Compulsory helmets for e-bike riders: Sensible measure or symbolic policy?

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 justified 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.

>> Road bike helmet test: Expensive versus cheap - 7 pairs of road bike helmets in a comparison test

>> Storck eGrix vs. Grix.2: How much influence a motor has on a gravel bike

>> Safety in cycling: Yellow cards, kilometre rule - and soon airbags?

Conceptual clarity required 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.

>> Boris Palmer: "Cycling must be safe, fast and comfortable"

>> Law and traffic: judgements on bicycle accidents

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.

Does it make sense to make helmets compulsory or is it just symbolic politics?

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.

More road safety through systemic solutions

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 urban areas 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 seem like 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: What are e-bikes and pedelecs?

• *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