Drivers urged to light up

[oneofsix]

Had to happen I guess. They make it law that we have to have our headlights on to make us more visible and now someone wants to make us invisible again. Oh well I guess it is only the Waikato :shutup:



Waikato road users are being urged to drive with their headlights on at all times over the winter months.

The call comes as the region's Reduce the Risk road safety campaign kicks into gear.

Waikato Regional Council road safety co-ordinator Monique Haines is asking all road users, including truck and car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians to make sure they are visible day and night.

[steve_t]

Motorcyclists are never considered, it's just the way it is.

Living in foggy Hamiltron, we had a few mornings of dense fog last month. The people who tend to not turn their lights on at all in heavy fog seem to be people in silver or white cars :facepalm:

What I'd really love to see is the media headlining something like "Motorists urged to use their indicators correctly" :yes:

[Scuba_Steve]

haven't been up that way in awhile have you??? They've been doing it for awhile, they've got those stupid roadside billboards and all (some even make it sound like it's already law up there) & quite often you'll see some idiot following this advice too

[Scuba_Steve]

What I'd really love to see is the media headlining something like "Motorists urged to use their indicators correctly" :yes:

I'd rather see "Motorists urged to learn how to drive", or even better "Motorist now have to know how to drive before being allowed on the road" ;)

[oneofsix]

I'd rather see "Motorists urged to learn how to drive", or even better "Motorist now have to know how to drive before being allowed on the road" ;)

:no: you don't have to know how to drive but lord help you if you make a mistake following the testers direction even if you do it all legally and safely.



He failed his full licence test less than two minutes after it began when he accidentally took the first left turn when he had been instructed to take the second left turn upon beginning the test.

The tester told him the test was terminated for his "failure to carry out instruction for turning", even though he had not broken any rules and had performed the turn safely and correctly.

Knew this new harder testing wouldn't be about safer driving, its all about more $ for the testing company.

any way back to the lights. Light cars don't turn them on in fog, drizzle etc and dark cars don't use them at dusk or dawn. :shit: actually know of a person who uses his lights according to the clock and not the conditions and tries to limit there use as they run his battery down, according to him.

The French bikers protested when they tried to make all vehicles use their lights all the time over there. Can't see that happening in apathetic NZ

[imac]

And don't forget the retards in Grey or Silver cars driving around at dusk without their lights on. Those cars blend in exactly with the road and horizon. The moron I berated on Friday said there was heaps of light and didn't need their lights on to see.
I ask you

[manxkiwi]

While they're there, they should get the brain doners to leave their rear facing fog lights off at night when it's completely clear. Dazzling people at night is way more dangerous, would land you a ticket in other countries too.

Nearly always seems to be BMW drivers too, I've noticed.

Thanks for putting up with my short rant!

[craigdek]

See you guys have the same problem here as elsewhere. BMW indicators are optional extra no one pays for.

[Maha]

Had to happen I guess. They make it law that we have to have our headlights on to make us more visible and now someone wants to make us invisible again. Oh well I guess it is only the Waikato :shutup:

The reason behind that is...per sq/km, there is more fog in the Waikato than any other region in NZ on more days than any other region in NZ.;)

[JimO]

since the headlight law came in most bikes i see dont have them switched on

[slofox]

I've already emailed the lady concerned, pointing out the possible disadvantage to motorcyclists if everyone turns on their lights. Be interesting to see if she has anything to say about it.

I meantasay, it's a bit like fluoro vests now, innit - there are so many of them out there that they don't stand out any more.

[Berries]

The reason behind that is...per sq/km, there is more fog in the Waikato than any other region in NZ on more days than any other region in NZ.;)
Is that because Hamilton sucks?

[slofox]

Is that because Hamilton sucks?

It's coz it doesn't blow...

[Maha]

Is that because Hamilton sucks?
See Below...

It's coz it doesn't blow...
Ya beat me too it...

[slofox]

OK y'all. I got a reply from the lady responsible for this initiative. Reads as follows:



"I can understand your position as a fellow motorcyclist myself, in our family we also ensure that we ride with our headlights on (as well as wearing a fluro vest) so that we are highly visible to all other motorists.

