LIGHTS ON: is it illegal in NZ?

[The Stranger:Me]

Guy at Mt. Eden motorcycles told me to ride with "High Beam" on during the day lol

1) It pisses the opposition off - not good for you.
2) It makes it easier to see you but makes it harder for the opposition to judge you speed and distance. They already have enough problem with this.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all those "I didn't see you" excuses are real. Mostly motorists just say that as it is more convenient than telling the truth i.e. I saw you but figured I had time to pull out anyway, and even if I didn't, you were going to give way cause you are in a smaller vehicle, and if worst comes to worst, it wont hurt me anyway.

So don't make it harder for them to judge time and distance.

[NZsarge]

Its not compulsary to have lights on 24/7 but its makes alot of sense to have them on....considering the colour schemes of bikes and cages alike that blend in with the country side so well,

At the end of the Day it should be compulsary but until then,how much do you want too be seen is what you should be asking

You and 86 don't seem to have a "blending in" issue on those Trumpy's

[pritch]

Most bikes are hard wired to have the lights on if the ignition is on. The only downside I can see is that if the battery was a bit low, and having no kickstart, the bike could be a bit hard to start.

Some companies now hard wire their cars the same. The LTSA and ACC both recommend this.

Sometimes though, like around the time of the full moon, I find that two headlamps just doesn't do it. So I turn all four on just in case that helps...

[Mikkel]

The rider in high-vis gear and with their headlight shining brightly doesn't look like much of a threat. Car Driver: If I run him over he is just going to get a little upset and I'll say I never saw him and all will be well.

The rider who looks most like a gang member dressed in black leather, no lights, and a bandana across his face looks much more intimidating and poses a BIG threat. Car Driver: If I run him over he will drag his angry broken body off the ground and haul me out of the car to do unspeakable things to me and my family.

I think you attribute more than what's fair to the general cognitive capacity of your average kiwi driver!

Personally, I would discourage their use by day in a cage, particularly as you are a biker. It causes bikes to "get lost" and stops cage drivers from associating a head light with a motorbike.

That's bullshit. If everyone rode/drove with their lights on it would be:

1) Easier to spot motorised traffic.
2) Easier to distinguish between parked and moving cars.
3) Easier to judge speed and distance.
4) Everyone would start paying attention to the lights instead of the outline of the vehicle (e.g. not as big a difference between a bike and a truck then).

Let's face it - almost all of the civilised world has seen the light and realised that making the lights mandatory during daytime improves road safety. But I guess the kiwis find it more important to save on light bulbs for their cars than avoid getting into an accident.

[vifferman]

When we went to The Sultanate of Kalifornicatia in 2006, they'd just introduced a rule that if you used your wipers (i.e., it was raining, foggy, whatever) you HAD to turn your headlights on.
Not a silly rule at all.

[Ixion]

I very much dislike the silly practice of hard wiring the lights on. I am perfectly capable of operating a switch if I want them on. And they have even done on my Yamaha. It's a chook chaser for heaven's sake, how stupid is that. So I have cut the headlamp feed to the dip switch and put a Lucas type handlebar dip switch in the line, as an on off switch (nowhere easy to mount a toggle switch). I will do the same on the SV (except use a toggle) when I get time. *I* will make such decisions. Just give me a switch damn it

And , after spending years and years riding with headlamps on (even before anyone did it, on account of DC dynamos and such), I now often don't. Because there are now so many vehicles with lights on that I think it has lost it's utility. I now use the 'Pass' switch to flick them on if I see someone who looks dubious.

Back in the day, headlights on worked. Joe Idiot would notice them, because it was something usual "Duh, look up the road, uh nuffink coming I guess, Oh, wait wozzat ? Oh idsa mudaboike, n the silly cunt god is eadloight orn. Silly twit". But at least he noticed. Now a head light in the daytime is common, Joe Idiot no longer notices, it is filed in what passes for his mind along with all the other clutter which he ignores as not being important to him personally.

