Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Compulsory bike helmets for the land of the free? US Government agency calls for mandatory cycle helmet law

Free to carry a gun… but not to ride a bicycle without a helmet? National Transportation Safety Board publishes its first report into cycle safety in almost 50 years

The federal government agency responsible for road safety in the United States is calling for cycle helmets to be made compulsory for all bike riders as part of a series of measures aimed at reducing cyclist casualties.

Other measures put forward yesterday by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in a public meeting in Washington DC yesterday include improving the ‘conspicuity’ of cyclists, building more protected infrastructure, and focusing on issues including junction design which contribute to a high proportion of casualties.

Yesterday’s meeting of the NTSB board adopted the key findings and recommendations of a forthcoming report by the agency into cyclist safety.

The report, entitled Bicyclist safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and Countermeasures is the first such study it has undertaken in almost half a century, the last one being published in 1972.

​It follows the recent publication of statistics that revealed that 857 cyclists died in collisions involving motor vehicles in the US last year, up 6.3 per cent over 2017and contrary to the trend in all road traffic fatalities, which fell by 2.4 per cent over the same period.

In the report, the NTSB notes that 25 per cent of cyclist fatalities happen when the rider is being overtaken by a motorist, while 65 per cent of all collisions involving cyclist took place at junctions.

Few cycling campaigners would disagree with some of the report’s recommendations, such as reducing speed limits on roads shared by cyclists and motorists, improving signage at junctions and building safer infrastructure.

However, the NTSB’s call for cycle helmets to be made mandatory at national level and for all cyclists is likely to be met with strong resistance.

Across the country, 21 states and the District of Columbia have state-wide laws requiring minors to wear cycle helmets, although ages vary; in Connecticut, for example, it applies to under-16s, while in Louisiana it is under-12s. Nowhere has a state-wide law requiring all riders to wear one, irrespective of age.

While 29 states have no state-wide cycle helmet legislation, jurisdictions at a lower level can have their own local laws and it can be hugely confusing.

In Missouri, almost all of the three dozen municipalities that make up St Louis County have a mandatory helmet law, in most cases for under-17s, but in 12 applying to all cyclists; in Illinois, meanwhile, bike messengers in Chicago are required by law to wear a helmet.

In its report, the NTSB said: “The investigators’ primary focus was on crash avoidance, but in those instances when crashes do occur, they said the use of a helmet was the single most effective way for riders to reduce their chances of receiving a serious head injury.

“Because research shows that less than half of bicyclists wear helmets and that head injuries were the leading cause of bicyclist fatalities, the NTSB recommended that all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, require that all persons wear a helmet while riding a bicycle.”

The report also addressed the issue of ‘conspicuity’ of cyclists, which it said had been “identified as another key factor that could prevent crashes.”

The NTSB said: “Investigators found about a third of the motorists involved in fatal crashes while overtaking a bicyclist did not see the bicyclist prior to the collision,” and that “improvements to the visibility of bicyclists to not only the human eyes of motorists, but also to collision avoidance systems and connected vehicle technologies, would also likely reduce crashes.”

The agency added that “actions taken by bicyclists themselves – following traffic rules, obeying traffic signals and using bicycle lights – will reduce their risks on the road.

NTSB chairman Robert L Summwalt said: “If we do not improve roadway infrastructure for bicyclists, more preventable crashes will happen and more cyclists will die in those preventable crashes.

 “If we do not enhance bicyclist conspicuity, more bicyclists will die in preventable crashes. If we do not act to mitigate head injury for more bicyclists, additional bicyclists will die.”

He added: “All road users have a right to arrive at their destinations safely. And with so many more people using bicycles as a means of transportation, clearly more needs to be done to protect these most vulnerable users of our roadways.” 

Opponents to compulsory helmet laws introduced in countries such as Australia and New Zealand maintain that evidence does not support the assertion that they improve the safety of riders and also discourage people from riding bikes in the first place, leading to a negative impact on public health in general.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

17 comments

Avatar
werics | 5 years ago
0 likes

It's the NTSB. They recommend quite a lot of things. In premise, federal funding for closely related items (cycling infrastructure) could be conditioned on the adoption of such requirements by state/local governments (I oversimplify a bit), but for practical purposes, this isn't even a blip on the radar, much less a page in the Federal Register. Don't expect... anything.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode | 5 years ago
1 like

The EU have been trying to increase helmet wearing, essentially compulsion by the back door, they have programmes for all countries that roll out cycle training that have forced/coerced wearing of helmets/hi-vis or the kids are excluded, same as with cycle training here.

