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] Silly laws.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by TonyE, Mar 6, 2008.

  1. Something I'd like VMAC to look at is silly laws - not speed laws etc. etc. but the sort of pointless regulation that has no intrinsic safety value but can be used to harass riders. The first one that comes to mind is the requirement to have the rego sticker on the left side of the bike. Seems trivial but it's a favourite for the odd cop who decides to be a bastrd. :evil:

    Can people post or PM me with the sorts of dumb things that are used to harass riders? I think that this is another area that hasn't been looked at and that we can actually do something about.

    I spoke to the VicRoads people are quite prepared to listen to suggestions but we need make them aware of pointless and out of date regulations.

    I can't do much about non-Victorian ones but I will pass them on.
  2. Re: Silly laws.

    the reason behind that one, is that when an officer or parking inspector wants to have a squizz, they do not endanger themselves by entering the carriageway to do so....in most occasions anyway.
    it isnt really necessary these days, with angle parking etc. *shrug*
  3. 1. Requiring BOTH feet to be on the pegs when mobile. Suggest allowing at least 3 limbs to be in contact with the bike at all times. Sometimes we need to stretch and it's not always safe to pull over and get off.

    2. Remove any requirement for "unleaded fuel only" stickers if such a requirement exists. Given that you can't buy leaded fuel if your sticker peels off then it shouldn't be an offence to have it missing.

    3. Noise levels. Remove the requirement for a test data plate to be affixed to the exhaust. Base the regulation and enforcement soley on noise measurement, the same as it is done for cars and other vehicles. Also, anyone can make and affix a plate the says that the pipe that it's attached to complies with the relevant ADRs and associated noise levels.

    4. Carbon fibre (or other material) rear "huggers". Some suggest that fitting them is illegal or makes the bike unroadworthy. Consider scrapping this reg if it exists. I personally don't know what benefits that huggers offer, but people like to fit them, anyway. Ditto for other fittings such as "oggy" knobs or whatever that may or may not comply with design rules.
  4. Re: Silly laws.

    If it's fitted to the rear plate, as an example, this wouldn't expose an officer to any elevated levels of risk. If the bike's parked, say parallel to the road the officer can still view it from the left. If it's parked on an angle which most riders tend to do, anyway, to lessen the lean angle due to the camber of the roadside and to make it easier to see traffic when moving off, then the sticker could be placed in any location, really.

    The current setup means that the sticker is facing towards the ground which in itself would make it more difficult to read. Certainly, with mine it is. I have it mounted to the left pillion peg's bracket on a Blackbird.
  5. Re: Silly laws.

    i know!
    we went through this one on another forum, and an old microfiche reading library nerd told us (backed up with photostats of it) that this was the original intent for the law.
    thats all :)
  6. Fender Eliminators. They should be allowed. Aus is the only country that I know of that requires the big ugly fenders our bikes come with as stock
  7. Thanks guys,

    Thats a good start (keep them coming)

    And by the way - if you PM me include your email address so I can respond since I'm still barred from sending PMs (and I have no idea why).

    I'm heading out of here up to the Pretty Pine Rally in Deniliquin for the long weekend in an hour or so so I'll start working on a proposal for VMAC next week.
  8. I second the objection to the "sitting with hands on bars, legs on pegs law". The law is intended to prevent stunting, but it can be used by overzealous cops to book you when you were really just stretching your let or adjusting you visor etc or even just standing up over a bump. It needs to be softened.
  9. The ridiculous requirement regarding standards stickers on helmets. If a particular model helmet is Australian approved, you should be able to purchase the same model helmet and ride with it legally, regardless of which country you sourced it from, and regardless of whether the sticker is present or not.

    Tinted visors should be approved for daytime use, not "restricted to racetrack use". If it is legal to have car windows tinted then why is it not legal for the equivalent on a bike?

    And lastly, assault should be legalised for motorcyclists when applied to car drivers who have performed a U turn directly in your path :twisted:
  10. Not to nitpick - I definitely agree that tinted visors should be legal for daytime use - but car windshields aren't allowed to be tinted, only the side and rear.

    If my miss-manners serves correctly the tinted-visor issue is something to do with them usually not complying with the visor standard; not as shatterproof, perhaps... or maybe standards just never assumed tinted visors would be used and we need a tinted-visor standard made.

    I'll stop speculating now. :)
  11. Swerving the motorcycle left to right to left again in an attempt to warm or clean/scuff your tyres should be allowed and not deemed as not being in control.
  12. It's because you are a spamming biatch!!!!!

    not really, i don't know why you can't send PMs, but, wait, allow me to fix that.
  13. Not actually true, and what is allowed varies from state to state:

    From here

    No, the visor standards to the best of my recollection is simply that tinting will not comply to the standard, and it has nothing to do with them being "not as shatterproof" which is bollocks :grin:
  14. Mirrors.

    I can't see a fuggin thing out of them anyway.
  15. I stand corrected!

    (Though looking at my stack of photography gel samples (think 'expensive precision cellophane'), 75% transmittance is f***-all tint. My farts are more opaque. :)
  16. Yeah unfortunately the problem is that if you don't wear a visor that conforms to AS 1609 (which has a section detailing optical characteristics, eg light transmittance) then your helmet then no longer complies with AS 1698, so you can be done for the same thing as if you'd bought your helmet from overseas and it had no compliance sticker.

    It's a ridiculous standard given you are legally allowed to wear sunglasses underneath with a clear visor, but if you wear no sunglasses and have a non AS 1609 conforming tinted visor, you're breaking the law. :roll:
  17. Similarly why is it mandatory for car windows, sunglasses and even clear safety specs to block UV light, but not motorcycle helmet visors (tinted or clear).
  18. Yeah; as in my first reply, I agree that it's stoopid. :)
  19. how about a qualification for "Undue acceleration" and "speed dangerous" with regards to bike accelerating away from lights.
  20. I suggest the requirement should be "three contact points", one of which can be your butt. I often stretch on a long ride by riding no hands, and leaning back on the bike, while still mantaining control.

    My hugger keeps dirt off the Ohlins shock, which would otherwise be full of tar covered stones, which would be getting crunched in the spring, and probably damaging the seals, causing oil leaks. It is a safety issue!

    On the rego sticker issues, while others have shown the written rules specifying front or left side placement, when I rang Vicroads, I was told front, left side, or rear was acceptable. Putting that in a clear and concise rule, that can actually be found on the Vicroads web site, would be a good start.

    Mine is bolted on the back, under the number plate, because they told me I could. [-(