Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Helmet standards

Helmet standards and compliance stickers

  1. smee
    Headache time[​IMG]

    Where’d you get that hat?
    ... and is it legal?

    By Guy...
    You do not have permission to view the full content of this resource.
    Lokir likes this.
  1. I did some more research into into Guys article

    Okay I did some further research

    What This article filed to mention is as follows
    the link is here http://www.coag.gov.au/mutual_recogn..._agreement.cfm

    "In 1996 the Commonwealth, States and Territories and New Zealand signed the Arrangement establishing the TTMRA. The purpose of the TTMRA is to implement mutual recognition principles relating to the sale of goods and the registration of occupations. These principles, with a few exceptions, state that:

    a good that may be legally sold in Australia may be sold in New Zealand, and a good that may be legally sold in New Zealand may be sold in Australia. This is regardless of differences in standards or other sale-related regulatory requirements between Australia and New Zealand; and
    a person registered to practise an occupation in Australia is entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in New Zealand, and vice versa, without the need for further testing or examination.


    The TTMRA entered into force on 1 May 1998.

    The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research administers the TTMRA as it relates to goods. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations administers the TTMRA as it relates to occupations.

    The TTMRA provides a simple, low cost and low maintenance mechanism for overcoming unnecessary regulatory impediments to trade in goods and the movement of skilled practitioners between Australia and New Zealand. Benefits flowing from the TTMRA include:

    lower costs to business and improved competitiveness from being able to manufacture to a single standard;
    greater choice for consumers; and
    greater cooperation between regulatory authorities.

    notice how it says to manufacture to a single standard

    Now before we used to have AS 1698 now it is actually AS/NZS 1698:2006

    Further the agreement states

    1. subject to certain exemptions for the protection of public health and safety and
    the environment, the Arrangement is intended only to take precedence over
    such Laws of Participating Parties in respect of Goods as would effectively
    prevent or restrict the sale in the Jurisdiction of that Party of a Good that can
    legally be sold in the Jurisdiction of another Participating Party;


    4.1.1 Under this Arrangement, a Good that may legally be sold in the Jurisdiction of
    an Australian Party may legally be sold in New Zealand and a Good that may legally be
    sold in New Zealand may legally be sold in the Jurisdiction of any Australian Party.
    Goods need only comply with the standards or Regulations applying in the jurisdiction
    in which they are produced or through which they are imported.
    The understandings entered into under this principle are confined to the laws of each Party.

    4.1.2 Under the principle referred to in sub-paragraph 4.1.1, mutual recognition will
    affect certain laws relating to the sale of Goods of the jurisdiction where the Goods are
    intended for sale. Such laws include:
    (a) Requirements relating to production, composition, quality or performance of a
    (b) Requirements that a Good satisfy certain standards relating to presentation, such as
    packaging, labelling, date, or age stamping;
    (c) Requirements that Goods be inspected, passed or similarly dealt with; or
    (d) any other Requirement that would prevent or restrict, or would have the effect of
    preventing or restricting, the sale of the Good.
    4.1.3 The Arrangement is not intended to affect the operation of any laws to the
    extent that they regulate:
    (a) the manner of the sale of Goods or the manner in which sellers conduct or are
    required to conduct their business, so long as those laws apply equally to Goods
    produced or imported in the Jurisdiction of the Party. Examples include:
    (i) the contractual aspects of the sale of Goods;
    (ii) the registration of sellers or other persons carrying on occupations;
    (iii) the requirements for business franchise licences;
    (iv) the persons to whom Goods may or may not be sold; and

    NOTE in respect to what Guy Stanford is talking about in respect to confusion of legislation between State Governments and Federal Government that under our legal system ( and I believe constitution ) where there is ambiguity between state and federal laws that federal laws will override state laws
  2. I'm very interested in getting a Schuberth C3 just because of its, apparently, outstanding noise blocking feature and I couldn't find any place in Australia sell them.
    Being new in Australia, tried to find information regard the legallity of import and came across this very informative community of riders.
    From what I read in past 2 weeks, I think it's very clear that buying and importing any helmet that is legal in NZ isn't a problem.
    Using it though is a dfferent matter, and you guys have covered the issue in depth here.

