The defense of necessity provides a legal avenue for individuals to bypass certain laws when doing so is crucial to prevent even graver consequences. The evidence suggests that bicycle helmets, in some cases, heighten the risk of accidents and can lead to brain injuries. To avert such dire consequences, cyclists are empowered to make the choice to temporarily set aside the helmet law in the interest of their own safety. This approach aligns with the fundamental principle that one’s well-being should never be compromised in the face of well-intentioned regulations.
“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 consequences. The test has 3 parts:
1. You must have an honest belief that complying with the law puts you at increased risk of injury
This is a personal issue. For example combining regular exercise with transport is necessary to stay in good health.
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.
“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.”
“[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.”