Dark visor - lots of police - A4
Discussion
I have just been out on the A4 between Newbury and Hungerford. It was quite overcast, but I hadn't changed back to my clear visor. Loads of police (bikes, Cars, nasty Vans with cameras) in each of the laybys.
I was expecting to get pulled, even looking forward to it as I had the clear visor with me, and I wasn't speeding.
Didn't look at me twice! (glad to see the focus was on something important not trivial like visors)
Ps. Thanks to the few who warned me about the police up ahead.
what would pc plod make of you popping the visor up when riding past them, as actually having a visor isn't compulsery 
it's to do with the transmission of light through the visor. It must allow more than 70% (or something like that) through whatever coating you have on the visor. The kite mark usually relates to the shaterproofness of the visor. American ANSI and SNELL standards are higher than our own BS standards, but for some reason are still, as pointed out, illegal in the UK?!
Okay to wear a dark visor, trivial matter?
until you have the collision and the you are looking for the insurance payout, and on the accident report it states you had an illegal visor. The insurance companies will fall over themselves to pay you...yeah right?
Good luck with the claim?
until you have the collision and the you are looking for the insurance payout, and on the accident report it states you had an illegal visor. The insurance companies will fall over themselves to pay you...yeah right?
Good luck with the claim?
go4it said:
Okay to wear a dark visor, trivial matter?
until you have the collision and the you are looking for the insurance payout, and on the accident report it states you had an illegal visor. The insurance companies will fall over themselves to pay you...yeah right?
Good luck with the claim?
But if the dark visor prevents the dangerous glare the accident doesn't happen. What now?
Graham I take your point, we all know that insurers are sticklers for us playing by the rules. However, a blanket ruling seems pretty daft. The issue to me is can you see out of the thing on the day you wear it. To that end, would it not be reasonable to expect a dark-visor'd rider to read a number plate at 20m through the visor as all other road users are expected?
Steve.
Steve.
Doesn't actually say anything about visors, but here's the legislation:
Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations requiring persons driving or riding (otherwise than in sidecars) on motor cycles to wear protective headgear. Currently, the regulations are the Motor Cycle (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998, which state:
Every person driving or riding on a motor bicycle (other than in a sidecar) on a road-
(a) must wear protective headgear, which
(b) must be securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastening provided for that purpose (if it has a chin cup it must have an additional strap to go under the jaw), and
(c) must bear a mark indication in compliance with the British Standard/equivalent EU standard, or
(d) be of a type which, by virtue of its shape, material and construction could reasonably be expected to afford protection similar to, or greater than a helmet which conforms to the latest British Standard 6658:1985 (or equivalent EU standard).
Notes
In (c) above, the British standards Kitemarks which are acceptable are B.S.2001 :1956; or 1869:1960; or 2495:1960; or 2001:1972; or 5361:1976; or 2495:1977 or 6658:1985 (per Schedule 2 of the Regulations). Any of these will do, it does not have to be the latest Standard. The Standards are amended over the years (the 1960 Standard has had 8 amendments, the latest in 1975), the helmet does not have to have the latest amendment.
A driver who is propelling the vehicle by foot is exempt from wearing a helmet. However, if it is being propelled "scooter" style, then the rider should wear a helmet.
Although riders of motor cycles need to wear protective helmets, surprisingly passengers in sidecars do not, even though they are often at a lower level than the cycle and therefore at greater risk from objects thrown up by other traffic such as stones.
OFFENCE
It is an offence for a person to drive or ride a motor cycle on a road when not wearing protective headgear.
EXEMPTIONS
(a) motor mowers, which could come within the definition of a motor cycle;
(b) followers of the Sikh religion who are allowed to wear turbans whilst driving or riding motor bicycles having regard to the impracticality of Sikhs conforming with their religion and wearing protective helmets at the same time.
It will be for the prosecution to prove that the driver or rider of a motor cycle on a road was not wearing protective headgear of the appropriate type for a prosecution to be brought.
Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations requiring persons driving or riding (otherwise than in sidecars) on motor cycles to wear protective headgear. Currently, the regulations are the Motor Cycle (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998, which state:
Every person driving or riding on a motor bicycle (other than in a sidecar) on a road-
(a) must wear protective headgear, which
(b) must be securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastening provided for that purpose (if it has a chin cup it must have an additional strap to go under the jaw), and
(c) must bear a mark indication in compliance with the British Standard/equivalent EU standard, or
(d) be of a type which, by virtue of its shape, material and construction could reasonably be expected to afford protection similar to, or greater than a helmet which conforms to the latest British Standard 6658:1985 (or equivalent EU standard).
Notes
In (c) above, the British standards Kitemarks which are acceptable are B.S.2001 :1956; or 1869:1960; or 2495:1960; or 2001:1972; or 5361:1976; or 2495:1977 or 6658:1985 (per Schedule 2 of the Regulations). Any of these will do, it does not have to be the latest Standard. The Standards are amended over the years (the 1960 Standard has had 8 amendments, the latest in 1975), the helmet does not have to have the latest amendment.
A driver who is propelling the vehicle by foot is exempt from wearing a helmet. However, if it is being propelled "scooter" style, then the rider should wear a helmet.
Although riders of motor cycles need to wear protective helmets, surprisingly passengers in sidecars do not, even though they are often at a lower level than the cycle and therefore at greater risk from objects thrown up by other traffic such as stones.
OFFENCE
It is an offence for a person to drive or ride a motor cycle on a road when not wearing protective headgear.
EXEMPTIONS
(a) motor mowers, which could come within the definition of a motor cycle;
(b) followers of the Sikh religion who are allowed to wear turbans whilst driving or riding motor bicycles having regard to the impracticality of Sikhs conforming with their religion and wearing protective helmets at the same time.
It will be for the prosecution to prove that the driver or rider of a motor cycle on a road was not wearing protective headgear of the appropriate type for a prosecution to be brought.
My point is that when dealing with collisions then we must act impartially. (I hear a snigger or two) If we see the illeagl exhaust or dark visor then we MUST record these facts. Its not the same as prosecuting for the offence.
Its easy to prove not wearing of a sfety helmet in most cases, If the BSI mark is not presant then case proven. same applies to the visor. if its on the head and not fastened then the rider is NOT wearing...
Im not passing judgement but what i am pointing out is the arguements you are putting forward here dont want to be the arguements you ahev to paly with the authorities as most likely you will lose.
Its easy to prove not wearing of a sfety helmet in most cases, If the BSI mark is not presant then case proven. same applies to the visor. if its on the head and not fastened then the rider is NOT wearing...
Im not passing judgement but what i am pointing out is the arguements you are putting forward here dont want to be the arguements you ahev to paly with the authorities as most likely you will lose.
Would you record the fact if the rider was wearing a legal BSI kit-marked clear visor with a legal tinted visor insert. ?
Or would the insurance companies take a dim view of that too.
What about someone wearing a clear visor but also wearing sunglasses.
>> Edited by barry sheene on Friday 4th June 15:08
Or would the insurance companies take a dim view of that too.
What about someone wearing a clear visor but also wearing sunglasses.
>> Edited by barry sheene on Friday 4th June 15:08
barry sheene said:
Would you record the fact if the rider was wearing a legal BSI kit-marked clear visor with a legal tinted visor insert. ?
What about someone wearing a clear visor but also wearing sunglasses.
]
Bazza
On both these counts, the original visor would be BSI marked, hence everything would be legal. Unless the police officer was being a pedant, as long as it was daylight when you were stopped, then the amount of hassle to bring a successful prosecution in court would be high versus the potential fine, etc. IMHO..
Visor inserts get round the law totally, as the main visor maintains its' BSI mark (primarily concerned with shaterproofness and the transmission of 'visible light')
Call me old fashioned, but at heart I am still a rebel, I choose to ignore the law in this respect because I can.
From the safety angle, my visor cuts out less light than my perfectly legal shades, but it looks good.
Sadly, the more the state interferes in my decisions, the more I seem to resist.
So you feel you MUST mention that my helmet doesn't have a kitemarked visor. Fair enough. Just hope that your actions don't destroy my faith in the police service to the point when I walk buy as some scrote gives you or your colleagues a good kicking on a Friday night.
Some laws should be enforced, some should never have made the statute books. I think the police could earn a little of the respect that they have lost by adopting a more "Italian" approach to things.
I have seen Italian police nodding appreciatively when a Ferrari is caned on a nice road. Perhaps you could learn from your European colleagues.
Please don't mention consistency. The English legal system only recently fined a pensioner £360 for holding up a warning sign, yet fined another £83 for death by dangerous driving and virtually let off an inspector travelling at 104MPH.
Quite frankly, I am simply past caring.
From the safety angle, my visor cuts out less light than my perfectly legal shades, but it looks good.
Sadly, the more the state interferes in my decisions, the more I seem to resist. So you feel you MUST mention that my helmet doesn't have a kitemarked visor. Fair enough. Just hope that your actions don't destroy my faith in the police service to the point when I walk buy as some scrote gives you or your colleagues a good kicking on a Friday night.
Some laws should be enforced, some should never have made the statute books. I think the police could earn a little of the respect that they have lost by adopting a more "Italian" approach to things.
I have seen Italian police nodding appreciatively when a Ferrari is caned on a nice road. Perhaps you could learn from your European colleagues.
Please don't mention consistency. The English legal system only recently fined a pensioner £360 for holding up a warning sign, yet fined another £83 for death by dangerous driving and virtually let off an inspector travelling at 104MPH.
Quite frankly, I am simply past caring.
Its good to see that plod gets respect when he breaks the law, used to be called hypocrisy not so long ago?
still I wasnt saying I agreed with the situation I was just making a point. Tony if you are "job" then no respct from here if you think breaking the law is okay if you dont agree with it?
still I wasnt saying I agreed with the situation I was just making a point. Tony if you are "job" then no respct from here if you think breaking the law is okay if you dont agree with it?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff