Selev helmets

A friend got one from ProBike and he likes it. I doubt it would be
under the Australian Standard. Not because they are not safe enough,
more that no one has bothered to import enough of them to smash them up
to show they do conform. I believe that's what's required anyway.

I don't think you are actually allowed to sell any helmets that don't
have the Australian standard (at least in Australia - I guess you can
get around this by by on-line...)

If you are buying it from your LBS, then the Australian standard
sticker should be on the helmet....

Absent_Husband

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I need a new helmet and the Selev are available
via ProBikeKit. My query about the Australian Safety standards was more
to do with insurance,law, liability etc.

While looking at helmets in the LBS they've advised that cartain helmets
are for racing only. I'm not entirely sure what that means. Is a helmet
without an official "Australian Standard Sticker" actually illegal to
wear? Where do I stand if I'm wearing it while not racing and I have an
accident?

Maybe I should just buy a Met instead? :-)

Absent Husband said:

I don't think you are actually allowed to sell any helmets that don't
have the Australian standard (at least in Australia - I guess you can
get around this by by on-line...)

If you are buying it from your LBS, then the Australian standard
sticker should be on the helmet....

Absent_Husband

Absent Husband said:

I don't think you are actually allowed to sell any helmets that don't
have the Australian standard (at least in Australia - I guess you can
get around this by by on-line...)

If you are buying it from your LBS, then the Australian standard
sticker should be on the helmet....

Last I heard (several years ago) you're allowed to sell, but _use_ of non
Australian Standards approved helmet incures a fine same as not wearing a
helmet in the first place.

Same situation for bicycles as well as motorcycles, though, policing the
bicycles appears to be very lax.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

Standards issues aside.... (but WHY would you want to buy a helmet that
doesn't reach Australian standards!?!?)

I always figured that helmets would be one of those things that you'd
rarely buy over the internet, as fit is so important. Couldn't imagine
anything worse than an awkwardly-fitting helmet (especially on a long
ride...).

That said, I'm not well researched on the benefits of different
helmets. I've always just gone on number of air vents (lots = good!),
how heavy it feels on my head (light = good!), and how snugly it fits
onto my head (snug = good!).

Apart from the number of air vents, I reckon it would be hard to judge
the rest without actually trying the thing on down at the local bike
shop....

Quoted message said:

From memory (which isn't good!!), I think racing helmets are a bit

lighter - due to a thinner construction, and the polyutherane shell is
*maybe* more likely to shatter on impact?? - and have a more
streamlined design...

Cheers,
Absent Husband

Bluenose said:

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I need a new helmet and the Selev are available
via ProBikeKit. My query about the Australian Safety standards was more
to do with insurance,law, liability etc.

While looking at helmets in the LBS they've advised that cartain helmets
are for racing only. I'm not entirely sure what that means. Is a helmet
without an official "Australian Standard Sticker" actually illegal to
wear? Where do I stand if I'm wearing it while not racing and I have an
accident?

Maybe I should just buy a Met instead? :-)

If you read the rules for triathlon and cycling races, it says that the
helmet must comply with a standard approved by the countrys of it's
affiliated organisations. So if it's ok for the American Cycling
Federation then it's good enough for us. However, when you apply for a
permit to race on the roads, (cycle racing on our roads is illegal
normally,) the police will give you permission subject to certain
conditions. Those conditions usually include things like signs warning
of cyclists, marshals at intersections to stop or warn cars and other
things. One condition they always include is a clause that all
competitors must wear an approved helmet. Approved meaning to the
Australian legal requirements which means Australian Standards. In this
case the organisers are obliged to tell you that your helmet must meet
Australian Standards. If they don't then they are breaking the
conditions set by the police for the permit and they themselves may be
prosecuted. If you have an accident the insurers may not pay out because
the helmet is illegal and of course they won't pay out to someone who is
essentially breaking the law.
On a velodrome track a permit isn't needed so therefore you may get away
with wearing a helmet not approved to Australian Standards. But once
again the insurers set certain conditions for the people organising the
race and they may argue that the helmet doesn't meet the "legal"
standards and therefore is not covered. It's the duty of the organisers
to make sure that competitors aren't doing anything that contravene the
insurers conditions, so they shouldn't let you race.
So when they say it's ok for racing they probably mean on a velodrome or
BMX track that doesn't have insurance cover. Although I have to admit I
saw a lot of aero helmets on TV for the recent time trial championships.
I wonder if that's allowed?

