[Wingerdave]

I think the biggest problem is the fact that much of your lawmaking is left to the states. This would seem to be a case in which Federal intervention may be a better thing. Just adopt ISO, BS or the EU standards and be done with it (they are very much of a muchness), unless in Oz helmets have to pass a kangaroo test. Hitting asphalt at x/kph is the same where ever you are.

As for tinted visors....... just ban them after dusk or during inclement weather.

Seems like common sense to me.

[rustynutz]

The trouble here in OZ is that the standards are very much open to interpretation, with some police trying to say that adding a cam makes the helmet non compliant. Others say the standards are only relevant at the point of sale....

This is being tested in the Frankston Magistrates Court at the moment....or would be except it's been adjourned a number of times so police can look into things further....
You've gotta laugh, if Police are having trouble getting info on the standards, how on earth can the average rider be expected to know them?   

Surprise, surprise, this "test case" has again been adjourned (until July 10) while the police prosecutors try to prove their case....
Fair dinkum, how much time do they need? If the police prosecutors can’t fathom the complex laws to justify their fines, how can riders be expected to comply? 

Helmet camera deemed illegal
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE IN MOTORBIKE NEWS — 16 SEP, 2015

A Victorian Magistrate has upheld a $150 fine against a motorcycle rider for wearing a helmet camera, finding that the relevant laws were publicly available despite evidence that they weren’t.

Defendant Max Lichenbaum says he is disappointed and is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court through his lawyers Maurice Blackburn.

Legal representative Malcolm Cumming says they tried to obtain the laws first by phoning VicRoads, but were told they could not give them out over the phone.

“So we sent someone to VicRoads, but the receptionist was not sure and asked someone in a back room who said, no, we can’t have them; they’re available by subscription only,” Malcolm says.

The laws used to be available in a public library on the ground floor, but it has been closed and they are now held on the fifth floor which does not have public access under tighter anti-terrorism measures.

Malcolm says this evidence was presented in court, but Frankston Court Magistrate Crisp made the point that the lawyers needed to prove that on the date of the offence the relevant Australian Standard was not available.

“He wasn’t satisfied that, in all probability, it wasn’t available.”

The other legal argument was that the standard applies at the point of manufacture and cannot be unapproved.

However, the Magistrate found that there was an ongoing obligation to comply with the standard.

“This is inconsistent with the laws in Queensland and South Australia. In their road rules, they make it clear and explicit that road rule 270 means that you comply at manufacture and that’s the end of the story.

“I’m very disappointed with the verdict and we will be advising Max about appeal options to the Supreme Court.

“Max was also very disappointed as he is always a good risk manager and always wears full leathers and boots and uses a helmet camera to manage risk, improve driver behaviour and as evidence after the fact.

“We’re now going to ask the State Government for legislative change to remove the ambiguity and make it clear that as in Queensland and South Australia, once it’s approve it can’t be unapproved.”

Media and observers packed the Frankston Magistrates Court, including cyclist representatives such as Dallas Goldburg of the World Naked Bike Ride.

He said the legal interpretation also affected cyclists.

“We use cameras to protect ourselves,” he says.

In Queensland, a former police minister even encouraged cyclists to wear helmet cameras to collect evidence in the case of an incident.

“You don’t get given the government standard when you buy a helmet,” he says.

“We’re also amazed that GoPro have no formal comment on it.

“You can now buy a GoPro at Target, Woolies, Kmart and Dick Smith, but there’s nothing to show there is a warning that they can’t be on a helmet.

It’s the helmet that’s not approved, not the camera, or the 3M adhesive, or the standard at the point of manufacturer or at the point of being picked up by the police.”

Source: Helmet camera deemed illegal - Motorbike Writer

[rustynutz]

What a joke!   

Here's hoping they do appeal.....

[Lakes]

Rusty as you say strange, but if a Queensland rider rides through Vic with a camera on helmet they can't book him as he only needs to comply with home state rules as passing through. but i'm not getting a camera, i have been riding over 40 years with out so why change. one more gadget to worry about.

I was born on a day the sun didn't shine 

[rustynutz]

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, John....you actually have to comply with the rules of the State you're passing through... 

[Doggie 1]

 

[Lakes]

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, John....you actually have to comply with the rules of the State you're passing through... 

Rusty i know as back in 81 82 we had helmet exemptions in NSW, a few of my mates had them road to South Aussie, the cops tried to book us for other things like i think one was no front number plate but in NSW only issued with one. we all went to court six months latter the judge took our side, we walked  outside the cops had issued more defects we went back saw the Judge he gave the cops a good roasting only need to comply with home state laws when traveling through.

but you might be right about the camera but what is the issue there?
not that i want to have a camera in a car or on a bike.

[Lakes]

So my local member of state parliament the minister of transport. i should tell him put a tick gate up on QLD boarder to stop QLD registers cars crossing into NSW as this state every car over three years old must have inspection each year.
what other states don't ihave safety inspections each year?

[rustynutz]

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, John....you actually have to comply with the rules of the State you're passing through... 

Rusty i know as back in 81 82 we had helmet exemptions in NSW, a few of my mates had them road to South Aussie, the cops tried to book us for other things like i think one was no front number plate but in NSW only issued with one. we all went to court six months latter the judge took our side, we walked  outside the cops had issued more defects we went back saw the Judge he gave the cops a good roasting only need to comply with home state laws when traveling through.

Sorry John, I should have said you actually have to comply with the road rules of the State you're passing through... 

One such example is, in Victoria P1 licence holders can drive at the posted speed limits yet if they venture into NSW they are limited to 90kph...

When it comes to helmets, Queensland and more recently Victoria now allow helmets that don't meet Australian design rules but meet certain European standards. Unfortunately these are only legal in those States. Cross the border and you're open to being booked for wearing a non compliant helmet...

but you might be right about the camera but what is the issue there?
not that i want to have a camera in a car or on a bike.

The issue is that the police are saying that by fitting a camera to a helmet, the helmet is then not complying with the ADR's so is not a legal helmet. The actual ADR's are as clear as mud and wide open to different interpretations.

[Lakes]

That's strange hey, with me i was riding before helmets, then when we had to use them i said well i'll get the best & safest i can, so i did. i used to ge flack from some Harley riders but i just did what i wanted not what they wanted 
i would not ride without a full face helmet now as when i wanted to race the helmet had to comply with track regulations, also if you are quicker than 11.99 second quarter mile on a MC you must have full face. so for me one had to do it all. & when i go racing i'm never slower than 11.99.

That has to be a poorly thought out speed law limiting red p platers to 90kph, so i agree, as speed limit mostly 100kph. but i see too many interstate drivers here driving less than 30KPH below the speed limit, that illegal but i've never seen the law inforced .
it's about time we got a national licence & road law & got rid of state governments simplify the system lower overheads.
but no one will be happy.
about the helmets QLD & VIC allow, they must be novelty helmets? as at the race track does not matter what state ( but regional tracks could be different ) you have to have a helmet to meet standards no older that 5 years & meet standards set 5 years or less before has to meet AU & NZ design rules too. wonder why QLD & VIC changed , also to best of my knowledge , there is no helmet exemptions in Australia now but someone from WA said they have them still over there seems strange.

[Phil №❶]

Laws are laws I suppose, but common sense should prevail. If it's ok for police and armed forces to wear helmet cams for the purpose of collecting evidence and personal recognition, why is it illegal to wear a functioning camera on your helmet for the same purpose.

[rustynutz]

about the helmets QLD & VIC allow, they must be novelty helmets?

Not novelty, John...just normal helmets that haven't been able to be used legally in Australia previously due to them not having been tested to the Australian Standards..
Having helmets tested can be an expensive business and with the Australian market being fairly small, many manufacturers don't bother...
Now, at least shoppers have more choice and can now purchase a range of helmets from overseas. 

[ibrokeit]

I reckon some people would get pulled over for some of these helmets (or apparent lack of): Bald Head Helmet - Neatorama

Or the helmet covers - I can see someone trying to say they are distracting - Motorbike Funny Heeds Crazy Helmet Covers Motorcycle Hlemetcover Cookie Monster | eBay

[rustynutz]

I wouldn't mind the yellow dog cover... 

