This seatbelt rule has been unnecessary for 50 years – why does it still exist?
There's one instance when drivers don't have to wear a seatbelt, no matter their circumstances. But experts say the rule is not only outdated – it's dangerous.
My car likes to beep at me – a lot. It beeps to a cute little tune when I start it. It beeps if it 'thinks' I am ever-so-slightly too close to the car in front. And, of course, it beeps if someone in the car is not wearing their seatbelt.
Well, most of the time.
If I am not wearing my seatbelt while driving in reverse, my car does not beep, bing or so much as tinkle. I always thought this was kind of weird, but it turns out Aussie drivers do not have to wear a seatbelt while they are reversing a car.
Drivers "must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened, unless the driver is reversing the vehicle", rule 264 of the Australian Road Rules states.
But why is this the rule, and is it relevant – or even safe – today?
Why is it legal to reverse without wearing a seatbelt?
Seatbelts were not made mandatory in Australia – or anywhere in the world – until 1970, when Victoria made it illegal to travel in a car without a seatbelt.
This resulted in an immediate drop in the road toll in the state, from 1061 in 1970 to 923 in 1971, according to Victoria's Transport Accident Commission (TAC).
Other Australian states followed within two years, and many other jurisdictions around the world also emulated the legislation shortly after.
There were loopholes, though, some of which are still law today – including the rule allowing drivers to reverse a car without a seatbelt on.
The reason for this rule was owing to the way seatbelts worked in the '70s, Queensland University of Technology Adjunct Associate Professor Mark King told Drive.
"I know seatbelts were more awkward because they were not retractable – they had to be manually adjusted for your body," Professor King said.
"If you wanted to partially turn your body to reverse, the belt would be too tight, and you would have to use two hands, usually, to increase the slack on the belt, and then tighten it up again afterwards."
Veteran road safety expert Michael Henderson was heavily involved in developing seatbelt laws in New South Wales at the time, as the state's Director of Traffic Safety. He eventually became the first director of NSW's Traffic Accident Research Unit.
"In those early days of discussion on compulsory use, reversing a vehicle often required substantial body movement, which in turn was difficult if a firmly adjusted belt was appropriately locked," Dr Henderson told Drive.
"Because 'inconvenience' was a strong negative in the discussion of mandating belt use, I recall that exempting use while reversing was seen as reasonable and the risk of injury was very low."
UNSW Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre Emeritus Professor Raphael Grzebieta said the rule was introduced as a "compromise" at the time of debate about the introduction of mandatory seatbelt laws to "appease the naysayers".
It wasn't long before seatbelts were updated to make them less rigid, Professor Grzebieta told Drive.
"Seatbelts then evolved with the introduction of inertia reel-out belts that made it easier to turn around to look at where you were going when reversing," he said.
"The ADR [Australian Design Rule] at that time was introduced in January 1975, requiring all cars have inertia-reel lap-sash belts and static front seatbelts were phased out by 1976."
Despite this, 50 years later, the rule allowing reversing drivers to go without buckling up has remained.
Should seatbelt laws be updated?
With the flexibility of retractable/inertia-reel seatbelts, the visibility provided by side mirrors, along with camera technology in most new cars, there is no need for the rule in 2026, Professor Grzebieta said.
"It’s an outdated legacy law that should be changed. I don’t think any rational safe driver would object to it these days," he said.
"There is no need to twist your body to look out the back window. Ask a heavy truck driver. They most commonly reverse only using side mirrors while still sitting in a forward-facing direction."
A spokesperson for the National Transport Commission (NTC), which is responsible for maintenance of the Australian Road Rules, said the rule had not been specifically raised as an issue previously.
"However, NTC is more than happy to consider the issue as part of the next cycle," the spokesperson said.
Professor Grzebieta cautioned drivers to wear their seatbelts while reversing in spite of the legislation.
"I can visualise a scenario where as an unbuckled driver, you make a reversing error that results in the vehicle dropping down an embankment next to the road, rolling over. You wind up getting ejected that results in the car rolling on top of you, crushing you," he said.
"Another would be if you are reversing back into a road or intersection, and an oncoming car crashes into the driver’s side of your vehicle."
Dr Henderson agreed with the call to update the rule; however, he said if it were changed, there would need to be exemptions for older cars, creating "yet more bureaucracy", adding that there were "several more important matters facing road safety administrators".
Professor Grzebieta said the law exempting vintage cars from seatbelt rules should also be changed, as updating cars with modern seatbelts was relatively simple.
"You wind up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life because you didn’t buckle up your seatbelt – not worth the risk," he said.
