Compulsory daylight headlight use in NZ

[Beemer]

I've hunted all through here and can't find any threads concerning this topic, but mods please feel free to combine it if there is one already. The other day we were emailed by Michael Dobson (brilliant mechanic at Motorad) about proposals to make riding with headlights on during the day compulsory.

This isn't so much a discussion on whether it's a good idea and my bike has hard-wired lights anyway, it's more about the potential effect on those who ride older bikes. These bikes often don't have the ability to run at commuting speeds with continuous lights on.

Here is Michael's email below. Please note time is short as submissions have to be in by 16 October, so that's just under a month away.

"Hello Everyone

Some of you know all of the stuff below & are possibly working on this already.

But --- I belong to several m/cycle groups & have heard nothing from them about this, so I'm starting to panic a little bit.

Short story is that there is a Government proposal to make headlight use compulsory at all times for all motorcycles.

(This includes classic & vintage bikes)

The deadline for submissions on this is 16th October.

Submissions can be online or posted.

Motorcyclists that bother to send in submissions will be the minority of a minority.

Submissions can be as short as one line, for example " this proposal is impractical & discriminatory".

We need numbers.

Points to ponder ---

Many smaller or older motorcycles (as late as pre 1993 for some BMW's) are not able to run at commuting speeds with continuous lights on.

If your lighting system fails (even new bikes blow bulbs) & you ride home, you will be stopped by every Police Officer

that sees you. Yet your bike will still be safe.

If you forget to turn your lights on (easy to do in daylight) you will be stopped.

If you are involved in an accident with your lights not working will it be a defence for the motorist "not seeing" you ?

Will your insurance be invalid ?

In 1997 the Australians rescinded their Lights-On legislation after only five years.

Are compulsory flouro vests next on the list ?

Putting the onus on us to be seen is like telling toddlers playing in driveways to be taller instead of making the SUV driver check behind.

My thoughts ---

Motorists see you, they just don't notice you.

It is all to do with perception of danger / harm / annoyance to them.

If I ride a non descript commuter bike they try to kill me (you all know how it goes).

If I ride a "Hoodlum bike" with tatts showing & exhaust roaring, they give me space.

If I ride a Police BMW, they behave very very well.

If I ride a civillian BMW, they try to kill me.

All of these bikes have their light on.

Below is the link to the submission form & a draft copy of the rule (proposal 20)

Thanks for your time & help

Michael Dobson

LET THOSE WHO RIDE DECIDE

Subject: Road User Rule - Motorcycle Safety

Good morning

The Draft Land Transport Rule: Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule [2009] has just been released for public consultation. This amendment rule includes the proposal to require drivers of mopeds and motorcycles to use headlamps or, if fitted, daytime running lamps, during daylight hours.

The deadline for submissions is 16 October 2008. Refer to the below link for further information, including a draft copy of the rule.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/index.html

Please note that the Draft Land Transport Rule: Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Rule [2009], which contains the rest of the motorcycle safety proposals announced in March, is still being drafted.

Kind regards,

Michael Woodside

Senior Adviser - Safety Management
Land Transport Environment & Safety
Ministry of Transport Te Manatu Waka
Novell House, 89 The Terrace
PO Box 3175, WELLINGTON 6005
Direct dial: (04) 439 9050"

[Paulo]

Thanks for posting that, My CB750 cant run with the lights on around town, An exemption for older bike would be good.

[Badjelly]

Thanks for the link. This one also caught my eye:

It is proposed that a person must not operate a vehicle
registered as a moped at a speed exceeding 50km/h.

[Hitcher]

Remember that a submissions process isn't about weight of numbers, it's about quality of argument and the exploration of a range of issues. Postcard submissions all saying the same thing are treated as one submission.

[Beemer]

Seeing as time is of the essence, is there any chance of making this thread a sticky for the next three or four weeks?

[NighthawkNZ]

Seeing as time is of the essence, is there any chance of making this thread a sticky for the next three or four weeks?

Have temporarily made the thread a sticky...

[mstriumph]

i will be interested to see where this goes .... it isn't Compulsory in Australia but i bet they'll think of it sooner or later ......... my honda won't like it, if so :mellow:

[Swoop]

Ixion was asking the same thing recently.

[Hinny]

I don't like tail lights on during the daytime. On cars or bikes. Harder to tell when they are braking, making it more dangerous for other traffic. Another law which could have the opposite effect of that which it is trying to achieve.
Daytime running lights are better.
The law may be better applying only to new vehicles having the daytime running lights as seen on Volvos for instance.
In my youth you put your lights on in a car during the day to let other users know there was an emergency and they would get out of your way.
Seems an abrogation to see people doddering along the road with their lights on, trying to be safe . Giving themselves a false sense of security.

[Ixion]

BRONZ supports bikers using headlamps , or other lamps in daytime. BRPONZ is opposed however to making such use compulsory.

Firstly, because it transfers the responsibility from the cager to keep a good look out , to the biker. The effect of it will be that it will be up to the rider to make himself seen. So "Sorry mate didn't see you, so that means it's your fault"

Secondly because it should be a matter left to the riders discretion.

Thirdly because it is impractical for older (and some small newer) bikes.

Fourthly because the evidence of benefit is at best ambiguous.

Fifthly becaus ein some situations it could make a rider less safe. F'instance in fog, where fog lamps are better than headlamps.

BRONZ has made a detailed submission to that effect.

I will post it up later, it is quite long. Please don't just copy it, because that devalues it in the eyes of the Sheeple. But excerpt is you wish .

[R6_kid]

I think it should be compulsory for all vehicles, except in cases where as mentioned it is not feasible on certain (vintage?) vehicles.

[TimeOut]

Thanks for posting that, My CB750 cant run with the lights on around town, An exemption for older bike would be good.

How do you get on at night? or do you just not drive around town at night.

[R6_kid]

How do you get on at night? or do you just not drive around town at night.

His bike is obviously so old that come night time it needs a nap anyway.

[Dargor]

More lights is bad. You dont need them during the day, if you do you shouldnt be on the road. Are they going to tell pedestrians they need lights to cross the road? What about the super bright lights i see on cages during the day, they are distracting, and should be left off untill needed. More lights is bad. Drive/ride properly.

[Headbanger]

Meh, If your bike can't power the damn headlight it should be taken out back and shot.

Get the piles of crap off the road, Put em in a museum if they are worthy or send em to the scrap dealer.

[Kevnz]

We wouldn't have to have our lights on to be seen if the cager concentrated on driving instead of texting, drinking, eating, changing the cd...

[jtzzr]

I have no probs with running with the lights on during the day , hell I reckon we should be allowed to run with high beam all day, but I don`t believe it should be hard-wired to the ignition like alot of bikes are , I have an older bike that on the odd occasion I need to run in "STEALTH" mode(at night).