Marty

Quoted message said:

Absent Husband said:

I don't think you are actually allowed to sell any helmets that don't
have the Australian standard (at least in Australia - I guess you can
get around this by by on-line...)

If you are buying it from your LBS, then the Australian standard
sticker should be on the helmet....

Absent_Husband

Absent Husband said:

Standards issues aside.... (but WHY would you want to buy a helmet that
doesn't reach Australian standards!?!?)

You don't. However, it's not a standards issue, it's whether or not the
helmet has been tested and passed the relavant australian standards. Testing
is quite expensive, so if you're looking at importing a helmet, you'll have to
pay up for testing, and make your money up through sales. If it's not a big
mover, you're not going to make your money back in a hurry.

That said, until a helmet has passed the AS, there's no guarantee it WILL,
regardless if its passed the foreign testing standards. Many won't pass the AS
even though the pass the foreign standards.

Quoted message said:

I always figured that helmets would be one of those things that you'd
rarely buy over the internet, as fit is so important. Couldn't imagine
anything worse than an awkwardly-fitting helmet (especially on a long
ride...).

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

That said, I'm not well researched on the benefits of different
helmets. I've always just gone on number of air vents (lots = good!),
how heavy it feels on my head (light = good!), and how snugly it fits
onto my head (snug = good!).

Generally, the more vents it has, and the lighter is is, the more it costs.
That's pretty much the bottom line.

Quoted message said:

Apart from the number of air vents, I reckon it would be hard to judge
the rest without actually trying the thing on down at the local bike
shop....

And you're not going to be able to do any real vent testing unless you're up
to significant speeds anyway. And they're not likely to let you walk out the
shop and take it for a "test ride".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From memory (which isn't good!!), I think racing helmets are a bit

lighter - due to a thinner construction, and the polyutherane shell is
*maybe* more likely to shatter on impact?? - and have a more
streamlined design...

It comes down to how much protection you need for the environment you're
going to be riding in. Track racing is more flat impact and abrasion
resistance, general helmets are just various impact types, and downhill MTBers
use motorcross helmets.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

John Tserkezis said:

Same situation for bicycles as well as motorcycles, though,
policing the bicycles appears to be very lax.

Are you saying that the bicycle itself must conform to Australian Standards?

I've never seen an AS sticker on any bicycle. None of my own bicycles are built to any standard, except perhaps UCI rules...

I wonder what compliance would mean in reality, and whether builders of one-off custom bicycles would be exempt anyway?

Regards,

Suzy

suzyj said:

John Tserkezis wrote:

Are you saying that the bicycle itself must conform to Australian Standards?

I came across an Australia Standard for bicycle lights. They wanted money to download it. Good way to keep it secret.

Bluenose said:

Hi,

Does anyone own or have an opinion (fit, weight, breathability etc) on
the Selev brand of helmet?

Are they under the Australian standard?

Thanks in advance

I bought one of the Selev Alien helmets through Probike and am very happy with it. I researched comments on fit etc and it lives up to them. Unfortunately I didn't think about the standards until too late, and no, I am pretty sure it doesn't meet ours. That doesn't mean it isn't a good brand, and they are used by Proteams.

I have a pretty good MET as well and so if I am out on a training ride I will happily use the Selev. When I get around to racing, the MET will be on my head. The Selev was a good price even with postage and looks and feels great.

My 2c

OSC

suzyj said:

Quoted message said:

Same situation for bicycles as well as motorcycles, though,
policing the bicycles appears to be very lax.

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that the bicycle itself must conform to Australian
Standards?

No, I meant bicycle/motorcycle helmets.

Quoted message said:

I've never seen an AS sticker on any bicycle. None of my own bicycles
are built to any standard, except perhaps UCI rules...

There are regulations that must be adhered to when _selling_ a bicycle in
australia, but some of these can be "overlooked" if the end user is importing
the bicycle themselves.
I don't know if there are any australian design rules for bicycles, but there
are some design provisions for bicycles in the australian road rules (of which
I believe only NSW follows at the moment).

Quoted message said:

I wonder what compliance would mean in reality, and whether builders of
one-off custom bicycles would be exempt anyway?

They would likely fall under the same regulations for selling a bicycle.
Regardless if it was custom hand made, bought, imported etc.

The only regulations I'm aware of, (australian road rules) are that the
bicycle must have at least one operational brake, and some signalling device
(bell, horn etc) in functional order.
This is required in NSW, just to have the bike on the road. But again, the
policing of this is rather lax.

I've been told by a bike shop that to _sell_ a bike, it _needs_ to have at
least a front brake. Which is why you sometimes see front brakes that appear
to have been added as "afterthoughts" to the bike. Most notable are imported
"showoff" bikes with only rear 'pedal' brakes, and children's tricycles which
had never had brakes of any type while we were growing up.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

"suzyj" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Tserkezis said:

Same situation for bicycles as well as motorcycles, though,
policing the bicycles appears to be very lax.

Are you saying that the bicycle itself must conform to Australian
Standards?

Yes there certainly is, in force ever since the late 70s - AS 1927-1998
http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/productsafety/14_bicycles.html gives an overview
of what it covers.

Quoted message said:

I've never seen an AS sticker on any bicycle. None of my own bicycles
are built to any standard, except perhaps UCI rules...

AS stickers were used by major cycle manufacturers in the early 80s, don't
know about recent years. Your bikes are probably all custom jobs, these are
excluded from standards requirements along with track racers.

Cheers
Peter

aeek said:

I came across an Australia Standard for bicycle lights. They wanted
money to download it. Good way to keep it secret.

All australian standards documents cost money. To either download or buy a
paper hardcopy.

It isn't a big a problem as you would think though, as it only applies to
those who are manufacturing for sale of the equipment anyway.

I don't know if it applies to homemade lights, it probably doesn't.

I'm only aware of C-Tick requirements on equipment. If you're selling a
piece of electronic equipment, it MUST comply and pass the relavant C-Tick
requirements.
Exceptions are in place for hire equipment, second hand equipment, or
equipment you're giving away for free.

This is the reason for the prevalance of "as new" electronic equipment
available for purchase via eBay in australia.

Some of the equipment will outright fail C-Tick requirements, and due to
their design, will NEVER pass, but can be legally sold anyway, with the words
"as new" appended.

They open the new packets, look at the equipment, and stuff it back in the
box. It's now "officially" second hand, and can be legally sold without C-Tick
approval. Sometimes with the loophole that the equipment may be allowed to
sell, but not to actually _use_.

I've seen and can quote some quite scary examples of why this _shouldn't_ be
allowed, but that's another topic altogether.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>

John Tserkezis said:

the australian road rules (of which I believe only NSW follows at the moment).

Implemented by all jurisdictions except WA & NT with minor variations.
However, the variations involve cyclists so the road rules for cyclists are not exactly national.
The NSW RTA driver's handbook claims that cyclists must signal left.
Not so, according to the national road rules (vehicles without indicators).
The modifying NSW legislation isn't obviously online so I haven't been able to check.
This is the RTA that tried to ban road racing so their spin is questionable.

Peter Signorini said:

Yes there certainly is, in force ever since the late 70s - AS 1927-1998
http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/productsafety/14_bicycles.html gives an > overview of what it covers.

Here's an interesting excerpt:

" The mandatory standard requires that a child's bicycle (wheelbase between 640 mm and 765 mm) be equipped with not less than two braking systems and one of these systems must be a back-pedal brake."

I wonder why that is? I've never met a back-pedal brake that came even close in performance to a proper caliper brake. Are they trying to kill kids? Are they in cahoots with the tyre manufacturers (memories of doing skids with back-pedal brake as a child)?

Luckily none of my bikes count, as they're all racing bikes, custom bikes, or combinations of the above 🙂

Regards,

Suzy

suzyj said:

I wonder why that is?

Hand grip. A child does not have the strength and manipulative ability
that an adult has.

Quoted message said:

I've never met a back-pedal brake that came even
close in performance to a proper caliper brake.

I don't know, you can do some fantastic skids with a back pedal brake
that are extremely hard to do with calipers[1]. What this means is that
kids weight means they will skid out before they need the performance of
a caliper brake.

[1] when I take the street mob for a bush ride, I try to avoid rest
stops on large dusty patches, otherwise there is an instant dust storm
{:-(. Okay, it is fun and I'm just a spoil sport {:-).