Land Transport Rule: Omnibus Amendment 2013 (Rule 10009)

[MrKiwi]

Had to peruse this proposed rule amendment for my day job. Buried deep within it is this little gem, which may be of interest to you. I'm intending to support the change, I like the idea of permissive rules, gives me the chance to decide if I want to change my lighting as opposed to be told I must...

proposal number 26
OA Rule Reference 9.1(3)
Clause 10.3(3)
Proposed change - Remove the current restriction on the number of daytime running lamps that may be fitted to a Group L motor vehicle (motorcycles)
Issue/Reason for change - The current restriction on the number of daytime running lamps that may be fitted to a motorcycle (one or two) prevents lighting shapes that some evidence suggests could improve safety. The increased use of daytime lights by cars is raising concerns about 'masking', (for example, reducing the safety benefit of motorcycle daytime running lights). There are motorcycle lights being designed to be distinctive, such as in a V or T configuration that overcome masking issues. The proposed amendment would allow for these possible new road safety developments for motorcycles.

The NZTA advise the following:
Making a submission
Information about making a submission can be found in the consultation material. Please note the deadline for submissions, which is 29 July 2013.

A hard copy of the consultation material can be obtained by calling the NZ Transport Agency Contact Centre on freephone 0800 699 000. The consultation material (together with Questions and Answers and an online submission form) is available on the NZ Transport Agency’s website at http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/omnibus-amendment-2013/index.html (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/omnibus-amendment-2013/index.html)

[Devil]

I would be for this change as well. I'm glad someone has picked up on the issue of more cars running with daylamps making motorcycles that little bit less conspicuous.

[bogan]

Very good.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm beginning to wonder if the NZTA have in the past couple years actually hired someone that knows something about using the road? Their offices used to be filled with motorphobia

[Gremlin]

I think ratuscat was trying to get the changes through, quite possibly his effort is paying off.

As a uh... lover of lights, I'm pleased to finally see this change... I tried with NZTA probably 1.5 years ago and got hit with a brick wall and "read the rules".

edit: MrKiwi, your link in your post doesn't work.

How to make a submission: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/about/sub.html

[Bassmatt]

Wait a minute, thsi is the sort of thing I expected motonz to come up with. Seeing they haven't been mentioned in the op I'm gonna assume they had nothing to do with this.
Gotta give them another $30 bucks soon :angry:

[Scuba_Steve]

edit: MrKiwi, your link in your post doesn't work.


Yea there's an extra space @ the end defined in the URL as '%20' so anyone wanting to follow MrKiwi's link just remove the trailing '%20' in the address bar

[98tls]

I would be for this change as well. I'm glad someone has picked up on the issue of more cars running with daylamps making motorcycles that little bit less conspicuous.

Dont get this bit,if its got lights on lets assume its visible so how are motorcycles lights less visible than cars running daylamps?

[bogan]

Dont get this bit,if its got lights on lets assume its visible so how are motorcycles lights less visible than cars running daylamps?

Makes them less distinct, so car drivers see the bike lights and think its a car, and may assume it is further away than they would have had they realised it was a bike.

I currently use running lights and the headlight anyway, as smokeu would say, FTP :bleh:

[Gremlin]

Dont get this bit,if its got lights on lets assume its visible so how are motorcycles lights less visible than cars running daylamps?
Motorcycles stand out if they're the only ones with lights on. With the introduction of daylamps on cars (and the increasing use) motorcycle lights no longer stand out. Running a different pattern to cars is one way to help.

It's like picking out a high viz vest. Easy when there is only one. Now try picking one out when the whole group of people are wearing them.

[Paul Searancke]

Wait a minute, thsi is the sort of thing I expected motonz to come up with. Seeing they haven't been mentioned in the op I'm gonna assume they had nothing to do with this.
Gotta give them another $30 bucks soon :angry:

You would be making the wrong assumption.

[MrKiwi]

Wait a minute, thsi is the sort of thing I expected motonz to come up with. Seeing they haven't been mentioned in the op I'm gonna assume they had nothing to do with this.
Gotta give them another $30 bucks soon :angry:

Not so...

This initiative has come from the work the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council is doing on conspicuity. The Council is currently carrying out some trials on lighting configurations and conspicuity, of which I am a strong advocate. The trials are being undertaken by a UK based research firm and is leading edge research. No one else has attempted to quantity the benefits of additional front LED daytime running lights in addition to headlights in terms of conspicuity outcomes.

When I led the work on the rule to make it compulsory for headlights to be on for motorbikes about 6-7 years ago (when I was an official) we officials simply overlooked the issue of daytime running lights in addition to headlights. It was not an issue back then, but is now.