    Now, because in one other thread someone mentioned something about european approved helmets to be recognised in QLD from July 2011, I tried to find if it is true or not.
    On qld parliment website I found this in the legislation (the current one for 2012)

    "approved motorbike helmet means a helmet that complies with—
    (a) AS 1698–1988; or
    (b) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to that standard."

    So basically the legislation is not limited to As 1698 and the capacity of using other standards is there. But when the "chief executive", who ever s/he is, decides to ignore the (b) option then I don't see any other way but to challange this decision in order to take back the right to use helmets approved by other high quality standards.

    Personally I don't think the way to go is to ride with such helmet around until get fined and then challange that in the court. I think it is very realistic to go ahead and challange the cheif executive's dcision on not to recognise any other standard no matter what their quality is. Standards are clear and if they are at least equal to AS 1698 then cheif executive does not have the right to limit our choice of what to use.

    HEre comes the necessity of having professional opinions from people in the industry and those who have the knowledge to compare the standards.

    Is european standard at least equal to AS1698? If yes then I would like to go ahead and challenge this unnecessary imposed limitations.

    Thanks for your advices in advance.

  3. I think I can say I am an expert - the labels on my helmets say I am and the Federal Government by definition in law defines me as an expert

    European Standard ( ECE 22.05 ) does not do penetration testing as AS/NZS 1698:2006 does

    On that basis I believe the Chief Executive will say no to the ECE 22.05 standard on the basis it does not test as extensively as the AS/NZS 1698:2006

    Being bureaucrats they will say - oh it doesn't test as much hence it is not equivalent as such we will not approve ECE 22.05 as we will that way cover our asses from getting sued

    PS WA standard says something similar about equivalent standards that have been Gazetted - meaning made public as acceptable and up to now none have been gazetted as acceptable
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Thank you Takamii,
    That's exactly what I'm looking for, an expert opinion on comparing the standards.
    If AS/NZS 1698:2006 is higher than ECE 22.05, even just in one aspect the I personally think they are right not to accept it and I will gladly use a higher standard qualified helmet.
    For my specific case, I always can use earplugs or other means.

    Will have a closer look at ECE 22.05 but I should clarify that I used ECE 22.05 as just an example, if a helmet without AS 1698 passes any other standard (Dot, etc) that is equal or higher than AS1698 then still we should be entitled to have the option available to us.

  5. Snell 2010 is a very high and good standard - It has component tests that exceed AS/NZS1698:2006 such as a chin bar impact test - recently it was on par with AS/NZS - now it exceeds the amount of testing by AS/NZS
  6. Hi Takami, I just bought a full face with the marks AS/NZS1698 It does not have the 2006 date on it,

    Is it legal or not, It has all the other blurb mentioned above and the sewn in sticker inside,
  7. Legal 100%

    prior to 2006 and the combining of the Australian and NZ standard is was known only as AS1698

    the latest standard is AS/NZS 1698
  8. Thanks mate, I didnt want to get pulled over and fined for it, It was Heathers Birthday pressy, She loves it,

    It was just a tad dearer than a new Visor, and I paid extra and got 2 new tinted visors with it, cost $95-00 for the lot,

    Yep, I am a Scungy Skinflint,

  9. #10 robsalvv, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2014
    Current issue of AMCN has a short article in it about Helmet standards verses regulations.

    That caused me to look at the situation in Victoria.

    Our road rules are based on the model road rules held by the National Transport Council. The NTC's model Australian road rules do not mention AS 1698 - it just says that helmets need to be approved per a related jurisdiction. So I went looking for Victoria's road rules - and found a convenient summary on the Vicroads website regarding helmets:

    Riders and passengers must wear a helmet securely fitted and fastened on their heads. The helmets must have a mark indicating they comply with the Australian Standard AS1698 or AS/NZS1698. A face shield or visor must meet the Australian Standard AS1609.

    For helmets manufactured or imported from 1 July 2012, the helmet must be marked with the symbol of a JAS-ANZ accredited company to show their compliance to the Standards. Accredited companies that certify motorcycle helmets can be found on the JAS-ANZ website.

    That summary doesn't really tell the whole story does it?

