Dear Stakeholder 
 
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is reviewing the mandatory 
safety standard for bicycle helmets  (the Mandatory Standard ).  
 
We seek your views on: 
 
a) updating the Mandatory Standard to permit compliance with the latest edition of the 
voluntary Australian standard, or four comparable overseas standards. The 
Mandatory Standard would reference each of these five standards in full, without 
amendments, or 
b) revoking the Mandatory Standard, and instead relying on State and Territory road 
use laws which regulate which helmets can be legally used. 
Review of the Mandatory Standard  
The Mandatory Standard is the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Safety Standard) 
(Bicycle Helmets) Regulations 2001. It is based on the 2008 edition of the voluntary 
Australian and New Zealand standard,  AS/NZS 2063:2008  Bicycle helmets . 
The Mandatory Standard regulates: 
 the ‘supply’, in trade or commerce, of bicycle helmets by way of sale, exchange, 
lease, hire or hire-purchase; and 
 offering to supply and manufacturing for supply. 
Separate to the Mandatory Standard, State and Territory road safety authorities administer 
laws that govern which helmets can be legally used on public roads in each jurisdiction (‘use’ 
laws). Currently, all States and Territories require cyclists to wear a bicycle helmet that 
complies with the Australian voluntary standard, AS/NZS 2063. 
Policy options 
Option 1 – Accept overseas trusted standards  
The ACCC’s preliminary position is to reference the most current edition of the Australian 
voluntary standard in addition to overseas standards.  
The ACCC proposes to update the Mandatory Standard to permit compliance with any of the 
following voluntary/mandatory standards: 
 AS/NZS 2063:2020 Helmets for use on bicycles and wheeled recreational devices  
 EN 1078:2012+A1:2012 Helmets for pedal cyclists and for users of skateboards and 
roller skates  
 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 C.F.R. Part 1203) Safety Standard 
for Bicycle Helmets (note this is a mandatory standard in the US) 
 ASTM F1447-18 Standard Specification for Helmets Used in Recreational Bicycling 
or Roller Skating  
 Snell B-95, 1995 Bicycle Helmet Standard, 1998 revision, Standard for Protective 
Headgear for Use in Bicycling  Benefit 
Suppliers and consumers would benefit from being able to supply and buy a greater range of 
helmets that comply with trusted overseas standards. Compliance costs and the 
administrative burden for suppliers will also be minimised.  
Risk 
If the Mandatory Standard allowed helmets to be supplied that were not permitted to be used 
in every State and Territory, then it would be possible for a consumer to buy a helmet that is 
illegal to use on some roads. It would therefore be important that all nine Governments 
agreed to any change that accepted trusted overseas standards.  
In addition, businesses would also need to be aware of the road ‘use’ laws in each state or 
territory they supply helmets to and be mindful that the road ‘use’ laws are subject to change 
(and may not be consistent with each other).  
Option 2 – Revoke the Mandatory Standard 
There is some overlap between Commonwealth supply and ‘use’ laws that are administered 
by State and Territory governments. As it stands both tiers permit the supply and use of 
bicycle helmets so long as they comply with AS/NZS 2063. Therefore, there is the option of 
revoking the Mandatory Standard that regulates supply and rely solely on State and Territory 
use regulations to ensure the supply of safe helmets. This option would remove the 
regulations for the supply of bicycle helmets whereas State and Territory road ‘use’ laws 
would continue to specify which helmets could legally be worn.   
Under this option, suppliers would still need to comply with the general ACL provisions. If 
bicycle helmet suppliers represent that their goods meet a particular standard (such as 
AS/NZS 2063), those assertions must be true, and suppliers have an obligation to ensure 
that is the case. This provides a statutory mechanism for the ACCC to test helmets which 
claim compliance with the Australian standard or any other standard. 
Non-compliance with the voluntary Australian standard could be assessed as a safety issue 
which may result in the recall of unsafe helmets and the ACCC pursuing breaches of the 
ACL.  
Benefit 
Revoking the Mandatory Standard may remove duplicative Commonwealth regulation for 
bicycle helmets, as they are effectively already covered by State and Territory use laws. In 
the absence of Commonwealth regulation, it would be open to States and Territories that 
want to permit the use of helmets complying with European or other international standards   
to amend their current regulatory arrangements. 
In the absence of a mandatory safety standard for the supply of bicycle helmets, State and 
Territory road safety authorities may have greater flexibility to specify the standards of 
helmets that could be used. 
Risk    
Currently, the ‘use’ laws are aligned in all States and Territories. In the event that the ‘use’ 
laws become inconsistent in different States or Territories, then it could be possible for a 
consumer to purchase a helmet in one State that was illegal to use in another. Where State 
and Territory regulations become misaligned it may be the case that the absence of an 
overarching Commonwealth standard could lead to regulatory inconsistency, increased 
administrative burden for industry and consumer confusion.  Questions  
The ACCC seeks your views on the proposal discussed above and responses to the 
questions below:  
1. Which policy option (option 1 or 2) do you support, and why? 
2. Should the ACCC consider another option? If so, which option and why? 
3. Do you consider that the adoption of the listed overseas standards for bicycle 
helmets in Option 1 is beneficial? 
4. Do you believe overseas standards offer a comparable level of safety to the 
Australian standard? 
5. Do you support the ACCC referencing the entire (complete) voluntary Australian 
standard and each of the overseas standards in Option 1? 
6. Do you believe allowing the supply of helmets that comply with overseas standards in 
Option 1 could cause confusion for retailers and consumers as the state and territory 
road use laws do not currently permit their use? 
7. Would Option 2 introduce administrative issues for suppliers? What are the issues? 
8. What other issues in terms of compliance for the industry or your business could 
either of the two options introduce? 
Background  
The ACCC administers product safety laws designed to ensure certain consumer products 
are safe.  
Certain products sold in Australia are subject to mandatory safety standards which are 
introduced when necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to a person. The ACCC 
has an ongoing program of reviewing mandatory safety standards to ensure their 
effectiveness and currency. 
Current regulatory context 
Mandatory safety standards may reference voluntary standards (in part or in whole), that 
have been developed by recognised standards making bodies in Australia (i.e., Standards 
Australia) or overseas. These standards making bodies regularly update their standards. 
The ACCC is therefore reviewing the bicycle helmets standard so that it references the most 
up to date voluntary/mandatory standards.  
Your feedback 
The ACCC invites you to comment on this review. Please provide your submissions via 
email to productsafety.regulation@accc.gov.au  by 15 July 2022.  
If you have any questions about this consultation before the due date, please email them to 
productsafety.regulation@accc.gov.au . 
 
Thank you for your time and consideration.