Questions about purchasing bicycles and parts
One major aspect, it requires routine, ongoing testing (something like 10 units from every production run). Overseas standards only do one-off tests I believe. The nature of the exact tests may differ also.
AFAIK, the biggest difference between AU-OS standards is in the retention system. AU requires much heavier straps for compliance. I bought a Giro Hex from a well known sorta local web shop and did not realise the very small "For off road use only" disclaimer in the description meant it did not have an AS sticker Didn't notice the lack until the first time I went to wash the pads
The straps on it are very lightweight compared to any stickered lid I've got. Pity, as it's the most comfy, well vented lid I've ever worn.
Question for those in the know...
Is the requirement for the AS sticker only a riding on road thing or would I be in the legislative and insurance poo if I totalled meself in the Wombat forest?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Dude, you're funny. Straps are the major difference. There are other differences in testing procedures, in that AS requires ONE unit to be tested through all scenarios, whereas some of the o/s standards use a NEW unit for each test procedure.
MY RIDES: My Velospace Profile
The question is more likely are you willing to risk a fight with the lawyers and insurance agents? Is the property crown land, if so you are likely to need a licence and helmet to ride a moto legally (just saying, may not have legal access). The case that you can be done for DUI on private proerty (heresay, not proof) if you crash a car leads me to more conservative AS-stickered MTB riding.
My helmet is AS approved, what if the sticker comes off (it is coming off)? I could probably trace the purchase to a date using bank statements and may be able to find a receipt but would be difficult to prove.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
Except for the fact that they are illegal and against the Australian Road Rules. A police officer can pull you over at any time and ask to inspect your helmet. If its not Australian approved you can get fined. I am not sure on the price of the fine but it could be along the lines of the not wearing a helmet fine.
So if breaking road rules and potentially getting fined and then having to go and buy an Australian approved helmet because you wanted to save a few dollars and in the end paying alot more then go for it.
All quite ironic in view of the behaviour of those anti-MHL riders. Suddenly recognising the safety advantages and importantce of AS labelled helmets over O/S helmets.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
Back on topic after the attempted troll...
I kinda agree bychosis which is why I asked the question, a shame to have it gathering dust but I'm getting good mileage out of my Kali Chakra Plus which fortuitously is the second most comfy, well vented lid I've ever worn.
London Boy 29/12/2011
As anyone EVER been stoped to have their helmet checked my the police?? Seriously, l think the chances of this must be zero. Surely they have better law enforcement to do that this. Sure it is technically illegal, but its a chance I will take.
As of o/s Vs au - I am happy to wear mine that I bought in the UK (mid-range Giro). If it is safe for riding the roads there, that is good enough for me. If the worst was to happen and the insurance company got involved, my understanding is that they would have to prove that me wearing a non-"as" helmet contributed to the accident or the injuries that were sustained. I think this would be difficult to do if it has an EC sticker.
OK, a disclaimer: I'm not holding myself out as someone in the know. TINLA, assume I'm a fool or a liar, blah blah blah. That said:
- it depends whether you're riding on a "road", or a "road-related area", as defined in the local Road Rules. Note that the definition of "road-related area" used to determine whether the Road Rules apply can be different to the definition used in the actual rules. Cool, eh?
- breach of the Road Rules is neither necessary nor sufficient to show negligence. Note that contributory negligence is approached in much the same way.
- I believe that there has been some attempt to argue that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence in the UK. I don't think it got up, but don't take my word for it. Of course, completely different legal situation re: helmet wearing so take with a pinch of salt any way it went. Then there's the question of how different the helmet in question is compared to a standards-compliant one.
I think that, for example, showing that wearing a non-AS helmet was contributorily negligent would be a pretty tough gig. I don't know that this would stop an insurer from trying (or threatening to try as a negotiating tactic), judging from my hazy recollection of that UK situation.
I reckon the only thing ironic about your statement is that you take it as fact. No copper can actually stop you and demand any sort of sticker on your helmet. I suppose he can note its manufacturer and check up but that's about it. There is no longer any requirement to have a sticker on or in the helmet.
It makes me wonder what authority any club has to go further than a cop can if this is the case.
Of course I read it on the internet so it must be true.... Any way here is a different point of view rather than just getting hysterical...
http://roadrider.com.au/special-feature ... lmet-legal
The poor old coppers (bless ’em) appear to have no idea, at least in Tasmania, and neither does Standards Australia.
In Tassie, an unfortunate rider who had just bought a new helmet was told by the local Plod that she couldn’t wear it on the road because it didn’t have the familiar 5-tick sticker on it. And when her bike shop (which had sold her the helmet in good faith) checked with Standards, they were told by Daniel Chidgey, the Co-ordinator, Customer Information Service, “My understanding is that, yes, you have to have the 5-tick certification mark issued by SAI-Global to be able to use the helmet on the roads.”
Both the police and Daniel are, however, wrong and have been for six years (!).
In case you can’t be bothered following the whole sad story, here’s the summary:
Since December 17, 2003 (!), the Australian certification marketplace has been “opened up” to competitive privately owned companies. The days of the “5-ticks” being the only certification trademark are long gone and there are now seven companies that can test and approve helmets. We can’t list them here because we couldn’t find out what they all are (believe it or not), but they include BSI Management Systems (Australia & New Zealand) Pty Ltd, Global-Mark Pty Ltd, SAI Global Limited and TÜV Rheinland Australia Pty Limited.
This stuff will blow you away...
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/mo ... lmets.html
Motorcycle helmets manufactured after 31 March 2011 must have an identifying mark from a body accredited or approved by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) certifying compliance with an above standard.
http://roadrider.com.au/special-feature ... of-helmets Applicable to motor cycle helmets but retrospective and binding to bike helmets.
Certification is carried out by a Conformance Assessment Body (CAB) and each has its own logo or brand name, but this doesn’t have to be on the product, unless the CAB company demands this, or the manufacturer wants this, as part of business arrangements between the product manufacturer and the CAB company.
In fact, the “statement of compliance” may be, as we read above from Australian Standard AS/NZS 1698:2006, “on a product, or on packaging or promotional material related to that product”.
So when you purchased your helmet, the “statement of compliance” could have been printed on the box it came in, or on the “Instructions for Use and Care” required under Section 9 of the Standard and enclosed with your helmet, or on promotional material telling you how wonderful it is, or on a swing-tag or on a sticker across the entire visor, or it may take the form of a shiny sticker from a CAB company stuck on the helmet.
You’d be a goose to leave all the packing materials on your sunglasses or helmet and go riding, so you take all that stuff off. The little sticker may have the words “Do Not Remove” but that’s just intimidation; it only had to be there when “offered for sale”. Once you bought it, it’s your product and sales labels may be removed.
However, the “permanent” Section 8 internal Markings are required by the Standard. These identify the helmet and carry warnings.
Looking for evidence of compliance from external labels is a load of codswallop and has been since 1990. External advertising labels are legally unreliable once the product is sold.
ACT, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia
A helmet that is legal to use under the new NSW Road Rules is illegal to use in the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia.
In these states, the police are instructed to look for a helmet in use on roads that:
“has applied to it the certification trade mark of which the Standards Association of Australia”
“[is] marked with an official standards mark certifying compliance with the relevant Standard”
Tasmania “bears the Australian Standards Mark”
South Australia “[is] bearing the certification mark of the Standards Association of Australia”
Western Australia “carries a sticker issued by Standards Australia”
There is no such a thing as a “Certification Trademark of the Standards Association of Australia”, nor “an official Standards Mark”, nor “an Australian Standards Mark”, nor “a Certification Mark of the Standards Association of Australia”, nor “a sticker issued by Standards Australia”.
Police are looking for something that doesn’t exist.
To riders: We suggest that you continue wearing your helmet as before and by all means buy a new one from a recognised manufacturer. Just concentrate on staying safe until this is all sorted out!
To the police: If a rider has a helmet on, that’s enough for now. You don’t look for stickers on seatbelts, just that they’re being used. Bookings for “unapproved helmet” are likely to prove unsound in court.
Last edited by outnabike on Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The testing regime is fairly similar with the main difference being the euro standard does each test with a new helmet. The Australian standard requires that each helmet pass the series of test.
The Australian standard also requires that each batch of helmets be tested.
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
Not a troll, but legitimate related arguments that cross two threads.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
I think you missed my point.
On the one had some anti-MHL advocates (not necessarily you) pushes how helmets are unnecessary, to the point of even causing injuries. On the other, those are arguing the importance of an AS sticker vs EU or US standards.
Which is the standard for motorcycle helmets. As you rightly point out, the specific requirements of the relevant standards are at issue. Trouble is, helmets fall under a different standard: AS/NZS 2063.
I think this is pretty sketchy advice. Certainly, lack of a sticker is not decisive. Lack of certification, however, is. This is a live issue with helmets bought offshore.
As for the rights of clubs to require standards-compliant helmets: of course they can; it's a contract. They can stipulate the clothes you wear, the kind of bike you ride and all manner of other things because, well, them's the rules. The situation with helmets is no different.
Yeah, Oooook then. You just keep on believing that your snide little digs at pro hemlet choice posters in every thread discussing helmets (that are not the MHL)aren't.
You were sayin'?
London Boy 29/12/2011
AVCC clubs regularly do helmet checks, so do the local CA club's.
No snickered helmet no race-end of discussion
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
A cop can book you whenever he likes, if he thinks you are doing wrong. That doesn't make him necessarily correct. The point of all that stuff above is that it seems by law, a certificate of safety has to be provided for Ausy conditions, the onus of proof is for the purchaser.
It seems that the law has no right to expect the wearer to prove the helmets safety or other wise. That is what the testing by the manufacture is supposed to guarantee. The police can book you on suspicion of an incorrect helmet and that can then be examined in court.
In reality the police don't have the skills to tell if you removed the label accidentally, swapped it or whatever. You don't have to carry a tube of glue to re-a fix a label.
In actuality the same should apply to race officials of cycling clubs. It is ok to write a lot of requirements, but it is possible to be coming at the issue from the wrong angle.
At the end of the day due to all the ineptitude of the state and federal rules, In the case of a life threatening issue over negligence, the manufacturer could certainly be called to the table and have to prove his product is sound.
A motorist has to carry a license and that is all. He doesn't need a safety label on the safety belts.
I am not being adamant that all the above is right 100% but if I get booked for a helmet issue of non compliance I will challenge it in court.
and the court case would go like this:
judge: was the helmet purchased in Oz with the appropriate oz standards?
you: no but....
my workmate on the motorbike copped the fine. he knew he was in the wrong.
(emphasis in original)
What statute (or reported case) states that the onus is on the purchaser to demonstrate compliance?
Here's the requirement to wear a helmet, ARR 256:
This is the rule as enacted in Queensland; other states may vary, I'm not sure on this point.
"Approved bicycle helmet" is defined as follows:
I don't see anything about the onus being on the wearer or anything like that. Near as I can judge, the onus, if you're talking about breach of the road rules, falls on the Crown. At the risk of digressing, helmets sold in Aus are legally required to comply with the standard. So I would have thought that someone who bought a helmet in, say, a bike shop and got pinged could have raised a defence of mistake (because they honestly and reasonably believed the helmet to be standards-compliant).
You work mat "Knew" he was in the wrong because the police told him so?
I think if you read what I quoted you will find it is dealing with helmets purchased in Oz and the labelling of same But if the store was selling identical helmets tested and untested, the burden of proof would be by the crown I suppose.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: JdM