Whereas, a light suddenly coming on may still get his attention.

[scumdog]

Whereas, a light suddenly coming on may still get his attention.

IF you have noticed that he has not noticed you....

[Soul.Trader]

It's funny how a lot of people think they know better than the experts whos job it is to study this sort of thing. There's a reason organisations like ACC and private insurance companies recommend lights-on during the day - because the research has been done, and it IS EFFECTIVE. Whether your cynical/uninformed mind allows you to conceive it or not, insurance companies are usually the authorities on this type of thing, as they have a huge vested interest in road safety.

[The Stranger:Me]

I think you attribute more than what's fair to the general cognitive capacity of your average kiwi driver!



That's bullshit. If everyone rode/drove with their lights on it would be:

1) Easier to spot motorised traffic.
2) Easier to distinguish between parked and moving cars.
3) Easier to judge speed and distance.
4) Everyone would start paying attention to the lights instead of the outline of the vehicle (e.g. not as big a difference between a bike and a truck then).

Let's face it - almost all of the civilised world has seen the light and realised that making the lights mandatory during daytime improves road safety. But I guess the kiwis find it more important to save on light bulbs for their cars than avoid getting into an accident.

So it's bullshit is it?
It couldn't be a contrary view?
There is no chance that anything I said has an element of truth and it was a deliberate deception on my part?

So you are saying that someone looking in thier rear view mirror, or approaching from the opposite direction. will more easily distinguish a bike in the right wheel track with it's head lights on when the 4x4 following it also has it's head lights on?

Well bullshit, it wont.

For your information, the added difficulty in judging time and distance when a head light is on has long been the main argument against headlights on on bikes by day, So I assure you, I am not the only bullshitter.

By all means, however, please substantiate your arguments as BRONZ is currently opposing the use of headlights by day for other than motorcycles and I am sure your research would be helpful in ensuring we do not spread bullshit everywhere.

Twat!

[scumdog]

By all means, however, please substantiate your arguments as BRONZ is currently opposing the use of headlights by day for other than motorcycles

Now THERE'S an idea I support - lights on during the day for bikes only.

[Ixion]

IF you have noticed that he has not noticed you....

That's my job. I never rely on him noticing me. Or seeing me, light or no light.

[Mikkel]

So it's bullshit is it?

It is indeed.

It couldn't be a contrary view?
There is no chance that anything I said has an element of truth and it was a deliberate deception on my part?

Don't be so narrowminded - it can both be a contrary view and bullshit... I'm not for excluding any possibility here.
However I don't think you were being deceptive - just ill-informed.

So you are saying that someone looking in thier rear view mirror, or approaching from the opposite direction. will more easily distinguish a bike in the right wheel track with it's head lights on when the 4x4 following it also has it's head lights on?

Well bullshit, it wont.

I fail to see how this is relevant. If you're coming up from behind it's your responsibility to exercise caution around the roadusers in front of you.
The guy in front of you will know that there's stuff behind him - that should be enough to exercise caution if he's going to turn, brake or change lanes.

For your information, the added difficulty in judging time and distance when a head light is on has long been the main argument against headlights on on bikes by day, So I assure you, I am not the only bullshitter.

Funnily enough there are plenty of evidence that the added safety of turning on the lights far outweighs any difficulties (real or imagined - it's just a conditioning issue) judging distance and speed. I can't see how lights would make it more difficult to judge time though - I usually look at the clock if I want to judge that, not other motorists.

By all means, however, please substantiate your arguments as BRONZ is currently opposing the use of headlights by day for other than motorcycles and I am sure your research would be helpful in ensuring we do not spread bullshit everywhere.

Yes why wouldn't they? I mean after all it would make bikes stand out more. And unlike car drivers and their ilk bikers are all very observant and cautious drivers so we'd never miss a car or a truck even if it didn't have its light on.
And why worry about the safety of other motorists? I mean, they're all out to kill us anyway, so fuck them! (/sarcasm)

Twat!

