Let’s address the elephant in the room right away: for the last five months, I’ve chosen not to wear a bike helmet. This might seem radical, especially considering that for the preceding 30 years of my cycling life, a helmet was practically glued to my head for over 99 percent of my rides. Yet, since last May, I’ve clocked around 3,500 miles with just a simple cycling cap as headwear.
Initially, I drafted a piece about this decision a week ago, but I scrapped it. It felt too confrontational, too defensive. The choice to ride without a helmet can evoke that kind of reaction, both internally and externally.
My first attempt began by emphasizing my continued daily use of a cycling cap – highlighting its undeniable benefit of sun protection without any controversy. However, reflecting more on the long-standing and often heated debate surrounding bike helmets, I realized a less aggressive opening was necessary.
So, let me share a story: the worst bike crash I’ve ever experienced and how I believe a bike helmet played a crucial role in mitigating its consequences.
It happened in the summer of 2000, a period when my cycling was all about pushing limits – riding further, faster. In my early 30s and single, cycling consumed a vast majority of my free time.
On that particular afternoon, I was nearing the end of a three-hour ride in the Oakland, California hills, heading home. I was in the drops, descending a steep hill at what I estimate to be at least 40 miles per hour. Rounding a wide right turn, I encountered a large pile of debris on the shoulder – remnants of roadside bushes recently trimmed by a road crew.
Reacting in a split second, I lacked the skill or time to avoid the obstacle, and I crashed. Hard. I vividly remember the brutal impact of my face against the asphalt, a force I instantly recognized as potentially fatal.
The impact was devastating. I sheared off five teeth at the gum line, fractured my jaw, and broke bones in my hands, arms, and shoulder. My body skidded and bounced roughly 25 yards from the initial impact point before coming to a halt.
While the repercussions of that crash are still with me – a titanium plate in my chin, persistent dental issues, and lingering pain in my right hand – the trajectory of my life remained unchanged.
I’ve always attributed this to the bike helmet I was wearing that day. It was a Giro Hammerhead, boasting a stylish purple-to-blue fade. Paired with my violet Cannondale jersey and powder-blue Lemond Buenos Aires bike, I felt like a true style icon. I can still hear the distinct thump of that colorful helmet striking the pavement as I crashed.
That day in Oakland, I escaped without a significant head injury, and I firmly believe my helmet was instrumental in that outcome.
Now, fast forward 18 years, and consider the decision to voluntarily ride without a helmet. I now have a wife and two children, a family I cherish and who depend on me. I cycle daily on the streets of Los Angeles, arguably the most dangerous city for cyclists in the United States. Why would someone in my position choose to ride with just a cycling cap?
It’s a valid and important question.
Before proceeding, let me be clear: I am not trying to discourage anyone from wearing a bike helmet. While I will be sharing my perspective that the evidence surrounding helmets is often misinterpreted, I acknowledge their potential safety benefits and the logic in wearing one. I would still insist on my children wearing helmets, even without legal mandates, and I would certainly wear one for intense group rides or challenging off-road adventures.
Yet, the fact remains: I haven’t worn one in five months. This decision is influenced by emotions and personal beliefs, but it’s also grounded in empirical observations.
Many, including cyclists and non-cyclists alike, firmly believe in the irrefutable scientific evidence of helmets as life-saving devices. They view questioning this as courting a Darwin Award. Bike helmets are often equated to seat belts for cyclists, and those who forgo them are deemed negligent.
However, if this were unequivocally true, why do countries with higher helmet usage rates also exhibit higher cyclist fatality rates? The United States, with its high helmet adoption, experiences more cyclist deaths compared to many Western nations. Conversely, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, where helmet use is minimal, have remarkably low fatal crash rates.
This inverse correlation might seem counterintuitive. The explanation lies in prioritizing quality infrastructure and a safety-conscious culture, which have a far greater impact on cyclist safety than simply mandating helmets. Relying solely on helmets to solve cyclist vulnerability is akin to addressing school shooting fatalities by arming students with bulletproof vests – it misses the core issue.
