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 The actual codified law regarding helmets?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by grue, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. Ok, after looking at how it's written, am I wrong in understanding that a person on a stationary motorcycle that is not running could be construed as not needing a helmet? The bike, irrespective of the sidestand being up or down, could be called "parked" because it could be left and would not travel.

    I just don't want some jumped up jackbooted retard trying to harass someone in the middle of a photoshoot because she's on a motorcycle with no helmet, even if it's not running.

  2. Not sure on the law exactly but if the keys are not in the ignition either it would probably help your argument if it comes to that.

  3. Well, if the keys aren't in the ignition, I don't see how the person in question could be considered to be operating the vehicle. That being the case, it would seem unlikely that one might need a helmet on.
    Of course, the road rules are unbelievably arbitrary and stupid (and are regulated by arbitrary and stupid people), so who knows?!

    This reminds me of a thread on another forum, where the OP was utterly convinced that the mere act of filling up a motorcycle constituted "operating" it, so he thought that the popo could fine motorcyclists for not wearing helmets whilst they fuelled their rides. I pointed out that his definition of "operating" would also mean that car drivers would then need to be wearing their seatbelts while they filled up their cars...
  4. "operating" is irrelevant, as is whether keys are in the ignition. Refer to Reg 270—Wearing motor bike helmets. You would not be fined for filling your tank, but you could be if you then move your motorcycle without your helmet on.

  5. Even if you were just pushing it?
  6. This sort of shit is one of the many reasons I am completely against helmet laws. If you're over 18, you should be able to make the choice without some genetic throwback retard politician or cop hassling you.
  7. Having just read 270 I would say it is not clear about it, need to know the definitions of rider etc are and cannot be bothered looking.....

    I know I push my bike away from the pump all the time without my helmet on to get it out of the way while I go and have a ciggie. So all good with Reg 271 but maybe not with Reg 270??????

    Anyone got he energy to have a look?

    Cheers Jeremy
  8. You may come to this conclusion, or confirm the same using a search engine.


    eg. on group rides where riders are queuing up to fill up, person will move bike to let the next person fill up. If a police officer sees you moving your bike and you have no helmet, he can fine you. It matters not whether
    engine is running, or if key is in the ignition, so if you move your bike without a helmet and it's not private land, 3 demerit points thank you! No doubt the TAC will one day publish statistics which show dozens of motorcyclists
    each year suffering head injuries while pushing their bikes without helmets on?

  9. Worse than the demerit points is the fact that it's 5 penalty units. Fuсking nanny state BS.
  10. ARR 271 is not relevant to the example you have given. You would be in breach of ARR 270.

  11. Ok after reading the definitions in the dictionary and Rule 17 which defines rider pushing it does require a helmet on.

    It would have to be a real bastard of a copper to do you for it however.

    Thanks for the link Justus have book marked it for further use.

    Cheers Jeremy
  12. But if you're pushing it, you're not a rider. You're a pusher.
  13. That is where 271 comes into it it specifically mentions rider pushing a motor bike. So it says that if you are pushing it you are still regarded as a rider so 270 applies.

    Sucks but that is how it reads as it includes in charge of in the definition of rider. It has an exemption for push bikes but not motor bikes.

    Cheers Jeremy
  14. Yep. Someone who dislikes motorcyclists, or who at that moment has nothing better to do with their time.

    5 penalty units = $704.20! In NSW, it is a $243 ticket with 3 demerit points.

  15. So you get a fine for pushing a bike without a helmet? Is that only in "public" areas?
    On a road or similar eg. car park or service station?
    Otherwise motorbike mechanics etc would be fined all the time for moving bikes around.. edit...(I just read the updated posts on previous page, so figured it out)

    so my response is..

    Can't think of anything more ridiculous actually...can anyone think of anything more ridiculous?
  16. The fact that there's any sort of helmet law in the first place.
  17. Apart from the TAC no.......
  18. I'm an atgatt rider for my own reasons. Regardles of this I can appreciate everyones right to personal choice and can understand how this should include the right to choose what you want to wear, without having it enforced by legislation.

    ^ lol...

    maybe we should start a thread with the most ridiculous rules out there...
  19. Yeah I'm fully geared the overwhelming majority of the time, and even when I squid out for a quick ride to the store I'd wear a helmet even if I don't have to… but if some other adult wants to ride in nothing more than boardies and a singlet with no helmet, I don't think it's right for anyone to tell him how to live his life. It's his body, his choice.
    • Like Like x 1

  20. In which case I would be more concern about doing serious jail time rather than demerit points... ohhh hang on that only if they find anything on you 8-[

    Good thread, at the end of the day the law even with it's loopholes can be twisted in the officers favor on any day it wants ......