Let’s address the elephant in the bike lane: for the last five months, I haven’t been wearing a bike helmet. This might seem shocking considering that for the preceding 30 years, I was a devoted helmet wearer on nearly every single ride. Yet, since May, I’ve clocked approximately 3,500 miles with just a simple cycling cap protecting my head.
This decision wasn’t taken lightly, and it certainly wasn’t born from a place of recklessness. In fact, drafting this article has been a journey of reflection and re-evaluation. My initial attempt felt too aggressive, too much on the defensive. The choice to ride without a helmet often puts you in that position.
Initially, I considered opening with my steadfast commitment to wearing a cycling cap daily – a piece of gear that offers undeniable sun protection, a clear benefit without the controversy surrounding bike helmets. However, delving deeper into the history and heated debates around bike helmets, I realized a less confrontational approach was needed.
So, let me share a story about my most significant bike accident and how I believe a bike helmet played a crucial role.
It was the summer of 2000, a period when my cycling life was all about pushing boundaries – riding further, riding faster. In my early 30s and single, cycling consumed a vast majority of my free time.
One afternoon, nearing the end of a rigorous three-hour ride in the Oakland, California hills, I was heading home. In the drops, descending a familiar, fast stretch just miles from my house, I estimate my speed was at least 40 miles per hour. Rounding a sweeping right-hand turn, I encountered a substantial pile of debris on the shoulder – remnants of recent roadside bush trimming, carelessly left on the pavement by a road crew.
Reacting in milliseconds, I lacked the skill or time to navigate around the obstacle. I crashed. Hard. The sensation of my face hitting the asphalt remains vivid, a stark realization of the potential for fatal impact.
The collision was brutal. Five teeth sheared off at the gum line, my jaw fractured, and bones in my hands, arms, and shoulder broken. My body skidded and bounced roughly 25 yards from the initial impact before coming to a halt.
The repercussions of that crash are still with me today. A titanium plate in my chin, recurring dental issues, and lingering pain in my right hand when opening stubborn jars are constant reminders. Yet, despite the severity, the accident didn’t fundamentally alter the course of my life.
I firmly believe the bike helmet I was wearing that day contributed significantly to that outcome. It was a Giro Hammerhead, a vibrant purple-to-blue fade. Paired with my violet Cannondale jersey and powder-blue Lemond Buenos Aires bike, I felt like a style icon. I can still distinctly recall the sound of that colorful helmet striking the pavement as I crashed and decelerated.
I escaped that Oakland afternoon without any significant head trauma, a fact I attribute, in part, to my helmet.
Now, fast forward 18 years. Imagine the weight of consciously choosing to ride without a helmet. I’m now a husband and father of two – a family I cherish and who depend on me. I cycle daily on the streets of Los Angeles, statistically one of the most dangerous cities for cyclists in the United States. Why would someone in my position willingly choose to ride with nothing more than a cycling cap?
It’s a valid and crucial question.
Before proceeding, let me be unequivocally clear: I am not attempting to dissuade anyone from wearing a bike helmet. While I am about to share my perspective that the data surrounding bike helmets is often misinterpreted, I acknowledge the clear safety advantages they offer and the inherent wisdom in wearing one. I would still insist on my own children wearing helmets, regardless of legal mandates, and I would certainly strap one on for intense group rides or tackling challenging off-road trails.
And yet, the reality remains: I haven’t worn one in five months. While this decision carries emotional and ideological weight, it’s also grounded in empirical observations.
Many, including those within the cycling community and those outside it, are convinced by what they perceive as irrefutable scientific evidence. They believe bike helmets are miracle devices, offering unparalleled protection, and that questioning their efficacy is akin to courting disaster. They see bike helmets as the seatbelts of cycling, and those who ride without them as irresponsible.
But if this were undeniably true, why do countries with the highest rates of helmet use simultaneously exhibit the highest cyclist fatality rates? The United States, for instance, boasts higher helmet usage than many nations, yet suffers disproportionately high cyclist fatalities compared to other Western countries. Conversely, nations like Denmark and the Netherlands, where helmet use is minimal, experience remarkably low rates of fatal cycling accidents.
This inverse relationship, while initially perplexing, reveals a crucial point: robust infrastructure and a safety-conscious culture have a far greater impact on cyclist safety than simply mandating helmet use. Focusing solely on helmets as the solution to cyclist vulnerability is akin to addressing school shooting fatalities by arming students with bulletproof vests – it misses the root of the problem.
