Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 857887 17-Jul-2013 09:07
Send private message

Good grief. Really?

All I hope is that the police jump on it. HARD!

12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 857890 17-Jul-2013 09:12
2 people support this post
Send private message

All road users have rules they must follow. Using the road is not a testosterone filled competition, if all followed the rules prescribed everyone will be safer.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 




1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 857897 17-Jul-2013 09:27
One person supports this post
Send private message



PaulBags:

keewee01: We've had some very healthy and reasoned discussion with most
people treating others and their views with respect, and it seems that most
people are on the same page here - which is fantastic. And I hope that
continues.

What I don't want in here is people trolling (which it looks like we've had
already) or going all fanatical. Lets keep respecting each other and each
others views


...By ignoring their views and calling them trolls? I've suggested multiple
ways to avoid blinding people with these lights as well and multiple reasons
why they are useful. In return all I've seen is "I don't like it, your
wrong, neener neener".



Jumping to conclusions Paul...

The person I was referring to over trolling went off with such an extreme view
about safety for that 1 cyclist, and not giving a damn about anyone else on the
roads (including, by default, other cyclists!), and then came back later with a
completely different view. Something strange going on there.

Their view made everyone sit up and they weren't ignored at all. There comments
were so very extreme I could not think of anything nice to say about them, so I
didn't say anything - plus plenty of others did.

Your comments about light adjustment were good, and I like the idea. But what
you have to realise is (as people have pointed out) mounting lights on your
heads on the road is not legal (front facing must be mounted on the handlebars)
and you have ignored that.
That isn't a view of various people, it is a fact. And although it doesn't necessarily
give cyclists the best lighting - it is what is provided for in the rules
currently.


PaulBags:
keewee01: And anyone who goes on about "Oh,
well, we see motorist not dipping their lights sometimes" is just not
making sense for using that as an excuse for why it is OK for them to do it!!!
(remember the old addage Two wrongs don't make a right.) A motorist forgetting
to dip their light is just that - forgetful. They haven't left them on full
with the intent purpose of blinding other road users (or at least not usually).
So to use those examples as a reason or excuse for being able to wear a
floodlight on ones head is poor.


And actually no, that's not unreasonable. Now your suggesting that cyclists are
purposefully wearing bright lights just to blind other people, and saying that
motorists never would? Who's the troll? Yeah your right, motorists do it too
isn't a reason to do it. It's pointing out that A) it can happen from cars too,
and B) cyclists aren't doing it on purpose either.


Mate!! Read what I wrote and then read it again so you understand what I wrote
- and then you won't misconstrue it! Slow down, take a breath and think about what
you've read, and then then written BEFORE you post it so that you don't get
tripped up.


1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 69


  Reply # 857900 17-Jul-2013 09:37
Send private message

keewee01: Correct - the point I was making with this thread is that there is an big increase in cyclist using these really, really strong or inappropriate lights, and in the wrong ways.

I have no quarms with cyclist (or any other road user) wanting and trying to be safe, but anyone who does so by going over board and putting other road users at risk needs to know that is what they are doing and that it is unacceptable - and as I have said previously, I suspect that most have no idea they are putting other road users at risk.



OK, so your broad point is that people shouldn't do stupid things on the road and if we can reduce the risk of people doing stupid things on the road by limiting access things which can potentially be used in stupid ways then we should do so. 

Is that about right? 

So, should be introduce ways to reduce the speed drivers can drive cars with governors on cars? Is there really a point of driving a car capable of going twice the legal motorway speed limit on public roads? Doesn't this provide a needless temptation to speed and put other road users at risk? 

My broader point here is that bright lights on cyclists are probably petty low down on the list of dangerous things on the road, for all users, speeding drivers and other dangerous things car drivers do is probably higher up. I'm pretty sure high speed is the leading cause of fatal accidents now that drink driving has reduced to the point it has. 

As far as cycling goes I ride to work most days in Wellington from Miramar to the central city and it is fantastic. There is a cycle lane around the bays and Oriental Parade (don't look at me, I didn't name it) and the waterfront is cycle/pedestrian shared space. You have to dodge the occasional child or dog who isn't paying attention to the world around them but generally it is easy and safe.

The best solution is more cycle lanes, hopefully some of the increase in petrol tax can be spent on this.  






Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 857912 17-Jul-2013 09:53
Send private message

Should ban bricks too as you can take those in a car and throw them at people.
Wait, ban cars you can drive them into people. Oh and bikes. You can throw a bike at someone so they have to be banned as well.

Love your logic

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 857920 17-Jul-2013 10:11
Send private message

keewee01: ... But what you have to realise is (as people have pointed out) mounting lights on your heads on the road is not legal (front facing must be mounted on the handlebars) and you have ignored that.


Actually, it's completely legal.

keewee01:
From the NZTA website:
When considering lights it is important to be mindful that:


  • Headlights should be attached to handlebars and pointing down.

  • Your lights can be a hazard if used incorrectly. You must not use cycle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.


Correct use of cycle lighting will make your cycling experience safer and more enjoyable, while ensuring other road users are not at risk.


http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/cyclist-code/about-equipment/cycle-equipment.html

They use the word 'must' when something is a legal requirement. Saying that lights 'should' be on the handlebars doesn't make it illegal to have a light on your helmet, otherwise cyclists would actually get pulled up for it. I can think of one other reason that there should be a light on the handlebars, and that is to provide a fixed point of reference for drivers. Having a dim handlebar mounted light therefore makes it safer to use a helmet mounted light, but it doesn't preclude it. Perhaps I should ask the NZTA to clarify.

As for my behaviour I apologise. I'm pretty easily antagonised and quickly become unreasonable; and that other guy who won't listen... gah.

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 857921 17-Jul-2013 10:14
Send private message

TheUngeek: Should ban bricks too as you can take those in a car and throw them at people.
Wait, ban cars you can drive them into people. Oh and bikes. You can throw a bike at someone so they have to be banned as well.

Love your logic

Seems to be your logic re helmet mounted lights. I'm still waiting for you to make a point somewhere, rather than just a statement.

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 69


  Reply # 857923 17-Jul-2013 10:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

TheUngeek: Should ban bricks too as you can take those in a car and throw them at people.
Wait, ban cars you can drive them into people. Oh and bikes. You can throw a bike at someone so they have to be banned as well.

Love your logic


Gee now who's trolling? 

We are being critical of cyclists for using lights in an inappropriate fashion and saying Something Must Be Done!. We all see people drive cars over the speed limit and we know this is a leading cause of death in road accidents. So, shouldn't something be done? 

The utility of a car or bike is obvious. The utility of very powerful headlamp for off-road bike riding is understandable, but controls need to be in place. You can have the light but if you use it on the road you should be punished, not for using it 'inappropriately' as that is subjective. The offence should be using it on the road at all. The utility of a road legal car which can exceed the speed limit by over 200% is ... what exactly? So the offence should be possession of a car which is capable of exceeding the speed limit as there isn't any reason to do so in day to day life on the public road. Put a governor on it or get rid of it.  

Why have legal stuff for which the main purpose is to break the law? Hunting rifles are legal, there are reasonable uses for them. Machine guns are not legal, the only purpose for them is not reasonable. 

It isn't what the thing can be used for, it the the purpose the thing is intended for. If something, such as a powerful bike headlamp, is being used for an unintended purpose then punish the use. If the main purpose for a thing is illegal in the first place, ban or limit the thing. 

Who supports using increase petrol tax to fund cycle lanes? I do. Best thing is not having bike and cars sharing the same space. 




Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user


  Reply # 857929 17-Jul-2013 10:31
Send private message

Not trolling. Just sick of ignorant dicks being a danger

12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 857936 17-Jul-2013 10:35
Send private message

PaulBags:
keewee01: ... But what you have to realise is (as people have pointed out) mounting lights on your heads on the road is not legal (front facing must be mounted on the handlebars) and you have ignored that.


Actually, it's completely legal.

keewee01:
From the NZTA website:
When considering lights it is important to be mindful that:





    • Headlights should be attached to handlebars and pointing down.







    • Your lights can be a hazard if used incorrectly. You must not use cycle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.





