Another helmet cam mount formal caution notice issued

This time in SA, it was issued as a formal caution for "Breach of ADRs" FFS!!

Helmets aren't covered by ADRs, they are referred to in Australian Standards and The Road Rules, another case of law enforcers not knowing the legislation they enforce and interpreting legislation differently than it's intent

https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAdelaide/videos/1461548683875782/

Title edited by admin (infringement wasn't issued)

Some of those comments are retarded.  I feel like i lost IQ points after reading that article.

I've got to agree re: comments reddog, reading through the rubbish being posted, there's not too many relevant or helpful comments in there.

Its a very grey area and still open to interpretation depending on jurisdiction and defendable depending on the size of your legal wallet but lets stick to the facts please otherwise it will always be a grey area if we cant even get the story straight within the riding community.

I spoke with the DPTI Vehicle Standards people this morning (I work in the next office to them)

Despite being told by the Senior Standards Officer about 12 months ago that so long as you didn't screw or drill into the helmet a camera mounted to it's shell was not a breach of the standards, today his boss informed me they have been taking the stance that any adhesive whatsoever applied to a helmet shell is a breach of the Road Rules/Australian Standard.
He also stated that when asked by SAPOL motorcycle police exactly that, he had advised them exactly the same. Despite that advise most if not all, SAPOL helmets have the same self adhesive tape attaching their cameras to their helmets. (I've seen 3 today alone)

I don't think we've heard the end of this one, I hope common sense prevails and both SAPOL and the public get to keep their camera mounts on their helmets

What do they think the as1698 stickers are affixed to the helmet with? It is absolute rubbish just like the as1698 bollocks

reddog wrote:What do they think the as1698 stickers are affixed to the helmet with? It is absolute rubbish just like the as1698 bollocks

I agree but their "logic" is that the helmet manufacturers know what the adhesive on the sticker is (no sure if they really would myself?) and claim it wont effect the shell, they can't be sure other adhesives wont effect the shell though.

To me it's clutching at straws and being way over cautious/over zealous etc.but that's the nanny state (and country) we live in

Chook wrote:I spoke with the DPTI Vehicle Standards people this morning (I work in the next office to them)

Despite being told by the Senior Standards Officer about 12 months ago that so long as you didn't screw or drill into the helmet a camera mounted to it's shell was not a breach of the standards, today his boss informed me they have been taking the stance that any adhesive whatsoever applied to a helmet shell is a breach of the Road Rules/Australian Standard.
He also stated that when asked by SAPOL motorcycle police exactly that, he had advised them exactly the same. Despite that advise most if not all, SAPOL helmets have the same self adhesive tape attaching their cameras to their helmets. (I've seen 3 today alone)

I don't think we've heard the end of this one, I hope common sense prevails and both SAPOL and the public get to keep their camera mounts on their helmets

So does that rule also apply to all helmets ...........including bicycle ?

[quote="paul"]

Chook wrote:I spoke with the DPTI Vehicle Standards people this morning (I work in the next office to them)

Despite being told by the Senior Standards Officer about 12 months ago that so long as you didn't screw or drill into the helmet a camera mounted to it's shell was not a breach of the standards, today his boss informed me they have been taking the stance that any adhesive whatsoever applied to a helmet shell is a breach of the Road Rules/Australian Standard.
He also stated that when asked by SAPOL motorcycle police exactly that, he had advised them exactly the same. Despite that advise most if not all, SAPOL helmets have the same self adhesive tape attaching their cameras to their helmets. (I've seen 3 today alone)

I don't think we've heard the end of this one, I hope common sense prevails and both SAPOL and the public get to keep their camera mounts on their helmets

So does that rule also apply to all helmets ...........including bicycle ?[/quo

I don't know what the Australian Standard for push bike helmets states, if there is mention of adding components, using adhesives etc then possibly it would

So being as my Sena 20S is clamped to the helmet (not drilled, screwed or glued) does that then mean it is ok?

Although not a camera it still fits the description of "helmet attachment".

This shit is getting ridiculous!

madmax wrote:So being as my Sena 20S is clamped to the helmet (not drilled, screwed or glued) does that then mean it is ok?

That's how I'm reading it and I'm keeping my Scala on mine

channel 7 news tonight are doing a story on motorcycles , pushbikes & coppers using cameras & the legality of them ..................(just seen it advertised, might only be Adelaide though ??? )

paul wrote:channel 7 news tonight are doing a story on motorcycles , pushbikes & coppers using cameras & the legality of them ..................(just seen it advertised, might only be Adelaide though ??? )

Nothing new here on the matter ...............it was just saying cyclists want it clarified because they are afraid they will be targeted  next

This has been going on and off for a number of years and nothing has really been settled in court or elsewhere, so maybe it would be a good thing to target the push-bike riders.  

Their lobby group is much stronger than motorcyclist, i.e. they now have cycle lanes, 1.5m passing clearance, own safety zones at some intersections, had the law changed so crossing over double lines is legal, etc.  If a couple of those lycra cladded Macquarie Street lawyers were hit with infringements for attaching cameras to their helmets the matter would be resolved in a matter of days.

barry_mcki wrote:This has been going on and off for a number of years and nothing has really been settled in court or elsewhere, so maybe it would be a good thing to target the push-bike riders.  

Their lobby group is much stronger than motorcyclist, i.e. they now have cycle lanes, 1.5m passing clearance, own safety zones at some intersections, had the law changed so crossing over double lines is legal, etc.  If a couple of those lycra cladded Macquarie Street lawyers were hit with infringements for attaching cameras to their helmets the matter would be resolved in a matter of days.

Good point.......

barry_mcki wrote:This has been going on and off for a number of years and nothing has really been settled in court or elsewhere, so maybe it would be a good thing to target the push-bike riders.  

Their lobby group is much stronger than motorcyclist, i.e. they now have cycle lanes, 1.5m passing clearance, own safety zones at some intersections, had the law changed so crossing over double lines is legal, etc.  If a couple of those lycra cladded Macquarie Street lawyers were hit with infringements for attaching cameras to their helmets the matter would be resolved in a matter of days.

Victoria has a legal  precedent. Thankfully common sense won in this particular case
link

Can't get onto the Herald sites (it's a paid subscription by the looks of it) however from memory this case was dismissed due to the standard not being available for the public to access free of charge - they now have 1 hard copy (I. E. Not on line) - in the bows of a govt building where you need security access to get into. The actual legality of attaching the camera was not tested in the appeal. 

Also a legal prescient can only be set in a higher court, even if one magistrate did say it was ok another can rule opposite.  

They need to stop trying to enforce a manufacturing / sales standard onto a everyday use situation. Technically you are breaching the standard by taking the helmet out of the box.

barry_mcki wrote:.................... however from memory this case was dismissed due to the standard not being available for the public to access free of charge -

The actual legality of attaching the camera was not tested in the appeal. 

Correct, that was the most disappointing thing with that decision, the legal standing/interpretation etc of the alleged offence was never addressed

Why Standards Australia is a private organisation is beyond me, as soon as their standards are referred to in legislation by default the standard becomes legislation, if legislation is not freely available to all it is unconstitutional

barry_mcki wrote:Can't get onto the Herald sites (it's a paid subscription by the looks of it)

That's strange I could get on it earlier today but not now. So I can't confirm if that was how it panned out in the end.
You might be right though, IIRC there was something about the legislation not being easily available to the public

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/video/watch/34522690/sa-cyclists-demand-helmet-cam-use-be-made-legal/#page1