Australian Design Standards ( Helmets )
Ian Jey
cheaper price than I would get it here.
However after reading some posts a while back, it seems that this helmet is
not approved for Australian Roads.
However I have a Giro Eclipse which is ?
Whats the story with this issue.
Why wouldn't the top of the line helmet not meet Australian standards.
I mean , I am sure it is very safe in the event of a crash, as I am sure
Lance Armstrong wouldn't wear it if it were dangerous.
Whats the issue, and what implications do I have if I wear this helmet and
have an accident ?
Thanks for any feedback on this.
Ian
Marty Wallace
"Ian Jey" <ia...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4190...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Hmm
This question seems to pop up every week.
The general answer is that it hasn't been approved because it hasn't been
submitted for approval. It hasn't been submitted for approval because it
costs about $30 000 to go through the testing and approval process and the
manufacturers/suppliers don't think they'll sell enough to cover the costs.
However, just because it isn't approved doesn't mean it isn't a good helmet
or won't meet the Australian Standards.
Marty
ritcho
The helmet probably does meet the Australian Standard but the
distributor or manufacturer has to pay to get the particular model
certified. (which means you don't know if it complies or not).
If you are injured and your helmet does not comply, it gives an insurer
a reason to deny you a claim.
Ritch
--
ritcho
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Ian Jey Wrote:
>> Whats the issue, and what implications do I have if I wear this helmet
>> and
>> have an accident ?
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback on this.
>>
>> Ian
>
> The helmet probably does meet the Australian Standard but the
> distributor or manufacturer has to pay to get the particular model
> certified. (which means you don't know if it complies or not).
>
> If you are injured and your helmet does not comply, it gives an insurer
> a reason to deny you a claim.
Read also the issue ~ lastweek with the person who got pulled over and
booked by the Police because the helmet didn't satisfy the .au
standards.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Er, RFC 882 put the dot in .com.
Peter McCallum
Hi Ian
I see that the Giro helmets meet US and European standards.
According to the Qld TORUM Regulations:
"approved bicycle helmet" means a helmet that complies with --
(a) AS 2063.1 and 2063.2; or
(b) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to
that standard.
I don't think there is an AS 2063.1 any more. When I looked on the
Australian Standards site AS 2063.1 had become AS 2063. I've written to
Qld Transport to ask whether the chief executive has approved any other
standards.
It doesn't appear that the minister has to approve of this change.
I'd be writing to my local state/territory MP if I was you. Tell him/her
that you have this top notch helmet from the US but can't be sure
whether you can wear it in Australia. Ask whether helmets conforming
with the United States CPSC safety standard for bicycle helmets and/or
the the European Personal Protective Equipment Directive 89/686/EEC are
approved for use in your state/territory. If they aren't, ask "why not?"
From what I understand, the history of the Australian standard has been
to act as more of a trade barrier and protect local manufacturers than
to provide additional safety protection to cyclists.
Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
SteveA
Bugger, did we not get Giro Bike Helmets into the US/Australian Free
Trade Agreement negotiations?
SteveA
--
SteveA
Peter McCallum
> Bugger, did we not get Giro Bike Helmets into the US/Australian Free
> Trade Agreement negotiations?
>
> SteveA
No, I think you'll find they were blocked by the changes in regard to
the PBS.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Bugger, did we not get Giro Bike Helmets into the US/Australian Free
>> Trade Agreement negotiations?
>>
>> SteveA
>
> No, I think you'll find they were blocked by the changes in regard to
> the PBS.
Yay! Another effect of the senate being rendered useless after July
next year is that they will probably just go back to the original
agreement, fsck over PBS, fsck over the Australian computer industry
(same IP issue - the computer industry in America is the only industry
that has the burden being subject of two Intellectual Property laws -
patents are unnecessary and an enormous burden on software
development; now Australia is going to have to put up with them as
well).
How's this for scary?:
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2004-January/005844.html
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"If you already know what recursion is, just remember the answer. Otherwise,
find someone who is standing closer to Douglas Hofstadter than you are; then
ask him or her what recursion is." -- Andrew "Zarf" Plotkin
Marty Wallace
"Peter McCallum" <p5m8.RE...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1gmzvj3.asn4t93e5a4yN%p5m8.RE...@yahoo.com.au...
Doesn't Australia make better helmets anyway?
Marty
Peter Signorini
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:41909938$0$21869$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
>
> Doesn't Australia make better helmets anyway?
Yay, Rosebank!! Much better than Met or Bell (NOT!)
Cheers
Peter
Jimmy
hit the deck .....
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:41909938$0$21869$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
>
Peter McCallum
> I rather be wearing a Giro Atmos than a K-mart Mongoose $30 Helmet when I
> hit the deck .....
Oh, yes! Wouldn't be seen dead in one of those.
L'acrobat
"TimC" <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn-0.9.7.4-12259-...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au...
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 at 07:37 GMT, Peter McCallum (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> SteveA <SteveA...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>>> Bugger, did we not get Giro Bike Helmets into the US/Australian Free
>>> Trade Agreement negotiations?
>>>
>>> SteveA
>>
>> No, I think you'll find they were blocked by the changes in regard to
>> the PBS.
>
> Yay! Another effect of the senate being rendered useless after July
> next year is that they will probably just go back to the original
> agreement, fsck over PBS, fsck over the Australian computer industry
> (same IP issue - the computer industry in America is the only industry
> that has the burden being subject of two Intellectual Property laws -
> patents are unnecessary and an enormous burden on software
> development; now Australia is going to have to put up with them as
> well).
The computer industry in the US is doing so badly, isn't it? LOL.
Actually, the best part of the unrepresentative swill being reduced to a
rubber stamp is all of those wonderful lefty whinges will be shown to be
lies. again.
The Draft won't be reinstated, the ABC won't be closed down, Medicare won't
be gutted, PBS won't be stuffed, etc, etc etc.
Given that the coalition can do pretty much as it pleases as of July, what
will you whine about then?