[AndyOnTheFlyingBrick]

ive sent a submission

[piston broke]

lights on in daytime.
compulsary,hell no.
do i ever ride without lights on,hell no.
lights on for all vehicles,hell no,
i,'d rather be one of the few out there with lights ablazing,
more chance of being seen.

[Quailboy]

:rolleyes: Agree

I think it should be left up to the rider to decide whether he needs/wants them on or not. Then theres no confusion as to what is classed as a older bike that can't power lights at low speed etc.

[Kiwi Graham]

Dont understand what the beef is about?

Is it being told what we have to do by bureaucrats?

or

Older bikes aren't capable of having their lights on during the day.

[CookMySock]

You dont need them during the dayYou DO need lights during the day. You have to be seen, and bright lights make a huge difference to "being seen."


I have no probs with running with the lights on during the day , hell I reckon we should be allowed to run with high beam all day, but I don`t believe it should be hard-wired to the ignition like alot of bikes areWell I think nothing should be compulsory, BUT I leave my HIDs on fullbeam during the day. I'll dip them for oncoming traffic at night or otherwise on request. During the day, I get no complaints, and seriously, you can see these things coming from behind a long line of cars.

So really what is the point of fighting this legislation just to make a point about freedom ? I don't get it.

Steve

[CDFloss]

The reason people are "fighting it" is specifically for the reasons outlined in a number of previous posts regarding the transfer of responsibility onto the rider.

I always ride with my lights on, and honestly don't often see bikes these days without their lights on, but it would suck the big one if not having lights on became a valid excuse for drivers taking out riders. Not to mention the insurance companies adding that as yet something else that would invalidate your claim. :argue:

I don't know if there are varying degrees of law, but I would be for it if they took the old/small bike issue into consideration, and worded it in such a way that it couldn't be used as an excuse by cage drivers or insurance co's.

Also, I don't think having bulbs blow or lights stop working is really a valid excuse. The same can happen to cars. Sure, cars may have more lights, but we should be prepared with spares to some extent. Your electrical system should also be in good enough nick to reduce the chances of it going poof - besides, when I've had my entire electric system die in an old ute the cops were most understanding and actually helped guide me home. :2thumbsup

:apint:

[CookMySock]

transfer of responsibility onto the rider. that is a fair point. I'll help where I can.


when I've had my entire electric system die in an old ute the cops were most understanding and actually helped guide me home. :2thumbsupThat is a surprise. I would have thought they might order it off the road and maybe give you a lift home.

Steve

[Beemer]

Meh, If your bike can't power the damn headlight it should be taken out back and shot.

Get the piles of crap off the road, Put em in a museum if they are worthy or send em to the scrap dealer.

And of course, a Harley would NEVER break down or need to be taken out the back and shot. Only its rider perhaps.

You are totally missing the point. Most of the bikes you see on the open road WITHOUT headlights on are bloody Harleys.

But then to own a classic bike you need a bit of class and you're obviously lacking that.

[Headbanger]

But then to own a classic bike you need a bit of class and you're obviously lacking that.

Ah, So your elitist based on the brand and era of bike you have?

Interesting.

well, interesting in an anal and shallow way. Much like your assumption that attacking Harley's will mean anything to me. HA. Laughable.

Seriously, If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

[Toaster]

Have temporarily made the thread a sticky...

temporarily sticky..... hmmmm so it will eventually lose adhesion and fall off huh?!

[Toaster]

If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

I am no bike historian or expert but I'd have to agree. If a bike can't run a headlight, you'd have to wonder how on earth it could manage a WOF if tested properly! Reminds me of my first car an old ford escort Mk1 that had headlights so weak they barely lit the road. Back in those days there were no reflectorised markers on the road either.

[Ocean1]

Seriously, If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

Yeah, correct.

Except it's not the point. If it's good for bikes it's good for everything else on the road. Why the distinction?

What's more the total extra fuel consumption for the entire NZ vehicle fleet running around with lights ablaze wouldn't be inconsiderable...

And even that's not the point.

Any new idea that starts with "they orta" is a bad idea. That's the point.

[Dargor]

I leave my HIDs on fullbeam during the day. I'll dip them for oncoming traffic at night or otherwise on request. During the day, I get no complaints, and seriously, you can see these things coming from behind a long line of cars.

You may not get any complaints but that doesn't mean people don't appreciate being beamed. You should stop and ask a few.

I for one do not enjoy being beamed day or night.


And why would we want to give the cops more books to throw at us, this one isn't important, let it be.

[Griffin]

Is it just me? Or is anyone else finding that each week that passes brings us closer to being a Police State.

We're going to get to the stage that we will all be informed of what time we are allowed to get up in the morning, what to have for breakfast and when to leave the house... what car / bike we can drive, whether we must have lights on or not and where we are allowed to travel to. Its just getting ridiculous.

Not that I have a choice on my particular bike... but if I did and its daytime and if I want my lights on - I would turn them on, if I want them off - I would leave them off.

Why should some beaurocrat sitting in some boring office tell me what choices I must make? :argue:

[Headbanger]

Yeah, correct.

Except it's not the point.


I think you meant to say that's not your point, It is most definitely my point.

I'm going to make a submission in support for enforced headlights and request that bikes not capable of running a headlight at idle be deemed not road worthy.

All in the name of looking out for my fellow bikers, I amazed some people are getting round on gear that can't power a headlight.

No worries though, I know whats good for ya, You can all thank me later.

[CDFloss]

That is a surprise. I would have thought they might order it off the road and maybe give you a lift home. Ok, I should add this didn't happen in New Zealand, :rolleyes: but it did happen. My point is that most cops are human and would/should show a little understanding regarding genuine faults while out and about.

Cheers

[Conquiztador]

And of course, a Harley would NEVER break down or need to be taken out the back and shot. Only its rider perhaps.

You are totally missing the point. Most of the bikes you see on the open road WITHOUT headlights on are bloody Harleys.

But then to own a classic bike you need a bit of class and you're obviously lacking that.


Nope, U are wrong. And not sure what this has to do with a certain make of bike?

[Conquiztador]

Meh, If your bike can't power the damn headlight it should be taken out back and shot.

Get the piles of crap off the road, Put em in a museum if they are worthy or send em to the scrap dealer.

Fully support your thinking. I lived in a country that has one of the lowest road accident statistics (Sweden). All vehicles had to have daytime lights on. No matter what car/bike. My old 48 Panny had no problems running with lights on 24/7. And nor did any other bike, be that a old pommy, Indian, or anything else. We just knew that to get the thingy through WOF we had to sort the lights. And their motorways allow 120K/h.

I say: Let's get anything moving on the road to have lights on! If it saves one life it is worth it!

Or perhaps we want to go back to the "let the rider decide" and make helmets up to the rider too??? Said that, I loved the times when I could ride w/o helmet. But the problem was that I could hear all the noises and I was expecting the motor to blow...

