkness) wiring and are not reliable.

Hmmm,none of my pre 80's jappers have had Lucas electrics,,,,,nore my pre 80's Ducati,,,all though Lucas would of been an improvment.

You do know why poms drink warm beer right,,,just in case you don't,,,,,,,,,,
Lucas made fridges.:wari:

[JohnC]

I wonder if it'll prevent more crashes, therefore acc levy could be cut? - yeah right

No it won't.
Visability has never been the true issue,being seen, but still being ignored has.

[Swoop]

Just came back from up north and had the pleasure of following an unmarked car. Thoughtfully I sat behind him, allowing the officer to soak up the opulence of 2 headlights on, as is De Law.
For some reason I might have been frightening away possible "trade"...:whistle:


Failure to keep left on open roads is the worst behaviour I observe these days.
Do not head into one of the 4 "big cities" then. Retards do exactly the same thing, but they have up to 6 lanes in width in which to do it.
Nothing like seeing someone cut across 5 lanes to make their exit...:shit::angry::sweatdrop:gob::bash::blink::y es:

[martybabe]

,,,I can just see it now,,,but he didn't have his lights on,,,so I ran him down,,,what a great excuse has just been provided to be yet a worst driver :blink:

Oh yes culpable negligence, yesterday our only crime was riding motorbikes, today if your bulb goes and some twat t/bones you, it's your fault for not having your light on.

[Indiana_Jones]

I look forward to getting a ticket for riding with a blown bulb I might not notice considering it's the middle of the fucking day.

This law is not needed and is just an easy way to tax more.

Nearly all bikes these days have lights wired on....

-Indy

[JohnC]

Oh yes culpable negligence, yesterday our only crime was riding motorbikes, today if your bulb goes and some twat t/bones you, it's your fault for not having your light on.

" Sorry mate I didn't see you, yes I know visibility's good and your covered from head to toe in dayglo yellow, as is your passenger and yes it is a fuckin enormous bright pink bike but you didn't have your light on did you ,see, that's what happens sunshine. Lucky for you I caught a glimpse of you past the messy kebab I was eating, as it is I've burnt myself with my fag and dropped coke all over the dashboard. You really should be more careful bud".

That's a very good one eyed view of things mate,but it's also totaly wrong.
A very good friend of mine took out a biker two years ago year while pulling into my drive way.
My home is in an 80 zone but that never stopped this cock on the bike blasting past our front gate at 120-140 twice a day 5 days a week.
The drive is on the crest of a hill,but that never stopped him going past on his rear wheel now an then,he had no drivers licence of any kind,I think it's called disqualified,but that never bothered him to much either.
My friend was still prosocuted to the full extent of the law because it was (her fault) but our biker mate never got done for any of his crimes.
Today he is still recovering from his head injurys,his broken legs (both of em')his broken arm and ribs,,and it looks like permanant brain injurys at this stage.
I'm still paying off the lawyers fees,,which are more than my own bike is worth (could of got me a tidy FXR for what I'm paying thanks to this (biker??) practicing criminal that intruded on my life more like it.
The whole thing stopped me posting on this site as I had been doing a lot under a different name up until then (because of being so disgusted with the self centered bullshit so many bikers of today come out with) like your little rant,I sold my bikes of the time so I could help pay the fines,court costs,and lawyers fees.
In case you havn't worked it out yet,the friend is my wife,she lost her job over the whole thing,needed counciling over the damage she'd done to this prick.She actualy felt responsible even though there's no way of knowing there's a bike coming over the brow at an estimated by wintnesses 120kms.She was made to feel like a criminal and actualy had to apoligise to the arseholes family for what (she'd?) done.
So now I come back to this site and nothing has changed huh.
Bikers (the same ones) still making excuses and flat out blaming others for their own fuck ups while claiming to be victims of an unjust system.
So it seems to me,you can do anything you fucking like on a bike and as long as you live,you win anyway because it's always somebody elses fault.
So sorry but there's no sympathy for the increase in ACC fees,no sympathy toward the sportbike riders that still go past my front gate just like the dumb fuck that ruined his and his familys life outside my front gate did.
So while I know it's not you as such,thanks for the reminder anyway.

