Law change - Daytime headlights and ban on handheld devices

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 09:26

Originally Posted by The Stranger

You're doing 90kph in a 50 zone and someone pulls out of a side street on you - who's at fault? If you have any doubt try it. Assuming your speed can be determined, you will be found at fault. Why do you think they have laws Mark? Oh what the fuck am I asking you for.

In this case (daytime running lights) the other motorist will have a legal defence of "I didn't fucking see you".

yes you will be found at fault but at what point did your post state the rider in this situatin would be in the breach of any road laws...

man lay off the fucking drugs.

**Goblin** · 14th August 2009, 09:27

About bloody time!

Will this new law apply to truckies using hand held RTs?

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 09:30

Originally Posted by The Stranger

In this case (daytime running lights) the other motorist will have a legal defence of "I didn't fucking see you".

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

**MSTRS:Me** · 14th August 2009, 09:36

Originally Posted by skidMark

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

Not necessarily. Would be tried as a defence by the other party, for sure. And would no doubt be noted by attending cops as a 'contributing factor'.
As with all nit-picking, doubtful laws...this one would be right up there in terms of futility.

**Jantar** · 14th August 2009, 09:46

Originally Posted by StoneY

Come again? Like what bike cant run its headlight dude?
I have seen a lot of old motorcycles as my dad and older brother were aficiondo's of the old British bikes (I mean 1960's oil leaking, bone shaking Thunderbirds, Cubs and Gold star's)
Never seen one of them unable to keep its light on.........

There were a few bikes (pre mid 1970s) that only had 50W lighting coils in their magnetos. This was sufficient to just maintain the battery with headlights running on dip along with tail light instruments etc, but took charge out of the battery on high beam. Continuous running with lights on would drain the battery over time. For most bikes it is only after the boom of the late 1960s early 1970s that magnetos were replaced with alternators and a reasonable electrical could be maintained.

However that wasn't the end of the problem. many of the lighting systems designed for bikes had a limited bulb life. I can think of one type of bulb used in some early Yamahas that only had a 20 hour rating. The sealed beam unit in my RE5 has a 100 hour rating and they aren't manufactured anymore.

That fact that a bike is able to run its headlights all the time doesn't mean that it was designed to do so.

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 09:49

Originally Posted by skidMark

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on?

See post number 75 dickhead.

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 09:52

Originally Posted by skidMark

Once this is implemented, why would you be riding with no lights on? its a breach of the road rules hence yes you would be at fault... why you couldnt just say this in your first post is beyond me you clown.

Why would I put it in my first post in this thread. It makes no mention of liability under the law you fooken clown.

**BiK3RChiK** · 14th August 2009, 09:52

Whether headlights are on or not, a motorcyclist should be riding as though no one can see them anyway and be prepared for moronic drivers around them. At least, this is what I have read over and over. As it is, if a vehicle fails to give way and they are in the wrong, it doesn't matter whether they say they saw you or not... they are still in the wrong! Trying to make a defense of 'They didn't have their headlight on' is bogus IMO.

Headlights on for motorcyclists is going to be the law from November 1 and it's not going to make one iota of difference to me, since I ride with my headlight on all the time anyway...

**BiK3RChiK** · 14th August 2009, 09:56

Originally Posted by Jantar

There were a few bikes (pre mid 1970s) that only had 50W lighting coils in their magnetos. This was sufficient to just maintain the battery with headlights running on dip along with tail light instruments etc, but took charge out of the battery on high beam. Continuous running with lights on would drain the battery over time. For most bikes it is only after the boom of the late 1960s early 1970s that magnetos were replaced with alternators and a reasonable electrical could be maintained.

However that wasn't the end of the problem. many of the lighting systems designed for bikes had a limited bulb life. I can think of one type of bulb used in some early Yamahas that only had a 20 hour rating. The sealed beam unit in my RE5 has a 100 hour rating and they aren't manufactured anymore.

That fact that a bike is able to run its headlights all the time doesn't mean that it was designed to do so.

Surely this has been taken into account in the legislation? Maybe it needs to be drawn to the attention of MP's or is it too late?

It seems to me that it would be kind of like the seatbelt legislation for pre- 19?? vehicles that weren't fitted with them...

Does anyone know anything about this?

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 09:57

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Why would I put it in my first post in this thread. It makes no mention of liability under the law you fooken clown.

your post was a jumble of incoherent statement with no backing or explination...

its like reading a school report draft by a 5 year old

**BiK3RChiK** · 14th August 2009, 09:57

Originally Posted by Goblin

About bloody time!

Will this new law apply to truckies using hand held RTs?

Short answer is no..

**MisterD** · 14th August 2009, 09:59

Originally Posted by BiK3RChiK

Short answer is no..

Two-way radios specifically excluded from the ban - probably more to do with cops than truckies though...

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 10:02

Originally Posted by BiK3RChiK

Surely this has been taken into account in the legislation? Maybe it needs to be drawn to the attention of MP's or is it too late?

It seems to me that it would be kind of like the seatbelt legislation for pre- 19?? vehicles that weren't fitted with them...

Does anyone know anything about this?

i'd be in agreement of any bike prior to say 1980 (or whatever is most viable)

you have the problem though that cops dnt exactly know bikes... you would get stopped everytime you passed a copper...

my only thought would be some kind of tag or sticker in a clearly visable place, (perhaps on the headlight itself)

kind of like a disabled parking type thing where a cop can see it as he drives past and go ahhh he has an old bike kind of thing...

just an idea...

**Atlas** · 14th August 2009, 10:06

I ride a '51 BSA regularly on the road and use the lights only when I absolutely have too. Not everyone owns a modern that can run lights at all times. Its just another excuse to blame bikers when tin top owners don't pay attention to driving and actually look where they're going.
I've been hit (in 30 years of regular riding) by 3 cars while riding bikes, in none of those incidents would lights have made a difference as the drivers were all simply NOT paying attention, - checking mirrors, looking both ways etc. The last time on my GSXR1100 I had my lights on, as I did when hit riding my VFR750.

This rule is bullshit.