[Brett]

Well, it has my vote! I also read a study based on Sweden when they implemented this law. Dropped the amount of crashes significantly. Whether it be in a cage or on my bike, day or night, I always have my lights on. Two thumbs up from Moi.

[maybe]

Me thinks its time the Government started running the Country and stopped running the people???:nono::nono:

[BiK3RChiK]

We had no less than 3 cars pull directly out in front of us yesterday in town with the headlights blazing! To me, that says its nothing about the 'being seen' and more driver education needs to take place. One was an obviously tired mum who looked like she'd rather be asleep than behind the wheel. Another, was a cheeky bitch who grinned and kept on going anyways. These two incidents were at roundabouts. We had our high beam on, and they all saw us. The mum actually apologised! And the third actually did stop before cutting us off completely.

Legislation like this is just an excuse to make another law and won't stop the 'Oh, I didn't see you' stories...

[FJRider]

Thanks for posting that, My CB750 cant run with the lights on around town, An exemption for older bike would be good.

There must be something wrong with your electrics... I had a 76 CB750, and ran with lights on, all the time.... no problem at all. get it checked out...

[CookMySock]

Most of the bikes you see on the open road WITHOUT headlights on are bloody Harleys.They are struggling enough to keep their back wheel turning without having to power the fucking headlight too..

DB

[Grahameeboy]

BRONZ supports bikers using headlamps , or other lamps in daytime. BRPONZ is opposed however to making such use compulsory.

Because it is something they did not think of I guess

Firstly, because it transfers the responsibility from the cager to keep a good look out , to the biker. The effect of it will be that it will be up to the rider to make himself seen. So "Sorry mate didn't see you, so that means it's your fault"

Surely as Bikers riding vehicles significantly faster that most cars on the road the onus is on us to keep a good look out?

Secondly because it should be a matter left to the riders discretion.

So back to point one, if it is down to the riders discretion, said rider does not have lights one and a care driver does not see him, said rider should accept partial responsibility?

Thirdly because it is impractical for older (and some small newer) bikes.

Is it...we can send a space thing to Mars...so why can't we wire up bikes....although like most Laws it will not be retrospective?

Fourthly because the evidence of benefit is at best ambiguous.

What evidence...sure it is obvious...lights on, more visible...I ride on high beam and a lot less problems

Fifthly becaus ein some situations it could make a rider less safe. F'instance in fog, where fog lamps are better than headlamps.

I think fog is an extreme example but hey if you are right, it must be safer not to have headlights on when foggy...figures based on your argument.

BRONZ has made a detailed submission to that effect.

Which probably got thrown in the bin having seen other efforts by BRONZ...

I will post it up later, it is quite long. Please don't just copy it, because that devalues it in the eyes of the Sheeple. But excerpt is you wish .....................

[FJRider]

I ride with lights on because anything that helps me being seen/noticed by all other motorists (including other motorcyclists), has got to be good.

[Kickaha]

So everyone here who is advocating "lights on" and rides with lights on has ever had a vehicle pull out in front of them or had any kind of 'sorry I didn't see you moments or been knocked off their bike?

I ride with lights off, always have, always will, I don't believe they will see you either way and ride accordingly

[davereid]

I always used to ride with lights off.

I found that a quick flash of the lights if I saw a car who may not have noticed me was vey effective.

Both my last two bikes turn the lights on themselves, so I can't do this anymore.

I have noticed no reduction at all in the number of drivers who didnt see me, indeed as I now can't "flash" em, I think its got worse.

I have also noticed that I find it much harder to judge a vehicles speed and distance when it has its lights on. Bikes are worse than cars in this regard. I can only assume my experience is the same as other drivers.

I am also concerned that with my lights on, my tail light operates.

It's combined with my brake light. I'm absolutely sure that the change from OFF to BRAKE is much more noticeable than the change from TAIL to BRAKE.

At highway speeds, a 1-second delay in noticing my brake light costs the motorist behind me 27 meters of stopping distance.

That 27 meters might be important to my survival, as I might be stopped there !

I'd suggest that motorcyclists choose for themselves.

There are some on this site who think that its good to impose safety rules on others.

They justify it with statements like "you cost us all money if you have an accident" and endless arguements about how "Its safer to do it this way, therefore its OK for me to compel you to do it"

Sadly they usually win.

The trouble is, these are exacly the arguements that will be used to take our motorcycles off us.

Cars continue to get safer. Bikes don't. The day when its virtually impossible to die in a car are approaching. Soon the only motorists to die in road crashes will be bikers.

So, the safety Nazis will focus on us.

Indeed, many bikers appear to be safety nazis - they just havent noticed the bigger nazis watching them.

[MSTRS]

Whilst I agree with the intent behind having headlight on, obviously only a motorcyclist can know whether this makes any difference. Having ridden motorcycles for some 35 years, it is my observation that to make any difference to being visible, the headlight must be on high beam. With the poor statistics of car drivers not seeing motorcyclists, and the often poor headlights on motorcycles (particularly older models), then I suggest that if fulltime use of headlights is to be made compulsory, then daytime use of the highbeam is the only realistic measure.

[OutForADuck]

From a legislation point of view why do this when just about all new bikes have to conform to such standards as ADR, California, or EU etc all of which dictate that the lights must not be able to be turned off.

i.e. whey change the law when all you are affecting is older bikes anyway.

They will eventually all phase out of come under exemptions for age!!!

P.S. Wouldn't be out there without my light personally, everything I can do to assist the myopically challenged cage dwellers to look at me and not the screaming kids in the back!!!

[Beemer]

So everyone here who is advocating "lights on" and rides with lights on has ever had a vehicle pull out in front of them or had any kind of 'sorry I didn't see you moments or been knocked off their bike?

I ride with lights off, always have, always will, I don't believe they will see you either way and ride accordingly

Precisely - trains have headlights going during the day and yet it doesn't stop drivers of cars and trucks driving right in front of them.

I'm not elitist, just trying to see the point of view of those who ride older bikes. These bikes charge just fine at normal road speeds, but when stuck in traffic at very low speeds they don't always cope too well. Should we ban these bikes because they can't run their headlights during the day in those circumstances?

I've always ridden with my headlight on during the day (but not at high beam, that's something that pisses me off with any motorist, two or four wheeled) but I certainly haven't found it was a magic bullet that made me 100% visible to drivers. Until we can ensure that every driver is alert and actually bothers to actively look for other vehicles/bikes, this will give people a false sense of security.

And I just hate things being made compulsory when there is not overriding evidence that it is justified.

[Max Preload]

While I ride with the headlight on all of the time anyway, I'm against anything like this being compulsory. I was actually going to start a thread on this myself.

Submissions are due in by 16 October. See here (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/index.html) for the full document. The one in question is 'Proposal 20'.

I shall also be making a submission on proposals 3 & 14.

