Data quoted by the Ministry for Regulation found following that mandate, adult helmet use in New Zealand rose from 43% in 1993 to 92% the year after.

Initial analysis undertaken by the ministry recommended the risks of removing bike helmet requirements outweighed any benefits, with Seymour provided numerous reasons as to why.

Ministry officials first pointed out it did not believe there would be a material increase in the uptake of cycling by removing the bike-helmet mandate. The document stated that while cycling has declined since the 1990s, several factors including increased car ownership, urban planning and a lack of cycling infrastructure contributed to this.

Officials noted many countries did not have mandates for helmets in place, including countries with high rates of bike use and strong safety records, such as the Netherlands.

It was determined the Netherlands example could not be a direct comparison to New Zealand, as the Ministry for Regulation noted they “invest significantly” in cycling infrastructure and other safety measures.

The response to Seymour’s office also added that while there would be health benefits to increasing cycling, and fewer congestion problems, the increase would not be “significant enough” to have a material impact on either.

The issue of fatalities and severe head injuries was also raised by the Ministry for Regulation, which stated helmets are “generally low cost and highly effective at preventing serious injury and death from cycling accidents”.

“There has been a significant decline in serious injuries and fatalities since a regulatory helmet mandate was introduced in New Zealand,” the advice read.

“The ministry considers that removing the helmet mandate would likely lead to an increase in serious injuries and fatalities as a result of cycling accidents. As well as personal, family and societal costs, this would lead to increased healthcare and long-term ACC scheme costs. As outlined above, we do not think there would be any material benefits‚” officials said.

Data was provided which proved cycling helmets had been “consistently shown to be effective” in reducing the severity of head injuries.

Since helmets were mandated in New Zealand, it was found the number of serious injuries and fatalities both decreased markedly.

Officials added a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the topic would have taken 12 weeks and would divert resources from other areas of work.

Advice deemed the cost of the bike itself, rather than a helmet, was deemed the main cost barrier for people cycling.

The regulatory response ended saying “based on this initial analysis, the ministry considers that further work on this issue carries risks”. It expected any further analysis would find the benefits of mandating helmets outweigh the costs.

When asked to comment on the matter, Seymour told Newstalk ZB his office asked the ministry to provide some quick advice into the effectiveness of the regulations, saying “this is an issue raised with me from time to time”.

“In any case, the ministry advised bike helmet regulations are appropriate, and having considered the advice, I agree. No further action was or will be taken,” he confirmed.

Azaria Howell is a multimedia reporter working from Parliament’s press gallery. She joined NZME in 2022 and became a Newstalk ZB political reporter in late 2024, with a keen interest in public service agency reform and government spending.