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.

NSW Legalities - Helmet cam

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by CrazyCam, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. #1 CrazyCam, Jun 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2013
    BTW, I may be wrong, but, as far as I understand it, if you have a camera attached to your helmet the cops are actually entitled to give you a ticket.

    You are not supposed to have anything attached to a helmet, except the head inside.

    Mod - Split from Helmet Camera Yes/No?
  2. I would like to see a link to that law. I could understand that compromising the integrity of the helmet with solvent=based adhesive might have been an issue when AS1698 was in force, but a non-permanent clamp (or similar) would be pretty hard to infringe IMO.
  3. As far as I know you aren't allowed to modify a helmet in any way. Whether sticking a camera on it qualifies as modifying, I don't know. I have a feeling this was discussed some time back in another thread but don't have time to look.

  4. Yes, but would a camera have saved them from their broken bones? I suppose it might have made their insurance claims a little smoother. OTOH it might also have shown them to be partially or fully at fault and so scuppered their chances of compensation.

    I'm not saying that it's 100% possible to not crash. I'm just saying that, if a rider is having lots of near misses, even with a reasonably broad interpretation of "near miss", finding a way of avoiding more of those (which definitely is possible) rather than recording them for posterity may be a better, or, at least, higher priority, use of a couple of hundred dollars.

    As far as cameras attached to helmets is concerned, I suspect that it is more a case that the helmet must at all times comply with the standards in force. A helmet with an aftermarket camera attached to it may or may not still comply. However, should its compliance be questioned I would expect the onus to be on the wearer/person who attached the camera to show continued compliance. Which, as Tak would doubtless point out, is going to be damn near impossible for the average private individual.

    However, until someone can point to an actual, verifiable case where someone has been ticketed for it rather than rumours, hearsay and speculation, I'm not sure if it's a particularly pressing issue.

    Given the expense that some people go to to buy a light helmet it does seem a little daft to then go sticking anything up to several hundred grams of protruding gadgetry to the thing.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I'd argue otherwise to the Supreme Court. The police would have to prove the helmet does not comply with road rule 270 and fails to comply with AS1698 even though it bears the AS1698 sticker.

    Says who?

    Attaching a camera to the helmet does not structurally modify the helmet. So if I tape something to the exterior of my Audi R8, the vehicle does not comply with ADR and it is illegal to drive it for that reason? What about mounting stuff to the dashboard? Doesn't that also fail the ADR compliance test? What if I put a plastic red nose on the front?

    The problem with passing laws that require people to comply with an Australian Standard is that the Australian Standards are private copyrighted documents which can not be obtained without paying a private company a fee. There is a presumption in law that everyone knows the law. It is theoretically possible for everyone to know the law when the laws are published and available for free online.

    So if it is illegal to attach a camera to the side of your helmet, it is impossible for anyone to discover the law that says so without paying someone for the relevant AS. They could make the relevant AS a public document by legislating that it be published online for free, or else incorporate the content of the standard directly into the legislation.

    The AS does not say anything about after-market attachments at all. It says a bit about how the manufacturer must keep external projections below 5mm in height or at an angle of less than 45º to the curved surface of the helmet, but not a word about whether or not the user can tape something to the side of it. This makes sense, because the purpose of the AS is to control the manufacture and sale of products, not how consumers use them.

    The AS does not require the helmet to be fastened by the chin strap. It requires the helmet to have instructions directing the user to fasten it correctly. Obviously a helmet needs to have a proper chin strap in order to gain compliance. But the helmet does not cease being an Australian standard approved helmet just because it is worn without the strap being fastened. The rider would still be guilty of not having an approved helmet properly fastened but he can not be guilty of failing to wear an approved helmet. This is the same as taping of something to the helmet. It does not cause the helmet to change its status from being certified to not being certified.

    If parliament wants to prevent people strapping cameras to their helmets, then they can pass a law about it. Just like they can pass a law about what type of load you are allowed to carry on any vehicle. But provided there is no law preventing you from taping a camera to a helmet, the helmet does not cease being an Australian Standards Approved helmet just because it is used in that manner.

    There is none.

    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. ^^^ this makes sense.
  7. #7 CrazyCam, Jun 16, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2013
    I have no doubt that you would given your profession.

    I am not of that profession, and I didn't say that it was a "fails to comply with AS1698" ticket.

    Actually, the bloke that told me about not being allowed to attach stuff to a helmet, was the RTA bloke who used to do the AS1698 testing, before politics took its toll.

    An Audi R8 is a car isn't it?

    For all I care you can do what you like with it.

    The red nose might be a good look, but I still don't understand how folk get away with fitting bloody great bull bars on the front of cars, which have, for compliance reasons, crumple zones, etc. but that's another story.

    I've snipped the logical/legal arguments, 'cos I ain't a lawyer, and I'll accept your word for it, but, the story I was told was that part of the idea of the crash helmet not having stuff stuck on the outside was that there was a potential risk, if the wearers crashes, and is sliding, the attachment could cause a sudden twisting effect, possibly causing neck damage.

    I'll happily take your word for it that there is no law against cameras stuck on helmets, as you would have seen, my previous post was not positively and categorically saying there was.
  8. The RTA bloke can say what he wants. Nothing within the AS1698 has anything to do with "stuff" attached to any helmet.

    No worries CC. Was simply removing any incorrect connotations surrounding legalities and the belief that "cops are actually entitled to give you a ticket".

    Police should not give you a ticket for an offence which does not exist.

  9. If I can put things on my helmet does that mean I could modify it to look like a daft punk one?
  10. Put an axe through it if you want. It's your helmet and money. Do as you please.


  11. Video of some one being fined for having a helmet camera attached because it was a protrusion over 5mm. Believe its around the old road.
  12. Clueless cop (and rider).

    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. ive seen motorcycle police officers with cameras on their helmets?
  14. So given the situation is there much you can do if it happens? or are you going to have to accept the fine and fight it later on in court?
  15. that cop is one funny fcuker
  16. That cop is a pernicious pencil dick. FMD. I hope the video owner went to court.
  17. #17 Justus, Jun 17, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2013
    Having an idea is a good start.

    If you are like the cop with the same misunderstanding and simply accept whatever you're told you'll almost certainly receive a fine.

    Turn the situation around & educate him without causing offense, the likelihood of receiving a fine diminishes.

    If the fine is given nonetheless, you already know your options. The police will need to prove you committed an offence which does not exist. The 'offence' would be dropped or thrown out in court accordingly.

    If all else fails, take the matter to the *County Court and get it thrown out there.

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Unfortunately the Supreme court costs $upreme dollar$... but that fine should have so gone to court especially if the fine was against ARR270.

    The AS1698 standard says that the user should be instructed to make no modifications and be warned against stickers, but these are not lawful directives as far as I can tell.


  19. Correct. Also the 'another law under this jurisdiction' defines approved helmet as a helmet of a type that complies with AS 1698. The helmet itself doesn't have to comply with AS 1698, it just has to be a make and model that complies.

    Good luck to the cops to prove that attaching a camera turns a Bell RS-1 into a different type of helmet.
    • Like Like x 1