[sefer]

Err sorry to poke a stick at correctness here old chap.
But are you saying that we are a legal form of transport that is allowed to bend the rules?
I mean I let bikes go past regardless, but "legitimate" and "splitting" should not be in the same sentence in my mind. Its like "safe" and "chainsaw".

Ahhh, passing on the right within the same lane is perfectly legal, and if people actually were as far left as practical like they should be we could pass on the right, legally, with little problem (as oppose to on the left of the next lane because everyone stays as close to the centre line as possible).

[BMWST?]

no,but it would be crazy to think you have been seen just because you have it on.be paranoid and survive.
I have been riding non stop for 33 years WITHOUT LIGHTS.(i always use them if it is overcast/raining,or of course,Dark.)

the new law is bullshit.they cant see you if they arent looking/texting/arguing with the kids/daydreaming/stoned/drunk.or just dont care.

be aware and dont take anything for granted.


They dont see trains, and they are bright red and have really big headlights..

I used to ride with light of,, then tap the "pass" button if I thought a driver had not seen me, it seemed very effective.

My new bike can't turn the light off, so I flash "hi" instead.

My only concern (other than the fact I will have to put day running lights on my older bikes, is that a right light distorts distance perception.

So even though you may be seen, your distance and speed may be misjudged.


Oh yes culpable negligence, yesterday our only crime was riding motorbikes, today if your bulb goes and some twat t/bones you, it's your fault for not having your light on.

" Sorry mate I didn't see you, yes I know visibility's good and your covered from head to toe in dayglo yellow, as is your passenger and yes it is a fuckin enormous bright pink bike but you didn't have your light on did you ,see, that's what happens sunshine. Lucky for you I caught a glimpse of you past the messy kebab I was eating, as it is I've burnt myself with my fag and dropped coke all over the dashboard. You really should be more careful bud".

did make a submission on thiss?It has been on the cards for AGES...most people i see have their lights on any way on bike s of all size shapes and ages.I do on my 1989 r 100 gs.I will be looking at a daylight running lamps fitted to the indicators .Battery can handle it at the mo cause i have a good run against the main traffic flow with few holdups.Riding with healdlights on is only part of a bikers defence.You still have to assume the worst.

[martybabe]

So sorry but there's no sympathy for the increase in ACC fees,no sympathy toward the sportbike riders that still go past my front gate just like the dumb fuck that ruined his and his familys life outside my front gate did.
So while I know it's not you as such,thanks for the reminder anyway.

Mate, I'm sincerely sorry for your troubles, that is a terrible thing to have to go through for any family but I was actually agreeing with your post.

The bit following it was merely a silly tongue in cheek possible scenario designed to re-enforce your post as to how the new law may affect us in a two vehicle accident.

I shall not reply beyond this point for fear of upsetting you further but much as I don't know your personal circumstances, you also do not know mine and I am none of the things you raise objection to above.

[davereid]

That's a very good one eyed view of things mate,but it's also totaly wrong.

You are the one who is being one eyed.

In any group, there will always be some individuals who are extreme. Its going to mean there are some guys who ride really safely, and there will be some cocks too.

But, if you actually ever got to a run, you would find the vast majority of riders were in the middle.

A bit of a twist every now and then, but a good appreciation of risk, and good management of it.

Your comment that bikers deserve the new acc levies is a telling one. Maybe you should consider all the things that people do that give them cover without needing to insure for, and reflect a bit on how well ACC actually works, mostly because it doesnt (usually) focus on what you do.

So kids on bikes, skiers, snowboarders, rugby players, and little old ladies with dodgy hips enjoy the cover of ACC. Covered of course, by a subsidy, by the guy lying on the couch doing nothing.

As for your denial of the fact that this rule will pass blame to motorcyclists.

In fact, ACC already have a category of "motorcyclist partially to blame" to cover "I did not see him, his headlight was off".

[JohnC]

Mate, I'm sincerely sorry for your troubles, that is a terrible thing to have to go through for any family but I was actually agreeing with your post.

The bit following it was merely a silly tongue in cheek possible scenario designed to re-enforce your post as to how the new law may affect us in a two vehicle accident.

I shall not reply beyond this point for fear of upsetting you further but much as I don't know your personal circumstances, you also do not know mine and I am none of the things you raise objection to above.

Yes fair enough,I am still very pissed off over the whole thing,also very bummed out about the result for the guy involved,,wouldn't wished it on any body.
There was no insult intended toward you,,,and I'm sorry that it came across that way.

[Dealer]

I personally don't like the idea of cars with headlights as it makes it harder to see a single light of a bike agmongst all the other lights, just a perception :blink:.

Yeah, but on a rainy day, when your mirrors and visor are fogged or wet, it gets pretty hard to see dark coloured cars coming up beside you.
There should be more emphasis on headlights at times of limited visibility.
And its (relatively) easy to spot a bike headlight (for bikers), cos they are the ones flickering, as the bike bounces up and down.

My biggest problem is that my bike only has one (dipped) headlight, and when that blows, its high beam or nothing.

[JohnC]

You are the one who is being one eyed.

In any group, there will always be some individuals who are extreme. Its going to mean there are some guys who ride really safely, and there will be some cocks too.

But, if you actually ever got to a run, you would find the vast majority of riders were in the middle.

A bit of a twist every now and then, but a good appreciation of risk, and good management of it.

Your comment that bikers deserve the new acc levies is a telling one. Maybe you should consider all the things that people do that give them cover without needing to insure for, and reflect a bit on how well ACC actually works, mostly because it doesnt (usually) focus on what you do.

So kids on bikes, skiers, snowboarders, rugby players, and little old ladies with dodgy hips enjoy the cover of ACC. Covered of course, by a subsidy, by the guy lying on the couch doing nothing.

As for your denial of the fact that this rule will pass blame to motorcyclists.

In fact, ACC already have a category of "motorcyclist partially to blame" to cover "I did not see him, his headlight was off".

I don't recall saying we deserve it,what I did say is I have no sympathy about it.
As to being one eyed,,,I was one of the founding members of the Bikers rights organisation and I've stood up for bikers virtualy all my life while the vast majority have done nothing.
I've ridden for close to 40 years so impling I need to actualy go on a run is just funny to me,,,sorry about that one,I do realise you don't know me from the next joe.
I agree with your comment about most of us being in the middle.
But that agreement is also tempted by the fact I've been on three KB group rides and in each one somebody crashed by being stupid,,,there were no other vehicules involved,,,just plain stupid riding,so maybe we just shouldn't go there.
I also realise a lot of society gets carried by the rest of us,,not just in reguards acc and motorcycles either,but get to deep into that one and you'll spend your whole life arguing about the injustices forced on the common folk,and mate that's just to much for this commoner thanks.
Anyway the subject was about was head lights on,,and if you read my other posts on "that matter" you will see I totaly agree with you,so lets just keep it to that for now even though it was me that got swung off subject in the first place,,,it happens.
So yes we will get blamed for any accident we're involved in if we don't have our light on "our fault or not",,and yes the logic of not seeing somebody because their light wasn't on,while still knowing their light wasn't on has always been a bit of a stretch for me.
Now just to add fuel to the fire,,,what's the bet the charge of "no headlight" won't be classed an accident promoting one,and thus cost more when they get out the wet buss ticket.

[davereid]

Good as mate... I over reacted a bit, feeling a bit touchy about the entire ACC thing, so must count to ten before I post. !