Tinted visor law is stupid-sign this petition

done

I saw you and waved with my leg.
I wasn't going that quick, though, you were just dawdling.
I only had 40 odd miles to home, and needed another cup of tea.

Anyone would think you had been on the continent, what with waving a leg and speeding

[BillyC]

Originally Posted by Viney

Ok heres a scenario.

Boy racer has his supped up nova. He has tinted windows. Now, he has limo tint on his side windows (<18% light transmittal) because he thinks its cool. He turns into your path and knocks you off your bike. You go blaming him and his tinted windows. Now his car window area is under the same regulations as your visors, as in they have to allow a minimum of 25% light transmittal. Also, you can not tint the front screen of a car. So why should you be able to effectivly, tint your windscreen on your lid?

If they allow bikers to wear tinted visors on bikes, then the law will effectivly change for Boy racer, allowing him to tint the screen of his nova thus making them even more dangerous! That i think is the wider implicatons of tinted visors.

It's not quite the same Ian. Being in a dark and enclosed area (when wearing a lid), looking through a tinted visor at a bright and sunny day still allows for a very clear view, without the glare and light intensity that may otherwise affect your vision.

Being inside a car, that is relatively light because of all the windows and their relative area around you, looking out onto a bright sunny day, does not allow the same visibility.

Also consider:

- We can change visors in seconds, changing a cars windows is not as easy!

- If you were driving at night with sunglasses on, you'd be arrested - no difference with visors.


What I'm getting at is that if you're wearing a tinted visor, whatever transparency, then it should be treated no differently to sunglasses. Which means no "that's too dark" stuff... if you can see adequately, then fine, if not, then you're stupid.

I've already solved the problem, at least for me. My new shiny Caberg V2 with it's internal visor is quite perfect. The ideal solution that doesn't require having to stop and take an insert out or replace a tinted visor with a clear one. It's also totally road legal.



Yes some of you may smirk and say it's just a cheapo helmet but I'm most impressed. Who's for betting that Arai and Shoei don't come out with a similar system shortly?


.

Whats the score with the Arai tinted visors that are advertised as road legal?

Are we saying now that they aren't?

You can get tinted visors that are legal, they're just alot less tinted than dark race visors.

Hows the V2 for blocking out really bright sunshine Greg? I've got the original, and for cutting out the glare it doesn't come close to my Arai + dark visor

[BillyC]

Visors can be tinted, to allow no less than 50% light transfer - that's legal, or was!

It was widely acknowledged that with only 50% tint, that didn't go a long way to reducing the glare on nice sunny days.

Signed it and got another mate to do it. 4600!

[Viney]

Originally Posted by Tony-s

Viney Winey? Are you for real lol, take your comments elsewhere winey.

Go on make us laugh with your wit

1st off it would be Whiney. Secondly, im not the one whining. It the ones that are still going on about tinted visors, a debate that has been going for years. At the end of the day, just wear the bloody things. Hell, most bikes have race cans fitted and people bang on about them not being legal. Just wait until the 1st case comes up against someone whose accident was contributed to by weraing a dark visor.

Next they'll be uproar over wearing hoodies and basball caps

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Hows the V2 for blocking out really bright sunshine Greg? I've got the original, and for cutting out the glare it doesn't come close to my Arai + dark visor

It's good enough for me. Not so dark that as you pass into a wooded glade you suddenly can't see anything, but dark enough to reduce glare to acceptable and comfortable levels.


.