1st pinged 'new laws'

[dangerous]

Well fuck me... heres a quote from a mate on another forum, bloody rude whts the new slogan 'no head lights kill' the imcompetants from the cop is apauling.



Got pinged on the way to work this morning for not having my headlight on. Which was an absolute c#@t because I ALLWAYS ride with it on but had turned it off whilst warming the bike up this morning as the headlight was pointing into my neighbours kitchen while they were having brekky and forgot to turn it back on again.

Thought it was a bit rough, I hadnt heard about it but it became law on the 1st. So after a friendly debate with the officer, she returned to the car for atleast 10mins on her cellphone and then returned and apoligised for the wait, and informed me she had to check how much the fine was and what to write on the ticket, as she had no idea. She then went on to explain that noone back in the station knew either, so she wrote me a ticket for "Rode m/c without headlight on" - $150 and asked for my cellphone number so she could call me and let me know if that was the correct fine or if she would have to cancel it and post out another one.

You would think if she didnt even know the details she could have let me off... hmmmm

Can someone (if not already posted up) that has the time look up these new rules and post the link, cos theres bikes that wont run under a certain rev with its lights on.

[YellowDog]

When a new law comes in you usually get a 14 day grace period where you get warnings and not screwed on the first day.

Very harsh. I wouldn't be happy.

[scracha]

He's a silly boy, he should have asked for her cellphone number.


What bikes made after 1980 can't run with headlights on at low revs?

[mossy1200]

If you blow a lamp during a ride it could get expensive.

[roadracingoldfart]

Its all about money farming. The fact most riders use the headlight already it is the gestapo's way of getting a bit of cash from the likes of the forgetful and ignorant.

If a taxi is found to have a blown light bulb at all by the CVIU guys , its an instant $450.00 fine and they have to "present" to get the car cleared to carry a fare afterwards. Revenue gain gone insane.

[TimeOut]

When a new law comes in you usually get a 14 day grace period where you get warnings and not screwed on the first day.

Very harsh. I wouldn't be happy.

Not down this way, a speed limit was changed from 100k to 80k they were out the next day writing tickets:2guns: easy money/quota.

[BiK3RChiK]

Surely your mate could write in and get off that! That is complete bollocks!! There are so many things wrong with that, it's just laughable. NZ is becoming a police state and it's just BS!

[Voltaire]

I'd write a nice letter, mention your courtesy to the neighbours and her lack of knowledge of the new law she was so keen to enforce.


The lights on law is to improve drivers ability to see motorcycles.....once again the victim being penalised.

[Str8 Jacket]

Bloody women eh! :rolleyes:

[PrincessBandit]

How many people are going to get pulled over and accused of talking on their phones just because they drive with one hand on the wheel and their other elbow on the door/window with their hand up by their chin?

As for the headlight issue, it sounds to me like the woman officer is either a meanie who enjoys the "power" of her job, or perhaps is a bright eyed, bushy tailed new officer who hasn't yet learnt the art of discretion as opposed to following the letter of the law.

[Swoop]

All together now...

"There is no quota".

[davereid]

What bikes made after 1980 can't run with headlights on at low revs?

Most bikes are losing ground at low rpm, with the battery supplying current at less than about 2000-3000rpm. From then on in, the bike is generally charging.

Its not going to be an issue for those who have a commute at normal speeds. But for those who spend a lot of time at traffic lights, and have an older bike it will be a problem, particularl if the run is short, as over time battery condition will fall.

My CZ is pre 80, so is exempt, but it cant cope, not even anywhere near. My TGB is 2004. It wont be a problem for me as I run down SH1. But it would soon lose electric start and indicators if just used in traffic, although it has direct ignition system, and will run even if it does not have a battery.

This law was bought to you by federated car clubs.

[James Deuce]

Surely your mate could write in and get off that! That is complete bollocks!! There are so many things wrong with that, it's just laughable. NZ is becoming a police state and it's just BS!

How is it BS? It's a law change. There was plenty of warning, both in the newsmedia and on KB. It may not be a sensible law change (cue Mikkel for long winded rant about how Scandinavians are right about everything including lights on during the day) or particularly warranted given that most bikes made in the last 15 years have little choice about whether their headlight is on or not, but ignorance of a law as an excuse?

Nah. It's up to the individual to kee abreast of stuff like this. You know, responsible citizen and all.

[James Deuce]

How many people are going to get pulled over and accused of talking on their phones just because they drive with one hand on the wheel and their other elbow on the door/window with their hand up by their chin?



That's a piss poor habit anyway. Good way to stamp it out.

