Law on wearing mc helmet inside a cage? [Archive]

anonbiker

29th June 2009, 18:00

I've tried searching on Google for the answer but with no luck.

Do you know if it is legal to wear a motorcycle helmet whilst driving a car? Not really planning on doing it just interested. I think I read somewhere that people had gotten out of speeding tickets in a certain country because speed cameras need to prove who was driving at the time of the offense and because a MC helmet obscured the view obviously people got out of tickets.

steve_t

29th June 2009, 18:05

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to wear a helmet while driving on the road here. I'm not sure if this is right but isn't it that if the face of the driver is obscured, the fine goes to the owner of the car? The owner of the car is then told to be more careful who they lend their car to and to seek reparation directly from that person.
Or have I gone nuts?
Why do you ask?

Mom

29th June 2009, 18:08

I dont think it is legal to wear a helemt while driving.

Whats the worst that will happen, they give you a ticket for looking like a plonker while you drive :lol:

98tls

29th June 2009, 18:09

Would have thought if the driver of the vehicle couldnt be identified they would simply send the ticket to the owner with a "we dont care whos driving your paying" note attached.

slofox

29th June 2009, 18:11

Would have thought if the driver of the vehicle couldnt be identified they would simply send the ticket to the owner with a "we dont care whos driving your paying" note attached.

They tried that on with me once when I had put a car into auction...some arse took it out for a test drive and got camered. They sent me the ticket. I told them to get fucked. They did - eventually....

McDuck

29th June 2009, 18:11

You can do it but you will be pulled over every 30 seconds

Jantar

29th June 2009, 18:11

I'm not aware of any law forbidding the wearing of a helmet while driving. As for identifying the driver from speed camera photos, the ticket always goes to the owner of the vehicle.

98tls

29th June 2009, 18:13

They tried that on with me once when I had put a car into auction...some arse took it out for a test drive and got camered. They sent me the ticket. I told them to get fucked. They did - eventually.... Yep under those circumstances rightly so.

AllanB

29th June 2009, 18:13

AllanB

29th June 2009, 18:18

Re speed camera photos - the fine goes to the registered driver, if said owner was not the driver then it is their responsibility to notify the police as to whom was driving, or pay-up as the registered driver.

I know this as my wife was driving, got a camera ticket, I wrote telling them it was not me and I proved it with a work time sheet - they told me it's registered in my name so provide the driver or pay-up.
Technically the car is joint registered between the two of us but I left that alone .........

The Pastor

29th June 2009, 18:27

Yeah its perfectly legal to wear one,

who knows maybe in the future they will be compulasary in cars - just like bikes.

Would save a ton of lifes if everyone in a crash had one on.

Slyer

29th June 2009, 18:30

No argument against open face helmets then.

CookMySock

29th June 2009, 19:13

I was TOLD it was not legal to wear a helmet in a car. Just what I was told.

Steve

McDuck

29th June 2009, 19:27

I was TOLD it was not legal to wear a helmet in a car. Just what I was told.

Steve

So it is legal, but the question is why would you want to? Other than hide your identity from the cops?

AllanB

29th June 2009, 19:51

So it is legal, but the question is why would you want to? Other than hide your identity from the cops?

Even if you are wearing one I suspect the police have the right to ask you to remove it if you are stopped by them, ditto on a motorcycle. Last thing they want is someone head-butting them wearing a lid.

Nasty

29th June 2009, 19:56

Funny this ... when we picked up Grubs new bike from Tauranga ... we decided to have a chat on the way back ... through the blue tooth in our helmets ... when i was riding and he was driving ... with his flip top helmet in the car ... yes looked like a dick ... but it worked great.

Mostly people wear helmets only on the track or when racing.

h20boy

29th June 2009, 20:18

If it was obscuring your view while driving I'd suggest they could charge you with dangerous/reckless driving...particularly if you were being a bit erratic as a result of wearing it.

A few years back a bunch of friends and I dressed up as mummys, covered head to toe in bandages and we were pulled over and told to take them off...not just the driver...all of us...bloody spoil sports.

p.dath

29th June 2009, 20:40

I've done some reading of the LTSA web site with regard to this issue. I can't find any regulation directly stating that you can not wear a motorcycle helmet while driving a car.

However, there is plenty of grey territory, so I would not risk being a test case.

For example:
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/passenger-service-vehicles-1999.html
Section 6.11 of the passenger service vehicle regulations say "signs and instructions ... may not be obscured by a fitting". If you call a helmet a fitting, then you could be found in breach of this regulation. There are other similar grey areas like this.

Also consider the case where an accident has happened. If the police consider wearing the helmet was a contributing factor then you could be charged with a more serious offence than you otherwise have been.

In short, I would not risk it.

scracha

29th June 2009, 21:46

How can a helmet possibly obscure your view? I mean, if it's safe enough for us to view things by turning our heads on a motorcycle then surely the same would apply in a car?

p.dath

29th June 2009, 21:49

How can a helmet possibly obscure your view? I mean, if it's safe enough for us to view things by turning our heads on a motorcycle then surely the same would apply in a car?

Without moving your head observe what you can see. Now put your helmet on. You should notice that your field of view has reduced. Hence your view has been obscured by the small opening in the front of your helmet. :yes:

You loose a lot of peripheral vision with a helmet on.

scracha

29th June 2009, 22:34

Without moving your head observe what you can see. Now put your helmet on. You should notice that your field of view has reduced. Hence your view has been obscured by the small opening in the front of your helmet. :yes:

You loose a lot of peripheral vision with a helmet on.

So it's Ok to lose peripheral vision on a motorcycle but illegal in a car? I don't think so. Besides, they'd have to ban hijab's, a lot of haircuts and spectacles if they enforced a law about 'obscured view'.

'But I wear a helmet for religious reasons officer'

peasea

30th June 2009, 06:40

Who cares? Do what you like on the roads, amass tens of thousands of dollars' worth of fines and have the total wiped by a cocksucking judge.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10581541

No wonder these arse-wipes create so much havoc and carnage on the roads. You and I get fines for 111kph and are hounded almost to the grave for eighty bucks but this fuck gets HOW MUCH wiped?

That judge should be incarcerated with him.

Sure, lock the perp up for a couple of months, then add the cost of the jail time to his fines and make him pay the lot!

Grrrrrr......

JohnC

30th June 2009, 06:55

About 5 years ago there was an NZ doctor pushing for the compulsary wearing of helmets in cars.
He was basing his opinion on the amount of head injurys he was seeing in car drivers after side impact collisions.
In was discussed in detail on this forum at the time.
The guy had his whole family wearing open faces when traveling in his own family car.
I don't belive it's actualy illegal to wear one,but as far as the law being changed to make it compulsary,the Gov't would just say "buy a car with drop down air bags",,,end of argument.
Getting off Fines,,,good luck on that one.

nodrog

30th June 2009, 07:21

Ixion

30th June 2009, 19:42

When I started riding motorcycles, it was legal to wear a crash helmet when riding one. But hardly anyone ever did.

because, if you did, you could guarantee you'd be stopped by the snakes.

"Ho Ho Ho. So, fancy yourself as Stanley Woods do you. Well, we've very little time for people like you that think the road's a race track and want to act out their fantasies blah blah, here's a ticket for not having enough steering wheels"

Wearing a helmet whilst driving a cage now would also be legal. And would almost certainly draw the same reaction from the cops.

coffeejunkie

2nd July 2009, 10:58

I know afew drivers that i should be wearing a helmet in the car with, lOL

Patrick

3rd July 2009, 17:17

Rally drivers don't have any issues.....

Taz

3rd July 2009, 17:49

surely you'd have to remove it when paying for gas?? :lol:

peasea

3rd July 2009, 18:45

Without moving your head observe what you can see. Now put your helmet on. You should notice that your field of view has reduced. Hence your view has been obscured by the small opening in the front of your helmet. :yes:

You loose a lot of peripheral vision with a helmet on.

Which is why I wouldn't fuckin' bother if it were not for the law. Have you ever checked the stat's on broken necks in m/c accidents? I don't doubt that something needs to protect your gourd in a spill but helmets are not the whole answer. It's all good in a race car with a Hans device, but you ain't got that on a sickle.

A Kevlar flying hat would probably be better; less mass to snap your spinal cord and stab-proof into the bargain.

peasea

3rd July 2009, 18:47

surely you'd have to remove it when paying for gas?? :lol:

Eat beans and the gas is free.

peasea

3rd July 2009, 18:50

Rally drivers don't have any issues.....

You're being a moron again.

Rally drivers are on closed roads, looking predominately straight ahead and the vast majority (if not all) of them wear open-face lids.

:woohoo:

p.dath

3rd July 2009, 19:22

Which is why I wouldn't fuckin' bother if it were not for the law. Have you ever checked the stat's on broken necks in m/c accidents? I don't doubt that something needs to protect your gourd in a spill but helmets are not the whole answer. It's all good in a race car with a Hans device, but you ain't got that on a sickle.
...

I have look at some of the stats. There is a school of though that closed face helmets increase the incidence of base skull fractures at the back of your head (which is why some people think you should wear an open faced helmet). These accidents occurr when the front of your helmet takes an impact around the chin area the the energy transfers to the back of your skull. However, even accepting the increase in the number of these injuries, helmets are still considered safer over all.

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

peasea

3rd July 2009, 19:29

I have look at some of the stats. There is a school of though that closed face helmets increase the incidence of base skull fractures at the back of your head (which is why some people think you should wear an open faced helmet). These accidents occurr when the front of your helmet takes an impact around the chin area the the energy transfers to the back of your skull. However, even accepting the increase in the number of these injuries, helmets are still considered safer over all.

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

"Given the choice"

Which we are not. Like riding a bicycle; in NZ it's compulsory to wear silly head gear, I'd ride a bicycle if were not for the stupid helmets. I've got one going rusty. Overall, I'd agree, some head protection is a good idea, it's just that what is available is second rate 'overall'.

p.dath

3rd July 2009, 19:33

"Given the choice"

Which we are not. Like riding a bicycle; in NZ it's compulsory to wear silly head gear, I'd ride a bicycle if were not for the stupid helmets. I've got one going rusty. Overall, I'd agree, some head protection is a good idea, it's just that what is available is second rate 'overall'.

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Having people wear protection makes it fairer on everyone else in NZ who pays ACC. Its in everyones best interest to minimise the total ACC bill required to cover all those that have accidents every year.

If there was no ACC, and you had to get private insurance, and your insurance company knows that it will cost more to rehabilitate you if you have an accident with no safety gear - what do you think your insurance company will do?
Either refuse to insure you if there is no safety gear, or charge you considerably more.

Remember, ACC is no-fault insurance.

Ixion

3rd July 2009, 19:33

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

So would I

And so did I, when we had a choice

But I object to being forced to wear one by some mindless chinless moron of a bureaucrat who probably never even rode a bike in his life

p.dath

3rd July 2009, 19:36

So would I

And so did I, when we had a choice

But I object to being forced to wear one by some mindless chinless moron of a bureaucrat who probably never even rode a bike in his life

As I said before, if someone has a more expensive accident by not wearing a helmet then they remove the choice of everyone else to enjoy a cheaper ACC premium. I don't want to pay higher ACC premiums to cover those that don't take sensible pre-cautions. Neither do most other people since they complain about the cost of ACC, and we have been under paying by $1.5 billion.

That's fair, isn't it?

Ixion

3rd July 2009, 19:40

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

...

Hummph. In 50 odd years of two (and four) wheeling, I have not cost ACC , or their predecessors, NIMU , a cent (or a penny , in the case of NIMU).

When you have amassed as large a credit (and I'd comfortably wager that i pay a lot more in ACC levies each year than you do), then you may pontificate about me costing you money.

I very much suspect it is (or will be ) the reverse .

peasea

3rd July 2009, 19:41

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Having people wear protection makes it fairer on everyone else in NZ who pays ACC. Its in everyones best interest to minimise the total ACC bill required to cover all those that have accidents every year.

If there was no ACC, and you had to get private insurance, and your insurance company knows that it will cost more to rehabilitate you if you have an accident with no safety gear - what do you think your insurance company will do?
Either refuse to insure you if there is no safety gear, or charge you considerably more.

Remember, ACC is no-fault insurance.

Hey, I get your point, do you get mine??
I'd agree to sign a waiver for ACC to ride 'helmet-less' if I could, for given occasions. Let's say I want to go to a biker funeral or ride the causeways of the SI without a lid. Fine, go for it, if the shit hits the fan, be it on your own head (pun intended) and get your own insurance, whatever the premium. Fuck ACC, they are a pack of useless, rip-off cunts with shiny arses, the sooner it is privatised the better.

If I choose to ride with no lid and have paid my premium to do so, what the fuck? To have some wanker in the beehive tell me how to ride really pisses me off. What's next? No boots, no cover? The number of twats I see riding through my town in summer in jandals is infuriating. You can ride in Speedos if you've got your lid on. Get my point?

Sensible gear is what is needed. Helmets are not 100% sensible.

steve_t

3rd July 2009, 21:05

Why do you guys not ride bicycles just because you have to wear a helmet? Do you think others will think you look dorky? I always rode with one even before it was compulsory... to me it just makes sense... and has saved my noggin a few times ripping thru some slippery areas WAY too fast. However, I'm ATGATT on my motorbike too. Riding in jandals is IMHO retarded! Horses for courses I guess. Your own prerogative. I just don't understand why anyone would stop riding their bicycle because they have to wear a helmet. Worse is when I see people riding with their helmet on their handlebars :bash:

Or are you gonna say it's the principle of it and you should have the right to choose? Cos that's fair enuf too.

p.dath

3rd July 2009, 21:11

Hey, I get your point, do you get mine??
I'd agree to sign a waiver for ACC to ride 'helmet-less' if I could, for given occasions. Let's say I want to go to a biker funeral or ride the causeways of the SI without a lid. Fine, go for it, if the shit hits the fan, be it on your own head (pun intended) and get your own insurance, whatever the premium. Fuck ACC, they are a pack of useless, rip-off cunts with shiny arses, the sooner it is privatised the better.

If I choose to ride with no lid and have paid my premium to do so, what the fuck? To have some wanker in the beehive tell me how to ride really pisses me off. What's next? No boots, no cover? The number of twats I see riding through my town in summer in jandals is infuriating. You can ride in Speedos if you've got your lid on. Get my point?

Sensible gear is what is needed. Helmets are not 100% sensible.

I don't know if you recall, but when National was last in power they actually introduced law to allow you to buy your own private insurance and opt out of ACC. However Labour came into power shortly afterwards, and repealed the act.
And then we were back to no option again.

If we had the option of allowing individuals to take out private insurance, then I really wouldn't care so much about what choice people decided to execute (assuming it doesn't endanger others ...), as it means everyone else isn't having to pay for their choice.

But I especially wouldn't want it to be like it is in the US. Where you have your accident and they effectively refuse to treat you until it can be established that you can pay (usually by proving you have insurance). Despite people's complaints, I think our ACC system is far superior. You know if you have an accident you can rely on an ambulance turning up, and you wont be turned away at a Hospital. Sure you might have to wait 12 to 24 hours to get treated ... but you will get treated (if you can stay alive long enough ...). :)

peasea

3rd July 2009, 21:56

I don't know if you recall, but when National was last in power they actually introduced law to allow you to buy your own private insurance and opt out of ACC. However Labour came into power shortly afterwards, and repealed the act.
And then we were back to no option again.

If we had the option of allowing individuals to take out private insurance, then I really wouldn't care so much about what choice people decided to execute (assuming it doesn't endanger others ...), as it means everyone else isn't having to pay for their choice.

But I especially wouldn't want it to be like it is in the US. Where you have your accident and they effectively refuse to treat you until it can be established that you can pay (usually by proving you have insurance). Despite people's complaints, I think our ACC system is far superior. You know if you have an accident you can rely on an ambulance turning up, and you wont be turned away at a Hospital. Sure you might have to wait 12 to 24 hours to get treated ... but you will get treated (if you can stay alive long enough ...). :)

You appear to have a head on your shoulders. A rare thing on kb.

I would, however disagree on the ACC thing.

My ideal is; millions for all!

scumdog

3rd July 2009, 22:01

In some states in the USA you can ride helmetless IF you have the appropriate private insurance - but with ACC we won't see THAT idea going ahead.

BTW: I wear a 'shortie' helmet for most of my riding and would wear it the majority of the time even if it was not mandatory.

peasea

3rd July 2009, 22:34

Skunk

3rd July 2009, 22:43

Rally drivers don't have any issues.....
Correct.

You're being a moron again.

Rally drivers are on closed roads, looking predominately straight ahead and the vast majority (if not all) of them wear open-face lids.
Wrong. Rally drivers must drive on open roads from stage to stage. That's why their cars are road legal.
Been there, done that. Wore the helmet.

It's NOT illegal.

Usarka

3rd July 2009, 22:50

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Fuck off and stop riding a bike. You're more likely to crash than a car driver and if you do you expect *me* to pay for it?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

YellowDog

3rd July 2009, 22:51

How can it not be legal??????

You must wear one on a bike and your visibility is pretty much the same wearing one in a car apart from a roof column or two.

Hearing would be irrelevant as I can drive along with by CD player blasting, so thats out as a argument.

I could wear a balaclava while driving.

Looking like a plonker - unfortunately this is not illegal or comb-overs would be banned........ and muffin tops......... and .......
I am not aware of any law which says that you can't wear headgear, such as a Hoody, Scarf, or helmet.

When my mother in law wants to drive my car I always put my motorcycle helmet on. She then says "OK you drive"

The dosey old battle axe thinks I'm joking. I'm not.

Her motto should be "Keep Death off the Road. Drive on the pavements instead"

peasea

3rd July 2009, 22:55

Correct.

Wrong. Rally drivers must drive on open roads from stage to stage. That's why their cars are road legal.
Been there, done that. Wore the helmet.

It's NOT illegal.
Yes, quite right, I stand corrected, I wasn't thinking. Many, many stages of high-quality tarmac is covered at high speed by drivers that can actually DRIVE!

Rally drivers are the best mentors.

peasea

4th July 2009, 08:15

Correct.

Wrong. Rally drivers must drive on open roads from stage to stage. That's why their cars are road legal.
Been there, done that. Wore the helmet.

It's NOT illegal.

Never said it was.

Patrick

6th July 2009, 10:36

You're being a moron again.

Rally drivers are on closed roads, looking predominately straight ahead and the vast majority (if not all) of them wear open-face lids.

:woohoo:

Correct.

Wrong. Rally drivers must drive on open roads from stage to stage. That's why their cars are road legal.
Been there, done that. Wore the helmet.

It's NOT illegal.

Yes, quite right, I stand corrected, I wasn't thinking. Many, many stages of high-quality tarmac is covered at high speed by drivers that can actually DRIVE!

Rally drivers are the best mentors.

Wonder how long the apology will take to come.....

:whistle: