Aussie Riders Ticketed for Tinted Helmet Visors?

First topic message reminder :

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

I'm not going to get into each states road rules suffice to say most will have something about the helmet meeting AS/NZS 1698 and visor meeting AS 1609


Doing a word search for "visor" in:
AS/NZS 1698:2006 (Incorporating Amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3)
5.8 Visors
Where a helmet is fitted or supplied with a visor, the visor shall comply with AS 1609
I didn't bother with writing the stuff about care of the helmet, or what the label must say but it is there also

AS 1609—1981 First published 1974 Second edition 1981 Incorporating: Amdt 1—1982
NOTES:
1. Although only limited technical data is available, the wearing of sunglasses, photochromic lenses and
prescription spectacles worn as the sole protection for the eyes, is not recommended. Such eyewear
is unlikely to comply with the mechanical strength required for protection against impacting particles.
2. The University of New South Wales and the Australian Road Research Board, in conjunction with the
Department of Motor Transport in New South Wales, are currently conducting feasibility studies into
matters concerning tinted visors. scratched visors and the habitual use of eye protectors by motor
cyclists and will make their findings public when the study is finished. Be interesting to find a copy of the study and what it has to say

1.3 DEFINITIONS:
1.3.2 Visor—an eye protector supported in front of the face to provide protection for the eyes and part of the face.
1.3.3 Integral visor—a built-in eye protector forming a single congruous whole with a helmet. Remember this definition for later
1.3.6 Lens—the transparent component of the eye protector through which the wearer sees. NOTE: In this standard the term ‘lens’ is not restricted to its optical sense.

3.1 DESIGN:
3.1.3 Integral Visor. Integral visors shall be capable of being easily opened. Integral visors shall not be tinted Remember what I said earlier - this could be were the police get the "Tinted visors are not allowed" info from

5.1 LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE AND COLORATION OF VISORS AND EYESHIELDS:
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.

7.1 MARKING. The name or registered trade name or mark of the manufacturer shall be marked on the eye protector or on a label securely attached thereto. Visors designed to fasten on to specific designs or brands of helmets shall be clearly marked to this effect. Tinted lenses shall have the word ‘clear’ or ‘tinted’ as appropriate, embossed on the lens in an appropriate visible position.
There is other stuff written in this section regarding the AS mark but it doesn't say the AS mark HAS to be on the visor. I haven't put it here as it's very long but happy to post it if you want it, let me know

AS/NZS 1067:2003 (Incorporating Amendment No. 1)
This standard is more about sunglasses and tint/colour transmittance. It does not really reference visors at all.
There are two tables in this AS that would be of relevance to this situation IMO though.
Table 1; which categorizes tinted lenses from 0 - 4 depending on how much light gets through (in simple terms, 0 being lightest tint, 4 being darkest)
Table 4: which gives descriptors and warnings for each lens catagory. Cat 1 lenses are not suitable for driving at night time. Cat 4 lenses must not be used when driving.
If you want the table posted up in full let me know and I'll figure a way out to do it

Hope all that info helps in some small way.

dhula wrote:  

1.3 DEFINITIONS:
1.3.2 Visor—an eye protector supported in front of the face to provide protection for the eyes and part of the face.
1.3.3 Integral visor—a built-in eye protector forming a single congruous whole with a helmet. Remember this definition for later
1.3.6 Lens—the transparent component of the eye protector through which the wearer sees. NOTE: In this standard the term ‘lens’ is not restricted to its optical sense.

3.1 DESIGN:
3.1.3 Integral Visor. Integral visors shall be capable of being easily opened. Integral visors shall not be tinted Remember what I said earlier - this could be were the police get the "Tinted visors are not allowed" info from

My personal belief after reading this is I think VicPol are clutching at straws.

One thing I was taught when I did a little bit of legal training was to always take the law makers intent into account when enforcing the legislation.

I read this as: 
1.3.2 is referring to visors that most modern helmets have, they are attached (supported) to the helmet and can be opened and closed by the rider, they CAN be tinted so long as they comply with the requirements. 
1.3.3 appears to be referring to a visor that is a solid part of the helmet, no tint allowed
 
Using plain everyday English when creating legislation (or Standards) would alleviate a lot of these issues, I'd like to see a Crown law interpretation on this.

(NOTE: this post is my interpretation only of the selected parts of the standard and has not been tested in a court of law)