The Dutch Love Their Bicycles. Helmets? Not So Much. - Cyclists comprise the highest number of road fatalities in the Netherlands. The country has introduced a campaign to promote helmets, but many cyclists are not convinced.

25d7633fc42f655ab3ab61a86c2b36bc.webp
Riding an electric bike without a helmet in Amsterdam in August. Data show that since 2000, traffic accidents have claimed the lives of an average of 199 cyclists in the Netherlands each year. Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters

By Lynsey Chutel and Rosanne Kropman
Lynsey Chutel reported from London, and Rosanne Kropman, on her bicycle, from Amsterdam. (She did not wear a helmet.)
April 17, 2025

“It’s every person for themselves,” Fallon Albrecht said while cycling on Thursday morning through a downtown Amsterdam intersection so chaotically busy that it once had its own livestream.

Like the dozens of cyclists around her, Ms. Albrecht, 39, was not wearing a helmet during rush hour, despite the risk and a national campaign in the Netherlands to change attitudes to this piece of personal protection.

“Because of my bun,” she said of why she was not wearing a helmet, referring to the knot of hair neatly scraped high on her head.

There are more bicycles than people in the Netherlands, according to government figures. But bicycle helmets are far less common. And they have become part of a debate that pits traffic safety against questions about a deeply ingrained part of Dutch culture: the primacy of cycling.

Annual statistics on traffic fatalities published by the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics on Thursday showed that road deaths among cyclists were the highest of any road user: 246 last year, compared with 220 people killed in cars and 59 pedestrians.

Since 2000, traffic accidents have claimed the lives of an average of 199 cyclists in the country each year, according to the statistics bureau. In the last five years, nearly two-thirds of cyclist road deaths were attributed to head injuries, the bureau said.

In response, the authorities are introducing awareness campaigns to promote helmets, including a daylong national initiative this past Wednesday.

The campaign, called “Put It On,” got the message out through television ads, social media and school activities. It was aimed at reducing fatalities and serious injury, citing research that said helmets reduced fatal cycling injuries by 70 percent.

c2b9be6f1ed4e8dfdb7f0f67dae7df45.webp
Cyclists in Vondelpark in Amsterdam in 2023. “Hardly anyone wears a helmet,” said Berend Ramuz, 26. “People are just not used to it at all.” Melissa Schriek for The New York Times

Some in the country say the safety messages should be directed instead at drivers of cars and those in charge of infrastructure and traffic policies.

“Wearing a helmet doesn’t prevent having accidents in traffic, so we should work on taking away the cause of the accident,” said Esther van Garderen, the national director of Fietsersbond, a group that has campaigned for safe cycling in the Netherlands for 50 years.

Fietsersbond wants automobile speed limits in cities and residential areas reduced to roughly 18 miles per hour. It has also lobbied for limiting the size of cars, arguing that larger cars are harder for cyclists to navigate around and increase the risk of head injuries.

Marco te Brömmelstroet, an urban planning professor at the University of Amsterdam who has described the campaign as “an ideological smoke screen,” said the helmet initiative was “well-intended but ill-informed and therefore potentially morally problematic.”

Mr. te Brömmelstroet, popularly known as the “Bike Professor” because of his media appearances focused on bike safety, says he has nothing against helmets, but that the campaign paints cycling as a dangerous activity in a country where people of all ages ride bikes daily.

“Why don’t we call it ‘the day against traffic crashes’ or ‘the day against road violence’?” he asked.

He said the helmet campaign also shifted responsibility from the government, including from the infrastructure minister, Barry Madlener, who increased the speed limit for cars on freeways to about 80 miles per hour just days before promoting the use of helmets at an elementary school.

“Our minister is indeed pro-automobile,” Liz Zoetekouw, an spokeswoman for his office, said on Thursday. “Cars are getting cleaner and safer each year, and they are very important for the Dutch population.”

She said the department had set aside 450 million euros ($568 million) for the development of safe infrastructure from 2020 to 2030, and that getting cyclists to wear helmets was a part of that investment.

“To ensure that cycling remains safe, we need to do both,” Ms. Zoetekouw said.

On Amsterdam’s streets, reaction to the campaign was mixed.

Nelleke Doornbal, 64, said she wore a helmet when riding her electric bicycle to her job in physical rehabilitation in the city center.

“I often see the invisible consequences of brain injury: memory loss, concentration problems, fatigue,” she said.

Ms. Doornbal said she would welcome mandatory helmet rules, and not just for older people. (The Dutch government already has a safety campaign aimed at older riders.)

“A young brain is just as vulnerable as an old one,” she said.

Berend Ramuz, 26, said he wore a helmet only when racing, and he expressed doubt that the campaign would make a difference. “Hardly anyone wears a helmet,” he said. “People are just not used to it at all.”

But Jop de Vrieze, 42, said he had learned about bike safety the hard way after what he described as “a classic Dutch accident” eight years ago.

“I had too many drinks and had driven my front wheel into a tram rail,” he recalled. “I woke up with two paramedics over my head.”

