Aussie Riders Ticketed for Tinted Helmet Visors?

WTF is this?   Happy we don't have this kind of hassle in the USA.  (Yet, anyway)


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/helmet-hassles-bikers-accuse-police-of-giving-out-petty-visor-fines/story-fni0fit3-1227147660982?nk=9d6806ec0ff022966146ead44b9674de

There is this petition going around to make all state laws on the subject uniform ........................ bloody Victorian police 

https://www.change.org/p/change-stat...on-notice-no-9

SVDon wrote:WTF is this?   Happy we don't have this kind of hassle in the USA.  (Yet, anyway)


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/helmet-hassles-bikers-accuse-police-of-giving-out-petty-visor-fines/story-fni0fit3-1227147660982?nk=9d6806ec0ff022966146ead44b9674de

Mate they do anything in this country to sting someone with a fine. Taxes and fines are the only way the government here make money.

There is no way this would stand up if challenged in court - my sister in law (Vic police Sgt) reckons it's a crock and she can't believe there are police issuing tickets for it.

Read somewhere that one of the basis to a pending challenge to a ticket in the Frankston Magistrates Court (adjourned to Feb 2015) is that the public has to have ready access to the rules/laws.  Because of the money hungry (starved ?) Australian Standards organisation they charge for a copy of any standard, approx $90 I think it is.  Copyright rules also prevent someone actually purchasing a copy and then distributing it for public desimation, again our governments making things easier for us.  

However because AS/NZs 1698:2006  reference a number of other standards, the actual cost to Joe Public to inform himself of all the applicable rules is close to $700.  This, it is being argued, is unreasonable and hence the law cannot be inforced as it contravienes the public right of access.  

The trouble being if upheld, this then sets a legal precedent that could outlaw all rules that are based on AS standards for the same reason - and that I'm affraid BIG Brother will never allowed happen.    I know, Hockey can hit us all with a new "Standards Tax" and pipe the money into AS Organisation and make their documentation free to the public - like it was suppose to be in the first place  

The other stupid thing about AS 1698, it is actually a weaker standard of testing than the American, Japanese and UN standards, helmets that past the AS tests would actually fail overseas, doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy that our legislators are keeping us safe     Say what you will about Queensland, they have seen the writing on the wall on this one and have gone with the UN standard.  

I suppose one thing about this rock show, we are all now more aware that if you wear a tinted visor (especially in Vic) there is a good chance if you upset a copper, besides all the other things he can get you for (road side strip search if you're really lucky) you can expect the "not wearing a helmet" ticket to boot.     .  

And who'd of guessed that the helmetless Harley riders had this one right, according to the powers to be it is just as dangerous to your health blocking out the suns glare with a tinted visor as riding round without a helmet at all, the fine is the same.  

Let's flip this around and demand lid manufacturers submit the visors for testing.  That would make them legal and if they fail we're all better off for knowing. 
Remember this isn't a tint issue and Moriss and Blackburn know damn well it isnt. It's about having a visor meeting a standard. Lid manufacturers don't submit any other visors except the OEM ones for testing anywhere in the world.  Why's that?

Barry with the long wait I had for my shark helmet earlier this year. I was told that the main reason was because our standard is higher than the rest of the world. Apparently we demand a double impact test on all helmets whereas the US and euro test does not.
As our market is quite small they run helmets for Australia in batches. If your helmet isn't in the next container then you have to wait for the next run of Au helmets from that manufacturer.

2wheelsagain wrote:Let's flip this around and demand lid manufacturers submit the visors for testing.  That would make them legal and if they fail we're all better off for knowing. 

That would only make them legal if the had a minimum light transmittance of 50% (car windscreens are min 75% LT, side and rear glass minimum 35% LT except in NT) Most tinted visors would have far less light transmittance than 50%

madmax wrote:Barry with the long wait I had for my shark helmet earlier this year. I was told that the main reason was because our standard is higher than the rest of the world. Apparently we demand a double impact test on all helmets whereas the US and euro test does not.
As our market is quite small they run helmets for Australia in batches. If your helmet isn't in the next container then you have to wait for the next run of Au helmets from that manufacturer.

Warning - nerd talk ahead, please skip to next subject if not interested in splitting hairs.....

Yes and no Bryan, the standards are so different that some have higher requirements in certain areas, and lower in others.  Whilst the AS1698 has a double impact as you state, the velocity is only 6m/s as opposed to others that are 30% higher, thus the impact on the helmets here in Australia have the lowest pass value of all.  

Small extract from a paper from the University of NSW based on a report commissioned by the Centre for Road Safety, Transport for NSW, in 2011 :

Flat Anvil Impacts
All standards include impacts against a flat rigid anvil of the same dimension; around 130 mm
diameter. UN/ECE 22 does not require two successive impacts per impact site, unlike all other standards.

The impact velocities are different for each standard, ranging from 6m/s in 1698 to 7.75m/s in
M2010. Impact energies derived for either a “J” headform of mass 4.7kg, or for DOT 5kg for the
first or only impact are presented in table 1.

Table 1.
Comparative impact energies
Standard Energy (J)
AS/NZS 1698 84.4
UN/ECE 22 132.3
M2010 141.2
M2005 150
DOT 89.8
JIS 115.3

AS/NZS 1698 has the lowest severity impact of the standards. According to Thom et al [3], the DOT
flat anvil impacts, and thus AS/NZS 1698, corresponded to the 90th %ile of all motorcycle
traffic crashes analysed in a 1981 report.

However the paper goes on to state:

........Despite the differences in the performance requirements between the standards, there is no
evidence from crash or epid emiological studies that helmets meeting one standard are ‘better’ than
those meeting another. Comparative terms such as “stricter”, “tougher”, “better” are often used to
compare standards, however such terms are inappropriate; the requirements are in most cases
just different. Where a standard could be “stricter”, for example, is if under the same impact conditions
the pass criterion for peak headform acceleration in one standard was lower than another or if there are
a larger range of characteristics assessed. The question of ‘which is the “strictest” standard’, is
very difficult to address because of multiple confounding factors.......

Which is a long winded way of saying there are too many standards, that we should be trending toward globisation and encouraging international harmonisation
of standards, e.g. free trade.

Mine came with an inside flip down visor, and I'm not paying any fine for it.

barry_mcki wrote:Which is a long winded way of saying there are too many standards, that we should be trending toward globisation and encouraging international harmonisation
of standards, e.g. free trade.

Hear Hear!

It would make life just a little bit easier for us and all the manufacturers

Chook wrote:

2wheelsagain wrote:Let's flip this around and demand lid manufacturers submit the visors for testing.  That would make them legal and if they fail we're all better off for knowing. 

That would only make them legal if the had a minimum light transmittance of 50% (car windscreens are min 75% LT, side and rear glass minimum 35% LT except in NT) Most tinted visors would have far less light transmittance than 50%

So my statement is true and correct

2wheelsagain wrote:

Chook wrote:

2wheelsagain wrote:Let's flip this around and demand lid manufacturers submit the visors for testing.  That would make them legal and if they fail we're all better off for knowing. 

That would only make them legal if the had a minimum light transmittance of 50% (car windscreens are min 75% LT, side and rear glass minimum 35% LT except in NT) Most tinted visors would have far less light transmittance than 50%

So my statement is true and correct

But the car standard was designed with the driver being a certain distance from the tinted glass, with the visor being much closer, I would expect this particular standard would not be applicable.  

I know that light transmittance is about what percentage of light is getting through the medium so you'd naturally assume the distance makes no difference and for the test this is true.  In fact the "tint test" conducted by rego is done with the light source and meter touching either side of the glass under test, well the last time I saw them do it anyway.  

However to prove my point, take any pair of sun glasses and place them 50cm in front of you.  You'd be hard pressed to see anything through them, put them on your head and of course you can see a lot clearer through them, so the distance from the tinted medium must make a difference, well IMHO

And just to cloud the matter further,  ADR 8/00 which is the applicable vehicle standard on tinting, is for Safety Glazing Material.  Helmets last time I checked, don't usually come with safety glass visors

I'll have my 2 bobs worth on this one, see info below provided by a fellow member at CMCC vic.
Have you seen todays Herald-Sun with its full page story about Victorian Police blitzing motorcycle riders and their helmets?  Even if you did, you should read the rest of this eNews item.
Across Australia there is presently a requirement for all motorcyclists to wear an approved helmet at all times when riding a motorcycle – including when siting on a stationary motorcycle with its engine running.   Generally an approved helmet is one complying with Australian Standard AS/NZS 1698.  All such helmets carry a label attesting to this.   If your helmet  does not carry a compliance label then you run the risk of being fined for not wearing a (complying) helmet.  But this is not the end of the story.
If your helmet is fitted with a visor, then the visor must separately comply with Australian Standard AS1609.  Got it?    Tinted or untinted the visor MUST carry the AS1609 compliance label on the visor itself.  Remember, if you are using a visor that does not carry the compliance label then you run the risk of being fined for not wearing a (complying) helmet.  But wait , there is still more to this confusing and tangled tale.
If your visor does have a compliance label but is tinted and you are using it at night again then you run the risk of being fined for not wearing a (complying) helmet because the applicable Australian standard states that tinted visors may only be used during daylight. 
Of course, if your helmet has a compliance label but your visor does not – or if your complying visor is tinted and it’s not daylight, simply removing the visor will put you back on track and legal (but it is too late to do this after Mr Plod has stopped you).  OK OK it does seem strange, especially as any glasses, sunglasses or goggles you choose to wear while riding are not required to meet any similar rules.  Go figure.
Early in 2015 – exact date not known – things are going to become even more confusing (read that as further opportunities for revenue raising) when Queensland goes it alone and approves the use of European Union approved helmets within that state – even if they do not carry the Australian Standard compliance label.  And what or how that in turn will relate to visors is unknown.  Also unknown is how Queensland licenced riders travelling in other parts of the country will be treated by the Helmet Police elsewhere.
All I can suggest is that you keep a close watch on the newspapers for any further developments in this area – no point asking a local Plod as they currently seem to be as confused as the rest of us.
And the final shot – if your helmet is not “correctly fastened”, irrespective of compliance or otherwise – you guessed it - then you run the risk of being fined for not wearing a (complying) helmet.

SO this means if I take the visor off my approved full face helmet I won't get a ticket.
May need to wrap my face in glad wrap to stop wind burn & debris in eyes.

The point being an open face approved helmet and no glasses is compliant, go figure.

Most tinted visors dont carry the AS stamp because they are sold in small volumes & importers cant warrant the cost of certification.

Just a note of warning - I believe there is a blitz on helmets in Vic. Got pulled up in RBT by highway (robbers) patrol, normally just blow through open visor.
After breath test they asked me to pull over and remove helmet, I thought I was over limit but no booze in 2 weeks.
They checked the sticker on back of helmet, also checked label inside helmet (this is a must have)
They checked visor, not just the sticker, not good enough, the visor MUST be engraved with AS1609
I have a pin-lock visor so I can change inserts from clear to tinted with no problem as the outer has the approval markings.

spanna wrote:SO this means if I take the visor off my approved full face helmet I won't get a ticket.
May need to wrap my face in glad wrap to stop wind burn & debris in eyes.....

Ah, the reason that will work is that we abide by the International Standards for cling wrap and not any half baked (pardon the pun) SAI Global rip-off (is that another pun ?)  

BTW, just to make sure you're using the correct cling wrap, it should conform to (but not limited by) the following standards:

•  IS 14995:2001 Stretch Cling Films – Specification
•  GB 10457:2008 Plastic Cling Wrap Film for keeping food fresh
•  ISO 2528:1995 Sheet materials - Determination of water vapour transmission rate - Gravimetric (dish) method
•  ISO 15105-2:2003 Plastics — Film and sheeting —Determination of gas-transmission rate — Part 2: Equal-pressure method
•  ASTM D882:2010  Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic Sheeting

Just checking my new Aldi helmet

Both visors have AS1609 1981 stickers on them so all's good so I now have a surplus of stickers.

Make sure visors are also stamped

Just had a look at my Aldi clear visor and it is a stick-on AS1609 label - nothing is stamped/etched anywhere into the plastic.  This lid was bought about 3 or 4 years ago, maybe the latest models have the standard stamped in.

Also, here is something I found perusing Netrider:
AS1609:1981 Cl5.1.2 states:

   5.1.2 Requirements.
   5.1.2.1 Clear lenses. Untinted lenses shall have a luminance transmittance of not less than 85 percent.
   5.1.2.2 Tinted lenses. Tinted lenses shall have a luminance transmittance of not less than 50 percent and shall comply with the coloration requirements of AS 1067.

   NOTE: Visors assembled with a tinted strip positioned outside the normal field of view do not require special labelling. However, the tinted area must comply with the prescribed coloration requirements and optical performance.

So when people (including the learned constabularies of VicPol) say "ALL TINTED VISORS ARE ILLEGAL", they are incorrect as the standard that covers visors actually has provision for them, including what needs to be stamped on the visor.  Now whether anyone has actually had a visor undergo testing and approval, that's another matter.  

This is exactly what Chook mentioned earlier, that 50% transmittance is okay, and my stumbling analysis of why a car windscreen standard (75%) would not be equivalent to a helmet visor.

barry_mcki wrote:Just had a look at my Aldi clear visor and it is a stick-on AS1609 label - nothing is stamped/etched anywhere into the plastic.  This lid was bought about 3 or 4 years ago, maybe the latest models have the standard stamped in.

Mine is only 2 months old and is not stamped, it just has a removable sticker (which I nearly removed when I first purchased it!)

What is the significance of the 1981 (AS1609-1981)?

I assume this is the date the original standard was produced. I assume some changes have been made in the 33years since then.

BanditDave wrote:

barry_mcki wrote:Just had a look at my Aldi clear visor and it is a stick-on AS1609 label - nothing is stamped/etched anywhere into the plastic.  This lid was bought about 3 or 4 years ago, maybe the latest models have the standard stamped in.

Mine is only 2 months old and is not stamped, it just has a removable sticker (which I nearly removed when I first purchased it!)

What is the significance of the 1981 (AS1609-1981)?

I assume this is the date the original standard was produced. I assume some changes have been made in the 33years since then.

Correct

Does all this mean it is illegal to wear tinted prescription specs inside your helmet?

BanditDave wrote:Does all this mean it is illegal to wear tinted prescription specs inside your helmet?

No, nor is it illegal to wear any tinted sunglasses while driving or riding, I think they treat visors as windscreens where they are required to meet certain strength characteristics and be suitable for all weather/light etc.

BanditDave wrote:Does all this mean it is illegal to wear tinted prescription specs inside your helmet?

Ahh - you've spotted the deliberate flaw

Well at least eBay is here to rescue us:



Just don't look too closely....