For any road user being visible (as well as adjusting to the road and traffic conditions) is an effective way of reducing their risk on the road - this is also something which the AA recommends.

I appreciate your concern that perhaps motorcycles won’t perhaps be as visible if all motorists turn their headlights on but rest assured we have considered all road users as part of this campaign. This is just one thing that all motorists can do to make themselves more visible to all whether you are riding a motorcycle or driving a car.

As you can appreciate from a regional perspective we have campaigns for heavy motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, fleet drivers and more, this winter campaign is a message for all. As for motorcycles you may be interested in a motorcycle course which is being held at Taupo Motorsport Park next month – check out the events tab on our website – www.reducetherisk.co.nz"


Which is pretty much what i would have expected. I shall dream up a suitable reply in due course.

[Bassmatt]

OK y'all. I got a reply from the lady responsible for this initiative. Reads as follows:



"I can understand your position as a fellow motorcyclist myself, in our family we also ensure that we ride with our headlights on (as well as wearing a fluro vest) so that we are highly visible to all other motorists.

For any road user being visible (as well as adjusting to the road and traffic conditions) is an effective way of reducing their risk on the road - this is also something which the AA recommends.

I appreciate your concern that perhaps motorcycles won’t perhaps be as visible if all motorists turn their headlights on but rest assured we have considered all road users as part of this campaign. This is just one thing that all motorists can do to make themselves more visible to all whether you are riding a motorcycle or driving a car.

As you can appreciate from a regional perspective we have campaigns for heavy motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, fleet drivers and more, this winter campaign is a message for all. As for motorcycles you may be interested in a motorcycle course which is being held at Taupo Motorsport Park next month – check out the events tab on our website – www.reducetherisk.co.nz"


Which is pretty much what i would have expected. I shall dream up a suitable reply in due course.

In other words.....Too fucken bad we are doing it anyway.

[FJRider]

... Which is pretty much what i would have expected. I shall dream up a suitable reply in due course.

So ... please explain your your problem with the possibility of some car drivers mistaking a motorcycle for a car, by it's lights.

If a car wont see (or give way to) another car/vehicle with it's lights on ... it matters little what the actual vehicle is ...

[slofox]

In other words.....Too fucken bad we are doing it anyway.


Yep.


So ... please explain your your problem with the possibility of some car drivers mistaking a motorcycle for a car, by it's lights.

If a car wont see (or give way to) another car/vehicle with it's lights on ... it matters little what the actual vehicle is ...


It does if you compare the difference between being hit in a car and being hit on a bike, eh.

But that is not what you mean is it?

My point, as outlined in my original post in this thread, draws attention to the fact that "familiarity breeds contempt" to employ a hackneyed phrase. In other words, the more lights, or hi-viz vests or whatever there are out there, the less likely people are to notice them. That's it. Sensory overload. As a behavioural scientist in a former incarnation, I spent quite some time studying such things.

Same with road side signs. The more of them there are, the less likely any one of them is to be noticed.

That is the point I was making.

[FJRider]

It does if you compare the difference between being hit in a car and being hit on a bike, eh.

But that is not what you mean is it?

NOPE ...


My point, as outlined in my original post in this thread, draws attention to the fact that "familiarity breeds contempt" to employ a hackneyed phrase. In other words, the more lights, or hi-viz vests or whatever there are out there, the less likely people are to notice them. That's it. Sensory overload. As a behavioural scientist in a former incarnation, I spent quite some time studying such things.

MY point is ... if people won't SEE vehicles with lights ON ... for ANY reason .. or for ANY excuse. It is just that. AN EXCUSE. Neither a valid or legal EXCUSE ...
I have no arguement to any reasonable aid, that must draw the attention to the vehicle I am in or on ... if it can increase the awareness of other road users to me. I cannot claim it will prevent ALL "accidents" ... but the " SMIDSY " won't carry much validity in such cases.
Your " Can't see the Forest for the tree's " argument is flawed in so much as ... people aren't looking.


Same with road side signs. The more of them there are, the less likely any one of them is to be noticed.

That is the point I was making.

The people who do not look or notice road signs, and other vehicles (with their lights on) ... risk either killing, or seriously hurting other road users ... or themselves.