I don't understand the stupid ruling against helmet cams but it is easily solved buy attaching the cam to the bike instead or buy one of the new helmets that have a built in cam which also have all the built in Bluetooth for phone and WiFi/twoway connection for communication between riding partners.

[rustynutz]

Fine risk for removing helmet visor stickers
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE
 21 SEP, 2015

Riders run the risk of a fine if they remove the helmet visor protective film under the controversial ruling last week by a Victorian Magistrate, says a helmet law expert.

Australian Motorcycle Council helmet chairman Guy Stanford says the verdict to uphold a fine against a motorcyclist for wearing a helmet camera also has bizarre implications for motorcyclists, cyclists and even mums with babies in their cars.

“The Victorian decision was on the basis that ‘approved’ means ‘compliant’,” he says.

“That means none of the labels may be removed, not even those on the protective film across the visor. The same applies to bicycle helmets and also to child restraints.”

He says the Magistrate’s verdict that the helmet must continue to comply after sale means all of these products approved by Australian Standards must continue to comply with the same requirements as when offered for sale.

Not all states have the same interpretation of the standards, but Guy describes the Victorian situation as “idiocy”.

According to the Victorian Ruling, Guys says the literal wording for the child restraint standard means you would have to put a child in a restraint then put the child restraint and the child into a single package.

“I guess that we will see the Victorian coppers lining up at day-care centres and schools,” he says.

“More tickets to write there in one spot than spending hours rounding up isolated riders. They must be rubbing their hands with glee!”

He says cyclists will also have similar problems to motorcyclists after the verdict.

“No more anti-magpie zip-ties, no more lights or cameras on helmets. It’ll be a State Revenue windfall.

“The Victorian Parliament appears happy to allow an unelected legislature in the form of a committee at Standards Australia to write law for Victoria.

“VicRoads, through privately owned stickers, gives regulatory protection to these products. It’s a great arrangement for profits all round.

“We’re forced to comply with the sales requirements of a private document of a private company or get expensive fines and loss of license points.

“Who is actually running Victoria? All we see is policed market control that costs us money and removes choices.”

The defendant in the Victorian case is yet to decide whether he will appeal the decision, but the Independent Riders Group has pledged financial and moral support if he does.

Meanwhile, he says the NSW Roads and Maritime Services is testing helmets to see if there is any increased injury risk from a mounted camera.

“They have done a fair bit and we know the generalities, but no results have been made public,” Guy says.

“With the current Victorian idiocy, they are keeping quiet. So would I.”

Source: Fine risk for removing helmet visor stickers - Motorbike Writer

[Lakes]

Interesting rusty, i don't use a camera. one more thing to worry about, but people i ride pushy with some have them.

i wonder how they carry out the tests & how much that costs us tax payers?

[Wingerdave]

I can't help myself............. You guys have some wierd lawmakers, elected or otherwise. Reading though this post i've seen a few ridiculous laws and recommendations. It makes me glad i live here as a biker.

Life is simple when one rule applies to all (European Union-wide). Well, that's Federalism for ya 

[rustynutz]

I'm sure if we dug deep enough we'd find some dumb rules over there as well, Dave...but you're right, we have some really weird, actually really ignorant lawmakers... 

we have some really weird, actually really ignorant lawmakers... 

And they all seem to reside in Victoria I never hear of all these stupid rulings here in the West, I guess we must have some as well but as long as your not acting like an idiot or giving cheek back to an officer then the friendly local police around here don't really care 

[Wingerdave]

Rusty, I was only refering to the helmet laws at this time.

And yes, we have some REALLY stupid laws over here. In Germany, for instance a motor bike with a trailer has a speed limit of 60 kph... Even on the Motorway !!!!!!

On the other hand our law on traffic filtering for bikes is 20 kph (which is pretty safe because Belgians will do just about anything to block you, even when they're not in Belgium. Bunch of jealous $%*&s the Belgians).

[rustynutz]

Judge dismisses helmet camera fine
BY MARK HINCHLIFFE
12 FEB, 2016


A controversial case in which a rider was fined almost $300 for having a GoPro action camera on his helmet has been dismissed by a Melbourne Country Court judge.

