Compulsory daylight headlight use in NZ

[Kevnz]

We wouldn't have to have our lights on to be seen if the cager concentrated on driving instead of texting, drinking, eating, changing the cd...

[jtzzr]

I have no probs with running with the lights on during the day , hell I reckon we should be allowed to run with high beam all day, but I don`t believe it should be hard-wired to the ignition like alot of bikes are , I have an older bike that on the odd occasion I need to run in "STEALTH" mode(at night).

[AndyOnTheFlyingBrick]

ive sent a submission

[piston broke]

lights on in daytime.
compulsary,hell no.
do i ever ride without lights on,hell no.
lights on for all vehicles,hell no,
i,'d rather be one of the few out there with lights ablazing,
more chance of being seen.

[Quailboy]

Agree

I think it should be left up to the rider to decide whether he needs/wants them on or not. Then theres no confusion as to what is classed as a older bike that can't power lights at low speed etc.

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

Dont understand what the beef is about?

Is it being told what we have to do by bureaucrats?

or

Older bikes aren't capable of having their lights on during the day.

[CookMySock]

You dont need them during the day

You DO need lights during the day. You have to be seen, and bright lights make a huge difference to "being seen."

I have no probs with running with the lights on during the day , hell I reckon we should be allowed to run with high beam all day, but I don`t believe it should be hard-wired to the ignition like alot of bikes are

Well I think nothing should be compulsory, BUT I leave my HIDs on fullbeam during the day. I'll dip them for oncoming traffic at night or otherwise on request. During the day, I get no complaints, and seriously, you can see these things coming from behind a long line of cars.

So really what is the point of fighting this legislation just to make a point about freedom ? I don't get it.

Steve

[CDFloss]

The reason people are "fighting it" is specifically for the reasons outlined in a number of previous posts regarding the transfer of responsibility onto the rider.

I always ride with my lights on, and honestly don't often see bikes these days without their lights on, but it would suck the big one if not having lights on became a valid excuse for drivers taking out riders. Not to mention the insurance companies adding that as yet something else that would invalidate your claim.

I don't know if there are varying degrees of law, but I would be for it if they took the old/small bike issue into consideration, and worded it in such a way that it couldn't be used as an excuse by cage drivers or insurance co's.

Also, I don't think having bulbs blow or lights stop working is really a valid excuse. The same can happen to cars. Sure, cars may have more lights, but we should be prepared with spares to some extent. Your electrical system should also be in good enough nick to reduce the chances of it going poof - besides, when I've had my entire electric system die in an old ute the cops were most understanding and actually helped guide me home.

[CookMySock]

transfer of responsibility onto the rider.

that is a fair point. I'll help where I can.

when I've had my entire electric system die in an old ute the cops were most understanding and actually helped guide me home.

That is a surprise. I would have thought they might order it off the road and maybe give you a lift home.

Steve

[Beemer]

Meh, If your bike can't power the damn headlight it should be taken out back and shot.

Get the piles of crap off the road, Put em in a museum if they are worthy or send em to the scrap dealer.

And of course, a Harley would NEVER break down or need to be taken out the back and shot. Only its rider perhaps.

You are totally missing the point. Most of the bikes you see on the open road WITHOUT headlights on are bloody Harleys.

But then to own a classic bike you need a bit of class and you're obviously lacking that.

[Headbanger]

But then to own a classic bike you need a bit of class and you're obviously lacking that.

Ah, So your elitist based on the brand and era of bike you have?

Interesting.

well, interesting in an anal and shallow way. Much like your assumption that attacking Harley's will mean anything to me. HA. Laughable.

Seriously, If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

[Toaster]

Have temporarily made the thread a sticky...

temporarily sticky..... hmmmm so it will eventually lose adhesion and fall off huh?!

[Toaster]

If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

I am no bike historian or expert but I'd have to agree. If a bike can't run a headlight, you'd have to wonder how on earth it could manage a WOF if tested properly! Reminds me of my first car an old ford escort Mk1 that had headlights so weak they barely lit the road. Back in those days there were no reflectorised markers on the road either.

[Ocean1]

Seriously, If your bike isn't capable of powering a headlight at commuting speeds then it isn't road worthy, Take it off the road.

Yeah, correct.

Except it's not the point. If it's good for bikes it's good for everything else on the road. Why the distinction?

What's more the total extra fuel consumption for the entire NZ vehicle fleet running around with lights ablaze wouldn't be inconsiderable...

And even that's not the point.

Any new idea that starts with "they orta" is a bad idea. That's the point.

[Dargor]

I leave my HIDs on fullbeam during the day. I'll dip them for oncoming traffic at night or otherwise on request. During the day, I get no complaints, and seriously, you can see these things coming from behind a long line of cars.

You may not get any complaints but that doesn't mean people don't appreciate being beamed. You should stop and ask a few.

I for one do not enjoy being beamed day or night.


And why would we want to give the cops more books to throw at us, this one isn't important, let it be.