[PrincessBandit]

Maybe, but have you never done it? Even once? Go on, admit it.....:msn-wink:

[Mystic13]

As for the headlight issue, it sounds to me like the woman officer is either a meanie who enjoys the "power" of her job, or perhaps is a bright eyed, bushy tailed new officer who hasn't yet learnt the art of discretion as opposed to following the letter of the law.


Of course there is the possibility that they guy just rubbed her the wrong way.

Personally I think he should be happy in the knowledge that he is the first New Zealander to get that ticket. Frame it. And in years to come when he's old and grey he can refer to the time... and of course if he gets off he can have that in the frame as well.

[riffer]

Got pulled over last night for no light going which was odd because the lights are hardwired to go on.

Hmmm... fuse must have blown. Damn RFs and their dodgy wiring chafing through the headstock. I really must fix that problem.

Cop says "prove it and I'll let you off."

Lift the seat, open fuse box, replace fuse, fingers crossed, turn bike back on.

Lights come on. Apologise profusely to officer.

Job done. No fine. :laugh:

[Devil]

It'd suck getting done during the day for a bulb blowing.

Lucky my current bike tells me if the headlight bulb has blown! (comes up on the dash, something like "Front bulb fail").

[Pixie]

How many people are going to get pulled over and accused of talking on their phones just because they drive with one hand on the wheel and their other elbow on the door/window with their hand up by their chin?

I do this on purpose now.Just waiting for an arse to try and book me.

[Sidewinder]

does this mean i might get done for riding race bikes on the road now?

[danchop]

if the officer is incompetent to how the law is enforced they should not enforce that law until they do a little study on it

[MSTRS]

I remember reading somewhere in the last week that cops will be giving warnings for lights or cell phones for the first week?
At 6 days, this cops was 'keen' - but to not know the fine is indicative that even the cops need time to get up to speed.

[awayatc]

does this mean i might get done for riding race bikes on the road now?

Not if you are any good at it.......

[nudemetalz]

Was chatting to a dude at the lights who was on a (very nice) Duc 748R. Says his alternator can't handle the headlight on.
Reckon's he's going to put a brighter parklight and tailights in there...

Are the 748R's got that small an alternator?

[Sidewinder]

Not if you are any good at it.......

never had problems in the past

[Swoop]

Personally I think he should be happy in the knowledge that he is the first New Zealander to get that ticket. Frame it. And in years to come when he's old and grey he can refer to the time...
Or he could put it on beTrademe...:blip:
That could be fun!:shifty:

[Dirty Heathen]

So what happens if you are on a long ride and the bulb blows and then you get pulled up before you have a chance to replace it?

[Jizah]

How many people are going to get pulled over and accused of talking on their phones just because they drive with one hand on the wheel and their other elbow on the door/window with their hand up by their chin?


I'm going to drive around while holding my TV remote to me ear.

[Deano]

So what happens if you are on a long ride and the bulb blows and then you get pulled up before you have a chance to replace it?

Maybe there's an expectation to carry spare bulbs, fuses and tools for the job.

Or you could throw yourself at the mercy of the officer and hope for some discretion.

[Deano]

I remember reading somewhere in the last week that cops will be giving warnings for lights or cell phones for the first week?
At 6 days, this cops was 'keen' - but to not know the fine is indicative that even the cops need time to get up to speed.

I'm sure I read 14 days for the cellphone law, but the first offender got pinged today.

[nothingflash]

The cop probably had a side bet going with his mates as to who could nab the first "offender"...

[MaxB]

Maybe there's an expectation to carry spare bulbs, fuses and tools for the job.

Or you could throw yourself at the mercy of the officer and hope for some discretion.

Fark, the thought of getting impaled on my Leatherman tool carried just in case a bulb blows. Another genius law.

[awayatc]

Maybe there's an expectation to carry spare bulbs, fuses and tools for the job.



which is how it was 30 years ago in Holland....
no light?
ticket!
unless you could fix it on the spot....

I haven't got a problem with that.....
Mind you that was if you didn't have lights on at night.....

[hayd3n]

Well fuck me... heres a quote from a mate on another forum, bloody rude whts the new slogan 'no head lights jill' the imcompetants from the cop is apauling.


Can someone (if not already posted up) that has the time look up these new rules and post the link, cos theres bikes that wont run under a certain rev with its lights on.
so the cop lady saw a motorcycle with out head lights on wow thats a first

[oldrider]

How is it BS? It's a law change. There was plenty of warning, both in the newsmedia and on KB. It may not be a sensible law change (cue Mikkel for long winded rant about how Scandinavians are right about everything including lights on during the day) or particularly warranted given that most bikes made in the last 15 years have little choice about whether their headlight is on or not, but ignorance of a law as an excuse?