    So I went to find the actual Statutory Vic Road Rules (2009) and found that the Vic road rules don't call up the helmet standard. The Vic RR's state that riders must wear an approved helmet and later in RR 407, it states that an approved helmet is defined by government gazette.

    So I've found the current Victorian gazette that mentions helmets, and on page 14 it defines what an approved helmet is:

    It seems that Vicroads has tried to cover ever possible AS 1698 eventuality. The intent is clearly that Helmets need to comply with at least the version of AS 1698 that was in force on the day of importation or manufacture and that this is shown by a marking. The gazette doesn't define what marking is. It also defines an impossibility in clause 7 b ii) which is that all pre 1st July 2012 helmets must have the official standards mark - the mark died in 1990 right? The five ticks mark is NOT the official standards mark... that's SAIGLOBAL's identification and I think it's also a quality certification marking - happy to be corrected.

    What a mess.

    I currently have four helmets, all bought in Victoria, three are pre 1st July 2012 with SAIGlobal's 5 ticks sticker, so technically do NOT comply with the gazette's requirement as this is NOT the official standards mark.

    The other helmet is more recent and has an AUS sticker certifying compliance to AS 1698:2006, similar to the bottom right in this pic:


    So from a Vic road rules perspective, it looks like I technically only have one roadworthy helmet.

    Interestingly, my work mirrors some of what is in the article.

    Questions that come to mind:

    The standard says permanent marking - can a sticker be considered compliant then?

    If QLD approves a SNELL helmet and I wear it in Vic, will I be technically illegal?
  10. That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but can tell you that there is a brand of car that can't be bought in Victoria but if you're from interstate you can drive it in Victoria. I don't know how you'd get on if you moved there though.

    Also, I remember quite a few years ago the weights you were allowed to tow varied from state to state and Victorians would find themselves in trouble in NSW.

    There's also the infamous "helmet exemption laws" in NSW that didn't apply in Vic.

    Similarly, NSW no longer requires you to display the Rego Label, does that mean when I go to Victoria, something I do quite often, I'll be in breach of Vic law.

    Justus, any answers?
  11. VicPol just refunded a few million bucks to SA drivers that were infringed for not having a rego label... they don't need one in SA. I think VicPol got the message! Google will find it, this only happened in the last month.
  12. The sticker on the outside from my understanding is really irrelevant as it can be washed, blown, removed, illegible or otherwise damaged, it is only there for a cursory examination for the Plod to see, saving taking your helmet off to see the real sticker sewn into the inside,
    Its the sewn inside one that counts, thats the one with all the details, with out that one, your helmet is invalid,

    By all means, if I am wrong, point it out, Its all a learning curve, and its out of my Forte,

    But at the price I paid for this helmet and Visors, Takamii, You might have to take up another profession, Before you get priced out of business, Sorry Mate,

    I have to shrink the piccys before I upload them,
    • Like Like x 1
  13. You are correct in what you have said
    • Like Like x 1
  14. #15 deadman, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
    This is the Helmet and Visor in question, Sorry, They are not very clear piccys,

    Attached Files:

  15. two more, Thats it,

    Attached Files:

  16. Clause 7 b ii actually says

    (ii) an official standards mark certifying compliance with that version of the relevant Standard, if manufactured in Australia or imported into Australia before 1 July 2012.

    'an official standards mark' could be either the Standards Australia mark or the SAI Global mark depending when the helmet was imported or maunfactured.

    Therefore your helmets do comply if a mark relevent at the time of maufacture / importation is affixed permanently to the helmet.

    There is no mess ... it is all really very simple
  17. unfortunately Fractalz, Saiglobal is a private company and does not have the authority or delegation of a semi gov organisation such as Standards Australia. The five ticks SAI Global uses are not a recognised standards Australia trademark.

    You are 100% wrong.
  18. Maybe I am wrong but according to the Standards Australia website they are not in any way a semi-governement organisation.

    The 'five ticks' were the old Standards Australian mark. SAI global adopted the tick portion of the mark into their trademark when Australian Standards sold it's commercial businesses to SAI Global.... Clever marketing.
  19. Show me where 5 ticks is the Australian Standards Association symbol.

    ASA is recognised in regulation and legislation as an authoritative body hence my mashed up comment re: semi gov.