Challenging a helmet fine through the courts


The defence of necessity allows people to ignore a law to avoid even more dire consequences. Bicycle helmets increase the risk of accident and can cause brain injury. To avoid these dire consequences, cyclists can ignore the helmet law.


Sue Abbott challenged a helmet fine in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. She argued that wearing a helmet was more dangerous than not wearing one. District Court Judge Ellis concluded:

“Having read all the material, … I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet  and it seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.”

The defence of necessity states that people can break a law to avoid even more dire consequencesThe test has 3 parts:

1.  You must have an honest belief that complying with the law puts you at increased risk of injury

For example:
2. It was necessary to do the activity that led to the breach (ie., to cycle)

This is a personal issue. For example combining regular exercise with transport is necessary to stay in good health.

3.  You must show that no harm was caused by breaking the law.

No harm was caused from riding on that specific occasion. Cycling provides health benefits while reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Wearing a hat instead of a helmet reduces the risk of skin cancer.

More details from Sue Abbott court case.

Sue Abbott has challenged other helmet fines for herself and for her daughter.

Others have challenged helmet fines, like Dan. His defence ends with the following observation:

“Finally, I will leave it to your Honour to ponder the following absurdity. Riding a bicycle without a helmet is activity that delivers health benefits to the individual, reduces the healthcare tax burden on society, delivers economic benefits in terms of reduced road congestion, reduces the risks to other road users and benefits both the local and the wider environment. It is safe, has no appreciable negative consequences, and is considered entirely normal everywhere in the world where bicycle use is widespread. Yet this safe, fun, and beneficial activity is considered a criminal offence in New South Wales.”

Dan challenged four helmet fines in another court case. The magistrate recognised the risk of brain injury from wearing a helmet. He let him off with a token fine. Sue Abbott described the trial. An extract from the verdict:
“[The magistrate] reviewed all the evidence presented, and basically accepted all of it as factually correct; he also made some comments about the bicycle helmet law not being ‘helpful’ …
It also highlighted the absurdity of the bicycle helmet law to the point where he was prepared to criticise it on the record.”
What do you think of this post?
  • Insightful (9)
  • Interesting (6)
  • Useful (2)
  • Boring (2)
(Visited 5,508 times, 1 visits today)

11 thoughts on “Challenging a helmet fine through the courts”

  1. quote

    2. It was necessary to do the activity that led to the breach (ie., to cycle)

    This is a personal issue. For example combining regular exercise with transport is necessary to stay in good health. ”

    Not a necessity at law

    Still no exemption and no repeal of law. That is what’s required. Every time people go to court it’s the same thing, offence proved. You are confirming the law rather than taking proper steps to repeal it

    1. When people go to court, the outcome is not always the same. Many people have had their fine dismissed, either through improper procedure, or through a section 10 dismissal. Still useful to avoid the fine and protest against this counterproductive law.

      You are correct, it would be best to repeal the law. However, that doesn’t mean that other methods cannot be used. Pursuing in court helps highlight the stupidity of this law, adding pressure on repealing it.

    2. Yes
      I rode a bicycle all my life I have had many accidents and although I’ve never worn a helmet I’ve also NEVER had a head injury besides skin grazes. I’m sure you will find anyone pushing helmet wear has a self interest like financial gian or for governments it’s that and Control.
      Helmet laws are a break of my personal liberties!!!
      Say NO to Big Brother.

  2. I am president of Cyclists’ Rights Action Group, of which Sue Abbott is publicity officer, which contributed to the court cases mentioned and which is based in Canberra. We are willing to help Alessandro to defend the charges against him. He may contact me at or by telephone to 62515357.

    Cheers! Bill

  3. Hi,

    Thanks for your post. I recently received TWO fines for riding without a helmet, after two police officers followed me at a distance and caught me riding again, because I didn’t feel like walking my bike the seven or so odd km back to my house.

    I’m wondering if there can be overly negative consequences for challenging the fines. I live in the ACT, if that matters.

    kind regards

    1. Alessandro,

      You can request withdrawal of the Traffic Infringement Notice (see what it says on the back of it). From Bill Curnow, who has sent you a reply, you could get information about scientific evidence suggesting that wearing a helmet is potentially more dangerous to the brain than not wearing one. I have used that successfully to have 2 TINs withdrawn by the Chief Police Officer.

      Yrs, James

    2. You would think with pollution and global warming that any effort to use a bike instead of a fossil fuel burning vehicle would be encouraged not discouraged by threats of fines and more. We still have governments beans on the idea that they must CONTROL the population and infringing on our freedoms is their tried and true method. Stop Big Brother thinking for you. Make your own decisions. Take your own risks
      Another example is pool fencing. I’ve read that there have been more drownings since those laws were implemented than before. So what’s the Governments answer. Spend more tax money on a campaign to inform parents they actually have a responsibility to supervise their kids in the pool. Dah. What a Joke!

      1. A joke? More like a waste of our money.
        The specialty of bureaucrats trying to justify their existence.
        What’s the last time you heard bureaucrats admit they were wrong?
        Instead, they just throw more of our money at the “problem” they have created.
        With unlimited funds to waste on brainswashing campaigns, the bureaucrats have plenty of confidence.
        Just like for the helmet law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *