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 Legality of tinted Pinlocks with clear visors

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by ajrider, Feb 22, 2015.

  1. AFAIK, there's no law about wearing sunglasses under the helmet - they can be as dark as you want.

    But there is a limit to how much light a visor should be allowed to let through (provided it's got an AS sticker on it, which I don't believe any have).

    Which leads me to the question - if I purchase a dark pinlock for my visor - would that fall under the same category as sunglasses (so no rules apply to how dark it is), or would it fall under the rules applying to visors which have a limit (requires minimum 75% transparency IIRC)?

  2. Australian standard sunnies do have rules about such things... so god knows where a pinlock stands?!
  3. Out of Interest I was in Bike Mart in Ringwood on Sat and a couple of the visors did have the sticker on them, first time I have seen that.

    Cheers Jeremy
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. I don't know, sunglasses have a standard they need to comply with AS-NZS 1067 which among other things says it needs to be stamped with the standard number and class of lens. I would say no stamp then you can't argue they are sunglasses.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. I've recently been using a motorcycle helmet with a clear visor and a drop down built in sun visor (which does not have any kind of standards stamp or sticker)
  6. From memory, my Vision R helmet had a small AS sticker on it (out of eye-line) when I bought it about 3+ years ago. I understand all visors that you wear are to comply with an Australian Standard.
  7. #7 barry_mcki, Feb 22, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2015
    The Pinlock is an interesting question, one I've been wondering myself. Seeing the main problem with the tinted visors is them supposedly not being able to pass the penetration testing, if you had a Pinlock visor that was AS certified, my guess is that because the PinLock is part of the visor, then the standards for visors and not sunnies would apply, thus limiting the degree of tint to 50%.

    The following is a little about sunnies as it relates to this:

    The AS standard (AS/NZS 1067:2003) on sunnies have 5 lens categories, only the last (Cat 4) has a restriction on driving anytime, however Cat 1's are not allowed at night. Cat 0 and 1 are fashion glasses so don't fair too well for actual sun protection and in my opinion shouldn't be in the discussion for driving in the first place.

    Here is a link to the standard - interesting that you can't get it from SAI without paying for it, but the NZ government has it on their site: https://law.resource.org/pub/nz/ibr/as-nzs.1067.2003.pdf

    Page 18 has a table with the relative luminous transmittance of the lens categories, here's part of it:


    Edit - a little more info on sunnies here: https://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/973556
    • Informative Informative x 2
  8. This just keeps getting messier and messier.
  9. There is no requirement under NSW legislation for the wearing of sunglasses that meet the Aus/NZ 1067 standard.
    Just because glasses don't meet the standard doesn't mean they are not sunglasses.

    My view on pin lock that was tinted is that it would not be illegal to use.
    I too have a helmet with a clear AS1609 compliant visor with a tinted slide down visor built in.

    The standard only requires that the outer visor meets the criteria for certification, and thus using the inbuilt visor behind the clear compliant visor would be a very very difficult matter for police to run.
    It could easily be argued that the same way we can use sunglasses (certified or otherwise) under a helmet or in a car, we achieve the same thing with the built in tinted visor and I pray for an ignorant police officer to issue a tin to me for using it.
    Car windscreens cannot be tinted under the ADR other than for a strip 100mm from the top of the screen and as long as it does not impinge upon the area wiped by the wipers, but we can wear sunnies while driving.

    I think it would be s foolish prosecutor willing to run it, if for no other reason than to avoid setting a precedent.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. The AS1609 standard is 33 years out of date and so it does not cover any of the modern visors and technologies, it is a disgrace and unbelievably this standard was not even mentioned in this week's helmet forum by Standards Australia. Only MCC NSW raised the issue specifically and held up a dual visor helmet in their presentation towards the end.

    It does however reference AS1067 which has been updated in 2003 and 2009 but whether the later spec applies is unclear.

    The concept of inner and outer visors is completely outside the scope of AS1609 and even AS1698 helmet committee members question how JAS ANZ CAB's can issue the compliance certificates for the helmets concerned

    ACCC has clearly not done any random checks of whether visors on the shelf in retailers meet the standard which they are required to do under the deregulated compliance system from the Federal Government in 1990. ACCC also stated they were unaware of any prosecutions in the last 15 years of any retailer for failing to ensure helmets (or visors) on the shelf were properly approved.

    At this moment in time we are completely on our own on this and at the mercy of improper police actions. The situation has been brought to the attention of State Ministers but the more people who fire off an email of complaint to State Ministers the more likely there will be some action on it

    I did a little check on friday and looked at the Australian web site of one of the major Euro helmet brands and there was detailed info on all their extensive visor range and nowhere did it specify what standards anywhere in the world their visors met, not even UNECE 22.05.