Nah. It's up to the individual to kee abreast of stuff like this. You know, responsible citizen and all.

Not disagreeing with you JD but isn't it also incumbent on the law enforcing officers to be fully trained and conversant with the changes, before they become law!

If the case quoted is true, such incompetent behaviour by the police is appalling! (IMHO)

If the offender wrote in with proof of those details he should have a good chance of getting off with a warning!

[red mermaid]

Its all about money farming. The fact most riders use the headlight already it is the gestapo's way of getting a bit of cash from the likes of the forgetful and ignorant.

If a taxi is found to have a blown light bulb at all by the CVIU guys , its an instant $450.00 fine and they have to "present" to get the car cleared to carry a fare afterwards. Revenue gain gone insane.

This is totally incorrect.
The fine is $150, and the viewing of the repaired vehicle is to confirm it is safe to allow the taxi to carry the public again.

[SPman]

Maybe there's an expectation to carry spare bulbs, fuses and tools for the job.

Or you could throw yourself at the mercy of the officer and hope for some discretion.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Not if it's a female cop!

[Reckless]

So what happens if you are on a long ride and the bulb blows and then you get pulled up before you have a chance to replace it?

If your pulled up by some cop that doesn't know how much to write the ticket for, is so intent on revenue gathering that she has to make you wait 10 mins and needs your cell number so you can finish writing out your own ticket and doesn't have enough brains to let you off with a stern warning (till she finds out what to really do) so she doesn't make yourself and the force look like twats!

YOUR SCREWED!! LOL!!!

[dangerous]

What bikes made after 1980 can't run with headlights on at low revs?Why do you say 1980?
is there a age on a bike that 'must' have its light on?
Im refering to Guzzi's pre 80.

[Ixion]

Headlamp on law does not apply to pre 1980. (Counts pre 1980 bikes, relieved sigh)

[roadracingoldfart]

This is totally incorrect.
The fine is $150, and the viewing of the repaired vehicle is to confirm it is safe to allow the taxi to carry the public again.


Well i have been told by one of the directors of the local taxi co in my area that the fine is $450.00 per offence . ( thats why they all carry spares now )

Even if its not that $ amount i still refuse to see the need to "present " for a check on a bulb , its plain silly and a waste of everybodies time.

If it was such a vital part of vehicle safety it would cover every vehicle on the road .
A taxi car with a passenger in it is no more dangerous with a blown bulb than having a passenger in a private car with a blown bulb.
A car with 1 burnt out number plate bulb can drive for hundreds of thousands of kms without effecting it , whats the draconian rule meant to prevent ? the bancrupcy of the bulb makers ?.

If your from the industry , please give imput. Im happy to be proved wrong.

Paul.

[red mermaid]

The difference is the taxi carrying a member of the public who has the right to expect to be taken in a safe vehicle, and they are paying for that service.

If you want 3rd world standards in the passenger fleet, go to india or a similar country.

And the Director is wrong, or has exaggerated, or lied...its $150.

[MDR2]

so the cop lady saw a motorcycle with out head lights on wow thats a first

proof that a motorcycle CAN be seen without it's light on. revoke the law and increase the fine for cars hitting bikes if thats the case :)

[dipshit]

Moan whinge moan whinge moan whinge....

Typical shit for brains motorcyclists.

[roadracingoldfart]

The difference is the taxi carrying a member of the public who has the right to expect to be taken in a safe vehicle, and they are paying for that service.

If you want 3rd world standards in the passenger fleet, go to india or a similar country.

And the Director is wrong, or has exaggerated, or lied...its $150.


Then at the risk of being obsessed with this banter , if an ambulance or a police car has a blown tail lamp bulb we are never going to get the vital 1st world treatment are we.

Mind you , Wellington has a free ambo service so they will be exempt according to your theory.

Paul.

[Grahameeboy]

Maybe, but have you never done it? Even once? Go on, admit it.....:msn-wink:

No one rings him silly.............

[Grahameeboy]

How is it BS? It's a law change. There was plenty of warning, both in the newsmedia and on KB. It may not be a sensible law change (cue Mikkel for long winded rant about how Scandinavians are right about everything including lights on during the day) or particularly warranted given that most bikes made in the last 15 years have little choice about whether their headlight is on or not, but ignorance of a law as an excuse?

Nah. It's up to the individual to kee abreast of stuff like this. You know, responsible citizen and all.

Agree with you Jim....as for Nanny state..hah....not even close to it

[BiK3RChiK]

How is it BS? It's a law change. There was plenty of warning, both in the newsmedia and on KB. It may not be a sensible law change (cue Mikkel for long winded rant about how Scandinavians are right about everything including lights on during the day) or particularly warranted given that most bikes made in the last 15 years have little choice about whether their headlight is on or not, but ignorance of a law as an excuse?

Nah. It's up to the individual to kee abreast of stuff like this. You know, responsible citizen and all.

The guy knew about the law. He just forgot to put his headlight back on when he was temporarily warming his bike up. This is just policing gone mad and to my mind and many others, it's just quota filling. The officer didn't even know how much to charge him on the ticket, nor did her colleagues. Whatever happened to a warning? or a grace period?

When the police pull this kind of crap they lose face with the public and wonder why so many hate them so much. They should take a look at themselves.

[Kickaha]

They should take a look at themselves.

Quota filling :yawn:

So should all the motorcyclists who don't obey the laws and then whine their arses off when they get caught

[rotaholicfc3s]

The guy knew about the law. He just forgot to put his headlight back on when he was temporarily warming his bike up. This is just policing gone mad and to my mind and many others, it's just quota filling. The officer didn't even know how much to charge him on the ticket, nor did her colleagues. Whatever happened to a warning? or a grace period?

When the police pull this kind of crap they lose face with the public and wonder why so many hate them so much. They should take a look at themselves.

'twas I who received this ticket. I actually had no idea about the law change as I don't really watch much news as I find it depressing (war, famine, aids, death, depression, etc) so perhaps I'm to blame for not keeping up with the changes. A friend of mine who rides received a letter informing him of the law change but for some reason I did not.

I've got no problems with paying the fine, I just think its BS to give it to someone who genuinely had no idea. I was 110% polite to the officer in all hopes of getting off it but to no avail. The officer was very friendly and chatty but stuck to her guns about dishing me the fine.

Just pissed me off as I ALLWAYS ride with the headlights on and the one day I didnt I got pinged and didnt actually know it was now law.

I was issued the ticket on the 4th... Maybe the first one in NZ? :innocent:

Cheers for the feedback

[James Deuce]

Don't forget you have to give way to people on both sides of pedestrian crossings now, not just your side. If they stick a foot on it and you drive through and get pinged, expect a fine for that too.

Nov 1st was three things:

1. Cellphones
2. Headlights for motorcycles
3. New pedestrian crossing rule.

[dangerous]

Don't forget you have to give way to people on both sides of pedestrian crossings now, not just your side. If they stick a foot on it and you drive through and get pinged, expect a fine for that too.
I thought that was always the case... unless there is a island seperating the lanes?

[mowgli]

Don't forget you have to give way to people on both sides of pedestrian crossings now, not just your side. If they stick a foot on it and you drive through and get pinged, expect a fine for that too.

Nov 1st was three things:

1. Cellphones
2. Headlights for motorcycles
3. New pedestrian crossing rule.
Could be wrong but I thought it went further than that. If a ped is obviously intending to cross at a crossing you now have to give way. Previously they didn't have right of way until they stepped out.

Edit: Found it (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/newsroom/info/432/index.html)

drivers must give way to pedestrians who are ‘obviously waiting’ to cross at a pedestrian crossing (the current requirement is to give way to pedestrians on a crossing)

[James Deuce]

I thought that was always the case... unless there is a island seperating the lanes?

Nope, just your side of the road.

[mowgli]

Nope, just your side of the road.
Nope. Both sides.

When coming up to pedestrian crossings:
* slow down and be ready to stop for any pedestrians on, or stepping onto, the crossing
* if there is no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing
* if there is a raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on your half of the road
* wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed - see give way rules.
See full reference here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians.html)

[James Deuce]

Nope. Both sides.

See full reference here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians.html)

The reference is out of date. You have to give way to people on both sides irrespective of traffic islands or otherwise now.

[mowgli]

The reference is out of date. You have to give way to people on both sides irrespective of traffic islands or otherwise now.
The NZTA releases don't mention any change to the consideration of pedestrian refuges.

[mowgli]

The reference is out of date. You have to give way to people on both sides irrespective of traffic islands or otherwise now.
Okay here is the actual wording of the new Road User Rule. The new bit is highlighted.

10.1 Pedestrian crossings

(1) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must—

(a) give way to pedestrians, and to riders of wheeled recreational devices or mobility devices,—

(i) on the pedestrian crossing; or
(ii) obviously waiting to cross it; and
(b) if necessary, slow down and stop the driver's vehicle for that purpose.
(2) A driver approaching a pedestrian crossing must not enter the crossing if the driver's intended passage is blocked by stationary traffic.

(3) For the purposes of this clause, if a pedestrian crossing is interrupted by a raised traffic island, the parts of the crossing that are situated on different sides of that traffic island must be regarded as separate pedestrian crossings.

(4) This clause does not apply to a pedestrian crossing that is for the time being controlled by an enforcement officer.

[2wheeldrifter]

Very harsh. I wouldn't be happy.

Cause your not a dwarf? :bash:

[BiK3RChiK]

Also, if you are towing a vehicle with a non-rigid device (commonly called a tow rope), you are now speed limited to 50km/hr.

[_Shrek_]

my 1st bm had lights on full time the 2nd 2 can be turned off, i always ride with them on but found them off after i got my bike back from the bike shop after having been worked on, so best make sure it's on befor you leave

[ukusa]

my 1st bm had lights on full time the 2nd 2 can be turned off, i always ride with them on but found them off after i got my bike back from the bike shop after having been worked on, so best make sure it's on befor you leave
mines on full time as well, can't turn it off. But if it blows, unless you have a mirror mounted reflecting the headlight back to you, looks like it's tuff shit.

[_Shrek_]

mines on full time as well, can't turn it off. But if it blows, unless you have a mirror mounted reflecting the headlight back to you, looks like it's tuff shit.

run it on high beam till you get another thats all most of us do

[scumdog]

All together now...

"There is no quota".

Quite right.

As you know cops can write out as many tickets as they want.:wari:

[scumdog]

mines on full time as well, can't turn it off. But if it blows, unless you have a mirror mounted reflecting the headlight back to you, looks like it's tuff shit.


No reason why you can't ask for compliance if the headlight is genuinely blown - car drivers get it all the time.

The worst penalty then is the time spent taking the bike/car to your nearest cop shop to show it's fixed.

[Dodgy]

I ran around today on high beam, just to be double safe and to be double sure that the cars saw me.. and they sure did that! Does the law state lo or hi beam during daylight?

[mowgli]

I ran around today on high beam, just to be double safe and to be double sure that the cars saw me.. and they sure did that! Does the law state lo or hi beam during daylight?

The answer is here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303647.html#DLM303647). At night you should always dip your headlights for oncoming traffic. I would argue that during the day high beams should be fine, encouraged even.

8.3 Use of motor vehicle lighting equipment on road

(1) A person must not use vehicle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.
(2) If a vehicle's headlamps are in use, a driver must dip those headlamps—

(a) whenever they would be likely to interfere adversely with the vision of another driver in motion on a road; or
(b) when approaching an intersection or other place where the traffic is or appears to be under the control of an enforcement officer; or
(c) when the vehicle is parked.
(3) A driver, during the hours of darkness, must use the vehicle's headlamp or headlamps.
(4) A driver during the hours of darkness must use the vehicle's position lamp or lamps.
(5) This subclause applies to the driver of a moped or motorcycle manufactured on or after 1 January 1980. The driver other than during the hours of darkness must use the moped's or motorcycle's headlamps or, if fitted, the moped's or motorcycle's daytime running lamps.

[MDR2]

I actually had no idea about the law change as I don't really watch much news as I find it depressing (war, famine, aids, death, depression, etc) so perhaps I'm to blame for not keeping up with the changes. A friend of mine who rides received a letter informing him of the law change but for some reason I did not.



Don't watch the news eh?

Alot has happened since you last watched the news... Aides has been cured, war is a thing of the past, depression only effects washed up rugby players...

Actualy... it's probably more socialy acceptable to be a depressed ex rugby player with aides then it is to own a bike these days (maybe you haven't heard, ACC is turning people against us... not that we haven't been trying ourselves!) YEEAAAPP the times are changing my friend.

Enjoy your stay.



Oh, welcome to the madhouse

[jellywrestler]

Bloody women eh! :rolleyes:


women should be obscene and not heard...

[dangerous]

I ran around today on high beam, just to be double safe and to be double sure that the cars saw me.. and they sure did that! Does the law state lo or hi beam during daylight?

CAUTION... on hi beam a car or other moterest may NOT be able to judge your speed and or distance, IMHO I dont reconmend hi beam.

[ukusa]

CAUTION... on hi beam a car or other moterest may NOT be able to judge your speed and or distance, IMHO I dont reconmend hi beam.

I recommend Jennifer Anniston on hi Beam!