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.

VIC Helmet camera laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by adi_149, Oct 12, 2016.

  1. So I am new to riding and realised the importance of video-recording my rides for safety and evidence, coz some people out there are plain crazy! I have also been viewing some videos on YouTube where I felt if it wasn't for the recorded footage it would be almost impossible/difficult to prove who's mistake it was (or who was really messing around!) for the cause of the incident.

    That said... I've tried to record my rides from various camera angles with the camera attached to my bike or helmet. Without doubt the helmet camera angle is the best! No vibrations, no BS! + my head-checks and speed etc are recorded as well!

    So my main question is... Is is legal (in VIC) to attach cameras to helmets? Coz there has been a lot of debate abt this and VIC police has been cracking up on helmet cameras in previous years. Is this still the case? or are we finally allowed to attach cams on our helmets and the cops wont worry abt it? I wanna know wat is legal coz I dont want to end up paying fines just because the cops are trying to find some ginny-pig to fulfil their monthly quota lol :p

    I tried to search this online but been getting a lot of mixed opinions... can someone please clear this once and for all? Any input is appreciated.... thanks heaps!
  2. didn't see this video before, thanks for sharing the link :beer:... but yea vic police was cracking up on helmet cams pretty hard in 2013-2014 (around the time of this vid), i guess they got a bit passive around 2015-2016? coz I couldnt find a lot of info on people being stopped for helmet-cams in 2015-16 but then again im not sure if the cops are more passive abt this now or riders have stopped attaching cams on helmet :( I like how cool QLD is regarding this... even the cops there wear em!
  3. i watched a vid where a cop was saying luckily the rider had a camera on his helmet to show what happened, or something along them lines. South Australia.
    can't remember the vid now though :(
    i can't seem to find too much info about the definitive laws in S.A. either.
    i bought mine after watching that vid though, if a copper says it, it must be true right ? :p
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Unless things have changed, and I hope they do, it's still up to the police officer's interpretation in NSW and Vic. Personally I like being able to wear a camera, I just want the laws sorted properly before I put it back on. In the mean time I'm looking into mounting it elsewhere, I just haven't gotten around to it.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Don't think for a moment the helmet cam laws restrict the cops from having them in VIC. Pot, kettle, black when smiling sunshine writes you a ticket whilst having a camera on his helmet.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. The cops have exemptions for various things. Exceeding posted speed limits and using mobile phones are just two. Adding the use of helmet cameras would be pretty trivial.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Sure, but if that exemption doesn't exist yet...
  8. While the exemption for having a camera mounted is a simple one in theory, the big issue is whether or not it is a potential workcover issue as safety (modified or non-compliant helmet) is the basis on which police have issued these fines.

    If it is unsafe for the general public to simply and non-permanently fit a camera, the same applies to police, so it then comes back to bite them.

    Theee is no law that I'm aware of that specifically prescribes the fitting of a camera to be unlawful.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. They'll just say it does under their operating procedures or something. This is something you can't win easily and certainly not with a semi-clever twist of words on the street.
  10. If you want the whole story, you're going to have to read that whole thread, or else go and ask someone from the Victoria Motorcycle Council.
    Put aside several days - it's complicated!
    Shortest summary I can manage: two cases made it to court. One resulted in the charge sticking (might have been appealed), The other was dismissed, but on a technicality. Nothing has been decided with certainty and nobody can guarantee it won't happen again, but there hasn't been any police action on it for quite a while.
    The bottom line is that a police officer can write you a ticket for any kind of infringement and have it tested in the court. That's always been the case. It just isn't happening for helmet cams at this time.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. This issue in relation to helmet mounted cameras also (for me at least) raises the issue of helmet mounted intercoms. Has anyone had any experience with law enforcement officers querying (or ticketing) their helmet mounted intercom?
  12. This is so true... iv'e heard this from many riders on forums as well... that it depends what the officer interprets it as, some officers say its not in the rule books while some will go red-blue on you! this is one of the reasons this area has such mixed facets unfortunately.

