OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tex on August 16, 2015, 07:23:42 pm
-
A larger range of helmets to choose from?
http://www.bikesales.com.au/content/news/2015/Victoria-adopts-ECE-helmet-ratings-53036/
Tex
-
Is this for Only Road Use Tex or Competition as well
The Stig
-
MA would have to adopt for competition use wouldn't they?
-
I see it as a long overdue win for common sense. Hopefully it will be adopted by all states.
I went in search of articles about it, after it was mentioned in an earlier "Aldi specials thread".
I was gob smacked to read that some riders were being booked for riding with "tinted visors" because tinted visors are not covered under our standard, although they are fitted and sold by some dealers and manufactures with helmets rated to our AS1698. Example, Shoei RF Series.
On one hand we are told by an Australian government agency to always wear UV eye protection with a minimum UV400 rating and to cover up from from direct sunlight in summer.
I cannot see properly and therefore ride safely in summer without tinted visors.
I see it as a no-brainier to the case of basic health and safer riding.
I am still getting monthly checks after having melanoma removed earlier this year.
My mum had melanomas removed from her face, to the extent of skin grafted reconstruction.
I gave up researching before I found the NSW ruling ? ? ?
I chose to keep using tinted visors, and take the matter to court if ever fined.
-
Mick D,I'm with you on this. I checked my road helmet that has the Aus standard label and when purchased I opted for a tinted visor. I would challenge it in court if I get booked(I don't ride at night).
Tinted visors have been around forever and I can't accept the fact that in one stroke of the pen they are illegal to use. How can one part of an approved helmet be legal yet another part of the same helmet be not? This is I believe a true exercise in "revenue raising". I'd like to know what sort of eye protection the motorbike cops wear and if their "sun glasses" meet not the recommended UV rating but the "Australian Standard" to be able to be worn while riding a motorcycle. Ok all you motor cycle police out there and I'm sure there would have to be at least one that reads or is a member of the forum,let us, "the lawbreakers" know what you guys do on a sunny day( I'm certain it's not squinting.) Maybe tinted tear offs is the go. A quick removal and a "nay mate you're seeing things" but the way the country is heading I'd probably be booked for littering or throwing something from a moving vehicle. I don't blame the police but our dumb (and getting dumber) legislators. damn I hope the day never comes when I can't fart for fear of releasing Methane gas, but then again I'll be able to buy a permit from the EPA.
-
What about your eye are they Aus standard ;D
It's better to have some type of protection than a stone or Bug hitting you in the eye ...?
most of the shit Rule are made by larzy people who need to do something to keep there job ..
and Do Not do all the Home work to Look into the Rules they Make ...
as we now Do not make or Grow anything in this country any more .
Sorry got off track for the topic of helmets ..
-
You guys crack me up ;D ;D ;D ;D
Don't get every body started, you know what some of em are like ;D
Hey Denny, I was servicing the brakes on my ute last weekend, and I noticed it was constructed from soon to be rare as artifacts, lots of components actually said "made in Australia".
Tell your kids to get an education or a little imported shit box ute ;D so they can pick up "return to China scrap" of other peoples footpaths to cash in so they can buy more cheap crap ;D ;D
awe where was I ? ?,,,,oh thats right, the thread, the thread ;D
Tons and tons of links about riders being fined for dark visors
http://motorbikewriter.com/cop-helmet-fine/ (http://motorbikewriter.com/cop-helmet-fine/)
I am really happy at the moment, I just found something that I have been trying to find for months ;D ;D :)
You watch, I bet ya some numb nut on here comes along and tries to upset me now,,
Well it ain't gunna work, because I'm turning this shit box off and going back out to the shed six pack to celebrate with me PE 400 ;D
-
Hi MickD,
I went into this issue a bit late last year with both the RMS/RTA and a couple NSW HWP blokes. At that point they say they had never heard of anyone being booked for a non aust standard visor as they use tinted ones too, the issue is the helmet importers nor the manufacturers see the need to have their tinted visors tested and certified, Shoei for example say their tinted visors and clear are the same construction but with a tint added and do not recommend them for other than off road use. BUT as far as UV rays CLEAR and TINTED reduce the amounts passing through at the same rate, so whether you use tinted or clear makes no difference (this is Shoei), I have now switched to a clear visor for everything but am using light sensitive prescription glasses for the one eye I have that still works.
