The police in a number of States have been issuing infringement notices to riders for offences they did not commit.
There are many who would argue that this constitutes professional misconduct.
Police can only issue an infringement notice for offences which have been proscribed under the Road Rules.
Where a regulation is gazetted and no offence is proscribed then the police have no power to issue an infringement notice to enforce the regulation. This is not always what is intended but requires gazetting of offences to change. Where police feel they need the power to act they are supposed to notify the legislators of the need for a proscribed offence.
Where legislators agree to empower the police to act they will proscribe offences as is the case in the Northern Territory where there are four offences proscribed for helmets with differing levels of fines. These are below.
The current (2016) situation in a number of States regarding the helmet laws is there is only one offence for which the police have the power to issue an infringement notice. That is the offence of not wearing any helmet. This is due to the fact that it was intended that all helmets offered for sale met the regulations. The proscribed offences have not been updated to reflect the modern world.
Where this infringement notice is issued to a rider wearing an approved helmet with accessories fitted it is clearly incorrectly issued.
There are curently no regulations or proscribed offences covering fitting accessories to a helmet
In the case of a rider with an optional accessory or visor fitted to a helmet there is no power for the police to act as there are no regulations or proscribed offences in any of the State Road Rules. Police do not seem to understand this simple fact.
In the case of an AS1609 visor the standard does not require a "sticker" with the Australian Standard Number on it. The nature of optics is such that only an expert can determine whether the visor meets the standard so it is not practical for a police officer to determine the legality of a visor on the side of the road. For these reasons an offence in the road rules is not appropriate. At this time (2016) the regulation of visors can only be handled by ensuring all visors in the market place meet the required standard. When the standard is updated to require an AS1609 sticker then an offence may be practical to be proscribed.
Now with UNECE 22.05 helmets approved a visor for helmets may be required for either an AS1698 or UNECE 22.05 compliant helmet so retailers have to maintain separate stocks of the same visor labelled differently to meet regulations. It is a joke.
It should be noted that in the case of car tinted windows police are only empowered to issue a minor defect notice. This means inspection by trained inspectors to clear the defect. It also enables a path back to the tinting company who can then be prosecuted if they are not adhering to the nominated standards.
As the song lyric says "better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one"