6C. (1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, ride a bicycle on a public street or in a public place unless he or she is wearing an approved helmet appropriately adjusted on the head.
(2) A person riding a bicycle in a public street or in a public place shall not, without reasonable excuse, carry as a passenger a person who has not attained the age of 14 years unless that person is wearing an approved helmet appropriately adjusted on the head.
(3) A person who has not attained the age of 14 years shall not, without reasonable excuse, travel as a passenger on a bicycle on a public street or in a public place unless he or she is wearing an approved helmet appropriately adjusted on the head.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who does not normally reside in Australia and who is in Australia principally to compete in a bicycle race, rally, test, trial or similar event.
The introduction of the helmets law bill by then Minister for Urban Services Mr. Terry Connolly can be found in Hansard, 9 April 1992, pp144-145.
The subsequent debate on the helmets law is in Hansard, 19 May 1992, pages 568-591. Mr. Michael Moore questioned Mr. Connolly on aspects of the helmets law as can be found in the same volume of Hansard, Question No. 81, pages 762-763.
Click here to see the full transcript (90K HTML). Click here for the 31K pkzipped text version.
Here are some excerpts:
Current Minister for Urban Services. As such, helmet law issues are at present his responsibility.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p578) comment in respect to necessity for helmets in cars: "Only if you drove convertible cars, though, surely, because the helmet could be seen to be the roof of the car itself."
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p578) Denies that the Liberal Party has been bribed. Speaks about the right to life. Says "I think the community has a right to protect people who, through no fault of their own, happen to be involved in an accident." Mentions one of his sons, who was hit by a car which was reversing out of a driveway, but he was wearing a helmet and was unhurt. Says: "Even if we save one life, I could not give a hang what John Stuart Mill said 200 years ago, or whenever. He does not even vote in the ACT, for a start. I could not give a hang what anyone said."..." as long as we can save one life I think that we ought to support this legislation. Therefore, the Liberal Party quite rightly and quite correctly supports it."
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp572-573) said that the helmets issue had caused much soul searching within the Liberal Party. After much debate it was finally decided to support the Government. Makes mention of writings by John Stuart Mill on issues of civil liberties, but says that the social context is now different in that the public is now more responsible for the care of individuals, whereas in the days of Mill illness was a more private matter. He says: "there is a real argument about how far one goes in defending the public's right to impose itself into the private affairs of individuals. I do not know where that line is drawn. I think it is drawn such that we are entitled to compel cyclists to wear helmets; but it is a fine argument."
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p574) He states his belief that protection is the responsibility of the government. He says it is hard to mandate that children wear helmets without the example of adults doing the same thing. He admits to being bought out by the black spot program, but argues that it is a reasonable trade-off.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p575) In response to Mr. Stevenson saying that "We do not necessarily all benefit in our lives from the three million rules and regulations and Acts and amendments that we have had since Federation.", Mr. Humphries says: "We do here. We make them. It gives us something to do."
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp581-582) Says he supports the legislation, but only on the grounds that: "There is a will of the community at the moment that has to do with the wearing of safety hats by people riding bicycles". Denies supporting it because of the black spot funding. Acknowledges and agrees with the principles of people like civil libertarian John Stuart Mill.
Former Minister for Urban Services, responsible for the introduction of Helmets legislation. Strongly in favour of the Helmets law.
(Hansard, 9 April 1992, pp144-145) introduces the Compulsory Helmets Bill.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp582-586) Closes the debate for the Government. Dismisses arguments that it is not for the Government to legislate for personal safety, and that people might refuse to wear helmets because of vanity. Cites 75% popular support for the legislation, as indicated by a survey conducted by Dennis Stevenson.
(Hansard, 1992, p762, Answers to Question No. 81) See entry for Michael Moore.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp576-578) Strongly opposes and argues against the Bill, despite the fact he rides a bicycle and wears a helmet.
(Hansard, 1992, p761, Question No. 81) poses six questions to the Minister for Urban Services Mr. Terry Connolly about compulsory bicycle helmets. (1) that Labour Party policy is that an individual has freedom until that freedom hurts others, what hurt has been identified; (2) how is the discrimination justified against cyclists compared to pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants; (3) on problems of the law being unenforceable on cycle paths, and encouraging law breaking; (4) has the Commonwealth been asked for reasons for including compulsory bicycle helmets in it's offer; (5) on findings that punitive laws are relatively ineffectual for inducing desired behaviour in young people; (6) what steps have been taken to consult with cyclists on the issue.
(Hansard, 1992, p762, Answers to Question No. 81) Mr. Terry Connolly responds to the questions: (1) It is the role of Government to legislate to reduce the trauma for the families of accident victims. (2) The wearing of seatbelts is an effective measure to reduce injury and medical costs. The ten-part safety package does not discriminate against cyclists as it includes reduction of blood alcohol limit etc.; (3)&(4) "It is not appropriate for me to divulge the nature of Departmental advice to a Minister, discussions between officers of my Department and other Departments, or of discussions between Ministers"; (5) Is aware of studies that punitive measures can be ineffective, but does not believe this applies to helmets legislation; (6) Met with Mr. Curnow, president of CRAG
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp568-571) said that the Liberal Party supports the Helmets law after consideration of both sides of the argument. He said that the Liberals consulted CRAG and appreciated the thoroughness in their presentation, however the views put forward by other sectors of the community are far more compelling. He cites support from the Royal Australian College of Surgeons and also the Neuro Surgical Society of Australasia. He also cites the AMA calling for compulsory helmets for youngsters. The Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia had also written with full support for the legislation. School organisations also support the legislation. He argues against freedom of choice by saying there are limits, mentioning speeding laws and seatbelt laws. Makes a statement that if a vehicle strikes a cyclist, the driver of the vehicle would be well relieved that the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p571) opposes the legislation on the grounds that compulsion is not the way to go. Makes a case that if cyclists should wear helmets, so should rollerbladers, pedestrians, motor vehicle occupants. States a belief that education and role modelling are the way to go.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp574-575) Argues against the loss of freedom of choice, that without responsibility we become less competent. Is against the legislation on principal. Is in favour of education rather than legislation. Makes the point that cycling is healthy and some people will stop cycling.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, pp575-576) Cites some surveys: In a survey which asked "Do you agree with pushbike helmets being made compulsory?", 52% said yes, 43% no, 5% unsure. A survey in the Chronicle: 48 replies, 83% no, 17% yes. Most recent survey: 75% yes, 22% no, 1% needed more information, 2% unconcerned. The last survey, interestingly, is taken as being proof that most Canberrans want the law.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p576) Is told by Mr. Connolly that "you have to vote with the Government", and he does so, in spite of his personal views. He does so because: "it is fairly clear that the majority of people in Canberra agree with the action".
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p579) "As an Assembly member, and as a father of three boys, I am extremely concerned that the outwardly sophisticated arguments of these critics could undermine community support for what I see as a very important measure by the Government to improve public safety". Dismissed claims that there is a greater need for pedestrians and motorists to wear helmets, on the grounds of his personal perception of the relative dangers compared with cyclists.
(Hansard, 19 May 1992, p580) arguing against protection of children being a parental responsibility, says "Governements are regularly required to intervene to protect children where parental responsibility has proven to be inadequate". On the point of, should cyclists be made to wear helmets off-road, says "I think we need to ask whether or not it is reasonable to assume that we can rely on children to always make a distinction between riding on the road and riding in other public places such as parks. I do not believe that is reasonable".
Return to CRAG Home Page