Law change - Daytime headlights and ban on handheld devices

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 08:27

Originally Posted by jafar

So you blow a bulb on the way home in the middle of the day & Mr plod can stop you & give you a FINE FOR $100.00

Ah, that's not the problem is it. If you have an accident with another vehicle - regardless of fault - say they pull out on you from a side street, or change lanes on you, it just became your fault instead of theirs.
The onus for safe driving just shifted from them to us. Why? because we ride motorbikes, just as we are the only recreational group with their own ACC levy the onus for someone elses mistake is on us.

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 08:36

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

We know it happens now. You have a defence if say you pull a U turn and collect someone who doesn't have their headlights on, but should have.
Why do you expect they have a headlight law?
So as people know they need headlights after dark? - I think most know that don't they. It's so another motorists can see you, if they can't because of this it becomes your fault. You think this situation will be any different because?

Let's assume it is purely to save us from ourselves as you suggest. In my view that is MORE dangerous, as noted why stop there, how about yellow helmets, glowvests, gloves, boots, full leather - or banning motorcycles altogether.

Either way, as a law it stinks.

**Usarka** · 14th August 2009, 08:39

He's right, ride at night with no headlight and it'll be your fault if some one turns in front of you.....

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 08:39

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

You would be wrong. One of my first posts on this forum was to query why almost all motorcycle gear is black, being the same colour as the road and the most difficult colour to discern at any distance. The thread went for many pages, most of which was post after post vilifying me for making such an assertion that, as much as everyone here likes to bitch about not being seen by other motorists, most don’t do what they should be doing to make themselves more visible.

Then again I’ve come to expect such idiocy from this forum, hence I rarely visit any more.

And a good job that is.
Odd thing, that bikie gang members seem to have no trouble being seen. Let me know how many you see wearing glow vests or yellow helmets will ya.

**p.dath** · 14th August 2009, 08:40

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

Take a read of this article:
http://www.openroad.com.au/motoring_...afefeature.asp

It's been studied many times. The result is nearly always that having a headlight on (including with cars) increases your visibility. The difference is sufficient that it prevents many accidents.

Many European countries also require cars to drive with their headlights on as well - so great is the effect.

**p.dath** · 14th August 2009, 08:42

Originally Posted by MikeL

Quite right. Too many Nanny-State regulations brought in by liberal lefty tree-hugging politicians. Oh wait, that can't be right. This is a National government. What on earth are they thinking of? Next they'll be telling us we can't have the tax cuts we were promised...

You do need to remember that it is a balance between allow people to do what they want versus the safety of others.

In this case it is simple. Getting everyone to do the *simple* act of turning on their headlight during the day will stop a lot of people getting needlessly injured.

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 08:43

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Ah, that's not the problem is it. If you have an accident with another vehicle - regardless of fault - say they pull out on you from a side street, or change lanes on you, it just became your fault instead of theirs.
The onus for safe driving just shifted from them to us. Why? because we ride motorbikes, just as we are the only recreational group with their own ACC levy the onus for someone elses mistake is on us.

Ahhh if you are trying to say in the eyes of the law we are at fault if a car doesn't see us and pulls out you need to puff puff pass mate.

it is exact same as car, we just get smashed up and broken instead, if that car pulls out when it is meant to be giving way to a vehicle etc then they/the drivers insurance company pays for your bike

either that or you are trying to say more that society sees it as our fault, in which case you are partially correct, but when it comes down to it they may nt see us, but by law it isn't our probem that they don't bther t look. We have as much right to be n the road as anybody else does.

**usa-vtwin** · 14th August 2009, 08:46

My bike has lights on whenever running by default. Do most new bikes have that set up?

**BiK3RChiK** · 14th August 2009, 08:47

Originally Posted by StoneY

My last input to this topic:

I was a truckie with 1.5 MILLION accident free KMs when Telecom went Digital to compete with Vodafones text deals

I had a 25 year old sales rep drive under my 38 ton truck,(on the Taka's no less) because he was reading a text his boss sent him- he now has permanent wheels- attached to his chair

He considered himself an excellent driver- with 5 hours practice every day he may have been

80 buck and 20 demerits - if it saves ONE of my 3 teenagers from injury, pain or death- its well worth the dented pride of all these fucktards who think it shouldnt apply to them

This is why I like the law! If it saves either or both of my teenagers, it's well worth it...

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 08:58

Originally Posted by Usarka

He's right, ride at night with no headlight and it'll be your fault if some one turns in front of you.....

i'm talking about daytime you pillock given that is what the thread is regarding as we already have them on at night

**CookMySock** · 14th August 2009, 08:59

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Odd thing, that bikie gang members seem to have no trouble being seen.

The reason for that, is they polarise everyone heavily because of their actions. They travel at a higher speed, weave around like an axe murderer, and generally make it look like they are going to kill everyone.

I use the same technique, but just not anywhere as extreme. Gangsters do it because they are actually like that in real life. I do it because it works.

Steve

**skidMark** · 14th August 2009, 09:00

Originally Posted by usa-vtwin

My bike has lights on whenever running by default. Do most new bikes have that set up?

yes....
first seen in jap bikes 1991 ish

**The Stranger:Me** · 14th August 2009, 09:01

Originally Posted by skidMark

Ahhh if you are trying to say in the eyes of the law we are at fault if a car doesn't see us and pulls out you need to puff puff pass mate.

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".

**MSTRS:Me** · 14th August 2009, 09:05

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

Hi, someone please show me where in the legislation it says that if you're involved in a crash, your headlight is the defining factor in determining fault? That's what a lot of people here seem to think, but I see no reason to believe this is true.

The scenario being thrown around of drivers getting off a traffic offense for failing to give way/other offense because the rider can't prove he had his headlight on is totally unrealistic. The new law simply says it's a requirement to have your light on, as some bureaucrat has decided this is an important safety feature. No where does the law state that this will override existing legislation with regard to determining fault.

As others have said, it is the case during the hours of darkness. As for daytime, any excuse to shift blame will be grabbed with both hands.

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

You would be wrong. One of my first posts on this forum was to query why almost all motorcycle gear is black, being the same colour as the road and the most difficult colour to discern at any distance. The thread went for many pages, most of which was post after post vilifying me for making such an assertion that, as much as everyone here likes to bitch about not being seen by other motorists, most don’t do what they should be doing to make themselves more visible.

Then again I’ve come to expect such idiocy from this forum, hence I rarely visit any more.

In this world of bright and confusing colours, black can be a 'hole' that stands out. Black is a threatening colour. The laws of diminishing returns are upon us...