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.

QLD Illegal to ride with visor up?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by whatisk, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. Was talking to a friend over the weekend and they said that they had heard it is illegal to ride your bike in a full-face helmet with the visor up.
    Just curious if anyone able to confirm if this is true or not? I had a bit of a look around but couldn't find anything.


  2. Never heard that one before. Without any research into the matter it sounds like BS, like it's illegal to drive with someone drinking alcohol in the car or drive with bare feet.
  3. Yeah. My thought was that whoever told them was having a go.
  4. So open face lids are illegal in QLD?
  5. Not sure about the bare feet but the "Open bottle laws" which have been enacted everywhere, possible exception of NT, actually do make it illegal to have open alcohol bottles in the vehicle.

    As for the visor thing, that sounds like complete BS to me. Last time I looked into it, VIC here, you don't even have to have a visor fitted BUT if you do it must be Australian standard.
  6. Bare feet is legal and I believe (though I have nothing to back this up, just that I read/heard some where and my memory is shot) in Vic, it is legal to drive while drinking as long as you are not over the limit? Sounds retarded but it is Victoria.

    Regarding visor...that's just stupid. If my visor fogs up or if it's too hot I can't leave it ajar or completely open? It's an equivalence to not being able to wind down the window of your car.
  7. it's bullshit and you should not listen to your friends
  8. If its tinted, and night time, I believe you can get done, even if its up. That's how I understand it. Can anyone confirm that or am I incorrect?
  9. That's how it should be, as far as I'm concerned. If you're under the limit, you're under the limit.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. I'm going off all the RBT shows I've seen where there's some meth head having a beer in the pasangers seat and cops have never given a duck. I'm happy to be prooved wrong, but I've only ever heard of mates mates getting done for it.
  11. That is true and I think the Vic law (if correct) is pretty good about it.

    By retarded, I meant other states seeing it as retarded since their law (I believe) is no open bottles in a public place (unless in a licensed venue/event).
  12. In SA you can drive whilst drinking alcohol.

    I went through a breath-o 5 mins after stopping at the bottle-o on the way home, and was having a roadie at the time. Cop asked how many I have had, I said this is the first, he didn't have a problem and I recorded a 0 reading.
  13. December 2011:

    The bill inserts two new sections into the Road Safety Act 1986: section 49B, the offence of consuming intoxicating
    liquor while driving; and section 49C, the offence of consuming intoxicating liquor while accompanying a learner

    I believe it was later ammended to include having a passenger consume alcohol or have any open container of alcohol in the vehicle at all.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. If it went from legal to illegal in the last year there would have been a lot of media about it. I'm sure you could find something.
    House ASSEMBLY
    Activity Second Reading
    Members MERLINO
    Date 6 December 2011
    Page 6067

    Mr MERLINO (Monbulk): The bill is so imperative that advice from the Transport Accident Commission was not sought. I contacted the TAC directly yesterday, and it did not know a thing about it. I was told the TAC had not been asked to provide a brief to the government. It is of such grave public policy import, requiring such lightning action, that the advice of the leading experts in the field, Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), was not required.

    The ministerial advisers yesterday admitted that no external stakeholder was consulted over this critical and urgent legislative change. Parliament's Road Safety Committee and Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee have both been sidestepped in the haste to introduce this bill. I will just pause for a moment to note in relation to Parliament's Road Safety Committee that that much-delayed Arrive Alive action plan update document, released last month, says this of the committee:

    The parliamentary Road Safety Committee has played an integral role in advising and making recommendations to Parliament on road safety issues in Victoria since its inception in 1967. The committee considers a broad spectrum of issues and views, and seeks expert and community opinions, resulting in the introduction of many road safety initiatives that have seen significant reductions in deaths and serious injuries on Victorian roads.

    That is a fact. Over many decades the work of Parliament's Road Safety Committee has played a vital role. I have said that before during previous road safety debates: Victoria has a proud international reputation of being at the forefront of innovative and successful road safety policy. The critical ingredient is that it has been evidence based. The evidence base has been the absolute core ingredient of everything we have done in road safety over the last four decades, whether it has involved Parliament or its Road Safety Committee; the work of our road safety partners, Victoria Police, VicRoads or the Transport Accident Commission, or other road safety organisations such as MUARC.