I have a couple of mates that have been chipped by the HWP for tinted visors and they like to infer they were booked for it, BUT they have NOT. I agree knocking someone off for a non approved accessory (tinted visor or camera) is piss poor though. On the camera issue I spoke to my wifes surgeon regarding what a camera would do, she, the doc, reckons WE WOULD BE MAD to fix anything to the outside of the helmet at is might provide a leverage point in a crash and increase the chance of neck injury, although once in explained that some would be fixed in place with a light adhesive she thought it ok, suffice to say that the first person I actually spoke to who has a camera mounted (mx rider) he has drilled and screwed his camera mount on as he said the adhesive never held and camera is expensive blah blah blah etc! For me, camera never, tinted visor i'd wear and not worry about the cops, its like anything, society dreams up and allows laws, you do the "crime" and pay the fine and move on OR test it in court, I have done both ways and have won/lost both ways.
On the UV bit a lot is deflected simply by adding a Perspex visor in the first place, Shoei and Aria as example then add a treatment to their visors in the mix, this treatment has a similar affect to that used in auto glass (modern stuff not the old) "green" side and rear glass reduced uv transmission to over 87%, windscreens and sunroof glass is 90%+ etc, normal clear glass is some cars in Aus is only 50%+ reduction, do some reading on it via the standards marking on the glass in cars and the stamping number on any Aust standard clear visor, interesting reading.
Cheers,
Kt.
-
Cheers KT, very informative.
I suppose it is still a thing that you could be finned for if the HWP wanted to be nasty.
Saying that though in all honesty the coppers that have pulled me up over during the last twenty years have all been very fair.
I would say more than fair actually.
Many times I have copped fines at much lesser level than it could have been, or been given a caution when I well could have or should have been fined and always have been treated decently.
Had an awakening experience as a 14 year old kid though.
Pushing my bike on Private Water board property with the engine turned off and still cold.
Bull wagon drove by, copper called me over, took my name and details, latter arrived a summons to appear for unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured operation on a public street, that I was no where near.
Not real good on names, but I still remember this lying bastard's.
He then purgered himself under oath, I was given the privilege of cross examining him while still under oath.
Not getting anywhere , I asked him "are you in the habit of lying under oath"
Sort of went down like a fart at a funeral ;D
I looked at my mum, then back at the Magistrate who nearly smiled at me.
Then he turned his head and sneered down his nose toward the lying pig.
Back at me and fined me $2 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8) cost me $6 for court costs though.
-
Now that, MIckD, is a great story! If there is one thing I really detest its a crooked copper, I helped some into Goulbourn gaol in a previous life, they were not happy but DID deserve it!
Kt.
-
Is this for Only Road Use Tex or Competition as well
MA would have to adopt for competition use wouldn't they?
Those are good questions, and I don't know the answers!
Tex
-
Here's the Vicroads link for those interested:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/motorcyclist-safety/protective-clothing-for-riders (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/motorcyclist-safety/protective-clothing-for-riders)
Scroll down for the helmet information.
-
Hi Mick,
This is from Mr Helmet himself!
Di
I’ve not heard of any recent bookings.
The problem is the construction of the Road Rule.
The NSW definition of “an approved motor bike helmet” requires it “complies with” the standard.
The moment you peel the protective film off the visor or remove the Instructions for Use and Care of your helmet, it becomes non-compliant with the Standard.
So just about every helmet in USE, is non-compliant anyway.
