Compulsory helmets for e-bike riders: A threat to the mobility transition?

The discussion about mandatory helmets for cyclists, in particular E-bike-The debate about ambulance drivers has flared up again. Starting with a wake-up call from Frank Flake, Chairman of the German Professional Association of Rescue Services (DBRD). He is calling for a legal obligation to wear a helmet for Pedelec*-riders. In an interview with the "Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung" (NOZ) newspaper, he justifies this demand with the often serious injury patterns that emergency services observe in e-bike users who have had accidents. "We repeatedly see serious head injuries among pedelec riders," Flake explained to the newspaper. The speed of 25 kilometres per hour that pedelecs can reach without actively pedalling may not seem particularly high at first glance, but it can cause life-threatening injuries in the event of a fall. The combination of higher average speed and the often older age of pedelec users leads to an increased risk of serious accident consequences.

>> Cycling helmets for the city: 7 city helmets put to the test

ARGE Fahrrad firmly rejects mandatory helmets for e-bikes

ARGE Fahrrad has also joined the discussion on the introduction of mandatory helmets for e-bike riders. The communication and information platform of the Austrian bicycle industry comprises 27 companies, including AT Zweirad GmbH, Bosch GmbH, Giant Austria and KTM Fahrrad GmbH. It has been operating under the umbrella of the Association of Austrian Sporting Goods Manufacturers and Retailers (VSSÖ) since 2014.

In a recent statement, ARGE Fahrrad takes a clear stance against a legal obligation to wear a helmet for e-bikes, which is being discussed as part of a planned amendment to the Austrian Road Traffic Act. As the voice of the Austrian bicycle industry, the association expressly supports the voluntary wearing of helmets, but rejects a legal obligation. The reasoning is based on international experience, which documents massive declines in bicycle use following the introduction of a helmet requirement. According to ARGE Fahrrad, making helmets compulsory would counteract the efforts to promote cycling and thus jeopardise key objectives of the German government. Instead, the association favours better infrastructure, lower speed limits and targeted awareness-raising in order to increase cycling safety.

International experience shows negative effects

ARGE Fahrrad bases its rejection of mandatory helmet use on experience from countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There, the use of bicycles fell by 30 to 40 per cent after the introduction of a helmet requirement, and by up to 80 per cent among young people. In New Zealand, even a decade after its introduction, a drop of around 51 per cent in cycling hours per person was measured. Even if these data are partly controversial, they consistently show that additional hurdles significantly reduce the use of the bicycle as a means of transport. Applied to Austria, this would mean that instead of the targeted doubling to 13 to 14 per cent cycling mode share, there is a risk of a fall back to 9 to 10 per cent. Such a decline would be in direct contradiction to the climate targets and the Austrian federal government's Mobility Masterplan 2040, which envisages a significant increase in the cycling mode share.

E-bikes as an important factor in the mobility transition

A helmet requirement would be particularly problematic for the growing e-bike market, which is seen as an important driver of the mobility transition. Over 50 per cent of bicycles sold in Austria are already e-bikes. According to ARGE Fahrrad, these bikes increase both the frequency of use and the annual kilometres travelled by cyclists. Many car journeys are being replaced by e-bike journeys, which represents a key contribution to the climate targets and the desired mobility transition. A helmet requirement would slow down this positive trend, as it would make everyday journeys more difficult and reduce spontaneous use. Especially in the area of sharing models, which focus on uncomplicated use, a helmet requirement would be a significant obstacle. ARGE Fahrrad argues that this would weaken an important instrument for achieving climate targets without any corresponding increase in safety.

Solutions proposed by ARGE Fahrrad

ARGE Fahrrad presents a three-point plan as an alternative to compulsory helmets. The first point is to expand the infrastructure with safe cycle paths, traffic calming and lower speed limits in urban areas. Secondly, the association proposes voluntary helmet promotion through information campaigns, cooperation with retailers and industry as well as discount and bonus models in cooperation with insurance companies. The third point involves communication and awareness-raising, whereby wearing a helmet should be positioned as a sign of responsibility and role models from sport and politics could be utilised. With this approach, ARGE Fahrrad wants to increase safety in cycling without jeopardising the use of the bicycle as an environmentally friendly means of transport. The association emphasises that a legal obligation to wear a helmet would massively reduce cycling, jeopardise climate targets, put accident victims at a disadvantage and fail to address the actual cause - the lack of infrastructure.

Ernst Brust calls for conceptual clarity as a basis for objective discussion

Ernst Brust, an expert in micromobility at Velotech, has now joined the debate on making helmets compulsory for electrically assisted bicycles. In his opinion, comprehensive, systemic approaches to improving road safety should be pursued instead of focussing on a single measure such as mandatory helmets.