If helmets are indeed lifesavers, why are helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands hospitalized more frequently than those without helmets? Dutch government data indicates that helmeted cyclists are approximately 20 times more likely to be hospitalized than non-helmeted riders. This isn’t to suggest helmet quality issues, but rather that the risk profiles of different cycling types vary dramatically. Mountain biking, competitive road cycling, and racing inherently carry different risks than the everyday utility cycling common in the Netherlands. Helmets are not a universal solution for all cycling scenarios.
Having spent years studying research and listening to experts, I believe the widely held belief of helmets as miraculous lifesavers is, at best, a well-intentioned exaggeration. My revised understanding is that helmets can offer protection against certain injuries in specific crash types for some riders. They are reasonably effective at preventing skull fractures and scalp lacerations in certain impacts but are less effective against concussions and likely offer minimal protection against high-speed collisions with vehicles like SUVs or trucks.
Experts within the helmet industry and research community acknowledge the inadequacy and outdated nature of current safety standards and testing protocols. Unlike seat belts, where decades of research and public debate have solidified their widespread adoption, bike helmets lack this level of robust validation.
At the heart of the ongoing debate are medical studies that seem to provide strong evidence that a disproportionate number of cyclists hospitalized with serious head injuries were not wearing helmets. These epidemiological studies often conclude that helmets reduce head injury risk by approximately 50 percent, or even up to 70 or 85 percent according to some sources. However, these figures should be interpreted cautiously, much like understanding that daily red meat consumption increases heart disease risk without resorting to accusatory language towards hamburger eaters based on epidemiological data.
Many of these studies suffer from biases and limitations – small sample sizes, funding from helmet manufacturers, selective inclusion of studies in meta-analyses, a disproportionate focus on children in the data, and a lack of detailed analysis of riding styles or alcohol involvement. Furthermore, a fundamental question remains: if helmets are so effective at reducing serious head injuries, why is there decades of data indicating a rise in head injuries among American cyclists even as helmet use increases? Where is the real-world evidence that widespread helmet adoption is significantly saving lives? If we are promoting an intervention that requires a specific consumer group to spend money and wear specialized gear, shouldn’t there be clear, quantifiable proof of declining injury rates?
Adding to this, consider this: if epidemiological data is accurate, shouldn’t we mandate helmets for everyone at risk of head injury? A major study revealed that over 75 percent of adult Canadians hospitalized for traumatic brain injuries sustained them in motor vehicle crashes or falls while walking. Cyclists, in comparison, constituted a small fraction of such hospitalizations. Logically, mandating helmets for motorists and elderly individuals who frequently use stairs would have a far greater impact on overall head injury rates.
However, the idea of families driving to soccer games in helmets seems absurd, yet insisting on helmets for a short bike ride to the farmer’s market is considered normal. Perhaps wrist guards or full-body armor should also be mandated for cyclists?
The reality of helmet safety is complex. Since riding without a helmet, I’ve noticed a decrease in close calls with drivers in Los Angeles. Observing my daily rides on various bikes and in different attire, I’ve found drivers give me significantly more space when I’m in street clothes on a flat-handlebar bike. Close calls are more frequent when I’m in cycling spandex on a road bike. Studies corroborate these observations, suggesting that helmets might, counterintuitively, make drivers less cautious around cyclists. Given that aggressive drivers are my primary risk on daily commutes, perhaps riding without a helmet is actually safer in this context.
Similarly, my weekend road bike rides reveal behavioral changes. My usual longer rides take me to the hilly Palos Verdes roads. Without a helmet, my riding style has shifted. On descents like Crest Road and Palos Verdes Drive East, a six-mile stretch with varied pavement and steep sections, I used to confidently reach 45 mph. Now, anything above 30 mph feels risky. Helmets can create a false sense of invincibility, and research confirms that cyclists adjust their behavior when not wearing helmets. While I never considered myself a reckless cyclist, helmet-free riding makes me approach certain situations with more caution.
I am beginning to suspect that, for me, riding without a helmet might actually be safer.
However, data and logic only go so far in understanding the deeply held beliefs surrounding bike helmets. Emotions and ideology play a significant role.
Helmets have become a symbol representing something far beyond a protective polystyrene shell with potentially modest health benefits in certain situations.
For me, the most challenging aspect of choosing to forgo a helmet wasn’t intellectual or practical; it was confronting the anticipated criticism, the well-intentioned but misinformed questions, and the societal pressures that shame, marginalize, or even criminalize riding without a helmet. (Confession: I still worry that in a worst-case crash scenario, my reasoned decision might negatively impact any potential legal settlements for my wife and children.) I had to accept facing a world where many might disapprove of my choice.
This might sound dramatic, but in the past five months, I’ve encountered countless interactions questioning my decision.
Discussions with family, colleagues, neighbors, and community members, online harassment, and shouts from drivers in Los Angeles streets – I’m constantly defending a choice that I believe shouldn’t require justification.
One particularly memorable incident involved a neighbor, the parent of my child’s friend, who questioned me at a large dinner party about my risk assessment and whether my choice undermined my advocacy for better cycling infrastructure. The implication was that I was hypocritical for wanting safer streets while not taking every personal safety precaution. This sentiment is frequently echoed.
Interestingly, this conversation occurred at a restaurant where all adults present had consumed alcohol and subsequently drove their children home – a behavior statistically far more dangerous than riding a bike without a helmet. We are constantly surrounded by individuals making choices – smoking, drinking, speeding, neglecting exercise – that are demonstrably unhealthy but don’t trigger the same victim-blaming directed at helmetless cyclists.
It’s particularly frustrating that much of this criticism originates within the cycling community itself. During my tenure as editor-in-chief of Bicycling, the world’s largest cycling magazine, any image of a cyclist without a helmet would ignite a firestorm of angry criticism, as if merely depicting helmet-free riding threatened bike culture.
One would expect cycling enthusiasts to be aware of helmet limitations and the lack of significant consumer demand for updated safety standards and testing protocols (Snell, ANSI, CPSC, EN-1078). Nearly a decade ago, I helped edit a major article highlighting helmets’ shortcomings in preventing concussions and the emergence of MIPS technology to address this. While I appreciate MIPS and related research, most cyclists I know still prioritize helmet aesthetics, weight, cost, and ventilation over quantifiable safety metrics. It remains puzzling why a group seemingly less concerned with helmet safety is so critical of those who reach a different conclusion about helmet use.
Criticism from outside the cycling community is often even harsher. In countless news reports about bike-car collisions, mentioning whether the cyclist wore a helmet has become a standard trope. It’s so routine that it often goes unnoticed. We don’t expect news reports about sexual assault to detail the victim’s clothing, so why is helmet use relevant when a negligent bus driver endangers a cyclist? Online and in news comments, riding without a helmet is often portrayed as selfish, hypocritical, and idiotic.
A battle is unfolding in cities worldwide regarding the future of our streets. Projects aimed at creating safer infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians often face fierce opposition from those prioritizing car dominance.
These opposing voices often use helmets as a tactic to marginalize cyclists’ needs. In the current climate, riding without a helmet has become symbolic of disrespect and undeserving of consideration. Often, the concern isn’t genuine safety or public health, but rather shifting responsibility onto cyclists instead of providing safe road space, or using the helmet issue to discredit cyclists’ broader advocacy.
The same applies to external suggestions like body paint, daytime running lights, or high-visibility clothing for cyclists. While these might offer marginal safety gains, I am deeply suspicious of corporations, government agencies, and especially automotive industry-linked entities pushing responsibility onto cyclists. The core problem isn’t my helmet choice, but dangerous streets with inadequate bike lanes, filled with distracted drivers in SUVs.
Ultimately, the helmet debate causes more harm than any theoretical increase in head injuries. Cycling is inherently simple and safe, not requiring specialized safety gear for everyday rides. Creating barriers that discourage cycling has far greater public health consequences than focusing solely on helmet promotion.
Consider the global health landscape. Millions suffer from preventable chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, all mitigated by regular exercise. Our cities are congested and polluted. Scientists urgently warn about climate change and air quality.
Cycling addresses all these critical issues. A major study tracking 260,000 commuters for five years found that cycling commuters had a 41% lower mortality rate than drivers. Instead of removing barriers to cycling, we are bogged down in helmet debates under the guise of safety.
In essence, helmets have become a scarlet letter – more potent as a symbol than as a piece of safety equipment.
Ultimately, your head, your choice.
