Posted by TOG@Toil on August 14, 2009, 6:42 am
> The US has had such laws for motorcycles for decades. The only people who
> even have a chance of violating it are people who ride very old bikes, those
> who don't maintain their bikes, and those who are deliberate scofflaws--new
> motorcycles sold in the US don't even _have_ a headlight switch, so the only
> way most riders are going to get ticketed is if they are riding around with
> a burned out headlight.
New bikes[1] sold in the UK now come with headlights wired permanently
on and no separate switch - my Triumph is one - but it's not a legal
requirement to ride with your lights on. Go figure.
[1] Most, maybe all. I haven't checked, so I'm not sure about small
capacity things like 125s and 50s.
Posted by J. Clarke on August 14, 2009, 7:43 am
TOG@Toil wrote:
>> The US has had such laws for motorcycles for decades. The only
>> people who even have a chance of violating it are people who ride
>> very old bikes, those who don't maintain their bikes, and those who
>> are deliberate scofflaws--new motorcycles sold in the US don't even
>> _have_ a headlight switch, so the only way most riders are going to
>> get ticketed is if they are riding around with a burned out
>> headlight.
>>
> New bikes[1] sold in the UK now come with headlights wired permanently
> on and no separate switch - my Triumph is one - but it's not a legal
> requirement to ride with your lights on. Go figure.
Interesting. Maybe it's cheaper to just make one set of controls for the US
and UK markets than to make a set with headlight switch for the UK market
and without for the US.
> [1] Most, maybe all. I haven't checked, so I'm not sure about small
> capacity things like 125s and 50s.
Posted by The Older Gentleman on August 14, 2009, 12:56 pm
> > New bikes[1] sold in the UK now come with headlights wired permanently
> > on and no separate switch - my Triumph is one - but it's not a legal
> > requirement to ride with your lights on. Go figure.
>
> Interesting. Maybe it's cheaper to just make one set of controls for the US
> and UK markets than to make a set with headlight switch for the UK market
> and without for the US.
I think it's pretty much a European thing, now - daytime headlights for
bikes are mandatory in France - but you're probably right.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Posted by Calgary on August 14, 2009, 8:53 am
>As of 1st of Nov. in NZ, cellphone use will be banned while
>driving....hands free sets only....even though the govt. study group
>reckons that it's the conversation that distracts drivers, not the
>actual holding of the phone. A 'comprimise' they call it.
Our Alberta government is about to introduce a distracted driving law.
The content has been a well guarded secret but rumour has it it will
extend to cover the use of all wireless devices, other distracting
activities such as shaving, putting on make up etc, possibly even the
use of a GPS.
It is supposed to go live this fall and I am sure it will not be well
received.
>At the same
>time they slipped in a 'compulsory lights on for motorcycles and
>scooters'law....$100 fine, no demerits, so it's not a safety issue, just
>revenue gathering.
Hmmmm, correct me if I am wrong but didn't our old friend Allan Kirk
take credit for being instrumental in lobbying or introducing a
daytime running light requirement for motorcycles in New Zealand many
years ago?
>If it was about safety, everyone would have to have
>their lights on, not just motorcyclists.
As Allan often suggested the purpose of a motorcycle only daytime
running light requirement was to allow motorcycles to stand out. If
all vehicles have their lights on bikes would just blend in with the
crowd.
--
Don
http://www.actualriders.ca/casualcruise2009.htm
2004 Road King
2000 Yamaha Venture MM Edition
Posted by BrianNZ on August 15, 2009, 3:41 pm
Calgary wrote:
>
>> As of 1st of Nov. in NZ, cellphone use will be banned while
>> driving....hands free sets only....even though the govt. study group
>> reckons that it's the conversation that distracts drivers, not the
>> actual holding of the phone. A 'comprimise' they call it.
>
> Our Alberta government is about to introduce a distracted driving law.
> The content has been a well guarded secret but rumour has it it will
> extend to cover the use of all wireless devices, other distracting
> activities such as shaving, putting on make up etc, possibly even the
> use of a GPS.
>
> It is supposed to go live this fall and I am sure it will not be well
> received.
Best not allow passengers as well then? Wouldn't want them talking and
distracting the driver....definately no children in cars!!...or
pets....or stereo's. Maybe it's time to patent a "cone of silence" to
fit to cars. On the news they had reporters who had gone to a busy
intersection to count the number of people using cellphones and
driving....they made a nice list of talking on the phone, txting,
eating, smoking...even 'picking their nose'. They showed the 'shocking'
results but failed to mention that NONE of those terrible drivers had
had an accident.....or that the majority of txting was done while the
cars were stationary at traffic lights. What it comes down to is
competence of each individual...My nephew txt's while driving...he
doesn't even look at the phone to check what he has typed, but if I
tried it, I don't have the skills and would be all over the road. I like
my bass pumping while I listen some Dub while driving, my son has the
stereo turned off because he finds it a distraction. Different strokes
for different folks. No matter how hard they legislate to try and make
us all the same, it won't work......unless they legislate for the
dumbest and drag the rest down to that level.
>
>> At the same
>> time they slipped in a 'compulsory lights on for motorcycles and
>> scooters'law....$100 fine, no demerits, so it's not a safety issue, just
>> revenue gathering.
>
> Hmmmm, correct me if I am wrong but didn't our old friend Allan Kirk
> take credit for being instrumental in lobbying or introducing a
> daytime running light requirement for motorcycles in New Zealand many
> years ago?
he may have lobbied but it's always been a voluntary thing to do. When I
got taken out years ago....I had my light on and they still 'didn't see me'.
>
>
>> If it was about safety, everyone would have to have
>> their lights on, not just motorcyclists.
>
> As Allan often suggested the purpose of a motorcycle only daytime
> running light requirement was to allow motorcycles to stand out. If
> all vehicles have their lights on bikes would just blend in with the
> crowd.
All due respect, Allan can go fuck himself. It's bad enough that all car
drivers are out to get me, without giving them the added advantage of me
'standing out'. :)
XML Sitemap
> even have a chance of violating it are people who ride very old bikes, those
> who don't maintain their bikes, and those who are deliberate scofflaws--new
> motorcycles sold in the US don't even _have_ a headlight switch, so the only
> way most riders are going to get ticketed is if they are riding around with
> a burned out headlight.