( I didn’t say “every”, as some smarty-pants may have tucked the Instructions for Use and Care into the lining of their visor-less open-face helmet)
The issue of dark visors is only an issue because of this inability to comply with the NSW Road Rule.
i.e. does a dark visor make your helmet non-compliant?
No, even if you had a clear visor, the helmet is non-compliant.
The attached photo is of a compliant visor on a compliant helmet.
The Instructions for use and Care are attached to the chin-strap by a rubber band.
The visor carries the “Informative Labelling” required by the Visor standard, which is required for compliance with the helmet standard.
You may note that the protective packaging film on the visor also has a warning, telling you to remove it before use.
The only place you’ll find a helmet compliant with the standard is there, on the shelf, brand new.
The Australian visor standard does not require the visor to carry any compliance marks at all.
Some visors may have them, but they are only advertising for the Certifier and have zero regulatory significance.
There is no law saying you can’t use a dark visor on your helmet.
BUT, your helmet is non-compliant anyway, so why pick on the dark visor to claim that this is what makes it non-compliant?
Commonsense says only use a dark visor in bright daylight. Like sunglasses.
In fact, most sunglasses are darker than dark visors anyway.
Clear as mud.
Guy
Guy Stanford
Australian Motorcycle Council
Helmets Committee Chair
[email protected]
-
The riders that got booked for Go Pro's and dark visors were all in Victoria not in NSW
-
The riders that got booked for Go Pro's and dark visors were all in Victoria not in NSW
That is not the case Lozza.
Victoria is the only state police force that has given out break down figures on helmet fines,
The other states have not.
There are supported claims of such infringement notices issued in 4 states including NSW.
The first two pages of a google search yielded this pic of a infringement notice of a helmet cam fine in NSW.
https://netrider.net.au/threads/helmet-cam-crackdown.199218/ (https://netrider.net.au/threads/helmet-cam-crackdown.199218/)
Now I don't really give a dam or care less about helmet cams.
Although, some cam images do have an obvious value. I had in incident in my car a couple of months ago and a cam recording would have saved me a lot of grief with repairs and insurance.
-
Is this for Only Road Use Tex or Competition as well
MA would have to adopt for competition use wouldn't they?
Those are good questions, and I don't know the answers!
Tex
IMHO, it will be an outcome in the name of improved rider safety if MA move to adopt these other certifications,
given that they not only meet but exceed our AS1698 safety standard.
Copied from this link if anyone is interested Helmet Road Rules from Motorcycle Council Of NSW inc. (http://www.mccofnsw.org.au/a/232.html)
European helmets are lighter to reduce neck injury and basilar skull fracture, have excellent impact attenuation, greater test coverage area and a very sound certification process.
Japanese helmets are virtually identical to Australian, but with better impact attenuation (more restricted pulse width) and the most robust certification process of any.
US "DOT" helmets are almost the same as Australian, but with better impact attenuation (more restricted pulse width) and a certification process that places responsibility on the manufacturer (or importer) for compliance. Their recall system is regularly used, in market surveillance testing by NHTSA, backed by a legal system that punishes manufacturers who transgress.
-
Ok, I have been reading this thread with interest and up until now I didn't have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.
The way I see it, if anybody happens to be fined for a tinted visor (and I got a tinted visor in the box with my (expensive) Arai adventure lid) then to my way of thinking, the person or company who sold this to me should be held liable for any or all costs that come my way because of legalities. Afterall, I purchased the lid in Australia and so therefore should expect that everything I am sold is manufactured to be within or better than our regulations.
And, slightly off the point, what if I wear UV rated sunnies under my helmet when I ride. Is that legal?
I never ever buy cheap helmets. My head aint worth that much but I'd be stuffed without the use of what is left of it so I buy the best I can. Point is, I can't see other countries having any less regard for their motorcycling public than Australia does by allowing inferior helmets to be used.......
And no folks, I'm not talking about asia!