    What does this urgent bill do? As the Attorney-General just outlined in his second-reading speech, this short bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to create a new road safety offence for drivers who drink whilst driving a motor vehicle, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units. This offence relates to only the driver of the vehicle; it does not extend to passengers consuming alcohol in a vehicle that is being driven. In that respect it is similar to legislation in New South Wales and Queensland and different from legislation in Tasmania, where the provision applies to everyone in the vehicle, and Western Australia, where a broader prohibition applies -- it does not specifically talk about consuming alcohol but is a general prohibition on drunkenness.

    The bill inserts two new sections into the Road Safety Act 1986: section 49B, the offence of consuming intoxicating liquor while driving; and section 49C, the offence of consuming intoxicating liquor while accompanying a learner driver. That second offence is an appropriate offence to have in the legislation. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. As was explained in the briefing yesterday, an infringement notice will be issued in circumstances where a police officer witnesses a driver consuming alcohol. Whether the container contained alcohol will be a matter for the police officer to determine at the time -- that is, through what the officer saw or through smelling the contents of a container. We were advised that it does not relate to open cans of beer in the cabin of the vehicle or to other passengers drinking alcohol. Private land is also covered by the bill, but as direct observation by a police officer is required, the range of circumstances in which this could apply -- for example, someone who is driving a tractor and drinking a beer at the same time -- are limited. Drinking while sitting in a car with your keys in your pocket is not covered; however, the penalty could apply if a police officer witnesses a driver drinking while starting or attempting to start a vehicle.

    I understand the point the Attorney-General made about messaging around drinking and driving and the importance of getting those messages out at this time of the year, but one of the issues I have with the bill is its enforceability. There is no doubt that this will be a difficult thing to enforce. For example, it is almost impossible to discern the difference between a driver holding and drinking from a can of Coke Zero and a driver holding and drinking from a can of Jim Beam Black. I encourage members to look at the cans of those two products and imagine how difficult it will be for police to discern whether someone is drinking alcohol or simply a soft drink.

    That brings us to another issue -- that is, distraction within the cabin. I know that the Monash University Accident Research Centre has done a lot of work around distractions whilst driving. Eating and drinking whilst driving are certainly distractions, and we should discourage those activities, but in terms of distractions whilst driving there is no difference between drinking a can of light beer and drinking a can of Coke. My question is: how many times will police pull over drivers for drinking Coke before this legislation is deemed by the men and women in blue to be completely useless?

    It is my contention and the contention of the opposition that this is window-dressing. As I said at the start, it does have some merit, but when we compare it to the various road safety measures we could introduce as a matter of urgency, this is a low priority. It is not substantive road safety policy, but did we really expect anything different from the government that has given us on-the-spot fines for swearing and legislation to protect a minister from people being mean to him? As far as the penalties go, this is another example of spin over substance. There are no demerit points for these offences.

    If the bill is so significant, why is it that a repeat offender cannot lose his or her licence for these offences? You could be fined for these offences week after week, month after month, but you would never be at risk of being taken off the road for this behaviour. The government's rationale for introducing the bill is that it is all about messaging -- that creating this penalty better aligns drink-driving messaging with the law. This government's track record on road safety messaging is appalling. For much of the period of the former Labor government those opposite, particularly the now minister for transport, were friends of the hoon. There are dozens of quotes from then shadow ministers dog whistling about speed cameras, speeding and running red lights. There was constant dog whistling that it is okay to speed or to run a red light and constant bagging of our road safety camera system as a revenue raiser -- a view categorically rejected by successive Auditor-General reports.

    • Like Like x 4
  16. Thank you Justus!

    So passengers can't drink in Tasmania, but in NSW, QLD and VIC they can.
  17. 2 things about what Justus posted:

    1. I felt sick to my stomach reading about all the "experts" (MUARC, TAC, VP etc...)... nothing else, just made me want to explode with rage...
    2. this:
    Is that drunkenness of passengers?? If so, WTF? You can't be pissed and have a sober mate drive you home? Did I miss read that?
  18. OK so
    Riding visor up Busted
    Passengers drinking alcohol Busted (Except Tasmanians)
    Driving Bare foot Busted

    Any other myths to bust? Maybe that one about needing to obey the speed limit. Fingers crossed that's just a myth.
  19. Not if your sober mate is a learner, is that how it reads?
  20. I get that. I thought it said in WA that there was a general prohibition against drunkenness (in relation to vehicles). That sounds like NO-ONE in the car can be drunk. I hope I'm wrong.