4. Issues Discussion Summary
The purpose of this section is to keep stakeholders and interested individuals abreast of the latest issues and debates regarding the Lighting and Marking regulation in Manitoba, in the hope that similiar challenges may be overcome in the future endeavours of other jurisdictions.
The flag portion of the Lighting and Marking Regulation is a "made in Manitoba" requirement intended to give owners of older machinery an opportunity to move their equipment in the daytime with a measure of safety, without incurring expensive upgrades in retrofitting old equipment with lights.
There has been considerable discussion in Manitoba about the language used in the BE SEEN, BE SAFE! guidebook regarding the use of flags, and how it relates to the original intent.
The language in the regulation states that the flag must be "displayed such that their full area is visible to a driver in another vehicle approaching from the front or rear."
To display the full area of a flag contradicts the use of a flexible flag, or implies that the machinery is at a standstill, and no wind is acting on the flag. The only way to technical adhere to this requirement would be to have a rigid flag.
However, this was not the original intent. The benefit of a flexible flag is that its movement assists in alerting drivers to a possible hazard. A rigid flag would not achieve this.
This discussion goes hand-in-hand with a discussion on the proper mounting angle of flags. Some feel that mounting angle plays a role in displaying as much of the flag as possible. However, to dictate mounting angle to operators who must mount flags on a wide variety and nearly infinite combination of machines and equipment could become unneccessarily burdensome. Imposing such precise requirements could endanger the confidence and goodwill that has been achieved in the farming community with regards to the regulation as a whole.
This discussion of intent versus interpretation can be clarified by following a few guidelines when mounting flags. Operators can think of mounting flags in terms of optimizing their purpose. This means:
- Flags should be mounted in a position where they can be allowed to move freely, and not able to be entangled in parts or protrusions of the machine.
- Flags should be supported by a stiffener or held tight along one edge, so that the flag can wave freely, and not hang down limply, or become wrapped up in itself.
- On some equipment, mounting flags horizontally can make the machine even wider than it already is. Mounting flags vertically or at an angle is acceptable.
There has also been disussion surrounding the effectiveness of flags verus flashing amber warning lamps during daytime travel. Some feel that flags, when their use is optimized, are more effective in warning motorists than flashing amber warning lamps, especially on bright sunny days. On cloudy days (depending on the degree of overcast), flags and flashing amber warning lamps may be equally effective.
4.2 Lamps Illuminated For Daytime Travel
The Manitoba regulation does not require flashing amber warning lamps (on machinery so equipped) to be illuminated for daytime travel. Many feel that farm machinery travelling on public roads should be required by law to have warning lamps illuminated, regardless of time of day. (Hence, machines without lights but properly equipped with flags can be more visible in the daytime than machines with unilluminated flashing amber warning lamps. Either scenario is legal in Manitoba for daytime travel.)
The fact that Canada requires motor vehicles manufactured after 1990 to have daytime running lights invariably enters the discussion. (However, this is a federal requirement for motor vehicles only, and does not apply to farm equipment.) However, this is the basis that is used to argue for a "lights-on" law for daytime travel.
There are practical considerations for both sides of the debate:
- Operators moving to fields will frequently forget to turn lights off once in the field. The lights-on indicator in the cab of a tractor is usually to dim to notice (especially on a bright, sunny Prairie day). This means lights may be on (steadily in the case of headlamps, intermittently in the case of warning lamps) for a full day of work in the field. This kind of severe service will undoubtedly lead to premature failure of lamps and bulbs, and an increased service cost, when multiplied by the number of machines and the number of days in the field.
- The opposite is also true. Operators leaving the field to travel on the road will forget to turn on the necessary lights.
The technology to help alleviate these functional problems does exist. However, the public's resistance to regulating a voluntary action may not be so easily overcome. Requiring technology on equipment sold in Canada may help overcome these problems, (as in daytime running lights for motor vehicles), but would require a federal initiative.
Brian Linklater of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Manitoba reports that acceptance of and compliance to the new regulation has been good to date. Compliance, he says, far outweighs violation.
The fine for an infraction of this regulation has been set at $147.00. In addition, law enforcement officers can order the operator to stop and leave the equipment in a safe place until it is made to comply with the regulation, and is safe to move.
4.5 Fluorescent and Reflective Materials
In the BE SEEN, BE SAFE! Guidebook, PAMI recommends using retroreflective reflective materials, because changes that have already been made to the ASAE Standard S279.9 will require this new material on new equipment. Since the Manitoba Regulation was modelled on the ASAE Standard, it will fall in step behind the standard and will also eventually require the retroreflective reflective material.
The same situation exists for the fluorescent material used in Slow Moving Vehicle (SMV) signs. Changes made to the standard will trigger changes made to the Manitoba regulation, requiring upgraded fluorescent material. The new fluorescent material reflects more light, making it a much more visible product. Also, the new material is more resistant to fading, and therefore offers a longer life than the current engineering grade fluorescent film.
Although engineering grade retroreflective materials and fluorescent film are currently permitted, this won't be the case in the future. PAMI urges farmers and equipment operators to avoid change-up and retro-fit activities in the near future by purchasing the superior grade retroreflective reflective tape and the higher grade flourescent film.
While the superior materials do cost more than engineering grade materials, the longer life and enhanced visibility make it a wise investment over the long term.
4.6 Manufacturer Alert—Standards Update
The American Society of Engineers (ASAE) has recently revised the standard S279.9 on which the Manitoba regulation and the BE SEEN, BE SAFE! guide is based. The new revision (ASAE S279.10) encompasses the following significant changes:
- Requirement for two tail lamps, as opposed to one.
- Absolute requirement for turn indicators (as opposed to "when provided"). This includes a requirement for one additional flashing lamp on each side.
- Requirement for conspicuity marking (i.e. reflectors and fluorscent material) on machinery wider than 3.7 m (12 ft).
The Canadian Standards Association is falling in step with a proposal to adopt ASAE 279.10 as CSA M669-98. A vote will be taken on September 18, with results expected to be released by mid-October. Stay tuned here for the outcome.
To order standards from ASAE, go to http://www.asae.org/standards/ or email martin@asae.org.Their additional contact information is:
- 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI, USA, 49085-9659
- Phone: 616-429-0300, Fax: 616-429-3852