If you like a laugh browse 'Proposal 13'.

[Max Preload]

...I leave my HIDs on fullbeam during the day.

That's actually pretty dumb. It makes it very much harder for other drivers to gauge your distance and approach speed.

[Big Dave]

Well, after reading the thread and due consideration:

I don't really care. New bikes are all set up that way anyway.

[Big Dave]

That's actually pretty dumb. It makes it very much harder for other drivers to gauge your distance and approach speed.


Or you completely dazzle and disorient some old plonker who ploughs head-on into you.

[FJRider]

If the people that want law change, and can... will. Regardless of what we say.
Dont forget...voting time... have your say THEN...

[CookMySock]

That's actually pretty dumb. It makes it very much harder for other drivers to gauge your distance and approach speed.(re HIDs on fullbeam) Maybe. That is just one cursory glance at it - not suggesting its an invalid one. We could also suggest that people won't risk pulling out in front of it on account of its intimidatory effect, but that would be a cursory glance at it also.

The bottom line is, I don't really know and neither do you.

What I DO know, is traffic parts like the friggin red sea in front of me, and I rarely have problems, though maybe this happens for all bikes. It seems to me that people are quite startled by it and afford me a large level of respect, if that is the right word. Put it this way - they get the hell OUT of the way a lot more quickly when I am on the bike compared to the car - that much is very very clear to me. The lights are the colour of a super-bright burning magnesium flare - frightningly bright, and instantly and startlingly obvious from 3-400m away. I think I get away with it, because its not particularly well focussed - its a projector lamp, not a conventional reflector lamp so its very widely spread - just the colour temperature is just right to be really piercing.

There has only ever been one car that pulled out in front of me, and in all fairness to them, I came out of a 45k corner at 120k and no way they expected that to happen. The poor bastard damn near jumped right out of his skin the instant he saw me, and shot right across the road out of my way DAMN quick. This was just as much my fault as it was his. Oh well.

I am very sure my ultra bright lights work well for me. I could dip them for a week and see what happens.. Not sure if that is smart.


Steve

[Ixion]

The thing with older bikes, is that originally they had horribly feeble bulbs. Often 24/36 W or so. You mostly can't get these any more , and if you could you wouldn't want to , because the feeble glimmer they cast is so pitiful and unsafe. So, people replace them with modern bulbs, maybe 50/70 W or so. This is good cos now you can see at night. But, downside, the alternators on those old bikes were usually designed to provide JUST enough current for the original load (so as not to overload the equally feeble voltage regulators). So, the extra current for the brighter bulb means that the battery will slowly discharge . On a night ride, it's not long enough to run the battery flat and it can recharge the next day with lights off. But if the light is on all the time, the battery will go flat

Of course, there are those who will smugly declare that only new modern bikes should be allowed on the roads, in accordance with the great middle class dictum of consumerism. Go suck a donkey dick

As to the principle.

I mostly ride with lights on. I recommend EVERYONE should ride with lights on. Research shows that riding with lights on may have some safety benefit .So, should the government make everyone ride with lights on ? If you think so, consider this -

I also mostly ride with a full hi-vis jacket on. I recommend EVERYONE should always ride wearing a hi-vis jacket or vest. Research shows that wearing a hi-vis vest may have some safety benefits (more than lights on, anyway) .So , should the government make everyone wear a hi-vis vest.

Please state why you think the government should enforce the first compulsary safety measure and not the second . Especially bearing in mind that the benefits of hi-vis are shown to be greater than lights on.

And don't fool yourself that having implemented one this year the Sheeple won't come back next year and implement the second.

I reckon it'll look so cute with compulsary hi-vis vests over the toothpaste suits, and the bad-ass leather jackets. Sort of dents the "look at me, I'm Rossi" image though. But if it saves even one life, it's got to be worth it , right?

[Conquiztador]

I also mostly ride with a full hi-vis jacket on. I recommend EVERYONE should always ride wearing a hi-vis jacket or vest. Research shows that wearing a hi-vis vest may have some safety benefits (more than lights on, anyway) .So , should the government make everyone wear a hi-vis vest.

Please state why you think the government should enforce the first compulsary safety measure and not the second . Especially bearing in mind that the benefits of hi-vis are shown to be greater than lights on.

And don't fool yourself that having implemented one this year the Sheeple won't come back next year and implement the second.

I reckon it'll look so cute with compulsary hi-vis vests over the toothpaste suits, and the bad-ass leather jackets. Sort of dents the "look at me, I'm Rossi" image though. But if it saves even one life, it's got to be worth it , right?

I would like to read that research you are refering to. The one where high vis jackets are the bees knees. And of a higher benefit for a bikers saefty then lights.

I have tried to find information to support that there is a country in the world where high visibility jackets on motorbikes is compulsory. But I can find none.

Without doing any research re lights on I know that all Scandinavian countries have it, and also many of the other European ones.

There must be a reason why they have the lights but not the jackets. Common sense?

In any case, NZ is not a country that leads the way in road rule innovation. So as long as nobody else comes to the conclusion that high visibility vests are the go, they wont become compulsory in NZ.

[motorbyclist]

wtf, they've limited the summ of your responses on all those laws to 4000 characters.... that's fuck all if they want a coherent argument

[Tank]

(re HIDs on fullbeam) Maybe. That is just one cursory glance at it - not suggesting its an invalid one. We could also suggest that people won't risk pulling out in front of it on account of its intimidatory effect, but that would be a cursory glance at it also.

The bottom line is, I don't really know and neither do you.

....

There has only ever been one car that pulled out in front of me, and in all fairness to them, I came out of a 45k corner at 120k and no way they expected that to happen. The poor bastard damn near jumped right out of his skin the instant he saw me, and shot right across the road out of my way DAMN quick. This was just as much my fault as it was his. Oh well.



What we DO know riding along - having some inconsiderate moron who insist on riding with his HID's on full beam coming towards you is really bloody annoying - and that it causes you have to avert your gaze because if it.

Ive said it before - and Ill say it again its bad form.

oh and 120 out of a 45km corner - :rofl:

[Ocean1]

Without doing any research re lights on I know that all Scandinavian countries have it, and also many of the other European ones.

There must be a reason why they have the lights but not the jackets. Common sense?

Perhaps the wee fact that it's dark most of the day for a fairly large part of the year?

[Ixion]

wtf, they've limited the summ of your responses on all those laws to 4000 characters.... that's fuck all if they want a coherent argument

You can write a separate submission and attach it to an email. Mine was three pages.

[Headbanger]

. Mine was three pages.

Did you suggest they suck on donkey dick?

[Ixion]

Euphemistically, yes.

[swbarnett]

If a bike can't run a headlight, you'd have to wonder how on earth it could manage a WOF if tested properly!
Back in the 80s I spent a short time as a courier. The constant stopping and starting of the engine combined with short trips and headlight on ran the battery flat. I was stranded twice with jobs on board before I realised what was happening. After that I ran with the headlight off and had no further problems.

