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.

N/A | National Helmet consultation paper

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Fractalz, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. The ACCC is conducting a consultation with stakeholders on the current consumer product standard for the supply of motorcycle helmets in Australia.

    Read the review paper and have your say :)

    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. From reading that document they just want to standardize the standards set by states across the country. Pretty obvious but every helmet sold here is approved to the highest/most recent standard to be able to sell everywhere. Pointless ACCC
  3. Interesting paper, I have issues with "key stakeholders" are they referring more to companies / importers or also referring to the general public who would be affected by the end result? It is obvious that most commercial entities will be bias towards keeping the current Australian standards to prevent private imports as much as possible and protect the local market as per usual.

    Option 2 is certainly well worded and reflects what we already want. There are many helmets on the market that pass all international standards yet manufacturers will not bring them to Australia just to supply our small market at the expense of meeting yet another standard (Schuberth is a perfect example of this).

    Overall we need to adopt some international standards to open the doors for more manufacturers to bring their products to Australia. Our market simply isn't big enough for many to bother.
  4. Its not as simple as that. Helmets sold in one state may be illegal to be used in another.

    A standardisation is a good thing.
  5. That paper is an incomplete production. That don't spell out the depth of the problem and they don't stand up to tackle the state road rules approach which has created the inconsistencies.

    Everyone should submit a response and encourage them to clear up the inconsistencies across jurisdictions by pulling rank!

    Keep CPN 9 as the top of the hierarchy.

    The various state road rules should be made to defer to CPN 9.

    CPN 9 to include international helmet standards as well as AS1698 and reference to the version of the standard that applies at helmet manufacture.

    It's a pity they aren't going to bust up the cosy CAB set up that exists.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Rob, they say they dont have juurisdiction to fix the state being out of sync mess.

    Option 1 seems to be the only valid solution then at least they cant be out of step anymore. That is my reading anyway...
  7. More like they don't have the will.

    Alternatively, they could redirect their energies into getting the model ARR's to reference CPN9 and as the rules become adopted all states fall into line and consistency reigns.
  8. the "stakeholders" being the importers/distributors of which a very small number control the sale of just about every brand e.g. Cassons, will vehemently oppose any change to allow the use of helmets tested to meet any other international standard other than A/NZ standards and open the door to consumers importing there own helmets.

    they have have the money to lobby the politicians who can make the changes.
  9. What else would you expect... it will always be the stakeholders with the financially vested interests... (Cassons, Monza et all, yes looking directly at you)....and deep pockets that will run the agenda to their own selfish ends.

    Besides, being a government organization to suggest the ACCC do anything as logical as bringing Australia into line with the rest of the world by using standards recognized everywhere in the world just won't fly.
    Australian bureaucracy has a history littered ( think in garbage tip proportions ) with decisions that can only be described as obtuse and serving the various FINANCIALLY vested interests, instead of the actual end user.
  10. the private companies that sell the the AS certifications to the the manufacturers/distributors also have a vested interest in maintaining their racket, and would also likely join the band wagon for opposing any change that would see their hip pocket take a hit.
  11. Change the things you can instead of whining about the things you can't. A change to option 1 is a step.

    God grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change;
    courage to change the things I can;
    and wisdom to know the difference.
  12. haven't read the paper yet, but I have been through a couple of ACCC consultation processes in other areas

    They do listen a great deal to the economic arguments for greater competition and what's best for consumers (which isn't always what's best for pure free market competition).
    • Like Like x 1
  13. you seem to lack the wisdom to know the difference.

    It's not whining, but pointing out the realities.

    if someone makes a submission saying:

    and someone else makes a submission of

    which has more weight? would the ACCC continue with any action knowing they will be strongly opposed?

    changing option 1 seeks to only make more contradiction in that it would be legal to sell a helmet without the AS1968, but under the road rules it would be illegal to use it.

    the net result is nothing, if the road rules are not unified for every jurisdiction, which the ACCC has no power to do, and there wouldn't be a politician in the country who would put the people above a fat donation from the distributors, and spin any decision to be about preserving jobs and not the kick back they were receiving.
  14. You are defeated already.

    You can't win if you don't try.

    If you don't want to try, don't depress those that do.
  15. Hellloooo?? I think the above is the solution. And it will break the CAB monopoly which has driven this into ethically shakey grounds.

    The philosophy of CPN 9 could be something evergreen like. "All helmets sold in Australia must be compliant and certified to the revision in force at time of helmet construction of the following helmet standards: <insert standards>"

    The list would be AS1698, JIS xxxx, SNELL xxx, DOT xxxx etc

    The ACCC's argument that they don't want to have a list because of the required maintenance and list upkeep is bullshit. That approach caused this mess with just one standard AS1698 so why continue on that path? If they instead refer to the latest revision of a standard, all is well and it will never become out of date. If the model road rules point to the CPN instead of pointing to the local jurisdiction then consistency will apply.

    Right now to find out what's legal in each state is a mix of local road rules and hunting up gazettes.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Do I remember correctly, Option 2 being accepting Euro, Japanese and US standards as effective equivalents?

    That seems a pretty fair option to me.

    Now, again, IIRC, the "problem" was to get all the states rules lined up and consistent.

    Now, to be fair, changing the words of each state's rules about motorcycle crash helmets, isn't exactly a burning issue to most of the states voters.

    So, for what it's worth, I have a suggestion.....

    How about someone with the legal and technical knowledge, puts together the appropriate wording which could be presented to each state on a here you are, it will work, basis?

    How hard can it be?
  17. the net result is nothing, if the road rules are not unified for every jurisdiction, which the ACCC has no power to do, and there wouldn't be a politician in the country who would put the people above a fat donation from the distributors, and spin any decision to be about preserving jobs and not the kick back they were receiving.[/quote]

    Mal Farr, journalist for various News Ltd tabloids, is a very keen motorcyclist so he could be interested in this as a story.

    I think there are few politicians who ride bikes as well, and all MPs will know somebody who does. Cheaper/better helmets is in their interests.

    The number of jobs lost would be tiny, if any compared to the benefits.
  18. OMG I agree with you :eek: and your suggested text almost reads like the Qld regs :whistle:

    but does the ARR have the jurisdiction?
  19. Is there an approved helmet for use in QLD that is not an AS1698 helmet? I thought there was the potential in the regs, but it's never been used - but this just highlights the problem because the potential doesn't exist in any other jurisdiction.