    At this stage there are no State Regulations which provide for revoking the compliance of a helmet due to fitment of a non standard visor and this is one of the ways of challenging any infringement notice.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. The Schuberth System Six has an engraved AS standard and AS sticker on the clear visor (it also has a flip down dark internal visor) the plod have never expressed any issue with this during many, many stops, RBTs, bollockings etc.
  12. The only hassle you would get I think is if you are still using a darken visor after sundown when cars must have lights on. Any standard visor fitted at time of helmet test would be covered by the helmet approval, tinted or not. But drop the tinted visor at night and you give the police grounds to book you. Fit a visor that was not fitted at testing time and you have changed the condition as approved, so it would need it's own approval. Either way I doubt that any cop is going to pull you over to check. It would only be detected if you act like an idiot and draw attention to your self by hooning. Of course in the event of an accident the insurance co would use any excuse to lighten their burden and could use it against you.
  13. A helmets compliance to As1698 is not conditional to having a clear visor, or any visor for that matter. That is why there is AS1609 for the visor as a separate compliance, otherwise the helmet and visor would need to be used together and as designed to achieve AS1698 compliance. There is no law against warring a full face helmet sans visor, because the presence of the visor does not affect the helmet compliance.

    There is no law against wearing sunglasses while driving at night, and same for riding with them on under a helmet so I would argue using the internal tinted visor at night is no offence.
    It would have to be proven that the tint affected your ability to see the road and drive safely.
  14. Not quite correct.

    AS1698 says that if a visor is fitted then it must comply with AS1609 - an outofdate circa 1980 standard. It's a bone of contention that the standard can impose this kind of regulatory obligation.

    But anyway, what this means is that if a compliantly constructed helmet is fitted with a non complying visor (although it might comply with international standards), the whole helmet is considered to be non compliant to AS1698. That's bizarre.

    What this means #2 is that you are "legal" riding around without the visor but arguably less safe. What a crazy situation.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Look at it another way to see the complete absurdity

    A car driver can wear AS1067 sunglasses with 8% visible light transmittance, look through the rear view or side mirrors with 35% VLT tinting on rear and side windows and be perfectly legal.

    The rider can wear the same 8% sunnies behind a clear visor and be legal

    The whole situation is bizarre and it was never envisaged that police would enforce the visor standard. Like sunnies it was intended that it be a point of sale enforcement system hence no provision for revoking helmet compliance written into regulations

    We should also remember that for car tinting infringement fines are not issued, minor defect notices are issued and they are then cleared at inspection stations by experts with test equipment which is needed to measure light transmittance
    • Like Like x 1
  16. I think you'd be very hard pressed to get anyone to agree that the Pinlock is not part of the helmet as it is physically attached. Sunglasses are not.

    100% agree with the absurdity of the whole helmet/visor situation though.
  17. I had the lens in my expensive sunnys changed to a darker tint against the warning of the Optometrist,there fine in bright light but horrible in any of the tunnels I ride through,or if the clouds come out.Restricts a lot of vision.Easy to take of in the car,not so easy on the bike while moving.These slide down dark visors I see being used a lot these days appear to be a great idea never mind the out of touch standards system.Better than sunnys and having to swap visors.
  18. Read the comments to the article in the link below by Marcus Wigan a previous chair of the helmet committee and advisor to many around the world (start at the bottom)


    It is not a pretty picture he paints and shows the neglect and lack of foresight on all this
  19. Great discussion guys, I'm just getting back on the bike after many years and heard about all this fuss about tinted visors. So buying a new helmet is being a fun decision to make. I came across the Pin-lock system on the Arai helmets and thought this was a great solution, one for the tinting, two for the anti-fog usage and thirdly not having sunglasses digging into my fat head, hahaha. As I said guy's, great conversation and very helpful. Lets hope the make a uniformed helmet regulations Australia wide, not state by state as it currently is, like QLD's trial of Edot helmets etc,.

  20. Pinlock visor inserts are available as OEI on a number of AS1698 helmets, yet BMW gave up on certification of the System 6 helmet for some time as BSI Benchmark (who did the compliance certification) put so many hurdles in the path. Eventually BMW removed the Pinlock from the System 6 and it is not available here in Australia, even though the visor is the standard One with provision for Pinlock.

    The reason? BSI claim that the Pinlock reduces the light transmission by 5%!!!

    Yet how do we go with a fogged up visor and a 95% reduction, ffs?

    Furthermore the Pinlock is easily removed, a one minute job.

    And the System 6 comes standard with a flip down internal tinted visor.
    • Agree Agree x 1