If helmets are the ultimate lifesavers, why do Dutch cyclists who wear them experience higher hospitalization rates than those who don’t? Dutch government data indicates that helmeted cyclists are approximately 20 times more likely to be hospitalized than their non-helmeted counterparts. This isn’t to suggest a flaw in Dutch bike helmets. Instead, it highlights that activities like mountain biking, high-speed road cycling, and racing inherently carry different risks than the everyday, utilitarian cycling prevalent in the Netherlands. In many common cycling scenarios, helmets are not a panacea.
After decades of reviewing studies and consulting experts, and carefully considering both sides of the ongoing bike helmet debate, I’ve come to believe that the widely accepted notion of helmets as miraculous lifesavers is, at best, a well-intentioned exaggeration. My considered conclusion is that in specific circumstances, helmets can offer protection against certain types of injuries for some riders. They are reasonably effective at mitigating skull fractures and scalp lacerations in particular types of crashes. However, they are less effective at preventing concussions and are almost certainly ineffective in collisions with speeding SUVs or trucks.
Many within the helmet industry and research community are aware that current safety protocols – the standards behind those regulatory stickers on your helmet – are demonstrably inadequate and outdated. Bike helmets are not analogous to seatbelts. The widespread adoption of seatbelts is underpinned by decades of peer-reviewed research and public health discourse, something lacking in the bike helmet narrative.
At the heart of this ongoing debate are medical studies, such as this seminal research, which appear to provide strong evidence that a disproportionate number of cyclists hospitalized with serious head injuries were not wearing helmets. These epidemiological analyses lead to pronouncements claiming helmets reduce the risk of head injury by almost 50 percent, slightly over 50 percent, around 70 percent, or even as high as 85 percent. (It’s worth noting the analogy: While we know daily consumption of fatty red meat increases heart disease risk, we don’t twist epidemiological data to label hamburger eaters as foolish.)
Many of these studies, however, suffer from biases and methodological flaws – small sample sizes, funding from the helmet industry, meta-analyses that selectively exclude studies, an overrepresentation of children in the data, and a lack of consideration for cycling type or alcohol involvement. But a more fundamental issue exists: if the evidence for helmet effectiveness in preventing serious head injuries is so compelling, why does decades of data indicate a rise in head injuries among American cyclists even as helmet use has increased? Where is the real-world, quantifiable proof that widespread helmet adoption is significantly saving lives? If we are to continue advocating for an intervention that requires a specific consumer group to spend money and wear specialized headgear, shouldn’t there be clear, demonstrable evidence of injury reduction?
Furthermore, consider this rhetorical question: if epidemiological data is so conclusive, why not mandate helmet use for everyone at risk of head injury? A major study concluded 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 tiny fraction of hospitalizations for similar injuries. Logically, if authorities were to encourage or mandate helmet use for all motorists and elderly individuals frequently using stairs, the impact on overall head injury rates would be far more substantial.
Of course, the idea of families driving to soccer games in helmets seems absurd – yet, insisting someone cycling to the farmers market wear one feels perfectly normal. Should we also mandate wrist guards or full body armor for all cyclists?
The calculus of bike helmet safety is undeniably complex. Since I began riding helmet-free, I’ve observed a decrease in close calls with drivers in Los Angeles. Riding various bikes and wearing different attire for my daily commutes, I’ve noticed drivers grant me significantly more space when I’m in street clothes on a flat-handlebar bike. Conversely, I experience the closest calls when wearing spandex on a racing bike. Numerous studies, including this one in Scientific American, corroborate my anecdotal observations. Given that aggressive drivers pose the greatest threat during my daily commute, perhaps I am actually safer with my helmet left at home.
Similarly, my weekend road bike rides have shifted. My longer routes often take me to the hilly roads of Palos Verdes. On these rides, my behavior undeniably changes without a helmet. One frequent descent, Crest Road and Palos Verdes Drive East, is a flowing six-mile stretch with variable pavement and a gradient that encourages high speeds.
While I used to confidently descend at 45 mph, I now approach it with greater caution. Anything above 30 mph feels considerably riskier. A bike helmet can create a false sense of invulnerability, as confirmed by at least one study which demonstrated how cyclists alter their behavior when riding without a helmet. While I never considered myself a reckless cyclist, my risk assessment and behavior are demonstrably different without a helmet.
Increasingly, I’m beginning to believe I might be safer riding without a helmet.
However, data alone can only take us so far in understanding the deeply held beliefs surrounding bike helmets. Emotions and ideology play a significant role.
Helmets have transcended their function as a potentially protective piece of polystyrene; they have become a symbol of something far greater.
For me, the most challenging aspect of choosing to ride without a helmet wasn’t intellectual or practical – it was confronting the inevitable trolling, the well-intentioned but misinformed questions, and the institutional pressures that attempt to shame, marginalize, or even criminalize the act of riding helmet-free. (Confession: I still worry that in a worst-case accident scenario, my reasoned decision could negatively impact any potential settlement for my wife and children.) I had to accept facing a world where many would disapprove of or misunderstand my choice.
This may sound melodramatic to some, but in the past five months, I’ve faced countless interactions where my decision has been questioned.
I’ve discussed it with extended family, colleagues, neighbors, and acquaintances. I’ve been harassed and trolled on social media. Drivers have yelled at me from their cars in Los Angeles. I constantly find myself defending a decision that, in my view, shouldn’t require justification.
Notably, a neighbor – the parent of one of my child’s friends – once interrogated me at a large neighborhood dinner, questioning if I truly understood the risks and if my choice undermined my advocacy for better bike infrastructure. The implication, of course, was that I was hypocritical – advocating for safer streets while not taking every “precaution” myself. This is a recurring theme in the criticism I receive.
It’s ironic that this particular conversation occurred at a restaurant where all the adults present had consumed alcohol and then drove their children home – a behavior statistically far more likely to result in injury or death than my helmet-free bike commute. We are constantly surrounded by people making choices – smoking, drinking, speeding, neglecting exercise – that carry health risks but don’t trigger the same victim-blaming directed at cyclists without helmets.
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, I knew any photograph depicting a rider without a helmet would ignite a storm of angry criticism, as if merely documenting a common cycling practice was a betrayal of bike culture.
One would expect that by now, cycling enthusiasts would be aware of the limitations of current bike helmet safety standards and the lack of widespread consumer demand for updated Snell, ANSI, CPSC, and EN-1078 testing, or for more rigorous design standards. Nearly a decade ago, I helped edit a groundbreaking article highlighting helmet deficiencies in concussion prevention and the emergence of the MIPS system to address this. While I’m encouraged by the adoption of MIPS helmets and research suggesting their efficacy, most cyclists I know still prioritize aesthetics, weight, cost, and ventilation when choosing a helmet, rather than quantified safety metrics. It remains perplexing why a demographic with a limited engagement with helmet safety standards is so quick to judge those who arrive at a different conclusion about helmet use.
Of course, the shaming and bias from outside the cycling community is even more pronounced. Reviewing countless news reports of bike-motor vehicle collisions each month, it’s become a pervasive trope to mention helmet use – or lack thereof – by the cyclist. This has become so routine that it often goes unnoticed. We wouldn’t expect a news report on sexual assault to detail the victim’s clothing, so why, when a negligent bus driver injures a cyclist, is helmet use even relevant? The hostility escalates online, in social media and news comment sections, where riding without a helmet is portrayed as selfish, irresponsible, and idiotic.
A silent but escalating battle is unfolding in cities across America (and globally) as communities grapple with the future of their streets. Projects aimed at creating safer infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians face fierce opposition from those who wish to maintain the car-centric status quo.
These opposing voices often employ a consistent tactic to discredit cyclists’ demands, and helmets have become unfortunately entangled in this narrative. In 2018, riding without a helmet has become the symbolic equivalent of running a stop sign – a sign of disrespect, forfeiting any claim to consideration. These critics are often less concerned with cyclist safety or public health costs than with shifting responsibility onto cyclists rather than providing safe road space, or using the helmet issue to undermine cyclists’ credibility.
The same applies to external advocates pushing for measures like body paint, daytime running lights, or high-visibility socks for cyclists. While these may offer marginal safety benefits, I’m deeply skeptical of corporations, government agencies, and especially automotive industry-linked entities attempting to place the onus of safety on cyclists. The core issue isn’t my helmet choice; it’s streets with inadequate bike lanes in the door zone, congested with speeding SUVs and distracted drivers glued to their smartphones.
Ultimately, the helmet debate inflicts far more damage than any theoretical, marginal increase in head injuries. Cycling is inherently simple and not inherently dangerous. Specialized safety equipment isn’t necessary for a ride to a local coffee shop. Creating barriers that discourage cycling will have a far greater negative impact on public health than attempting to shame people into helmet use.
Consider the global health landscape. In the United States alone, over 100 million people suffer from heart disease, diabetes, severe obesity, or other chronic conditions that could be prevented or mitigated through regular exercise. Our city streets are congested and hazardous. Scientists are united in their warnings about climate change, carbon emissions, and air quality.
Cycling offers solutions to these complex problems. A major study tracking 260,000 commuters over five years concluded that those who cycled to work were 41% less likely to die than those who drove. Yet, instead of focusing on reducing barriers to cycling, we are caught in endless debates about helmets in the name of safety.
In essence, helmets have become a scarlet letter – more potent as a symbol than as a safety device.
Feel empowered to make informed choices about your own safety and equipment.