The EU road saety reports have even pointed the finger at Netherlands and Denmark as dangerous countries for cycling as their deaths per population head is relatively high and apparently that's down to low helmet wearing rates. you couldn't make that insane thinking up and yet the EU do recisely that.

It's incredible that despite all the global evidence and even just within the US that these people ignore all of that never mind the rights of people within the country, this is typical backward thinking mentalist government policy and one that if enforced will be Australia/NZ on an even grander scale with more people on bikes being targeted by police and with more violent end results.

Agree with above, I'd never want to cycle in the US, whilst I'm sure there are many places that are lovely, the casualty stats alone put you off so much. they've been rising for a few years  now and 26,000 deaths on the roads I think is where it's at right now, god forbid what the SI and minor injury figures are, worse than bloody Russia!

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
Beachboy | 5 years ago
2 likes

According to the Centers for Disease Control, car crashes remain the leading cause of TBI-related death among 15- to 19-year-old. No doubt, teenage drivers will be having to wear protective head gear anytime soon.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

It wouldn't surprise me if they want to introduce this law specifically to reduce the number of cyclists. The U.S. is very motor-centric and they have a lot of cities designed around everyone driving. That said, there are states that do want to encourage cycling/walking so hopefully they'll see through the usual helmet crap.

Avatar
hobbeldehoy | 5 years ago
2 likes

I wear a helmet but I'm against making it compulsory. In saying that I wont be going to the US ever. It has been vaunted in the House of Lords but making a helmet compulsory could put the brakes on uptake. 

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
4 likes

"SMDSY - wear a helmet."

Because PPE is always the first point of call.

Avatar
Master Bean | 5 years ago
3 likes

Just going to ride my Harley without a helmet. That'll do it.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Master Bean | 5 years ago
1 like

Master Bean wrote:

Just going to ride my Harley without a helmet. That'll do it.

Which would be perfectly legal in quite a few of the states, and the data shows it isn't any more dangerous than riding without one, or it did last time I looked at it.

Avatar
Rick_Rude replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

Master Bean wrote:

Just going to ride my Harley without a helmet. That'll do it.

Which would be perfectly legal in quite a few of the states, and the data shows it isn't any more dangerous than riding without one, or it did last time I looked at it.

Until you fall off and then you'll probably wish you had one on.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
6 likes

Rick_Rude wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Master Bean wrote:

Just going to ride my Harley without a helmet. That'll do it.

Which would be perfectly legal in quite a few of the states, and the data shows it isn't any more dangerous than riding without one, or it did last time I looked at it.

Until you fall off and then you'll probably wish you had one on.

...

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
1 like

Rick_Rude wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Master Bean wrote:

Just going to ride my Harley without a helmet. That'll do it.

Which would be perfectly legal in quite a few of the states, and the data shows it isn't any more dangerous than riding without one, or it did last time I looked at it.

Until you fall off and then you'll probably wish you had one on.

All perfectly true apart from the facts.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

I can only suppose that the authors didn't actually do any research about whether helmets reduce risk, relying on common sense, myths and lies.  Doesn't do much for the credibility of the report, but they were probably pressured into putting something in to reduce the responsibility of the people causing the deaths; drivers.

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
8 likes

“Investigators found about a third of the motorists involved in fatal crashes while overtaking a bicyclist did not see the bicyclist prior to the collision,”

 

In America, as here, this is the no.1 way of getting off a killing by driving conviction. The fact that they may not have looked, were speeding, didn't look long enough to judge speed, saw the cyclist but took a chance anyway is brushed under the carpet.

 

Apparently cyclists are invisible in broad daylight and at night with lights on also.

 

#standard

Avatar
tarquin_foxglove replied to EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
7 likes

EddyBerckx wrote:

“Investigators found about a third of the motorists involved in fatal crashes while overtaking a bicyclist did not see the bicyclist prior to the collision”

So two thirds did see the 'bicyclist' prior to the collision & still decided it wasn't worth overtaking at a safe distance.

Yep, helmet & hi-vis will cure it.

Avatar
billymansell | 5 years ago
16 likes

Coming from a country whose response to mass school shootings is bullet proof back packs before gun control.

Avatar
Philh68 replied to billymansell | 5 years ago
1 like

billymansell wrote:

Coming from a country whose response to mass school shootings is bullet proof back packs before gun control.

the second amendment protects their right to bear arms, but not the right to a bare head…

its always the way, has to be quid pro quo. Yes, we will consider doing something to make cyclists safer, but cyclists need to wear a styrofoam hat and dress up like a circus clown, because we couldn’t possibly expect drivers to use their eyes and their brain and expect that there may be vulnerable road users on their route.

Latest Comments