A fundamental problem is evident in the current debate on the road safety of cyclists: the imprecise use of terms leads to misunderstandings and false conclusions. This is particularly evident in the debate about a possible helmet requirement for so-called "e-bikes". What is often referred to as an e-bike in common parlance is in most cases legally and technically a pedelec (pedal electric cycle or EPAC - Electrically Power Assisted Cycle). The decisive difference: With pedelecs, the electric motor only provides assistance when the pedals are actively pedalled and the motor assistance ends at 25 km/h. Legally, these vehicles are treated like conventional bicycles.

>> S-pedelec buying guide: What you should definitely consider when buying an S-pedelec

E-bikes in the narrower sense, on the other hand, have a starting aid or a throttle grip with which the vehicle can also be moved without pedalling. These vehicles often require a licence and are subject to other legal regulations. The conceptual vagueness in the public debate regularly leads to misinterpretations of accident statistics and distorts the perception of the actual risks in road traffic. Proper reporting and a well-founded discussion on road safety must therefore be based on precise terminology that correctly differentiates between the various vehicle types and takes their specific characteristics into account.

>> Helmet compulsory when travelling by bike in Europe

Compulsory helmets - sensible measure or symbolic policy?

Wearing a cycle helmet is generally recommended and can significantly reduce the severity of head injuries in the event of a fall. This preventative effect has been scientifically proven and is not questioned by road safety experts, confirms Brust. Nevertheless, a legal obligation to wear a helmet, especially for pedelec riders, falls short when it comes to the comprehensive improvement of road safety. Detailed accident analyses have shown that the main cause of serious and fatal accidents involving bicycles and pedelecs is not a lack of helmets, but collisions with motor vehicles.

In these accident scenarios, a helmet would offer a certain degree of protection, but could only mitigate the serious consequences of a collision with a vehicle weighing several tonnes to a limited extent. The preventive effect of a helmet requirement therefore remains limited if the fundamental causes of accidents are of a structural nature and lie in the inadequate separation of different road users, inadequate infrastructure and inappropriate speeds in motorised traffic. An isolated consideration of the obligation to wear a helmet also distracts from the responsibility that all road users bear for road safety and falsely suggests that the main responsibility for accident prevention lies with the cyclists themselves.

>> Danger of concussion! What the neurologist advises

Systemic solutions for more road safety

Instead of focussing on a single measure such as compulsory helmets, comprehensive, systemic approaches to improving road safety should be pursued, according to Brust. The first priority would be to consistently reduce the speed of motorised traffic in areas where different road users meet. Studies have clearly shown that lower speed limits in city centres and on rural roads can drastically reduce the severity of accidents.

A collision at 30 km/h instead of 50 km/h significantly reduces the risk of fatal injuries for unprotected road users. According to Brust, the systematic improvement of cycling infrastructure is just as important. Separate, sufficiently wide and well-maintained cycle paths, safe intersections with good visibility and continuous cycle networks would contribute significantly to accident prevention. The consistent enforcement of existing traffic regulations, particularly with regard to overtaking distances of at least 1.5 metres in urban areas and 2 metres outside urban areas, is another important element.

Technical solutions such as turning assistants for lorries could also defuse particularly dangerous accident situations. Last but not least, sensitising all road users also contributes to safety: Cyclists should give hand signals and observe traffic rules such as stopping at red lights, while drivers need to be sensitised to the special needs and vulnerability of vulnerable road users.

Conclusion: Holistic approach instead of individual measures

A helmet requirement for pedelec riders may appear to be a simple and quick measure at first glance, but it falls short when it comes to sustainable improvements in road safety. It only addresses the symptoms, but not the causes of danger in road traffic. A truly effective approach would have to take a holistic view of road safety and address the structural causes. This means making the infrastructure more bicycle-friendly, reducing the speed of motorised traffic and raising the awareness of all road users of their shared responsibility.

A sustainable improvement in safety can only be achieved through a combination of these measures. The debate about mandatory helmets should therefore be taken as an opportunity to broaden our perspective and discuss more comprehensive solutions. Precise terminology and fact-based discussion form the basis for targeted decisions. Ultimately, it is not about symbolic politics, but about effective measures that protect the lives of all road users - regardless of whether they are travelling by bike, pedelec or car. A large selection of helmets is available, for example, from Bike Components, Mountain friends or Rosebikes.

Definition of e-bike or pedelec?

• *Pedelec: Electrically assisted bike, motor only works when pedalling, assistance up to max. 25 km/h
• E-bike (in the narrower sense): Electric two-wheeler with starting aid or throttle grip, often subject to authorisation
• Legal classification of pedelec: considered a bicycle, no driving licence or insurance required