Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Interesting. I read in Australian Motorcycle News that the ACCC is currently conducting a review of motorcycle helmet standards, which leaves me wondering if a review of bicycle helmet standards is also on the cards...

The review will consider three options:

Option 1: Repeal the current mandatory safety standard for the supply of motorcycle helmets and rely on other provisions of the Australian Consumer Law in conjunction with road use laws to ensure that
safe helmets are supplied.

Option 2: Repeal the current mandatory safety standard and remake a mandatory standard which allows the supply of motorcycle helmets which comply with International Standards as well as the most recent version of the Australian/New Zealand Standard.

Option 3: Repeal the current mandatory safety standard and remake it allowing the supply of motorcycle helmets which comply with the current 2006 version of the Australian/New Zealand Standard.

No doubt the motorcycling community would favour Option 2. I'd like to see it applied to bicycle helmets.

Details here.

My understanding is that motorcycle helmet laws are so bad now, that in 3 states there are no legal helmets.

One imagines that the ACCC intends fixing it so they are both illegal and required everywhere.

zero wrote:My understanding is that motorcycle helmet laws are so bad now, that in 3 states there are no legal helmets.

One imagines that the ACCC intends fixing it so they are both illegal and required everywhere.

According to the review paper it's the opposite, justifying option 1, which is the ACCC's preferred option.

RonK wrote:No doubt the motorcycling community would favour Option 2. I'd like to see it applied to bicycle helmets.

Why would you want to see motorcycle helmet standards applied to bike helmets? Cycling helmets don't have this issue with two conflicting AS, do they?

And anyway, option 2 should be or, not and. International standards OR Australian standards, not both. It is a peculiarly Australian disease that we insist on having our own standards with a few subtle differences from perfectly good international ones. I shouldn't complain, in my professional life I make a good living from those differences, but in most cases it's a nonsense and just costs everyone money. (Rant over).

There is at least 1 significant distinction between the AS situation for motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets. The AS for motorcycle helmets offers relatively poor protection which the Snell & Euro standards comfortably exceed - ie a motorcycle helmet that meets the current Snell standard will easily pass the AS standard tests - the issue is that it is then a high cost to the manufacturer to obtain additional testing.

As I understand it , this is not the case with bicycle helmets - a helmet meeting the Euro standard will not necessarily meet the current AS.

Whether the AS for bicycle helmets is appropriate is debatable, but I am not going to get into the technical aspects of that.

RonK wrote:

zero wrote:My understanding is that motorcycle helmet laws are so bad now, that in 3 states there are no legal helmets.

One imagines that the ACCC intends fixing it so they are both illegal and required everywhere.

According to the review paper it's the opposite, justifying option 1, which is the ACCC's preferred option.

My comment was tongue in cheek in case you didn't notice. They've presided over something which has become a terrible mess.

scirocco wrote:Why would you want to see motorcycle helmet standards applied to bike helmets?

I don't - I want bicycle helmets that meet appropriate international standards made legal to buy (from local or OS suppliers) and use here . Which is what option 2 proposes in relation to motorcycle helmets.

scirocco wrote:And anyway, option 2 should be or, not and. International standards OR Australian standards, not both.

I'm not responsible for the wording of the options. Read the paper - you will find that either the international standard "or" the A/NZ standard is proposed, provided that the international standard is not less safe than the A/NZ standard.

there are 2 standards for bike (push and motor) helmets:
1. the supply to market, and
2. for wearers

the ACCC are concerned with #1. most of the debate is around #2.

zero wrote:

RonK wrote:

zero wrote:My understanding is that motorcycle helmet laws are so bad now, that in 3 states there are no legal helmets.

One imagines that the ACCC intends fixing it so they are both illegal and required everywhere.

According to the review paper it's the opposite, justifying option 1, which is the ACCC's preferred option.

My comment was tongue in cheek in case you didn't notice. They've presided over something which has become a terrible mess.

Can't argue with that. There are apparently conflicts between "supply" and "use" laws.

jules21 wrote:there are 2 standards for bike (push and motor) helmets:
1. the supply to market, and
2. for wearers

the ACCC are concerned with #1. most of the debate is around #2.

I'm interested in the cost of helmets, which relates to the supply laws, as is the motorcycle community.

RonK wrote: Can't argue with that. There are apparently conflicts between "supply" and "use" laws.

Like the situation where it's legal to sell petrol motor kits for bicycles but they're illegal to use anywhere but private property?

ldrcycles wrote:

RonK wrote: Can't argue with that. There are apparently conflicts between "supply" and "use" laws.

Like the situation where it's legal to sell petrol motor kits for bicycles but they're illegal to use anywhere but private property?

I've had a chat with a police officer who said that the petrol motors, while illegal in the spirit of the law, are virtually impossible to prosecute because of the onerous requirements to validate the charges. You have to hook the motor up to a dyno and possibly pull the motor apart to determine if it is outside the current laws. This is not hard in itself, but you have to reassemble the motor and you just made a :trivial: case into a bigger than ben hur mess. If a fatality was being investigated, then they'd go to the effort, but otherwise, just not worth the effort.

I think Australian law needs to pull its head in, so to speak, on international standards. Snell really should be adequate, and if it is not, then some SERIOUS soul searching needs to done, when the home of the biggest manufacturers and the home of helmets in general doesn't see the need to adopt our standards. It doesn't help anyone for us to restrict helmet sales ta all.

Xplora wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:

RonK wrote: Can't argue with that. There are apparently conflicts between "supply" and "use" laws.

Like the situation where it's legal to sell petrol motor kits for bicycles but they're illegal to use anywhere but private property?

I've had a chat with a police officer who said that the petrol motors, while illegal in the spirit of the law, are virtually impossible to prosecute because of the onerous requirements to validate the charges. You have to hook the motor up to a dyno and possibly pull the motor apart to determine if it is outside the current laws. This is not hard in itself, but you have to reassemble the motor and you just made a :trivial: case into a bigger than ben hur mess. If a fatality was being investigated, then they'd go to the effort, but otherwise, just not worth the effort.

There's at least one state where the 200W figure doesn't apply to petrol motors, if they aren't electric they aren't legal.

Xplora wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:

RonK wrote: Can't argue with that. There are apparently conflicts between "supply" and "use" laws.

Like the situation where it's legal to sell petrol motor kits for bicycles but they're illegal to use anywhere but private property?

I've had a chat with a police officer who said that the petrol motors, while illegal in the spirit of the law, are virtually impossible to prosecute because of the onerous requirements to validate the charges. You have to hook the motor up to a dyno and possibly pull the motor apart to determine if it is outside the current laws. This is not hard in itself, but you have to reassemble the motor and you just made a :trivial: case into a bigger than ben hur mess. If a fatality was being investigated, then they'd go to the effort, but otherwise, just not worth the effort.

They can strap them to a motorcycle chassis dyno, and it can all be done by a third party, a motorcycle mechanic. Chassis dyno is faster, safer, and the mechanic can be remote from the thing and its drivechain when the throttle is opened, and it eliminates claims that the linkage/muffler limited the engine or whatever, and the dyno can be calibrated with an actual assist bike.

What he is actually saying is that they don't have procedure for it, and the police red tape in making a procedure for it would probably cost 100x more than a months worth of enforcement would.

Yep that's it zero. When they have theft and assault and murders to chase down, it's just not a priority. Particularly when injuries are likely to be very very rare with them.

I actually know of a chassis dyno for motorcycles in collingwood that goes down to 100 watts or so