天美传媒

October 24, 2019

Over-the-top policing of bike helmet laws targets vulnerable riders

A cyclist not wearing a helmet can expect to attract the attention of NSW Police – and not always just for that offence.

Cycling is often held up as a model of healthy and sustainable urban transport. So why have bike laws become more, not less, draconian? Our ongoing research shows mandatory helmet laws have become a tool of disproportionate penalties and aggressive policing.

Along with an up-surge in enforcement, fines have . And some police are using bike helmet laws to expand their powers to stop and search riders. The impacts on already disadvantaged groups 鈥� particularly young, poor and Aboriginal people 鈥� are profound and troubling.

Australia was the to introduce bike helmet laws: , with other jurisdictions following. Like and in the 1970s and 鈥�80s, helmet laws were seen as part of gold-standard commitments to safety, backed by public education campaigns.

In New South Wales today, though, we see a brazen exercise in revenue-gouging.

How do penalties compare to other offences?

Riding without a helmet is one of many bike-related on-the-spot fines under the , but it鈥檚 .

The offence once carried a . In 2016, ostensibly as part of a package of cyclist safety measures (including making it an offence for a vehicle driver to fail to pass a cyclist at a safe distance), the 鈥� a 445% overnight increase.

Penalties are indexed annually: the fine is now a whopping . It鈥檚 wildly out of kilter with other states and territories: from to .

The fine is also out of step with penalties for other, more serious offences. In NSW, only when car drivers does the fine exceed the A$344 for failing to wear a helmet.

A person who drives in a dedicated bicycle lane faces a . A cyclist will be slugged almost twice as much for riding in that same lane without a helmet.

Riding a bike without a helmet is minor offending, but it has become a terrific little earner for the NSW government. From 2016-2019, worth almost A$6 million were issued to cyclists. Over the same period only .

Cars are a than bikes to cars. Cyclists might reasonably wonder whose welfare is being prioritised.

An excuse to stop and search

Much has been said recently about police use of discretionary powers like 鈥溾��. Our ongoing research, yet to be published, also raises serious questions about how police use bike helmet laws.

We have found enormous geographical disparities in the number of penalty notices issued in NSW for this offence. In 2018-19, nearly half of all the fines were issued in 12 of the 117 local government areas (LGAs). One of the poorest LGAs, Blacktown, accounts for 12% of the total.

Local helmet-wearing behaviours could explain some of the disparity. However, the stories we are hearing from lawyers around the state suggest something much more troubling is at play.

Our interviews reveal the helmet laws are being used for purposes unrelated to safety. These include gathering intelligence about offences and suspects, justifying searches and harassing targeted individuals 鈥� particularly young Aboriginal people. Sometimes this involves multiple penalty notices for failing to wear a helmet, including where a child rides both to and from school on the same day.

Enforcement of this kind is likely to lead to . This can escalate, sometimes leading to confrontations that can result in further offences like resist arrest or assault police, offensive language and goods in custody.

If the real objective is cyclist safety, surely a less punitive and more educative approach would be better. Police procedures should require officers to issue cautions rather than penalty notices for initial breaches. And stopping a person for not wearing a helmet is not justification for questioning or searching unless there are an offence (other than not wearing a helmet) has been committed.

Excessive fines create other problems

Even if things don鈥檛 escalate, many cyclists will walk away from a police encounter (they can鈥檛 ride away or they risk another fine!) with a debt they can鈥檛 afford.

For people who enjoy financial security, a fine is just like another household bill. But more than don鈥檛 have A$500 in savings for an emergency. For them, a A$344 fine is a major burden.

Our research suggests many fined for not wearing a helmet are already living in debt traps 鈥� permanently living with and trying to pay off debt. Driver licence suspension is a key component of unpaid fine recovery processes in Australia. This means the flow-on effects of (often multiple) bike helmet fines may include secondary offending where a person is caught driving without a licence. And that can land them in serious legal trouble.

Young people are especially vulnerable to overzealous helmet law enforcement. They are fined the same as adults 鈥� are not available for penalty notice offences. Debt at a young age can be crippling, seriously hampering job opportunities.

The penalty for riding without a helmet is now ludicrously excessive. Proportionality between penalty and offence has been lost.

The goal is meant to be harm reduction. Piling on the fines does more harm than good.

, Associate Professor of Law, and , Adjunct Professor, School of Justice,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. 

Photo: NSW Police/Facebook

UOW academics exercise academic freedom by providing expert commentary, opinion and analysis on a range of ongoing social issues and current affairs. This expert commentary reflects the views of those individual academics and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy positions of the University of 天美传媒.