It was the sixth time rider Max Lichenbaum had appeared before the court over the 2014 fine in what has been described as a farcical process and a waste of the court’s time on such a trivial matter.

After deliberating the case over night, Judge John Jordan simply said: “I set aside the magistrate’s verdict and dismiss the charge.”

On the previous appearance in court, the Magistrate reduced the fine to $150, but Max decided to fight the fine.

Pro bono defence counsel, Malcolm Cumming of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, says their defence argued that the Australian Standards only apply to a helmet when sold, the relevant rules are too difficult for the public to access ansd that there is no roadworthy test for helmets like there is for vehicles.

The judge agreed with the defence argument that the laws were not accessible and didn’t need to consider the other arguments.

Malcolm says while he is happy with the verdict, there is “still a lot of work to do” because the compliance issue is not resolved.

“The verdict means people who have been convicted in Victoria ought not to have been,” he says. “You can’t do anything retrospectively, but it means it is now an open question in relation to whether compliance is ongoing.”

He says it doesn’t mean all Australian riders, no matter whether they are motorcyclists or cyclists, should be able to attach a camera to their helmet.

Malcolm says they have a lot of lobbying to do on the Victorian Government to get some consistency with other states such as South Australia, ACT and Queensland.

Max says he doesn’t know if it was worth all the hassle and effort, but is happy with the result which he says is good for everyone.

“Hopefully it will help other riders,” he says.

Max was disappointed he was not able to make a statement in court when the charge was dismissed.

“I wanted to say I wear all the safety gear plus a camera on my helmet, yet someone who rides around wearing thongs and shorts, no gloves but a helmet, well that’s legal.”

Longtime helmet campaigner Wayne Carruthers says the long time for the judge to deliver a verdict was due to the lawyers calling into question the validity of the entire regulations which meant complex legal arguments.

He says common sense prevailed and a precedent set which will force State Regulators towards the unified ARR for setting of standards.

He says it is hoped helmet offences are separated into multiple items such as not wearing any helmet and wearing a helmet with the wrong visor.

“This case also has implications for bicycle helmets and child restraints as they are also treated in the same way as helmets and outside the normal safety standards systems used for all other vehicle components.

“Regardless of the win, we now have an example of police and prosecutors wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money on a pointless exercise in power which can be used politically and in the mass media,” he says.

Source: Judge dismisses helmet camera fine - Motorbike Writer

[Shambles]

^ I should bloody well think so too. Great post update.

I wonder what happened to @Johnno

[eye30]

“This case also has implications for bicycle helmets

Be interesting to see how this pans out......

[Dazzler]

Thanks for the update Rusty, good to see common sense prevail! 

[Doggie 1]

 
It's a safety issue these days to have a camera and I don't see how a camera would reduce the effectiveness of a helmet.
Legislation needs to catch up though.

[ibrokeit]

It's a safety issue these days to have a camera and I don't see how a camera would reduce the effectiveness of a helmet.
Legislation needs to catch up though.

Uh huh - I agree.  They should be allowed to wear cameras.

While I in no way think motorcyclists are blameness all the time (unlike how some motorcycling mates I hear speak) - as behaviors by some are down-right reckless - I totally agree that drivers of bigger vehicles, esp. cars, SUVs, 4x4s, seem to not see motorcyclists (even when they are/should be pretty obvious and following the road rules) more than with other vehicles.   And many times it is driver of the larger vehicle at fault.   Of course those drivers sometimes don't see vehicles their size or bigger - hence the numerous clips on the internet.

I don't know the history of the legislation - but I suspect it would have been, at some-point (if not now), based on having permanently fixed cosmetic protuberances (horns, spikes, etc. screwed/bolted on) that could get caught during an accident causing (further) injury to the wearer (such as breaking neck when it wouldn't have otherwise? - don't know just a guess) or possibly bystanders.   Though if you are that close I suspect you would be getting injured anyway.

Unfortunately it can take a while for common sense to prevail.

[neptune]

cameras come handy...



Cyclist EXTREME close call vs Semi Trailer Truck! - YouTube