So you ran out of arguments. Too bad. Could you please enlighten me as to what you mean by "Twat!" - here's a few to choose from:

twat /twɑt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[twaht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun Slang: Vulgar.
vulva.
[Origin: 1650–60; perh. orig. dial. var. of *thwat, *thwot, presumed mod. E outcome of OE *thwat, akin to ON thveit cut, slit, forest clearing (> E dial. (N England) thwaite forest clearing)]

twat (twŏt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Vulgar Slang The vulva.
2. Offensive & Vulgar Slang A woman or girl.

twat
1656, of unknown origin. A general term of abuse since 1920s.

The T-word occupies a special niche in literary history, however, thanks to a horrible mistake by Robert Browning, who included it in 'Pippa Passes' (1841) without knowing its true meaning. 'The owls and bats,/Cowls and twats,/Monks and nuns,/In a cloister's moods.' Poor Robert! He had been misled into thinking the word meant 'hat' by its appearance in 'Vanity of Vanities,' a poem of 1660, containing the treacherous lines: 'They'd talk't of his having a Cardinalls Hat,/They'd send him as soon an Old Nuns Twat.' (There is a lesson here about not using words unless one is very sure of their meaning.) [Hugh Rawson, "Wicked Words," 1989]

twat

noun
1. a man who is a stupid incompetent fool [syn: fathead]
2. obscene terms for female genitals [syn: cunt]

[The Stranger:Me]

I fail to see how this is relevant. If you're coming up from behind it's your responsibility to exercise caution around the roadusers in front of you.
The guy in front of you will know that there's stuff behind him - that should be enough to exercise caution if he's going to turn, brake or change lanes.

Yes, you have a habit of that - failing to see the relevance. The first step to cure is acceptance of your problem, congratulations, you are on the way.

So you are riding along - in the right wheel track, with your headlight on. A 4x4 is behind you a few seconds back. A vehicle approaches from the opposite direction, sees 2 headlights and assesses the RH headlight as belonging to the 4x4 and decides to execute the right hand turn as he has space to the 4x4. Uh oh, now he becomes aware of the motorcycle as it is protruding from the front left door.

For the record, no, I didn't run out of argument, unlike yourself, I have no need to invent spurious argument to support silly assertions.

[Mikkel]

Yes, you have a habit of that - failing to see the relevance. The first step to cure is acceptance of your problem, congratulations, you are on the way.

Hooray, there might still be hope for me then. Who are you who know me so well?

So you are riding along - in the right wheel track, with your headlight on. A 4x4 is behind you a few seconds back. A vehicle approaches from the opposite direction, sees 2 headlights and assesses the RH headlight as belonging to the 4x4 and decides to execute the right hand turn as he has space to the 4x4. Uh oh, now he becomes aware of the motorcycle as it is protruding from the front left door.

Unless you make a concerted effort to stay exactly between the driver of the oncoming car and the RH headlight of the 4x4 you'll be quite visible to the driver wanting to turn. I mean, that should be obvious - correct me if I'm wrong. (why does it have to be a 4x4 btw? - because of the height above the road surface or...?)

Lights or no lights - there's no way we can MAKE people use their eyes and brains. We can only help them by being easier to spot and position ourselves where we are in the best position to avoid trouble.

For the record, no, I didn't run out of argument, unlike yourself, I have no need to invent spurious argument to support silly assertions.

Good thing you'll settle for petty name calling then.
Oh and thanks for teaching me a new word - spurious...
I guess an appropriate use would be that the claim you just made - besides illustrating appaling grammar - is spurious.

[The Stranger:Me]

Lights or no lights - there's no way we can MAKE people use their eyes and brains. We can only help them by being easier to spot and position ourselves where we are in the best position to avoid trouble.

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 and 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?