Correct use of cycle lighting will make your cycling experience safer and more enjoyable, while ensuring other road users are not at risk.


http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/cyclist-code/about-equipment/cycle-equipment.html

They use the word 'must' when something is a legal requirement. Saying that lights 'should' be on the handlebars doesn't make it illegal to have a light on your helmet, otherwise cyclists would actually get pulled up for it. I can think of one other reason that there should be a light on the handlebars, and that is to provide a fixed point of reference for drivers. Having a dim handlebar mounted light therefore makes it safer to use a helmet mounted light, but it doesn't preclude it. Perhaps I should ask the NZTA to clarify.

As for my behaviour I apologise. I'm pretty easily antagonised and quickly become unreasonable; and that other guy who won't listen... gah.


The act prescribes the correct use of the lights "Headlights should be attached to handlebars and pointing down" and reinforces that with "Your lights can be a hazard if used incorrectly. You must not use cycle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users." therefore using head mounted lights that dazzle on the road is contrary to the code just in the same way using Spotlights and the road is not legal for car/SUV users and using fog lights when the weather conditions do not warrant their use.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 69


  Reply # 857945 17-Jul-2013 10:43
Send private message

Would it not be easier to have two types of lights legally speaking?

We could have "on road lights" which would have a maximum power (watts, lumens, whatever) and these would be allowed on road or off.

We could also have 'off road only lights' which would be designed for off road use in areas with no lighting. These could be of whatever power you wanted and it would be an offence to use these on a public road.

Sounds simple enough to me. Easier than debating what might 'confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users'. I have often thought the most dangerous thing on the road is the child in the back seat a car the back seat that talks to the parent driving.




Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 857946 17-Jul-2013 10:56
Send private message

The legal issue was raised in this post. 3.3. This would appear to make headlamps illegal as they are more then 1.2 m from the ground.

jfanning:

Here is the law for a bike ( a cycle is classed as a group A vehicle), as you can see, head mounted lights are illegal, and I was wrong about the other item, you are allowed a single mounted lamp that is flashing.



3.3     Fitting and performance requirements for headlamps3.3(1)     A dipped-beam headlamp on a motor vehicle (other than an unclassified motor vehicle, or a vehicle having a gross vehicle mass exceeding 12,000 kg) must be positioned at a height not exceeding 1.2 m from the ground.

3.3(2)     A vehicle of Group A:


  • (a) may be fitted with one or two headlamps; and

  • (b) when operated during the hours of darkness, must be fitted with one or two headlamps that emit light that is visible from a distance of 100 m.


3.3(3)     If a vehicle of Group A is fitted with:


  • (a) one headlamp, that headlamp may be flashing;

  • (b) two headlamps, only one of the headlamps may be flashing.









Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

367 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 857978 17-Jul-2013 11:52
Send private message

Reading that, it excludes non-motor vehicles (eg. bicycles), and vehicles greater than 12 tonnes.

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 858028 17-Jul-2013 13:30
Send private message

jfanning:

Group in relation to vehicles, means a collective category of the vehicle classes that are specified in Table A: Vehicle classes, as follows:
(a) Group A means vehicles of Class AA and Class AB;



AA (Pedal cycle) - A vehicle designed to be propelled through a mechanism solely by human power.







Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 858069 17-Jul-2013 14:25
Send private message

Nety: The legal issue was raised in this post. 3.3. This would appear to make headlamps illegal as they are more then 1.2 m from the ground.

jfanning:

Here is the law for a bike ( a cycle is classed as a group A vehicle), as you can see, head mounted lights are illegal, and I was wrong about the other item, you are allowed a single mounted lamp that is flashing.



3.3     Fitting and performance requirements for headlamps3.3(1)     A dipped-beam headlamp on a motor vehicle (other than an unclassified motor vehicle, or a vehicle having a gross vehicle mass exceeding 12,000 kg) must be positioned at a height not exceeding 1.2 m from the ground.

3.3(2)     A vehicle of Group A:





    • (a) may be fitted with one or two headlamps; and







    • (b) when operated during the hours of darkness, must be fitted with one or two headlamps that emit light that is visible from a distance of 100 m.





3.3(3)     If a vehicle of Group A is fitted with:





    • (a) one headlamp, that headlamp may be flashing;







    • (b) two headlamps, only one of the headlamps may be flashing.







Which law is this, because it's not 3.3 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and the online version of the road code doesn't appear to be numbered. The search term "Fitting and performance requirements for headlamps" doesn't turn up on legislation.govt.nz at all, nor on the road code.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.