1st pinged 'new laws'

[nothingflash]

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

[MaxB]

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

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

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

[awayatc]

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

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

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

[hayd3n]

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


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

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

[oldrider]

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

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

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

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

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

[red mermaid]

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

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

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

[SPman]

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

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

Not if it's a female cop!

[Reckless]

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

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

YOUR SCREWED!! LOL!!!

[dangerous]

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

Why do you say 1980?
is there a age on a bike that 'must' have its light on?
Im refering to Guzzi's pre 80.

[Ixion]

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

[roadracingoldfart]

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

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

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

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

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

Paul.

[red mermaid]

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

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

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

[MDR2]

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

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

[dipshit]

Moan whinge moan whinge moan whinge....

Typical shit for brains motorcyclists.

[roadracingoldfart]

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

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

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

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

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

Paul.