How Do Helmet Laws Impact Cycling Ridership?
PCC ‘25 student and previous Urban Cycling Institute intern, Sophia Wang examines how people are responding to helmet laws on a global scale
The helmet debate in the Netherlands has been reignited by the national campaign to encourage voluntary helmet usage, and the government recently decided to make helmets mandatory for minors on fatbikes or e-bikes. Advocacy groups from Doctors for Safe Cycling to the Dutch Cycling Union have taken opposing stances on this issue, arguing that it is a necessary precaution or that helmets offer a false sense of security while also discouraging young people from riding, respectively. Given that this debate has shown no signs of stopping, this matter seemed like the perfect subject for my internship this past summer with the Urban Cycling Institute.
I was introduced to Amsterdam through Planning the Cycling City 2025 (you can view our final presentation here), and afterwards, I conducted a cross-disciplinary review of academic literature on helmet use and how it impacts cycling ridership for my internship as a Obama-Chesky Voyager. The results have been consolidated in this three-part article series to be published throughout December, which I hope will prove to be a helpful overview of this subject for urban planners and cycling advocates weighing the pros and cons of helmet laws in their own cities.
“Ultimately, helmet laws save a few brains but destroy many hearts.” Canadian physician Thomas DeMarco warns of the ripple effects resulting from helmet laws that paint cycling as dangerous, thus reducing ridership despite the little protection that helmets provide (DeMarco, 2002). Cycling as a tool to improve public health has continued to be promoted by governments and doctors alike. Another article by the Urban Cycling Institute links cycling and public health, outlining the benefits of cycling, the underrepresentation of cycling literature, and the need for strong policies connecting health, transport, and urban planning (van Leeuwen, 2025). Cycling can be incorporated into daily levels of physical activity, which has been shown to improve cardiovascular fitness, lower risk for cancer, support healthy aging, and more (WHO, 2024).
The narrative around helmet laws often presents helmets as a public health necessity. This is because cycling crashes can be serious, potentially leading to brain injuries (TBI) and even death (Kett et al., 2016). According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 1,377 bicycle deaths in the United States in 2023 (National Safety Council, 2023). TBIs are the leading cause of bicycle-related deaths and disability, thus demonstrating the importance of wearing a helmet (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2023). The effectiveness of a helmet in protecting against head injury is widely accepted, with helmets decreasing the risk of injury by 63% to 88% when worn correctly (Lee et al., 2022). The evidence is strongest for helmet effectiveness in biking in comparison to other sports, such as skiing. Lee et al. specify the four conditions required in order for a helmet to achieve maximum effectiveness, which were only fulfilled by 4% of the children in their study: (1) helmet condition, (2) appropriate size, (3) correct location of strap, and (4) helmet stability on the head. Further caveats to helmet protectiveness will be examined in the second article of this series.
Overall, safety is the most influential factor in the decision to cycle, across 73 items in a questionnaire asking respondents about what encourages them to be more/less likely to cycle (Kang et al., 2021).
But another important aspect to consider is that fear can motivate people to wear helmets- fear caused by a busy, car-dominated intersection or lack of dedicated cycling lanes.
What do we already know about mandatory helmet legislation?
Given this narrative, governments across the world have responded by passing mandatory helmet legislation. As of 2018, 28 countries have some version of a helmet law, whether it be for all ages/under 18, urban/rural areas, etc., adding up to 273 laws enacted worldwide (Esmaeilikia et al., 2018). In the United States, the first helmet law was passed in 1989 after the death of 13-year-old Christopher Kelley, who was struck by a car in Maryland while cycling without a helmet (Bachynski and Bateman-House, 2020). His classmates and teachers rallied to advocate for a mandatory helmet law, testifying at a city meeting, conducting surveys, and calling local media stations to gather support. It was originally proposed that only children under the age of 16 riding on county roads had to wear helmets, and then it was expanded to apply the helmet requirement to all riders. This expansion was controversial, with opponents complaining of government paternalism. After all, people can choose to wear a helmet in their own self-interest without enforcing a one-size-fits-all approach. To this day, the same complaint of the government limiting personal choice instead of proactive measures to protect bikers echoes in the repealing of helmet laws.
How has helmet usage changed in response to helmet laws?
There is a correlation between helmet laws and helmet usage. Multiple studies have reported that mandates have improved helmet-wearing rates, such as in Washington, D.C., Finland, and Canada (Radun and Olivier, 2018). Based on the number of tickets issued between 2003 and 2011 in Seattle, enforcement policies are also effective and create momentum in compliance (Kett et al., 2016). Interestingly enough, in countries like Norway, where there is no mandatory helmet law, cyclists maintain a high rate of wearing helmets, falsely assuming the existence of such a law (Valero-Mora et al., 2020). The perception of a nationwide mandate is enough to keep helmet-wearing rates high, and the social norm has a self-sustaining effect. People will listen if they are told to wear helmets, but we may be losing new bikers as well as longtime ones.
How has cycling ridership changed in response to helmet laws?
The largest barrier to the popularity of helmet laws among pro-cycling advocates is the fear that mandating them will reduce cycling ridership. The annoyances that come with wearing helmets, such as helmet hair, feeling burdened by a helmet, having to keep track of one, etc., would become unavoidable (Ledesma et al., 2019). A relatively new element of cycling, public bikeshare, would be underutilized because people are unlikely to carry their helmets around with them (Fishman et al., 2012). Making helmets compulsory would add an extra layer of hassle that may be enough to deter people from riding bikes. Furthermore, mandatory helmets could be seen as a socioeconomic barrier, as it is already reported that lower-income families have decreased helmet use (Lee et al., 2022). However, they only cost a fraction of the price of a bicycle, and the cheaper helmets provide the same level of protection as professional helmets.
Evidence of helmet laws reducing cycling ridership is mixed and heavily location-dependent. In Australia, mandatory helmet laws were introduced between 1990 and 1992. After 1992, Melbourne researchers observed that 43% of teenagers, 9% of children, and 21% of all cyclists stopped cycling (Cycling UK, 2023). It is important to note that in this report, there is no addressing of causation versus correlation, only that the cycling rates immediately dropped post-law. Similar reductions were observed in Sydney and Perth. It is important to note that a more recent 2018 study conducted in New South Wales attributes almost half of the drop in fatalities to the mandatory helmet law, but that there was already a decreasing trend in fatalities prior to the introduction of the law, consistent with improved cycling infrastructure (Lemon, 2018).
In New Zealand, a mandatory helmet law was enacted in 1994. According to traffic statistics, cycling ridership declined by 26% in the four years post-law, and fell to 51% below their original rates pre-law by 2006 (Cycling UK, 2023). About 136,000 adults and children quit cycling immediately following the legislation, which was almost 4% of the total population at the time.
On the other hand, cities in the United States did not experience a reduction in cycling following the helmet laws. In Seattle, an increase in all bicycle-related trauma (but a decrease in traumatic brain injury) and tickets issued for seven years following the enactment of the law in 2003 illustrate that the enforced, all-ages mandatory helmet law did not likely reduce ridership (Kett et al., 2016). Canada’s longitudinal observational study came to a similar conclusion, in that helmet legislation was not associated with changes in ridership (Huybers et al., 2017).
Overall, a clear-cut connection has not been established between the enactment of helmet laws and a decrease in bicycle ridership. However, it is evident that in no case has the enactment of helmet laws increased ridership, and in some cases, it may have led to ridership being halved. This observation is even more relevant given the role that safety has in the decision to cycle, as mentioned previously. More research is required to determine the impact of these laws in order to chip away at the root of the problem, which is injuries while cycling. Rather than pushing for helmet laws, which have confusing effects, we should focus our efforts on building better bike infrastructure that can prevent injuries from happening in the first place while encouraging cycling.
Why are there discrepancies in helmet literature?
Cultural differences are important to factor in here – in the United States and Canada, cycling is already seen as dangerous, and people may be more inclined to wear a helmet regardless of the presence of a law. Also, cycling is more of a rarity in these countries, so no impact on ridership is not surprising, as wearing a helmet would not affect their daily lives.
For the mixed results in studies done in the same locations regarding the effect of helmet laws, the discrepancy can be attributed to heterogeneous measures of ridership, varying from observational counts to self-reported survey responses. Oftentimes, the passage of helmet laws coincides with more attention to creating a bike-friendly environment. Concurrent changes, such as developing separate bike lanes, better infrastructure (widening the bike lanes, clearly marking bike boxes), or traffic calming, also minimize the risk of head injuries (Pucher and Buehler, 2016). It is impossible to decouple the impact of the law and the infrastructural changes promoting the safety of bikers.
Should we advocate for helmet laws anyway?
As shown above, helmet laws are very effective in increasing helmet usage and potentially saving lives, but their influence on cycling ridership is not yet fully understood, with potential for negative impacts. Helmets do not protect against all injuries and are optimized under certain conditions only, while other preventative measures, such as bike infrastructure, can be executed broadly to reduce fatalities without impacting ridership negatively.
In other words, in order to target the root of the problem, which is making cycling safer and the general population healthier, the focus needs to shift away from the victim-blaming culture that mandatory helmet laws foster and towards dismantling the autonormative world we live in. We should aspire to a lifestyle where cycling is as second nature as walking, which requires no headgear and only your own two legs.
This article was written by Sophia Wang and is the first installment in a three-part series regarding helmet laws and cycling. The next article will cover the opposition to helmets and helmet laws. Sign up to our newsletter to receive the next two articles in your inbox!
Read next:
References
Bachynski, K., & Bateman-House, A. (2020). Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws in the United States: Origins, Context, and Controversies. American Journal of Public Health, 110(8), 1198–1204. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305718
Cycle Helmets. Cycling UK. (2023, October). https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets
DeMarco, T. (2002). Butting heads over bicycle helmets. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 167(4), 337–337a. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/337.2
Esmaeilikia, M., Grzebieta, R., & Olivier, J. (2018). A Systematic Review of Bicycle Helmet Laws Enacted Worldwide. Journal of Road Safety, 29(3), 30–38. https://journalofroadsafety.org/article/32153-a-systematic-review-of-bicycle-helmet-laws-enacted-worldwide
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.002
Huybers, S., Fenerty, L., Kureshi, N., Thibault-Halman, G., LeBlanc, J. C., Clarke, D. B., & Walling, S. (2017). Long-Term Effects of Education and Legislation Enforcement on All-Age Bicycle Helmet Use: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Community Health, 42(1), 83–89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48716302
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2023). Fatality Facts 2023: Bicyclists. IIHS. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists
Kang, L., Vij, A., Hubbard, A., & Shaw, D. (2021). The unintended impact of helmet use on bicyclists’ risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 79, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.08.014
Kett, P., Rivara, F., Gomez, A., Kirk, A., & Yantsides, C. (2016). The Effect of an All-Ages Bicycle Helmet Law on Bicycle-Related Trauma. Journal of Community Health, 41(6), 1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0197-3
Ledesma, R. D., Shinar, D., Valero-Mora, P. M., Haworth, N., Ferraro, O. E., Morandi, A., Papadakaki, M., De Bruyne, G., Otte, D., & Saplioglu, M. (2019). Psychosocial factors associated with helmet use by adult cyclists. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.003
Lois K. Lee, Michael R. Flaherty, Ashley M. Blanchard, Maneesha Agarwal, THE COUNCIL ON INJURY, VIOLENCE, AND POISON PREVENTION; Helmet Use in Preventing Head Injuries in Bicycling, Snow Sports, and Other Recreational Activities and Sports. Pediatrics August 2022; 150 (3): e2022058878. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-058878
Lemon, J. (2018). Changes in participation, demographics and hazard associated with mandatory bicycle helmets in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Transport & Health, 9, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.03.011
National Safety Council. (2023). Bicycle Deaths. NSC Injury Facts . https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-deaths/
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2016). Safer Cycling Through Improved Infrastructure. American journal of public health, 106(12), 2089–2091. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303507
Radun, I., & Olivier, J. (2018). Bicycle helmet law does not deter cyclists in Finland. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 1087–1090. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/46hg5
Valero-Mora, P. M., Shinar, D., Ledesma, R. D., Tormo Lancero, M. T., Sánchez-García, M., Haworth, N., Sanmartín, J., Morandi, A., Ferraro, O. E., Saplioglu, M., & Otte, D. (2020). Abiding by the law when it does not exist: The case of the helmet bicycle law. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 72, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.010
van Leeuwen, N. (2025, May 7). Cycling and Public Health. Urban Cycling Institute. https://urbancyclinginstitute.substack.com/p/cycling-and-public-health
WHO. (2024). Physical Activity. Factsheet. The World Health Organisation. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity.
 | A guest post by
|
Excellent article. I’m looking forward to parts 2 and 3 ❤️🤓
Thanks Sophia. This is a great article and important research. I look forward to the next two in the series.
Regarding the impact of MHL on ridership, I wonder to what effect a decline may be attributable to the impression helmets give that cycling is dangerous?
Ultimately, yes, to your point on addressing the root cause and needing safe places to ride.
The timeframes you've provided in the sharp decline of ridership following the introduction of MHL would suggest the correlation is more likely related to the issues you've outlined, including inconvenience and discomfort (losing some of that sense of freedom and fresh air that cycling brings).
But, perhaps longer term cultural changes in low cycling participation rates might result from perceptions that cycling is unsafe, because it requires helmet use? - future research potential?
Anna (Australia)