[NighthawkNZ]

I think it should be compulsory for all vehicles, except in cases where as mentioned it is not feasible on certain (vintage?) vehicles.

bikes maybe compulsory ... all vehicles, I disagree with...the idea of bikes having head lights on is to make the bike stand out during the day to be seen... make all other vehicles have there lights on then the bike is blended straight back to how it was... also in many cases it can hide the actual bike more

linky (http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx%3FTabID%3D4106&start=2&h=274&w=400&sz=48&tbnid=HFSJvSQ5H56vTM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=124&hl=en&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCompulsory%2Bdaylight%2Bheadlight%2Bu se%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN&um=1&usg=__rT4XLA-fsvcOOeWy6yNTZfdxaV8=)

[Paulo]

How do you get on at night? or do you just not drive around town at night.

Thats right I put it to bed early. I'm not quite ready to tackle the wiring loom.

[GrayWolf]

I always used to ride with lights off.

.

I have also noticed that I find it much harder to judge a vehicles speed and distance when it has its lights on. Bikes are worse than cars in this regard. I can only assume my experience is the same as other drivers.

I am also concerned that with my lights on, my tail light operates.

It's combined with my brake light. I'm absolutely sure that the change from OFF to BRAKE is much more noticeable than the change from TAIL to BRAKE.

At highway speeds, a 1-second delay in noticing my brake light costs the motorist behind me 27 meters of stopping distance.

That 27 meters might be important to my survival, as I might be stopped there !

Thank You
That is one of the points and a main one I was going to raise. (The knee jerk reaction about whether or not certain bikes can run lights all the time etc is just the focus the Govt wants).
The issue of distance judgement being affected with lights on was researched in the USA and UK/Europe quite extensively. (Try actively seeing how often you misjudge distance and speed at night of oncoming vechiles). The UK Police had BMW's fitted with a purpose made 'day light' that diffused light rather than a beam.

Secondly, these are polititians you're dealing with, they blow smoke so you get a concession and they get what they were after anyway. The 'smoke' in this case to be 'negotiated away' is probably a dispensation for older bikes, so you veteran/vintage riders dont lose out, and see how nice to motorcyclists we are......... Cynical?? ya better believe it!!!

[Ixion]

The best way to deal with the light causing distance perception problems is to use two lights, as far apart (horizontally) as possible.

Which many riders have done. They are then seen,the person seeing them can readily assess distance and closing speed, and since the lights can be low wattage (2 x 12W is ample), the battery is not challenged. A win all round. However, in almost all cases this proposal would make such lights illegal. Usually they are two small low wattage spot light. The proposal will only allow genuine DRL lights. A DRL is not just 'any old light that is on during daylight". It has to be a very specific design with the correct magic E number son the lens. Aftermarket genuine DRL for bikes do not exist, for practical purposes. So the present two light fitments will NOT qualify under the legislation.

[Jerry74]

Lights on good idea, a lot of newer bikes come hard wired with engine running...

[Max Preload]

Lights on good idea, a lot of newer bikes come hard wired with engine running...

Baaaa baaaaaaaaa :slap:

[Hinny]

The best way to deal with the light causing distance perception problems is to use two lights, as far apart (horizontally) as possible.

Which many riders have done. They are then seen,the person seeing them can readily assess distance and closing speed, and since the lights can be low wattage (2 x 12W is ample), the battery is not challenged. A win all round. However, in almost all cases this proposal would make such lights illegal. Usually they are two small low wattage spot light. So the present two light fitments will NOT qualify under the legislation.

Could these lights not be classed as position indicating lamps?
They are in my opinion by far the best lighting option for bikes n the daytime.

[sunhuntin]

More lights is bad. You dont need them during the day, if you do you shouldnt be on the road. Are they going to tell pedestrians they need lights to cross the road? What about the super bright lights i see on cages during the day, they are distracting, and should be left off untill needed. More lights is bad. Drive/ride properly.

i disagree. most of us ride with headlights on to make it easier for cagers to see us, not because we the rider cant see clearly. i know that having my light on during day light hours has saved my life on more than one occasion, because the cager glances, the light stands out and they take a second look and decide to wait, as opposed to glancing, not 'seeing' me, going and hitting me.
and same with other road users having their lights on, they stand out a mile and make life a lot easier. i can see a moped from 5 or 6 blocks if they have a light going, as opposed to not seeing them till im next to them without lights.

[Ixion]

Could these lights not be classed as position indicating lamps?
They are in my opinion by far the best lighting option for bikes n the daytime.
Yes, they can. And that is why they are legal now. But the problem is, if the proposed law is passed, they will not qualify as the "legally required" lights. So the rider will have to use the headlight, either instead of, or as well. The problem with "as well" (apart from the battery issue), is that the very bright focused beam of the headlamp seizes the viewers attention and "drowns out" the diffuse low wattage lights (not helped by the headlamp being central) . The viewer sees only the headlamp, and target fixates on it. Then cannot judge distance .

BRONZ's alternative if the PTB insist on lights is to allow any forward facing light. this would keep the existing setups legal.

[Hinny]

Nadroj has a great setup on his ST1300 with small but quite powerful aux. lights on brackets attached to the front guard mounts. This creates a triangle of light that is very easy to see and judge distance/closing speed etc. Great presence and great presents for near and dear to give.:niceone:

[GrayWolf]

Whilst I agree with the intent behind having headlight on, obviously only a motorcyclist can know whether this makes any difference. Having ridden motorcycles for some 35 years, it is my observation that to make any difference to being visible, the headlight must be on high beam. With the poor statistics of car drivers not seeing motorcyclists, and the often poor headlights on motorcycles (particularly older models), then I suggest that if fulltime use of headlights is to be made compulsory, then daytime use of the highbeam is the only realistic measure.

I will not gainsay using a high beam headlight for visibility, it certainly works, but I do feel with the modern lights the power on main beam will/would get an adverse reaction from motorists for 'dazzling'.

As a suggestion for urban riding........
I'm not sure if they are available in NZ (or now) but in the early to mid 80's a group of us (England) tracked down a supply of 20watt halogen bulbs that replaced/fitted the park light bulb socket. The position of the park light gave a much more diffused light (similar to DRL). I would question the effectiveness of low power DRL's outside of a city/commuter environment though.

[JohnR]

Obviously the rationale for compulsory headlight use during the day is based on solid evidence from research:sherlock:...and this evidence will show a percentage decrease in the number of motorcycle crashes involving other vehicles:yes:...and this will then be passed on to motorcyclists in the form of a coresponding decrease in ACC levy on licensing:2thumbsup

WTF is that noise? Oh no it's the bloody alarm clock:eek5:... it's happened again:o.
Oh well at least the sheets are still clean this time:whistle:

[reofix]

with you banger.... like loud exhausts and no helmets will keep us safe.(yeah right).. yay the big bright light that preceeds me

[NighthawkNZ]

Obviously the rationale for compulsory headlight use during the day is based on solid evidence from research:sherlock:...and this evidence will show a percentage decrease in the number of motorcycle crashes involving other vehicles:yes:...and this will then be passed on to motorcyclists in the form of a coresponding decrease in ACC levy on licensing

as long as if they don't make it compulsory for all vehicles then I see it as a good thing... but if they change it to all vehicles then its a bad thing

[JohnR]

as long as if they don't make it compulsory for all vehicles then I see it as a good thing... but if they change it to all vehicles then its a bad thing

I agree that riding with lights on is a good thing, i agree that hi viz vests are a good thing and white helmets too...I use all of these.

What I don't agree with is the compulsion, by law, to do or use any or all of the above.
Those of us that do use any or all of these do so too protect ourselves to our own level of paranoia if you like. Those that don't use it obviously don't consider it necessary...their choice.

My point was I don't believe that research, in detail enough to warrant such a draconian measure, has been done. And there will definately be no benefit for motorcyclists.

In my veiw there is a certain amount of CYA by "the government" so they can say "What more can we do? We've done all these things and you bikers still hit cars." (Ban Mortorcycles I hear some scream!)

[pritch]

I loved the times when I could ride w/o helmet. But the problem was that I could hear all the noises and I was expecting the motor to blow...

Was talking to a friend a while back, a former mechanic. He had recently ridden a bike without a helmet and was surprised at the amount of mechanical noise. He said it explained why he seemed to be forever adjusting his tappets back in the 60s.

In town yesterday on the VFR there was a moped coming toward me and from it's position on the road and its speed I assumed he was going to make a turn. His headlight on full was so bright, and the blinker so close to it, that it was only when I got really close that I could see his blinker. By that stage I couldn't see much else mind. That headlamp really was dazzlingly bright.

Actually, I wish the headlight on my SJ50 was that bright.

[nico]

i kinda fail to see the bad point shouldnt bikes ride with headlights on any way it's gota be better to be seen aint it????????

[Max Preload]

i kinda fail to see the bad point shouldnt bikes ride with headlights on any way it's gota be better to be seen aint it????????

That makes about as much sense as removing your right to refuse consent to Police searches you as you think you have nothing to hide... (and yes I am aware of a couple of provisions that mean your consent is not required).

[motorbike]

wouldn't it make more sence to make it compulsory for all new bikes coming into country, to have ther head lamps hot wird on
then you could slowly phase it in
and everyone is happy:argh:

[swbarnett]

wouldn't it make more sence to make it compulsory for all new bikes coming into country, to have ther head lamps hot wird on
then you could slowly phase it in
and everyone is happy:argh:
Personally, I'm just sick to death of other people trying to look after MY safety when I should be looking out for myself. The more "safety" measures you instigate the more drivers (and riders) are going to get complacent and lose what little road awareness they had in the first place.

I think riding with your light on is a good thing but it's MY choice. No-one has the right to impose it on me - whether by law or engineering :argh:.

[Mom]

I say: Let's get anything moving on the road to have lights on! If it saves one life it is worth it!

Apologies for coming so late to this discussion but I disagree. If everyone on the road had their lights on 24/7 we would not stand a chance of being seen, we are just another light. We are not seen now, at least having lights on during the day (when our bikes allow) gives us a tiny bit of an edge???


I always used to ride with lights off.
I found that a quick flash of the lights if I saw a car who may not have noticed me was vey effective. I have noticed no reduction at all in the number of drivers who didnt see me, indeed as I now can't "flash" em, I think its got worse.

Indeed, many bikers appear to be safety nazis - they just havent noticed the bigger nazis watching them.

I had a choice when I started riding of whether to have lights on or not, I chose not, as a quick flash seemed to alert blind car drivers I was around.

I put my hand up to being a safety nazi too! I support ATGATT completely, and practice what I preach. I nursed and it literally makes my skin crawl when I see people out and about in shorts etc. I have had to deal with the fallout of it when they come to grief you see.

[MSTRS]

Personally, I'm just sick to death of other people trying to look after MY safety when I should be looking out for myself. The more "safety" measures you instigate the more drivers (and riders) are going to get complacent and lose what little road awareness they had in the first place.


I agree with this. Keep legislating for stupid, and by removing the need to think, what you get is greater stupid.
And for those talking about triangulating etc...wrong. Because a motorcycle is narrow, the distance between two 'driving lights' only serves to tell an unthinking cager that 'that car is far away enough for me to make this manueovre'. If they see it, that is. And a single light gives nothing away as to distance or approach speed...sure...but how often is it even seen?

[twinkle]

I'm going to make a submission in support for banning Headbanger from riding a motorcycle.

All in the name of looking out for a fellow biker, I'm amazed that he's getting around on such a dangerous and powerful piece of gear.

No worries, I know whats good for him, he can thank me later.

[Headbanger]

Sweet.

:rockon:


And in regards to the rep I just received (much appreciated btw), If you can't power your headlight on a consistent basis then no your piece of shit bike is not road worthy. Bin it.

[Beemer]

Sweet.

:rockon:


And in regards to the rep I just received (much appreciated btw), If you can't power your headlight on a consistent basis then no your piece of shit bike is not road worthy. Bin it.

So all classic bikes should just be trashed? Anything that was the latest and greatest in its day but now can't run a headlight 24/7 at low speeds should be trashed?

The great mantra of the materialistic - "it's old, buy a new one because it MUST be better". Some of us actually appreciate classic things, not just classic idiots, of which I'd have to label you.

[Dodger]

I think it should be compulsory for all vehicles, except in cases where as mentioned it is not feasible on certain (vintage?) vehicles.

Nooo! :crazy:
If everyone has their lights on during the day then the Bikes get lost in the the background.
The whole point of having our lights on is so that other motorists see us as we stand out from the crowd.

[Swoop]

Geeze. Just have a man with a red flag walking in front of the vehicle, to warn others of the approaching danger.

(gsxr1000 might need a fast man with the flag...:shifty:)

[Headbanger]

not just classic idiots, of which I'd have to label you.

Thank you,for awhile there I thought I would never get another bite.

[keithbuckby]

but I am amazed how invisible I still am

[scumdog]

Was talking to a friend a while back, a former mechanic. He had recently ridden a bike without a helmet and was surprised at the amount of mechanical noise. He said it explained why he seemed to be forever adjusting his tappets back in the 60s.

Ya ain't lived until you've heard a hot iron-head Sportster and the constant barrage of mechanical noise eminating from it....:shit:
Often used to be unaware of the noise until getting to a rally and riding around the site with ear-plugs out and helmet off, use to think "Man, has that noise been like that for the last two hours and it still runs???".

But on topic - saw a guy on an early Triumph come over the hill near home, it was morning and the sun was slightly behind him, he was running without a headlight on and he was bloody near invisible against the broken background of hawthorn hedge, dark road-surface etc,
I can understand how cars could pull out on front of a bike in those circumstances - hell, I found it hard to spot him and I'm motorbike focussed.

[MSTRS]

But on topic - saw a guy on an early Triumph come over the hill near home, it was morning and the sun was slightly behind him, he was running without a headlight on and he was bloody near invisible against the broken background of hawthorn hedge, dark road-surface etc,
I can understand how cars could pull out on front of a bike in those circumstances - hell, I found it hard to spot him and I'm motorbike focussed.

But would Joe Lucas's finest equipment have made any difference?
There will always be scenarios when lights on/off won't help. Be vigilant on or in a vehicle. It's not much to ask, is it?

[warewolf]

This is a bad idea, despite the fact that I mostly endeavour to ride with my headlight on. "Lights On" (hard-wired) was introduced in Australia in 1992 and rescinded in 1997. BRONZ are on the money, they have done or read the research.

I have here a copy of the study conducted for the Aussie State of Victoria. "Parliament of Victoria Social Development Committee First Report upon the Inquiry Into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, Motorcycle Visibility. March 1992" ISBN 0 7306 2692 X. It's worth a read, maybe not all the tables of numbers in its 180 pages, but it covers a lot about conspicuity - the actual issue that "lights on" attempts to address.

Their recommendations were:


1. The Minister for Transport implement road safety measures to increase motorcycle conspicuity by:
a) Encouraging motorcycle riders to use yellow, white, red and fluorescent colours for their motorcycles and their clothes;
b) Recommending to the Federal Government that daytime running light specifications inlcude a minimum intesnity of 1600cd, a minimum size of 180mm diameter and a requirement for two lights; and
c) Encouraging measures which increase the frontal or overall size of motorcycles.

2. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission [ie NZTA and ACC], in consultation with the Victorian motorcycling community, plan on-going public education programmes which encourage motorcycle riders to use appropriate conspicuity measures.

3. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission, in consultation with the motorcycling community and motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria [ie NZAA], develop on-going public education programmes which encourage car drivers to be aware of motorcycles.

4. The Minister for Transport advise the Federal Government of the possible dangers inherent in specifying daytime running lights for motorcycles be hard-wired, and request they delay implementation of Australian Design Rule 19/01 until the report of the International Committee on Daytime Running Lights is available and its implications for Australia are examined.

5. The Minister for Transport advise the Federal Government that the light specifications included in the Australian Design Rule 19/01 are inappropriate for Australian conditions.

6. The Minister for Transport amend the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 to exclude Australian Design Rule 19/01 from roadworthiness requirements for motorcycles registered in Victoria. [Yes, this was the State refusing to implement the bad "lights on" rules recommended by the Federal Government.]

7. THE USE OF DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS FOR MOTORCYCLES REMAINS VOLUNTARY. [Capitalisation for emphasis mine.] Some interpretation for you. In Australia, roading is mostly state-based. But the Federal Government sets guidelines for vehicle roadworthiness standards, called the Australian Design Rules (ADRs). The state governments usually implement these. This rule was so bad that for the first time, the state governments threatened to ignore the Fed's' guidelines, see point 6.

A few snippets from the report:


Daytime running lights (DRLs) were first introduced for all vehicles in Finland and Sweden where the natural light intensity during the day is particularly low. In Sweden the ambient light intensity on a clear day ranges for 2000 to 26 000 lux and it does not rise above 10 000 lux when it is raining or foggy. In contrast, the average ambient light intensity in Victoria at noon ranges from about 50 000 lux in June to 110 000 lux in November.In other words, Scandinavian studies are somewhat irrelevant because the contrast between the motorcycle headlight and the background light is much more marked. Further:
1967: Low beam headlight use promoted for all vehicles in Sweden to compensate for expected peripheral detection problems associated with their change from left-hand to right-hand drive.ie "lights on" was introduced for a very specific reason.


The proportion of motorcycle collisions able to be influenced by daytime running lights is 2.1%.This was based on analysis of collision data via a decision tree. And given the voluntary compliance level is over 60%, the legislation can have no influence on over 99% of collisions!!


Compulsory legislation requiring daytime running lights specially for motorcycles is now confined to France and 23 States of America. In 1983, the Office of Road Safety prepared a draft discussion paper in which it acknowledged that there was no statistically significant difference between these American States and those without compulsory running light legislation.Speaks for itself, really.

In a nutshell, they concluded that for daytime use, bright colours worked best, but if you have a light it needs to be large rather than bright. Modern high-output lights like LEDs and HIDs may be contrary to this.


There's still time to make a submission...

[Max Preload]

Compulsory daylight headlight use in NZ Biker Politics & Law. Putting the onus on us to be seen is like telling toddlers playing in. He was the NZ rally champion from '75 to '77 before moving to the States. to move from voluntary to compulsory use of headlights during daylight hours.

Is it just me or does that not make any sense?

[MSTRS]

Is it just me or does that not make any sense?

Like the proposal for daytime lights, there may be some logic hiding behind it....

[Eddieb]

Put my 2cents in.

While I agree with the concept that motorcyclists should ride with their lights on, I am against making this compulsory in law due to the following points:

Many motorcycles, including my own 1982 BMW with which I commute to work and back every day do not produce enough power at the slow 'rush hour' commuting speeds to power the lights, recharge the battery and keep the motorcycle running all at once for a period of time.

Most motorcycles do not have the lights hard wired on. This rule has the potential to turn the rider into a criminal simply by inadvertantly bumping a switch.

This proposal moves the onus of responsibility to the motorcycle rider regarding being seen, and as such would be used by insurance companies and other drivers as a defence for car drivers not looking and causing an accident. This problem is bad enough already without giving car drivers a 'get out of jail free' card when they do it.

It also provides a reason for insurance companies to not pay after an accident. If the light switch is bumped during the event of the accident subsequent investigations would show the switch as being off even if it was on before the accident. There would be no defence to this for the rider.

[Headbanger]

Is it just me or does that not make any sense?

I'm thinking is a spam-bot......a crafty one.

[SpankMe]

I'm thinking is a spam-bot......a crafty one.

Yep, it's taking random text lines from previous posts. Spam bots are getting smarter.

[Ocean1]

Spam bots are getting smarter.

Won't be long before they're indistinguishable from the more usual inhabitants. <_<

[NighthawkNZ]

Won't be long before they're indistinguishable from the more usual inhabitants. <_<

gee I thought it was more intelligible than a lot of the threads here :confused:<_<

[Naki Rat]

Seeing the TV3 news clip on the possibility of compulsory motorcyle headlight use brought to mind one thought...

Wasn't nanny state-ism voted out last weekend? :bash:

[swbarnett]

Seeing the TV3 news clip on the possibility of compulsory motorcyle headlight use brought to mind one thought...

Wasn't nanny state-ism voted out last weekend? :bash:
I found it very hard, if not impossible, to tell the two major parties apart. This is just more evidence that it doesn't matter much who's running the show.

Bring on consensus politics!

[Ocean1]

Bring on consensus politics!

That's not the problem, you've got consensus politics, your problem is that you're a minority.

What you need is a bill of rights, dude.

[swbarnett]

That's not the problem, you've got consensus politics
What we have is one large ruling party and a few hangers on. This is not consensus.

What I'm talking about is that system that works very successfully in Switzerland. Every party that's in parliament has a say in how the country is run on almost a daily basis. As does the population at large through the referendum system. Effectively a country run by committee, not one ideological view point.


, your problem is that you're a minority.

What you need is a bill of rights, dude.
Agreed. But we wouldn't need a bill of rights in a society where we weren't all just looking out for ourselves.

[SARGE]

i run mine every time i ride ...even replaced the stock 55/100w halogen with some hi watt ice blues and a relay to reallt boost the power on both bikes


i like to be seen without a gay yellow vest

[scumdog]

i run mine every time i ride ...even replaced the stock 55/100w halogen with some hi watt ice blues and a relay to reallt boost the power on both bikes


i like to be seen without a gay yellow vest


Yeah, the bright orange ones are waaay more staunch.:whistle:

[SARGE]

Yeah, the bright orange ones are waaay more staunch.:whistle:

actually saw an indian scooter douch with a fluro PINK one the other day in the CBD

[CookMySock]

In a nutshell, they concluded that for daytime use, bright colours worked best, but if you have a light it needs to be large rather than bright. Modern high-output lights like LEDs and HIDs may be contrary to this.The thing with projector HID lamps, is they are quite wide-angle, a wide range of colour-temperature available, and are very very bright indeed. All of this transforms into a very distinctive bike, and very high recognisability. A vehicle lit in this manner stands out dramatically, even from behind a row of traffic.

HIDs are actually a little awkward to ride with at night, especially on bendy roads, because if you don't preheat them there is very little light during the warmup period - a little unsettling while cornering, but spectacular on the straights and around town.

Yes, I like HIDs. :sunny:

Steve

[warewolf]

The thing with projector HID lamps, is they are quite wide-angle, a wide range of colour-temperature available, and are very very bright indeed. All of this transforms into a very distinctive bike, and very high recognisability. A vehicle lit in this manner stands out dramatically, even from behind a row of traffic. It might stand out, but if they can't judge your speed & distance - because your lights are too bright - they'll still hit you. Not the desired outcome, hence the report's conclusion.


HIDs are actually a little awkward to ride with at night, especially on bendy roads, because if you don't preheat them there is very little light during the warmup period - a little unsettling while cornering, but spectacular on the straights and around town.I find on my mtb they are a problem because the wide spread reflects light off nearby items to the side, causing your eyes to close up and therefore not see stuff much further ahead.

For me, seeing a bazillion miles forward is not really an issue. Seeing around this 35km/h corner is.

[m99dws]

Fuel for the fire: http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/docs/positionpaper_drl_consultation_nov2006.pdf

:wari:

For the UK it was calculated that by accepting DRL, this should mean an increase of an extra 1.85 million tons of CO². At this moment it would be approximately 560 million tons CO² on a yearly basis.

[NordieBoy]

It's now official...

November 1st and you'll need a headlight on at all times...

[Big Dave]

They have done something that is being seen to have done something that will have no impact unless you forget to flick the switch on an old dunger or a parallel import.

The fines from which might cover the cost of drafting the legislation.

All BD angst on the issue is now expended.

[Boob Johnson]

It may save the odd person, impossible to say Big Dave, hell, even if only one life is spared then it's been worth while obviously.

[Big Dave]

It may save the odd person, impossible to say Big Dave, hell, even if only one life is spared then it's been worth while obviously.

Agree. I did explain better in another thread. I feel there are better measures too.

I actually meant no impact on the 'average' rider. I haven't had a bike with a headlight switch for 15 years.

Can't remember the last test bike that had one.

[peasea]

It may save the odd person.

I hope it saves some normal people too.

[Boob Johnson]

Agree. I did explain better in another thread. I feel there are better measures too.

I actually meant no impact on the 'average' rider. I haven't had a bike with a headlight switch for 15 years.

Can't remember the last test bike that had one.
I see I see. A valid point indeed. Agreed there are better measures to be taken


I hope it saves some normal people too.
lol :bleh:

[saltydog]

Just tryed to make an online submission http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/making-a-submission.html
But the form is not to be found....typical.

oh heres an online form....
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/submission-form.html
But that cant be found as well.
Wankers.

[Genestho]

No because "Submissions closed 8 October 2008" According to this article (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/index.html) The draft paper says 16th October

[Dodgyiti]

Damn it!
One of the cool things about running the older bikes is having the choice.
The choice to believe what you want from the various (often conflicting) safety studies on this subject.
And in my case, to switch the light off around town because it flattens the battery after an hour or two, fine on the open road though.
Yet another thing to be legislated into.
Great.
What's next?
Horsepower caps?
:angry:

[bsasuper]

Would be better off educating the cage drivers to look out for us, over in oz they run a brilliant dose of tv, radio, and paper ads..

[popelli]

It may save the odd person, impossible to say Big Dave.


and the increase in carbon footprints may kill several others

just another example of the nanny state trying to pass leglislation to cover up appalling drving standards and lack of care by road users

[Boob Johnson]

and the increase in carbon footprints may kill several others

just another example of the nanny state trying to pass leglislation to cover up appalling drving standards and lack of care by road users
Lack of care by the gubbermint more like. If they really cared they would make it harder to get on the road in the first place. It's harder to buy a packet of chips than it is to get on the road in this country

[Katman]

It may save the odd person, impossible to say Big Dave, hell, even if only one life is spared then it's been worth while obviously.

You've changed your tune.

[Boob Johnson]

I have you on ignore sorry Katman, I can see you have posted but not what you write. The combined IQ of my ignore list is that of a particularly small cabbage in a rabbit hutch.


ps: you are the only one on it :msn-wink:

[Ixion]

I have you on ignore sorry Katman, I can see you have posted but not what you write. ..

Ah. I can help.

He said


You've changed your tune.


No need to thank me, I'm helpful like that.

[Katman]

I have you on ignore sorry Katman, I can see you have posted but not what you write.

:tui moment:

:finger:

[Boob Johnson]

Ah. I can help.

He said


No need to thank me, I'm helpful like that.
lol, thanks Ixion :bleh:

Changed? Hadn't changed at all, just never liked your style or the fact you can't/won't enter into any kind of intelligent debate on matters you have bought up.