Road Traffic (Helmets) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2017.)

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (10:42): I rise to make a contribution to this private member's bill, and I congratulate the shadow minister, the member for Schubert, on the work he has done thus far in bringing the bill to the house. It is a very important bill; in fact, it is a simple amendment that seeks to clarify that, as long as the structure of a helmet is not compromised, such as by using screws, then cameras attached to helmets via a sticker or mount are acceptable to the Road Rules.

As we know, bicycle helmets have been compulsory in this state for a number of years now, and for good reason. Cycling is certainly becoming a more and more popular pastime, and not just a pastime but also a mode of transport. At the moment, there is some confusion in the motorcycle and bicycling community with regard to the legality of wearing cameras on motorcycle and bicycle helmets. We are talking generally about what is commonly known as a GoPro, I think.

I am not especially familiar with a GoPro, but my young adult children certainly are and use them quite a bit on all sorts of adventures all over the world. In fact, my youngest son used one to record footage as part of his year 12 research project. Because of that confusion, there has been some angst brought up in the motorcycle forums regarding the legal status of these types of mounts. In a situation in Victoria, where a court case was eventually dropped on appeal, the issue was raised that the attachment of a camera to the helmet rendered the helmet noncompliant, so this needs clarification. Certainly, there was some commentary on that court case. One important piece to take away from that was, and I quote:

There is however no statement in any of the legislations that any such modifications render a helmet to not be an approved bicycle helmet under the rules.

What this all means is that in South Australia, for a helmet to be approved under the law, it needs to comply with the Australian Standard at the time of sale, and affixing a light or camera following that time does not render it outside the definition of an approved bicycle helmet. That is really important commentary on this particular bill.

Of course, I think it is good idea, as well, for cyclists to wear a light on their helmet. Like many others in this place, I have driven home on a cold, dark and wet winter's night and come across cyclists who are using the road lawfully but who are very difficult to see. They often wear dark clothes with not much more than one little reflector on the tail and certainly no lights. I find that a very dangerous situation for both the cyclist and the motorist. Anything that improves the safety of those cycling on our roads would be a good thing. For them to be comfortable and know that they are within the law, fixing a light to their helmet, as well is a GoPro, would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, without explicit instruction, confusion will continue to reign until a test case is brought before the courts in South Australia. It seems to me that most of the other states have made this change or are at least considering it, and I spoke earlier about Victoria. In Victoria, in what was shaping up to be a test case, police had alleged that a gentleman had breached Australian Standards by fixing a GoPro—a 20-centimetre camera, in fact—above the top of his helmet and had another 10 centimetres of that protruding to the left. It must have been a sizeable piece of equipment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Size does matter!

Mr TRELOAR: I missed that, Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, in March 2014 this gentleman, after being pulled over by police in Frankston, in Melbourne's south-east, was fined $289 and lost three demerit points (I feel for him) for failing to wear an approved helmet. During the appeal, it was argued that standards apply only to manufacturers and not customers—a very good point raised. When riders are injured in road accidents, video from helmet cameras is some of the best evidence you can have, especially if you are in a collision. So there is an upside, even to a collision: if you are wearing a GoPro and have footage of that, there is no doubt then who is in the wrong in that particular situation.

Footage from cameras will not only provide evidence of an incident but should also encourage compliance to the Road Rules by both riders and drivers. This type of evidence will also help to reduce spurious or vexatious claims of road rule offending. Police are also beginning to roll out body-worn cameras. There is commentary most weeks in the media about how those body-worn cameras are assisting police in their work, particularly when evidence is needed and prosecution is made. In fact, police are also beginning to use helmet-mounted cameras for the same purpose.

It seems to me that the bill will bring South Australia into the 21^st century. It is always a challenge for legislators to keep up with what is going on out in the broader community. I cannot see any risk with this legislation whatsoever. As I mentioned before, cycling is becoming more and more popular. There has been a revival, in fact. I am going back a few years now, but when I was a boy to own a bicycle was really to have freedom, the freedom to roam far and wide. Of course, we lived out in the country, a long way from town and our neighbours were far away.

Mr Gardner: How long did it take you to ride into town?

Mr TRELOAR: To ride to town? I only did it once, member for Morialta, and I think it took me more than an hour.

Mr Gardner: That's a long walk then.

Mr TRELOAR: It was a long walk. More importantly, particularly when those who were living on neighbouring properties who were of a similar age also had bicycles, then the weekends, and particularly Sundays, became ours to ride, to meet, to have adventures together. I will never forget the excitement of being given my first bike one Christmas when I guess I was about six years old. It had trainer wheels on the sides, and eventually I mastered the art of riding a bicycle. I had two brothers, and my brother Michael and I received new second-hand bikes for Christmas, which a neighbour had done up.

I had a 28-inch Malvern Star with a sprung saddle. It was pretty hard to top. I think I saved up for a while and eventually got a bell to fix to the handlebars. As I said, it gave us freedom. I have only recently disposed of that bike. I resurrected it from the front of the shed a little while ago, thinking that I would get some new tyres and new tubes and could once again ride my 28-inch Malvern Star, but I discovered that 28-inch tyres and tubes are no longer produced or sold. I could not believe it. Apparently they are all 27-inch now, which was not any good to me so, sadly, the bike had to go.

This bill is particularly about bike helmets. I remember that, when the legislation came in, not everybody was happy about being forced to wear a bike helmet. I know that one elderly neighbour of ours decided that that was the end of his cycling; he was not going to wear a helmet at all. I remember one famous day when a World War II immigrant who lived in Edillilie (that is a bit closer) was pulled over by the police on North Terrace, Edillilie, and prosecuted for cycling without wearing a bike helmet. He was fined and was most distraught.

Mr Pederick: It was a slow day in Edillilie.

Mr TRELOAR: It was a slow day in Edillilie. There are not many fast days in Edillilie, member for Hammond. The member for Colton knows that, too. I think you were there on a busy day.

The Hon. P. Caica: I was.

Mr TRELOAR: This fellow was an elderly, postwar eastern European immigrant who had worked dutifully on the railways for his whole career and who had worked hard, saved up and owned a few acres. He had been simply cycling down to his property. Not to be outdone, the next time I saw this fellow he was wearing a helmet of sorts. He was wearing an ice-cream bucket on his head, and he was hoping that that would suffice as a bike helmet. Needless to say, he did not ever manage to fit a GoPro to that helmet, but there would have been some interesting footage had he done so.

Anyway, it is always good to reminisce in this place, but I congratulate our shadow minister on bringing this to the house and on all the good work he has done. I hope that the government find their way clear to support this.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:52): I rise to support the Road Traffic (Helmets) Amendment Bill 2017. I commend the member for Schubert for thinking of this road safety initiative, and I note some of the issues happening interstate. The member for Schubert is trying to clarify that, as long as the structure of a helmet is not compromised by using screws to attach a camera via a sticker or a mount, it is acceptable to the Road Rules.

I am certainly not a motorcycle purist. I own a few motorbikes with my children. We have a vast range of them (about five or six) sitting out in the backyard, and obviously there is a range of helmets that go with them. Technically, for the purists in the motorcycle game, if you drop a helmet then its life is done. You would have to throw a lot of helmets out, and it would get a bit expensive. I have what is called a 'peanut' helmet, which I have had for many years. It has a few scars on its lid, but they are not from falling off a motorbike: they are probably from the helmet being put down on the ground, or occasionally it might have fallen off a bench.

When you talk to the purists, they say that the lifespan of a helmet ends when it falls from a height and hits the ground. In my mind, you could do a structural integrity check and that sort of thing, but I guess that shows the technicalities that some people employ in assessing whether helmets are fit for use. Certainly in regard to the legislation, whether it is fitting a GoPro camera or another cheaper model—GoPro is certainly the most well-known brand and they come in a range of styles; I should know because my boys—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. No, my boys, being keen motorcyclists, have them. The eldest lad, Mack, had one that was not a GoPro but a cheaper model, and then he got a GoPro. You do see some interesting motorbike footage over time. There is some confusion in both the motorcycle and the bicycle communities with regard to the legality of the wearing of cameras on motorcycle and bicycle helmets. There has been quite a lot of discussion amongst motorcycle forums and a lot of angst generated regarding the legal status of these types of mounts.

There was a situation in Victoria (and I note that the court case was eventually dropped on appeal) that raised the prospect that the attachment of a camera to the helmet rendered the helmet noncompliant. I noted that to motorcycle purists, even if you drop a helmet from, say, waist height onto the ground, that means that is the end of its life. I would challenge that, but it probably would need a structural integrity check. However, that may cost more than a helmet, although the best motorcycle helmets now would run into several hundred dollars.

With regard to the statement about the legislation involved in attaching cameras, there is nothing in any of the legislation stating that any such modifications render a helmet not being an approved bicycle helmet under the rules. What this all means is that in South Australia, for a helmet to be approved under the law, it needs to comply with the Australian Standard at the time of sale, and affixing a light or camera following that time does not render it outside the definition of an approved bicycle helmet.

As the member for Flinders stated, there are a lot of cameras fixed, especially to bike helmets. People are using footage, whether they are in a near miss or unfortunate enough to be in an accident. I note that the Road Rules that we must comply with now state that, if you are going past a pushbike on a road, you have to give them a one-metre clearance in a 60 km/h an hour zone and I think it is 1½ metres on a highway. One thing that still troubles me with that legislation is that it is the only time that a car driver can cross a double white line.

Sadly, I think we might have some issues with that down the track. In my travels, I head across to Goolwa in my electorate and travel through some winding roads. I occasionally drive up through Belair and Blackwood, and some of those roads are favourites for people on pushbikes—and there are a lot of winding roads with double white lines. You see some interesting things at times when people take a heck of a chance because they are not prepared to sit behind a bike. I take the safe option and figure that if I have to wait for five minutes I will just sit back.

However, I can foresee that there might be a challenge in court one day if someone is severely hurt or killed when a driver has flicked out over the double white lines. As the legislation stands, it is legal but, if you are coming from the other way and you are faced with a car on the wrong side of the road, that might be a matter for the courts. It certainly is a concern. I am not saying that pushbike riders should not be given clearance; it is just a matter of people perhaps needing to have a bit more patience and waiting until they get the opportunity to go past. What the member for Schubert is trying to work out with this bill is how to avoid the confusion that will reign without explicit instruction until there is at least a test case brought before the courts in South Australia.

What happened in Victoria in what was shaping up to be a test case was that police alleged that Mr Max Lichtenbaum breached the Australian Standard by fixing one GoPro camera on the top of his helmet and another protruding to the left. He was well organised with cameras. The gentleman was fined $289 and lost three demerit points. I am sure that plenty of people in this place have lost demerit points; I know the Treasurer has had 68 fines. I will not say that I am a complete saint, but it does happen, when you occasionally accidentally go over the limit. However, this person was fined for failing to wear an approved helmet. In March 2014, he was pulled over by the police in Frankston in Melbourne's south-east.

During the appeal, it was argued that standards apply only to manufacturers and not to customers. When riders are injured in road accidents, videos from helmet cameras are some of the best evidence you can have, especially if you are involved in a collision. Footage from cameras will not only provide evidence of an accident but it should also encourage compliance with the road rules by both riders and drivers. This type of evidence will also help to reduce spurious or vexatious claims of road rule offending. It is a way that pushbike users can verify claims made against them by other people using the road.

I note that our police force is beginning to roll out body-worn cameras and helmet-mounted cameras for a similar purpose. A lot of people are using dash cameras, even in vehicles. Sometimes, police put out a call for any dash camera footage of an incident because, unless it has not been filmed very well, it is conclusive footage of what really happened, if someone is giving a conflicting account of the story.

Going back to the bike-riding days, as the member for Flinders espoused, I think we have all grown up on pushbikes at various stages. I think it was in the early seventies that I got my first dragster. I cannot remember what brand it was, but it was very flash, being a dragster. We had 28-inch bikes, and I am deeply saddened to know that you can no longer get 28-inch tyres and tubes. It reminds me of more recent times, when I bought a bike several years ago, thinking I was going to start a fitness regime.

Mr Treloar: How did that go?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; it went very well, thank you, member for Flinders. It was a 27-inch bike. I certainly commend the bill from the member for Schubert.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:02): I rise to speak in support of the member for Schubert's amendment bill. I listened with interest to what the member for Hammond said. I have a picture of him riding on a 26-inch bike, which is not good in my mind, I have to say, but there you go. More to the point, the thing that concerns me is that I do not know why and if the government would oppose this measure. It is just more of the nanny state that we have turned into, where everything has to be considered as potential litigation, legal action, or whatever. To me, this is just a common-sense approach to a problem.

I am not a cyclist—in fact, I am not anti-cyclist—but when I am out on the roads, which I frequently am, I get annoyed from time to time with some of the cycling fraternity, who do not seem to understand that we are sharing the roads. They get cranky when a driver is stuck behind them, but that is another story. In this case, cyclists, motorcyclists, farm operators or anybody who drives any sort of motor vehicle—be it a car, a truck or a bus—is putting these cameras in their vehicle for future protection from litigation or potential litigation or in the event of an accident.

I might open a GoPro shop when I leave this place, as I reckon it is big business. Now people are putting cameras into the front of their cars and the back of their cars. The cyclists and motorcyclists want to put them on their head. They have them stuck on the handlebars. Why the government would not support this piece of legislation defies comprehension.

I cannot stand the nanny state; it drives me mad. I was brought up in a world where you take responsibility for your own actions, and that is the way it should be as far as I am concerned. There is this business of running around and putting money in lawyers' pockets all the time to try to get a quid off someone else for something you should have done yourself, or a situation where you should have looked after yourself. You have to be responsible for your own actions. It is absolutely critical to be responsible for your own actions.

It does not make sense to me. I find it just ridiculous that we should even have to bring this sort of legislation into the house. There is clearly some confusion in the motorcycle and bicycle community with regard to the wearing of cameras on motorcycle and bicycle helmets, and this is an attempt to clear that up.

These days, with the epoxy glues, superglues and heavens knows what else that are around the place, there is no reason in many cases why you should even have to drill into the bicycle helmet or motorcycle helmet to attach a camera of any shape or form. That is just the way it is. Technology is taking over, and I dare say these GoPro cameras or similar types of devices will be made smaller and smaller and, in due course, you probably will not even know if someone has one attached to their person when they are out riding a bike.

On my meanderings into Parliament House, when I look out the window at stop lights and suchlike, I notice that there seems to be a plethora of cameras in motor cars now. Everybody seems to have one. They all wanted to have a Navman or GPS at one stage; now they all want to have a camera in there to record what is going on. I find it an interesting exercise to have a look at what is going on. At least they do not have to touch them.

I am still staggered and bewildered by the number of people who use mobile phones in cars for texting or simply making calls. I walked out the front of this building the other day to cross the road. There was a chap out the front of the Stamford hotel, sitting with his phone while waiting to turn into one of the drive-offs there. I thought, 'How stupid are you?'

There is an attempt being made here by the member for Schubert to put some sense back into this. In Victoria, there was a court case, which was eventually dropped on appeal, which raised the prospect that the attachment of a camera to a helmet rendered the helmet noncompliant. I am not a technician. I do not design bicycle helmets, but I have had over many years a succession of motorbike helmets. They are pretty tough sorts of instruments, I can tell you. They have saved a lot of lives, and they continue to, but they are not foolproof.

I would suspect without knowing, and I will stand corrected if necessary, that anybody who is in that fraternity would not be foolish enough to screw something into the helmet if that is going to weaken the structure of the helmet and render them more likely to get a serious head injury in the event of the helmet shattering. Helmets are an interesting thing.

We have grandchildren in Darwin, and we go there regularly. Up there, it is not unusual to see people roaring around on motorbikes or pushbikes without helmets. There does not seem to be a great deal of enforcement. In many parts of the world, they would not know that a helmet exists. In footage I have seen from places like Bali, they do not need to wear a helmet there at all.

We are overprotected. We are a nanny state. It makes sense to wear a helmet. When I had my ag bike, before the kids successfully wrecked it, I would ride around the paddocks without a helmet all the time. It was just something you did; you jumped on the bike and went out around the stock and you never wore a helmet. We never came to grief.

I was fortunate, as I know of cases of people who have had accidents in paddocks on motorbikes and things who have run into stones or stumps or whatever and who have been seriously injured, possibly because they were not wearing a helmet. It is the same in relation to seat belts. When I am out in the paddock I never wear a seatbelt in the ute, I do not even think about it, but as soon as you hit the road it is automatic that you pull the seatbelt on. You just do not wear a seatbelt when you are driving around the paddocks, around the stock or whatever.

I do not know where this is all going to end, but I urge the government to give strong consideration to what is proposed by the member for Schubert under the Road Traffic (Helmets) Amendment Bill 2017. It is common sense, and under '6.5 Delivering a safer community through a fair and transparent justice system', and the issue that has happened in Victoria, we just need to bring more common sense and less nanny state into our daily lives. It is got to the point of being ridiculous.

As I said a few minutes ago, people have to be responsible for their own actions and their own safety. You cannot expect legislation to cover everything. I just find it ridiculous. We are overlegislated and overgoverned, and we are making people weak between the ears as far as I am concerned. Everybody wants, wants, wants instead of needs, needs, needs. This something that is wanted and, in my view, it is a want that makes some common sense in relation to the wearing of bicycle and motorcycle helmets and the ability to have a camera on them. I support the bill that has been put up by the member for Schubert.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.