    Initially I attached my cam on helmet and came across cops twice and both times they didn't care abt it... but when i heard all the fuss abt helmet cams I wanted to be on the safer side, but i really miss my helmet cam now :( Also the VicRoads Rider's Handbook (which is the only book a new rider is supposed to go through) only mentions about avoiding "stickers" and "paint" on the helmet, it doesn't say anything about not attaching stuff. The book cautions us about sticking stuff on helmet coz it (the glue/chemicals) may disintegrate the helmet structure over time. As a reason I attached my camera with a clamp rather than sticking it. But then yea it comes down to their interpretation, seriously they need to make the law straight on this!(n)

    Exactly! but as far as I am aware they are less worried abt the intercoms for reasons they know best!! Although the technicality they issue the fines on for helmet cams as mentioned by TWEET is safety etc, which should apply to intercom devices as well. I have attached an intercom device to my helmet since day one of riding and came across cops on road multiple times and none have stopped me. This may be due to the intercom being tiny compared to the camera and therefore relatively easier to miss the eye? Some riders on forums mention they mainly target cams because they want to discourage people from using helmet-cams coz they don't want to be recorded? No one can be sure... I just hope they clear things up in this regard!

    I am actually planning to visit VicRoads to ask them once and clear things up, but I am unsure if this is to do with VicRoads or the police, perhaps I should visit the local police station and ask...? I also need to get the record straight on tinted visors... thats another one they are dodging!:sneaky: Riding is less fun and less safe without helmet-cams and silver iridium visor :whistle:
  13. #14 robsalvv, Oct 14, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
    Actually no they weren't.

    There was a period of high publicity that included some visor related infringements and one genuine non approved helmet infringement for a rider who not only failed the attitude test in a major way, but was riding like a dick and had a cardboard number plate.

    Let's be absolutely crystal clear - there are NO helmet camera laws. NONE.

    There IS an interpretation that attaching a camera to the shell of a helmet via an adhesive, modifies the helmet construction which therefore renders the helmet no longer compliant with the approved helmet standard - which in my view is an utterly bogus interpretation. This interpretation however allows an officer to issue an infringement for not wearing an approved helmet.

    We still haven't had an appropriate technical case run to have that technical interpretation assessed in a court of law high enough to matter. And we probably wont because of all the safety issues around, a helmet camera is so far from the lowest hanging fruit that it is NOT being policed as a safety priority.

    Now with ECE 2205 helmets on the scene which are helmets built to a standard that internally clarifies that it is ONLY a construction standard and therefore has few words about wear and tear care during use (unlike AS1698 ) this helmet cam attachment issue should fade away.

    VMC / AMC has also been lobbying to get an adjustment to the helmet gazettal made to remove any possible interpretation that a helmet has to remain ever green compliant to its construction standard for the whole of its life. We'd like to wording to unambiguously indicate that a legal helmet is one that "was compliant to an approved construction standard at time of sale and remains fit for purpose for its serviceable life". This is currently being seriously considered by the agencies - several meetings have occurred - and life jacket legislation is a possible model for this change. This issue will entirely go away if that change is made.
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Completely agree... however, there is one more stupid reason they don't want us to attach cams and that being the force distribution ability of helmet decreases on impact if a camera is attached... because the cam protrudes and concentrates the force at one spot rather than a larger area... this is partially true (because this totally depends on the nature of the crash and in some cases a camera can help with force distribution). And hitting the helmet protrusion (camera) on impact is very similar to being hit directly by something pointed, which helmets are good at (by distributing the force throughout the helmet surface).

    In the video below the cop tries to explain why a cam on helmet is a bad idea (its hard to hear due to the cars passing by but if you hear carefully you will be able to understand).

    The reason for this explanation is basically Michael Schumarcher's incident, where some speculate it was due to the GoPro attached on his helmet. Check out the article below...
    Schumacher's brain injury linked to GoPro: journalist

    And thanks for your post it is very informative, i didn't know about the ECE 22.05 thingie at all... nice to see the change though we need some more soon... (y)
  15. #16 robsalvv, Oct 14, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
    That has nothing to do with the law though and the chances of hitting the camera in such a way as it might "punch" through the helmet is ASTRONOMICAL. It's a bogus consideration. I wear my helmet camera on the very top, which is one of the least like places for a helmet to be struck in a prang.

    You are more likely to have a glancing blow to a protrusion like a helmet and a glancing blow is more likely to smash the camera and/or mount off. If it doesn't break off, it could induce a rotation or twist. Where do you wear your camera?

    Blah blah blah. There are so many more likely clear and present risks for riders than a camera on your helmet. I would definitely argue the point and as an engineer and with my motorcycle experience, I'd back my opinion over his.

    That journo's unfounded opinion has been debunked and discounted. PLUS if schumey dived head first into a rock, he was toast irrespective of there being a cam or not.

    No probs. I'm surprised you didn't know.
  16. i clamp it onto the chin area (pic attached). But i'm not doing this now as i'm unsure abt the law, coz turns out it's an interpretation and just depends on the officer as you mentioned earlier.

    Probably... but they still use it as an excuse i guess? coz if sticking was the only issue and not the force distribution theory... then using a clamp mount to attach it shouldn't be a problem at all right?

    Probably a stupid question but is it "ok" to email the Victorian Motorcycle Council and ask them abt this and if they are fine with helmet cams i would also have a proof email that i could show the cops if they pull me over? :D

    Attached Files:

  17. I never open my face shield, the protrusion causes too much additional risk above the fcuktards driving with their faces in phones.
  18. I was pulled over once recently(few weeks ago now) by a general duties officer for and I quote "driving dangerously" when I full throttle overtook a car which had crossed the centreline several times and could not decide on a regular travel speed.I mentioned I had camera footage of the entire last few minutes and called my family's solicitor who has dealt with my family before I was barely considered for a chance at life. After a few words from my solicitor the officer decided discretion was the better part of valour and gave me a minor lecture on picking when I overtake more carefully and watching my speed even though he has no proof of my speed.

    Back to the topic though, even though I was wearing my camera the whole time and mentioned the footage the officer he did not ticket me for the camera at all which is a Sena 10c attached to my helmet. I delayed posting the event at all as I was waiting for a fine in the mail, but it seems none is forthcoming. It really depends on your attitude on the day and the officer involved more than anything. If the officer thinks you are a belligerent arse you will get a ticket, but if you present yourself as a generally friendly person, and/or yourself or someone else much more qualified explain the actual legalities to the officer you will probably not get a ticket.

    It's a massive grey area right now, If you fail the attitude test or fail to have adequate legal knowledge or representation roadside you will get a ticket if the officer wants to ticket you. It is then on you to prove you are not breaking the law as current legislature places more weight on the testimony of a sworn officer than the general public. If you wear a helmet camera be polite as possible, and make yourself aware of the actual laws regarding helmets.
  19. I think the reason we are not pinged for intercoms is that they are typically clamped on, not 'glued' on. Clamped on does not violate ASA standard by any stretch of the legalese imagination, so the cops can't target it. Is there a difference between a clamped on attachment and a glued on attachment? In all likelyhood, a glued on attachment would shear off far more readily than a clamped on attachment. I guarantee you I could walk up to any GoPro/3M attachment and remove it in less that 5 seconds. All it takes is a bit of dental floss. (Credit to the missus: the best DIY tip ever for removing things attached with double sided tape of any kind.) I couldn't do that with a clamped on attachment.

    I disagree with the assertion that a GoPro/3M attachment would concentrate the force of a piercing impact. Any piercing impact to the helmet would be dissipated by an adheasive mount. Only an impact larger than the mount itself would have a concentrating effect, and I'd wager an impact of that kind would either be softened by the crushing of the camera and mount, or would be as devastating as if the mount was not there at all. As for a glancing blow - see above dental floss remark. The adhesive laminate used has bugger all shear resistance. As for clamped on mounts, such as intercoms, well it depends on the mount. My cheap-o is more likely to jetison itself faster than Zaphod's Peril Sensing Glassestm at the first sign of impact rather than void its questionable Aldi warranty. Others may have more ability to induce rotation. I'd rather have an adhesive mount than a clamp if I was concerned about it.

    Is choosing to have a GoPro mounted on your helmet much different from choosing to ride a stupidly fast and powerful crotch-rocket? Why is one legal and the other not?

    • Like Like x 1