Go Back   GZ 250 Forums > GZ250-Specific > General GZ250 Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2011, 04:39 PM   #11
Ted324
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Harlingen, TX
Posts: 14
Re: Side reflectors

this is very true. I think i've decided i'll just leave them on, even tho i still think they look bad
__________________
Vida es muy bien



Login or Register to Remove Ads
Ted324 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 08:16 PM   #12
Water Warrior 2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Squamish B.C Canada
Posts: 11,409
Re: Side reflectors

A little 3M tape on the front forks, handguards and other assorted surfaces can be very noticeable. Sometimes it is fun making a spectacle of yourself.
Water Warrior 2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 11:55 PM   #13
Rookie Rider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Queens, NYC
Posts: 1,263
Re: Side reflectors

I just recently got some reflective red and white stips from work. The ones that go on trucks. Im gonna put some on the inside panels of my car doors too. Really bright stuff.



Login or Register to Remove Ads
Rookie Rider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2011, 09:59 PM   #14
lenkf
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 43
Re: Side reflectors

Cars, bicycles, and motorcycles ALL have to have federal and state mandated reflectors and lights if driven "on the street". The rear of a "vehicle" requires red reflectors, the sides require yellow or white reflectors (allowing white reflective stripes on bicycle tires), the front requires white reflectors and white lights on "street vehicles". Bicyclists are allowed to use red flashing lights on the rear, as long as there is ALSO a red "rear reflector" in CA, but motor vehicles cannot have blinking red rear lights except for turn signal lights. It takes a ton of research to determine all the details of state and federal laws, and having been an avid bicyclist and motorcyclist for years, I've done that where I live. If you think your state "doesn't care" about moto mods, wait and see! That conundrum of details is for US law for our friends across the pond. If you're missing any Federal or State reflector requirements, and you have an accident, sorry dude you go down no matter "what is cool" in your neighborhood for your style of moto manufactured after 1976! Hey, Jessie James and Orange County Choppers customs are not legal on the road, have been sued by state governments, and lost for big bucks. If you ride a 2 wheeler on the road, simple way to save money and have binding insurance, keep it legal according to your state and fed laws Oh yah, that includes mods to intake and exhaust on motos manufactured after 1976 or so for US "legal street motos'"

Where the rest of the world can get away with old school ICE transportation technology, the US is trying to clean things up and keep it safer compared to the old world. US insurance companies pay attention to that.
lenkf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 01:53 AM   #15
Water Warrior 2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Squamish B.C Canada
Posts: 11,409
Re: Side reflectors

Both the U.S. and Canada have some darn good laws for making things safe but I have one question. Why didn't the U.S. make Daytime Running Lights mandatory in 1990 like Canada did? Anything manufactured after Jan 1/1990 had to have them. I made my own in 1988 for $10 worth of parts.



Login or Register to Remove Ads
Water Warrior 2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:33 AM   #16
greatmaul
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 296
Re: Side reflectors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Water Warrior
Both the U.S. and Canada have some darn good laws for making things safe but I have one question. Why didn't the U.S. make Daytime Running Lights mandatory in 1990 like Canada did? Anything manufactured after Jan 1/1990 had to have them. I made my own in 1988 for $10 worth of parts.
There's actually quite a bit of info on that on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

to quote:
Quote:
Shortly after Canada mandated DRLs, General Motors, interested in reducing the build variations of cars for the North American market, petitioned the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1990 to permit (but not require) US vehicles to be equipped with DRLs like those in Canada. NHTSA objected on grounds of the potential for high-intensity DRLs to create problems with glare and turn signal masking, and issued a proposed rule in 1991 that specified a maximum intensity of 2,600 cd. Industry and safety-watchdog reacted with great controversy to the proposed rule, and eventually the glare objections were set aside and most of the same types of DRLs allowed in Canada were permitted but not required effective with the 1995 model year.
It all seems to boil down to money. Car makers, even in Canada, didn't want to spend money to make separate DRL's running at 1500 candelas max, as the EU states had mandated, so they petitioned to use regular headlights at a max of 7000 candelas.

The US sort of followed suit, but safety officials argued that 7000 candelas were too bright, but this again ran into the money issue. No one wanted to make separate DRLs because of cost.

These days, it's more about fuel economy, and they argue that headlight based DRLs are wasteful, and LED DRL's are becoming more fashionable. This is cool, in my opinion, because widespread use will boost LED technology advances and lower the prices overall.

now the NHTSA says: (2009)
(…)the agency remains neutral with respect to a policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles (…) we do not find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies Federal regulation (…) manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding DRLs in their vehicles
greatmaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:35 AM   #17
greatmaul
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 296
Re: Side reflectors

Oh, but I'm wondering: if someone removes or covers their reflectors, but then puts the 3M reflective tape on, is that good enough? I know most of the 3M stuff is DOT approved. I've got red and white all over the bike.
greatmaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 12:00 PM   #18
Water Warrior 2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Squamish B.C Canada
Posts: 11,409
Re: Side reflectors

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatmaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water Warrior
Both the U.S. and Canada have some darn good laws for making things safe but I have one question. Why didn't the U.S. make Daytime Running Lights mandatory in 1990 like Canada did? Anything manufactured after Jan 1/1990 had to have them. I made my own in 1988 for $10 worth of parts.
now the NHTSA says: (2009)
(…)the agency remains neutral with respect to a policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles (…) we do not find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies Federal regulation (…) manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding DRLs in their vehicles
2 words: Horse Pucky.
Water Warrior 2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 12:07 PM   #19
Water Warrior 2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Squamish B.C Canada
Posts: 11,409
Re: Side reflectors

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatmaul
Oh, but I'm wondering: if someone removes or covers their reflectors, but then puts the 3M reflective tape on, is that good enough? I know most of the 3M stuff is DOT approved. I've got red and white all over the bike.
3M DOT approved tape seems to be more reflective than most OEM reflectors. I some how doubt a LEO would get overly excited about tape vs. plastic.
As for an actual inspection it might be wise to pop the plastic on for a short time.
Water Warrior 2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 03:51 PM   #20
greatmaul
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 296
Re: Side reflectors

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatmaul
now the NHTSA says: (2009)
(…)the agency remains neutral with respect to a policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles (…) we do not find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies Federal regulation (…) manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding DRLs in their vehicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water Warrior
2 words: Horse Pucky.
Yeah, it sounds to me like the NHTSA is in the pocket of the auto industry. Everything's like that around here. It's not what's right or wrong, it's what's right for whoever pays you that's important.
greatmaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.