I currently run two additional LED daytime running lights on my Triumph Tiger 955i, fixed onto the crash bars so creates a wide lighting pattern. I run these permanently with my headlights.

Technically this is in contravention to the law which is written for cars and trucks but captures motorbikes which says daytime running lights must not be run in conjunction with headlights. However, the Police simply have not enforced this for motorbikes on the basis that it adds to a safer outcome. The rule change is to correct this technicality for motorbikes while leaving the Rule unchanged for cars and trucks.

[MrKiwi]

Thanks MODs for separating the thread. The discussion on high vs dipped beams is raging on elsewhere...

[sootie]

I guess I will be able to carry on doing what made sense to me.
Hopefully it will now be OK with the law as well.

Thanks for the update. :) :)

[MrKiwi]

I've been getting my head around what this Omnibus Rule change is actually going to allow for and it is not enough in my view.

Currently the lighting rule allows you run either your head lights or two daytime running lights. The proposed change is only adjusting how many day time running lights you can have on for Group L motor vehicles (motorbikes).

That is, once this change goes through, if unaltered, it means you can run either your headlights or multiple daytime running lights (ie more than two) but not both headlights and daytime running lights. I would like the ability to run both head lights and daytime running lights.

I think it is essential we motor cyclists should be able to run with daytime running lights in tandem with head lights (dipped).

Cheers...

[Scuba_Steve]

I've been getting my head around what this Omnibus Rule change is actually going to allow for and it is not enough in my view.

Currently the lighting rule allows you run either your head lights or two daytime running lights. The proposed change is only adjusting how many day time running lights you can have on for Group L motor vehicles (motorbikes).

That is, once this change goes through, if unaltered, it means you can run either your headlights or multiple daytime running lights (ie more than two) but not both headlights and daytime running lights. I would like the ability to run both head lights and daytime running lights.

I think it is essential we motor cyclists should be able to run with daytime running lights in tandem with head lights (dipped).

Cheers...

Yea that would seem like usual Govt retardedness.

I see the statement "daytime running lights" what exactly are these? do these proposed changes allow for greater vision at night also (I personally utilise semi-legal "safety lights" during hours of darkness & rain/fog)

[chasio]

I've been getting my head around what this Omnibus Rule change is actually going to allow for and it is not enough in my view.

Currently the lighting rule allows you run either your head lights or two daytime running lights. The proposed change is only adjusting how many day time running lights you can have on for Group L motor vehicles (motorbikes).

That is, once this change goes through, if unaltered, it means you can run either your headlights or multiple daytime running lights (ie more than two) but not both headlights and daytime running lights. I would like the ability to run both head lights and daytime running lights.

I think it is essential we motor cyclists should be able to run with daytime running lights in tandem with head lights (dipped).

Cheers...

I am 100% with you. Cheers for keeping your focus on it.

[Gremlin]

Good point actually... the main law around lights is that daytime can't operate same time as headlights, ie, manually switching one for the other doesn't comply.

Despite having uh... a few lights fitted, none are daytime running lamps because of the restrictions. I have fog lamps (two big spots angled down) and forward facing position lamps (LED strips on the handguards). I get tripped up by the law because the factory parking lamp (small bulb next to low and high beam) is not provisioned for under motorcycle lighting laws. VTNZ etc automatically classify the parking lamp as a forward facing position lamp... but you're only allowed 2.

*sigh* law change in it's current form does nothing for me.

[sootie]

For once, I am in complete agreement with the last few replies.
Running Dipped headlights and Daylight Running Lights in tandem is just plain common sense.
Surely we can allow a bit of flexibility here too as long as it does not confuse other motorists?

[MrKiwi]

made my submission...

[rastuscat]

I've submitted too.

For the right to have DRLs and headlights on at the same time.

I noticed today that trains have three lights to the front at least, when they used to make do with one. Now they have a headlight, and two lower running lights.

That's the layout I want to use. Headlight, and two DRLs down on my forks.

Still, submission made, so here's hoping.

Donuts.

[AllanB]

I read somewhere that all new vehicles in Europe must have daytime running lights. Won't be long until they are the norm and minds adjust to suit. At that stage it could be possible that a plain Jane old motorcycle becomes nothing more that 'background'.

[chasio]

So, allowing DRL's and dipped headlight at the same time is a no brainer. In daylight.

To my mind allowing DRL's and full beam headlight at the same time is also a no brainer. At any time.

But since DRL's can be very bright and are not dipped to prevent dazzling an oncoming road user (especially at close range), what about at night? Would DRL's need to be designed for auto-off at night (by some kind of light sensor)? Or is a manual switch OK?

And I assume as well as the DRL's we would want to be allowed a couple of marker lights (especially if DRL's must go off at night) plus any sidelight built into the headlight.

I see submissions have closed so I am too late anyway, but what did those of you who submitted put in for any of the above?

With apologies for the satellite delay.

[rastuscat]

I submitted research papers that suggested a tri-light low beam arrangement.

I don't really like the high beam at all times theory, it just pisses people off. I saw a lady on a Gladius out on the Akaroa road last year who was riding on the high beam. So fecking bright NASDA would have been cheesed off for her dazzling the lunar lander.

[Ocean1]

I noticed today that trains have three lights to the front at least, when they used to make do with one. Now they have a headlight, and two lower running lights.

They're called ditch lights. They've pretty much always had them, although not always where they usually are now.

You've probably also noticed that they don't comply with any automotive regulations regarding headlights; they're bloody bright and they don't dip worth a damn.

[chasio]

To my mind allowing DRL's and full beam headlight at the same time is also a no brainer. At any time.

EDIT
And I should have said, subject to them being compulsorily dipped when they may dazzle any other road user.
/EDIT





I don't really like the high beam at all times theory, it just pisses people off.

Totally agree - edited above for clarity. I also believe high beam has a negative effect on distance and therefore speed perception.

I was trying to say that if high beam is OK in a given night-time scenario, full noise DRL's would also be OK in the same scenario.

My point was based on the fact that DRL's don't physically dip, although some do go dim and thus become marker lights when dipped beam is on.

That means that, at night, the brightest ones could be a nuisance in conjunction with dipped beam, unless the DRL's are self dimming. This would, of course, render them less noticeable during the day if the headlight is also on.

Unless they had a sensor and only dimmed when the headlight was on at night.

My head hurts.

[awayatc]

299431


I currently use running lights and the headlight anyway, as smokeu would say, FTP :bleh:

For what its worth....:
Harley heritage classic has 2 biggish running lights mounted slightly lower then headlight.....
Headlight on permanent, but running lights have on /off switch.....
so according to quoted rules "illegal" (eventhough factory fitted and on a bike sold as such in NZ)

Gives more light night time riding, but above all it dramatically improves riding profile.
I notice a huge difference riding with or without them on.....
Car drivers very rarely not see me....vs regularly not see me without.

will most definitely fit running lights to be seen on my other bike(s)

Thanks for posting links and pics regarding your experiences with drl's

[MrKiwi]

I met with the Ministry of Transport recently to discuss the need to further amend the lighting Rule to allow the use of daytime running lights in conjunction with dipped head lights for class L vehicles (motorcycles). I had previously discussed this with the AA and they tentatively support dipped headlights in conjunction with daytime running lights for motorcycles because of the increased conspicuity this option provides.

However, while the MoT is sympathetic to this idea given the outcome of recent research here and overseas, it appears there is some strong resistance to this idea from some in the NZTA, who do not want, on principle, daytime running light used in conjunction with headlights.

This is turning into a little crusade of mine - I'm not giving up!

We have the right to be seen and treated with respect on our roads...

[Gremlin]

Much appreciated for your work MrKiwi

[GrayWolf]

I've been getting my head around what this Omnibus Rule change is actually going to allow for and it is not enough in my view.

Currently the lighting rule allows you run either your head lights or two daytime running lights. The proposed change is only adjusting how many day time running lights you can have on for Group L motor vehicles (motorbikes).

That is, once this change goes through, if unaltered, it means you can run either your headlights or multiple daytime running lights (ie more than two) but not both headlights and daytime running lights. I would like the ability to run both head lights and daytime running lights.

I think it is essential we motor cyclists should be able to run with daytime running lights in tandem with head lights (dipped).

Cheers...

Totally agree. The MT's main beam is next to useless (projector) and I have a couple of the 10 watt Cree LED, spotlamps just below it, in adverse conditions, they're ON, period. Actually find sadly, the dip + spots out performs the pathetic projector main beam.

[GrayWolf]

I've submitted too.

For the right to have DRLs and headlights on at the same time.

I noticed today that trains have three lights to the front at least, when they used to make do with one. Now they have a headlight, and two lower running lights.

That's the layout I want to use. Headlight, and two DRLs down on my forks.

Still, submission made, so here's hoping.

Donuts.

You are correct Rastus,

the 'ditch lights' as they are called, are there to illuminate the nearby outer track and the edges of the rail corridor. (The old Metropolitan EE's had a dispensation to run without, till they were retired 'recently').
NZ is adopting the FRA standards for lighting and audible warning devices, worth a read,,,, minimum horn volume is high 90's DB, and for any local's in Wellington, the new Matangi trains headlight falls short of the new FRA standard, they are being replaced with LED type about X5 brighter on high beam. I believe the 'ditch lights' are also going to be brighter, and be replaced with LED's..