Motorcyclists are NOT immune from this group. For you to suggest otherwise is hypocritical, if your arguement is ... "FOR OUR DEFENSE" ... (pot calling the kettle black)

The "SMIDSY" comment is long dead as a valid reason/excuse for lack of care on the road. (but with human nature ...ANY excuse .. eh ??) If ALL vehicle operators used their eye's whilst driving/riding ... this discussion would not need happen. Nor would the need be ... for a lot of transport legislation.

[slofox]

NOPE ...



MY point is ... if people won't SEE vehicles with lights ON ... for ANY reason .. or for ANY excuse. It is just that. AN EXCUSE. Neither a valid or legal EXCUSE ...
I have no arguement to any reasonable aid, that must draw the attention to the vehicle I am in or on ... if it can increase the awareness of other road users to me. I cannot claim it will prevent ALL "accidents" ... but the " SMIDSY " won't carry much validity in such cases.
Your " Can't see the Forest for the tree's " argument is flawed in so much as ... people aren't looking.



The people who do not look or notice road signs, and other vehicles (with their lights on) ... risk either killing, or seriously hurting other road users ... or themselves.

Motorcyclists are NOT immune from this group. For you to suggest otherwise is hypocritical, if your arguement is ... "FOR OUR DEFENSE" ... (pot calling the kettle black)

The "SMIDSY" comment is long dead as a valid reason/excuse for lack of care on the road. (but with human nature ...ANY excuse .. eh ??) If ALL vehicle operators used their eye's whilst driving/riding ... this discussion would not need happen. Nor would the need be ... for a lot of transport legislation.



I don't have an argument with any of what you say Mr. Rider. I was illustrating a particular feature of behaviour. Nothing more. My email to the lady concerned was to ask if she had "considered the possible disadvantage..."

For myself, I do not believe that motorists have to avoid me even if they should. I believe that I have to avoid them. Always have and always will.

[Gremlin]

I'm quite happy for drivers to put their lights on at night... in fact, I'd really appreciate if they would, especially on dark streets. Driving on the motorway without lights is hardly a safe idea, especially with the end of daylight savings. :facepalm:

Your lady above has clearly not understood why lights were made compulsory for motorcycles... it was to make them stand out. How can they stand out if all you can see are headlights? It's like trying to find one fluoro vest in a sea of them :weird:

I'm also quite happy for the blind ones to keep pulling out in front of trucks. They won't do it again... far better it was a truck instead of a motorcycle as well. :woohoo:

[FJRider]

I'm also quite happy for the blind ones to keep pulling out in front of trucks. They won't do it again... far better it was a truck instead of a motorcycle as well. :woohoo:

As a truck driver ... I hope they don't. It ruin's my day. Not to mention ... ruin's the day of their passengers ... :angry:

The "Volvo principle" of sidelights hardwired on I could agree with.

[Asher]

I can see both merit in both sides of the argument although im for car having their lights on during the day.
Whenever i drive on the open road i have my lights on, often i notice dark colored cars blending in with trees behind them or in shaded areas and they would be much more visible with their lights on.

Im am also amazed at the amount of drivers who dont turn their lights on during low visibility such as rain or heavy mist, fucking stupid, unless they enjoy people pulling out in front of them

[steve_t]

Heaps of new cars are getting DRL's anyway. I wish I could afford a new car

[FJRider]

For myself, I do not believe that motorists have to avoid me even if they should. I believe that I have to avoid them. Always have and always will.

Avoidance of physical contact with motorists I would like ... ;)

Always have ... always will ... :yes:

[slofox]

Avoidance of physical contact with motorists I would like ... ;)

Always have ... always will ... :yes:

Well...yeah.

With reference to Asher's post, above, I asked the local lady whose initiative started all this what she thought about driving without lights in fog. She said something along the lines of..."As for fog I have an idea underway – watch this space..."

So I will indeed watch the space.

[FJRider]

... So I will indeed watch the space.

Always ensure there is enough space. It is in my experience ... very valueable. So I try to make sure I have more than I need.


Call me greedy if you like ... it's the way I roll ... :innocent: