Abstract
In their article, ‘Policing mandatory bicycle helmet laws in NSW: Fair cop or unjust gouge?’, Russell Hogg and Julia Quilter review the rationale for bicycle helmet laws and the social impact of their enforcement, and question whether the ends justify the means.
Part One
Purpose: To critically engage with a contemporary legal debate.
Instructions:
First, read the article quickly to understand the overall argument – refer to headings, tables and topic sentences to help you follow the structure without spending too much time reading details. Next, working in pairs or small groups, read through the article in more detail, but this time try to identify the arguments for mandatory helmets, the arguments against, and the evidence or examples used to support these arguments. In your pair or small group, consider each argument and its supporting evidence, and rate its persuasiveness from 1 (not persuasive) to 5 (highly persuasive). Remember, you can find one argument highly persuasive while still thinking the other side of the debate is stronger overall. Brainstorm any other arguments you can think of, for or against mandatory helmet laws. Is there any evidence you would like to see before making up your mind? Finally, look at the issue from another perspective. Consider whether these arguments are about the substantive law (in this case, mandatory helmets), or if they are about the broader problems of enforcement.
As a class, discuss what should be done about mandatory helmet laws – should they remain as is, be repealed, be amended to address specific issues, or should their enforcement be reviewed? In this discussion, make sure you refer to specific arguments and their evidence, and explain why you found them un/persuasive.
Part Two
Purpose: To consider the benefits and potential drawbacks of broad police discretion.
Background: The authors note that, ‘The risks associated with riding without a helmet vary enormously depending upon location and circumstance (for example, riding on a busy highway, a backstreet, a park, a dedicated bike path, etc)’, and suggest that this justifies a degree of police discretion in determining who to fine and in what circumstances. However, ‘The power to impose a quite punitive on-the-spot fine with no meaningful oversight requires that police exercise their discretion with great care.’
Instructions: Thinking about this balance between allowing police to be flexible in their enforcement of the law, and the risk of unfairness if their discretion is misused, what kinds of factors should the police consider before fining someone for not wearing a helmet? Consider issues including location, time of day, time of year, personal characteristics of offender, etc.
Does the risk of unfairness outweigh the need for discretion? What safeguards (if any) might be put in place to address your concerns?