Thread: Motor Cyclists Bookd for Tinted Visor

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

Not quite as grand as a Shoei, but mine is the same. However, the box said that the hidden tinted visor was "Not to AS1609, off highway use only". The main clear visor is stamped AS1609

Not sure about AS1609 on the Shoei one but this 'the QSV-1 Sun Shield Exceeds the ANSI Z80.3-2010 Standard for Non-Prescription Eyewear'

Both my Shoei XR-1100 helmets have tinted visors - very dark (see a pattern forming ) - I then wear sun glasses underneath

Neither of these factory Shoei visors are approved for road use...

I carry a clear in my bag for long rides, or if caught short, visor up glasses only.

Personally i dont like tinted visors and prefer to use sunnies, then i can ride with visor up without tasting the local insect population or copping a bug to the eye.
Much easier to chuck in the pocket when it gets dark too.

It is petty ticketing a rider with a tinted visor as it hardly effects the crash worthiness of it.

Originally Posted by loanrangie

It is petty ticketing a rider with a tinted visor as it hardly effects the crash worthiness of it.

I wouldn't imagine that the law was concerned with the possibility of the helmet being less crashworthy because of the tint. I would imagine that the issue is whether the rider is more likely to be involved in a crash because of restricted vision in poor light conditions.

That article by itself is not enough to convince me that Victoria is a nanny state or that police are rigidly enforcing petty laws.

Given the number of motorcyclist wearing tinted visors compared with the number of reports of motorcyclists being booked for that offence, it doesn't appear that the police are making a special effort to target that offence.

Has anyone else ever wondered how many of these people who get fined for an apparently trivial offence have managed to convert what was going to be a polite warning from the police into a fine? I haven't tried it myself, but I suspect that it would be quite easy to do simply by adopting a certain attitude when spoken to or asking, "Why aren't you out there catching murderers instead of picking on me".

Originally Posted by vnx205

I wouldn't imagine that the law was concerned with the possibility of the helmet being less crashworthy because of the tint. I would imagine that the issue is whether the rider is more likely to be involved in a crash because of restricted vision in poor light conditions.

That article by itself is not enough to convince me that Victoria is a nanny state or that police are rigidly enforcing petty laws.

Given the number of motorcyclist wearing tinted visors compared with the number of reports of motorcyclists being booked for that offence, it doesn't appear that the police are making a special effort to target that offence.

Has anyone else ever wondered how many of these people who get fined for an apparently trivial offence have managed to convert what was going to be a polite warning from the police into a fine? I haven't tried it myself, but I suspect that it would be quite easy to do simply by adopting a certain attitude when spoken to or asking, "Why aren't you out there catching murderers instead of picking on me".

Attitude goes a long way, i always use the " yes sir, no sir, how are you today officer sir " - or just dont do stupid ****.

Okay time for me to show my ignorance,
How could a tinted visor be ok , but not a tinted windscreen, don't they do the same function.

Originally Posted by AndyG

Okay time for me to show my ignorance,
How could a tinted visor be ok , but not a tinted windscreen, don't they do the same function.

Tinted windscreens are perfectly legal as long as they are tinted at manufacture and not tinted with aftermarket film. Not sure what is the allowable tinting level but the windscreen on my jag is tinted and one I had in a subaru I owned was also tinted.