LIGHTS ON: is it illegal in NZ?

[The Stranger:Me]

Good thing you'll settle for petty name calling then.

Goodness me no, that wasn't petty name calling.
As you can see by your definitions, it was entirely accurate and appropriate.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Mikkel]

Ah thank you, we are in complete agreement, it took some time, but I knew you would come around.
Now if the bike has it's headlight on the the following vehicle (say a 4x4, but numerous others would be just fine) doesn't the bike will be easier to spot.
I mean that's the reason for having the headlignt on after all isn't it?

Of course, if motorcycles all had their lights on and noone else were allowed to use their lights that would make motorcycles easier to see. No argument there - but why stop there?

Give all motorcycles blinking blue and red lights, sirens, an escort helicopter with a big-ass floodlight, etc. and they'll be easier to spot yet again.

Or even better - ban everything but motorcycles. /sarcasm

However, road safety is about more than just motorcycles. Everything in a non-perfect world will be a compromise. Mandatory lights on for all motorists would improve traffic safety as a whole.

Goodness me no, that wasn't petty name calling.
As you can see by your definitions, it was entirely accurate and appropriate.

Don't shoot the messenger.

As I said - you know me too well!
A contrary, but not spurious mind you, argument in this case would be that you come across as a rather condescending prick. But I don't know you nearly well enough to pass that judgement.

[Ixion]

Of course, if motorcycles all had their lights on and noone else were allowed to use their lights that would make motorcycles easier to see. No argument there - but why stop there?

Give all motorcycles blinking blue and red lights, sirens, an escort helicopter with a big-ass floodlight, etc. and they'll be easier to spot yet again.

I like it. I like it.

Or even better - ban everything but motorcycles. /sarcasm

Even better. Now you're making sense

However, road safety is about more than just motorcycles. Everything in a non-perfect world will be a compromise. Mandatory lights on for all motorists would improve traffic safety as a whole.

Maybe so, but I don't care about the non motorcycle bit. So if it improves things for them , at the expense of making it worse for bikes, I'm against it.
Forcing cagers to pay a teensy weeny bit of attention to what they are doing would improve road safety as a whole, too.

[The Stranger:Me]

Of course, if motorcycles all had their lights on and noone else were allowed to use their lights that would make motorcycles easier to see. No argument there - but why stop there?

**Snip**

However, road safety is about more than just motorcycles. Everything in a non-perfect world will be a compromise. Mandatory lights on for all motorists would improve traffic safety as a whole.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere, so it would seem that we agree on my original premise that it is preferable for motorcyclists if we have our lights on and others don't. Thus I fail to see that my statement was bullshit in it's original context, the point of my argument.

As to safety as a whole, yes it is a compromise. Right now, we put up with the attitude that it is good to save a few cars at the expense of motorcyclists (wire roap barriers). Our argument (BRONZ) is that, sure there is no problem in favouring one group over another, provided it does not disadvantage another group i.e. use concrete barriers.
However, it is already accepted practice by the powers that be, that they are prepared to sacrifice one for another, so screw them, it may as well be the motorcyclists that get an advantage this time.

Are you in posession of or aware of research to show that lights on by day on all vehicles actually reduces injury or death rates?
I am aware of the Greyhound bus study, however, that was busses only and did not account for all vehicles having their lights on and showed a reduction in minor accidents only if I recall correctly.

[biggerbud]

Turn ya lights on and - RIDE NAKED!

[Mikkel]

Maybe so, but I don't care about the non motorcycle bit. So if it improves things for them , at the expense of making it worse for bikes, I'm against it.
Forcing cagers to pay a teensy weeny bit of attention to what they are doing would improve road safety as a whole, too.

Sorry Ixion, but that's pretty ignorant. What about improving safety for all - because that would be readily acheivable.
It's the free world mate, you can't force anyone to do anything. Just punish them if they break the law. If the punishment isn't big enough it doesn't work as a deterence...
Upping the licensing system would be a good way to start. Then imposing harsher restrictions upon what pieces of crap you're allowed to use on the roads - and bigger penalties for not meeting those restrictions.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere, so it would seem that we agree on my original premise that it is preferable for motorcyclists if we have our lights on and others don't. Thus I fail to see that my statement was bullshit in it's original context, the point of my argument.

Not at all - because you're not considering the most important effect of mandatory lights on.

If all vehicles have their light turned on when the ignition is turned on you'll get the added benefit of easily being able to distinguish between operating vehicles and non-operating vehicles. And this is good for you because of three things:

1. It makes it easier to identify vehicles that may pose a hazard to you. (E.g. no car without lights on is ever going to pull a sudden U-turn on you)
2. It makes it easier for other motorists to spot you.
3. It makes it easier to identify operating vehicles for ALL motorists.

Number 3 is the most important thing here. I guess we can all agree that being a good driver/rider is very much dependant upon your ability to collect and process information. The faster you can do that the better you are. Now collecting data is not just about sucking up as much as possible... It's a selection process that is happening automatically for the routine driver. The more stuff you can disregard the more time you can spend on the important bits.
It's just like it's easier to find important parts of a text after you've high-lighted them...
Dunno if I need to explain more or if this is adequate to illustrate why I honestly think that bikers would be safer if ALL motorists had a mandatory lights on... Think about it for a second and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

As to safety as a whole, yes it is a compromise. Right now, we put up with the attitude that it is good to save a few cars at the expense of motorcyclists (wire roap barriers). Our argument (BRONZ) is that, sure there is no problem in favouring one group over another, provided it does not disadvantage another group i.e. use concrete barriers.
However, it is already accepted practice by the powers that be, that they are prepared to sacrifice one for another, so screw them, it may as well be the motorcyclists that get an advantage this time.

I agree fully, it's not good enough. Wire rope barriers could easily and cheaply be made much safer. Well, welcome to the life as part of a minority. Surely you can not expect the goverment to allocate very many resources towards what is mainly a threat to a minority group - and a group based mostly on recreational use of motorised transportation.

Are you in posession of or aware of research to show that lights on by day on all vehicles actually reduces injury or death rates?
I am aware of the Greyhound bus study, however, that was busses only and did not account for all vehicles having their lights on and showed a reduction in minor accidents only if I recall correctly.

Let's just say that the idea came out of Sweden. Then most of the rest of Europe adapted it inside a couple of decades. I'm pretty sure you can assume they wouldn't have changed legislation unless there was something in the statistics for the countries that had the mandatory lights on that suggested an improvement.

And even then, if it's a reduction of minor accidents only - it's still worth it. Get this: "It's free and it'll improve road safety to some degree." Truly, there isn't and argument for NOT doing it.

[H00dz]

my 10cents worth Norfland Style

me and a couple of mates ride approx 35kms one way to work on open roads all the way. the roads are smooth and fast and there are nice windy sections.

Travelling speeds are at the top of the legal limit and there is heavy traffic such as logging trucks, slow moving rural school buses and people movers to contend with so We ALL ride lights on as a rule.

Being a big guy I have customed made gear which came in the colour range of Black, black or black!!! (sorry there was a choice of optional black trims).
If I could I would like to wear some multi coloured gear or High Vis jacket but alas I haven't come across anything suitable. EVEN my Lid is Black
So for me ridin lit up is the least that I can do to improve my visibility......

[BiK3RChiK]

Yeah, I asked my instructor why the gear was black if visiblity is such an issue and he said 'good point' with no other answer!

Today I was driving my 4x4 to pick up the daughter from the bus and almost didn't see a yellow bike without the light on! I was about to u-turn! Gave me a start as my ride is yellow too but I always ride with the light on dip. Mind you, there were a lot of kids about and traffic was mayhem as everyone was there to pick the kids up, so maybe she should have had the light on too! Good reminder for me too.

[The Stranger:Me]

Let's just say that the idea came out of Sweden. Then most of the rest of Europe adapted it inside a couple of decades. I'm pretty sure you can assume they wouldn't have changed legislation unless there was something in the statistics for the countries that had the mandatory lights on that suggested an improvement.

They say assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, and I see you are at it agian - both assumptions and fuck ups.

Perhaps you could re-educate FEMA, MAG and BMF, whom are also opposed to daytime running lights on all vehicles. Whilst you are at it, EC whom dropped their proposal to implement them in all EU countries. One reason was the dearth of studies on the subject. Also you may care to point out to the Austrian govenrment, whom reportedly (though I admit, I don't know as I wasn't there) had implemented compulsory daytime running lights and now banned them due to deaths of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, where they went wrong.

You may care to start your studies here


Twat!

[Mikkel]

my 10cents worth Norfland Style

me and a couple of mates ride approx 35kms one way to work on open roads all the way. the roads are smooth and fast and there are nice windy sections.

Travelling speeds are at the top of the legal limit and there is heavy traffic such as logging trucks, slow moving rural school buses and people movers to contend with so We ALL ride lights on as a rule.

Being a big guy I have customed made gear which came in the colour range of Black, black or black!!! (sorry there was a choice of optional black trims).
If I could I would like to wear some multi coloured gear or High Vis jacket but alas I haven't come across anything suitable. EVEN my Lid is Black
So for me ridin lit up is the least that I can do to improve my visibility......

Yeah, I asked my instructor why the gear was black if visiblity is such an issue and he said 'good point' with no other answer!

Today I was driving my 4x4 to pick up the daughter from the bus and almost didn't see a yellow bike without the light on! I was about to u-turn! Gave me a start as my ride is yellow too but I always ride with the light on dip. Mind you, there were a lot of kids about and traffic was mayhem as everyone was there to pick the kids up, so maybe she should have had the light on too! Good reminder for me too.

The issue of whether black actually does reduce your visibility is not something there is a general consensus on. Personally the only time I find that it matters at all is for grey vehicles without lights driving in fog.

They say assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, and I see you are at it agian - both assumptions and fuck ups.

Perhaps you could re-educate FEMA, MAG and BMF, whom are also opposed to daytime running lights on all vehicles. Whilst you are at it, EC whom dropped their proposal to implement them in all EU countries. One reason was the dearth of studies on the subject. Also you may care to point out to the Austrian govenrment, whom reportedly (though I admit, I don't know as I wasn't there) had implemented compulsory daytime running lights and now banned them due to deaths of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, where they went wrong.

You may care to start your studies here


Twat!

So you're basically throwing a handlful of acronyms at me and descend into petty name calling again. Can't say I'm surprised, seems to be the standard reaction when people are running out of good arguments.

I mean, seriously, what has FEMA, and BMF to do with road safety?

As for Oz, the premise of this whole discussion is that the "ass-end" of the world (NZ and Oz) has so far failed to follow the example of countries that can display significantly better road statistics. But then again, down here in the shadows illumination is generally frowned upon.

But hey - if you insist on spewing shit I suggest you start your studies by following the link on this homepage.

Or I could be mistaken and you understood the tongue in cheek sarcasm of using Sweden as an argument followed by what should in and of itself be considered adequate proof of my hypothesis - in which case your whole post was a joke and I must say I am both surprised and impressed. On the other hand - if that isn't the case there's still a joke involved.

[PrincessBandit]

On my bike they are on as soon as you turn on the ignition. I can't switch them off.

same with my bike

[The Stranger:Me]

Or I could be mistaken and you understood the tongue in cheek sarcasm of using Sweden as an argument followed by what should in and of itself be considered adequate proof of my hypothesis - in which case your whole post was a joke and I must say I am both surprised and impressed. On the other hand - if that isn't the case there's still a joke involved.

Ha, ha, always the risk when baiting isn't it?
Though I am certain you did actually believe your inital clap trap, it became a little too obvious when you started contradicting yourself, yet still maintained course - that and the lack of red bling.

[Mikkel]

Ha, ha, always the risk when baiting isn't it?
Though I am certain you did actually believe your inital clap trap, it became a little too obvious when you started contradicting yourself, yet still maintained course - that and the lack of red bling.

Some people say: "Hook, line and sinker"...

I always preferred - "Fish, barrel, shotgun..."

I wasn't aware I contradicted myself - I may have been vague in my expression though. Always the danger when debating in what ultimately is ones second language.

I very rarely use red bling, only in the case where I think that a post may actually have a negative real-life impact or is hurtfully abusive (not necessarily towards my person) do I bother using it...

That being said - I strongly believe that mandatory lights on for all vehicles would be a benefit for everyone. I'm certainly not going to drive without my lights on out there.

[The Stranger:Me]

Some people say: "Hook, line and sinker"...

I always preferred - "Fish, barrel, shotgun..."

I wasn't aware I contradicted myself - I may have been vague in my expression though. Always the danger when debating in what ultimately is ones second language.

I very rarely use red bling, only in the case where I think that a post may actually have a negative real-life impact or is hurtfully abusive (not necessarily towards my person) do I bother using it...

That being said - I strongly believe that mandatory lights on for all vehicles would be a benefit for everyone. I'm certainly not going to drive without my lights on out there.

Well I did signal my appreciation by adding you to my sig - thank you for that.
But, had you red blinged me perhaps I would have thought you were taking this matter seriously.

Luckily for the rest of us, what you believe is of no import is it.

[Mikkel]

Luckily for the rest of us, what you believe is of no import is it.

Ditto. +10 chars.