After recovering from a concussion, he started wearing a helmet on nights out, although he said he forgot to more often than not. That changed when his 8-year-old son asked him why he did not wear a helmet.

“That got me thinking,” he said. “If I fall, it affects him, too.”

Source (Archive)

Credit to @Xarpho's Return for finding this.
 
I remember hearing that they don't wear helmets because "drivers are more cautious around bicyclists without helmets". Which sounded like utter nonsense then and I am glad its confirmed to be false now.

The reality is that cycling on the road is dangerous and I have never really seen any issue with cyclists just using the sidewalk. At worst they cause some moderate injuries (which would be by most accounts very rare) to those walking on the sidewalk (hell the cyclist is more likely to be more severely injured than the pedestrian tbh), while obviously not ideal its better than cyclists dying on the streets at a far more common rate.

I just don't understand why we can't go back to when cycling on the sidewalk was allowed decades ago.
I agree about the sidewalks. I'm not sure if this is the case everywhere in the city, but in many parts of The Hague, instead of having the painted-on street lane for bikes between faster-moving cars and parked cars (which really does seem dangerous), it's the SIDEWALKS (wide ones) that are divided into "lanes." I never understood why cities that have adequate sidewalk space to do this, don't. Because in Bike v. Car, the car always wins. I know two people (both helmet wearers) who have been in serious bike accidents. One died and the other one suffered such a horrible brain injury that it ruined her life. But in Pedestrian v. Bike, yeah Bike is going to win, but typically the consequences to Pedestrian are going to be a lot less awful.
 
I'd rather have a unified country like the Netherlands with minor problems such as bike helmets than a Diverse and Beautiful country full of shootings and/or stabbings.
The Netherlands is basically a turd world narco state right now because of all the Africans and Arabs they brought in.
 
I'm sorry, there is literally no way that bikes are safer than cars. None. Not even in a place like the Netherlands, where biking is a way of life and public thoroughfares are designed for bikes.

The population of the Netherlands means the fatality rate for bikes there is approximately 12 per 100,000 every year.

That's almost identical to the car fatality rate in the US, a place where we're often told car accidents are a public health emergency.

But the average person in the Netherlands bikes about 620 miles per year. An average US driver drives 14,000 miles per year. This means that per mile ridden, a bike is over 20x riskier to take than an automobile.

People are forever talking about how planes and trains and buses are so, so much safer per mile than automobiles, but no one ever talks about the absolutely devastating rates of bicycle fatalities relative to miles traveled. The stats for US bicycling are insanely far off and obviously collected by weird pro-cycling charities (do you believe the average random bicycle rider in the US will ride 5000+ miles, or over 10x more miles per year than the average in the Netherlands? No, neither do I, especially when these same stats also tell us 1/6th of Americans bicycle each year and only 1% of all daily trips are made by bicycle. These trips tend to be significantly shorter in terms of miles driven than car or truck trips, yet they are 2.6x more likely to result in a fatality. Once you figure in miles driven vs. biked, it's obvious a bike is 10-20x more dangerous on a per-mile basis than a car, whether you're in helmet-using, car-centric America or the bike-centric, no-helmet Netherlands. There's not a country out there where bikes are a per-mile safety net positive versus automobiles.
 
I'm sorry, there is literally no way that bikes are safer than cars. None. Not even in a place like the Netherlands, where biking is a way of life and public thoroughfares are designed for bikes.

The population of the Netherlands means the fatality rate for bikes there is approximately 12 per 100,000 every year.

That's almost identical to the car fatality rate in the US, a place where we're often told car accidents are a public health emergency.

But the average person in the Netherlands bikes about 620 miles per year. An average US driver drives 14,000 miles per year. This means that per mile ridden, a bike is over 20x riskier to take than an automobile.

People are forever talking about how planes and trains and buses are so, so much safer per mile than automobiles, but no one ever talks about the absolutely devastating rates of bicycle fatalities relative to miles traveled. The stats for US bicycling are insanely far off and obviously collected by weird pro-cycling charities (do you believe the average random bicycle rider in the US will ride 5000+ miles, or over 10x more miles per year than the average in the Netherlands? No, neither do I, especially when these same stats also tell us 1/6th of Americans bicycle each year and only 1% of all daily trips are made by bicycle. These trips tend to be significantly shorter in terms of miles driven than car or truck trips, yet they are 2.6x more likely to result in a fatality. Once you figure in miles driven vs. biked, it's obvious a bike is 10-20x more dangerous on a per-mile basis than a car, whether you're in helmet-using, car-centric America or the bike-centric, no-helmet Netherlands. There's not a country out there where bikes are a per-mile safety net positive versus automobiles.
There's different kinds of risk.

Bicycles are very risky in the sense that if anything happens to you on one, you're probably breaking bones and shredding soft tissue off on concrete.

Cars are very risky because drunks, illegals, teenagers, and women can floor them to 90mph in five seconds.
 
Yes, but fatality rates per mile are a nice and objective measure of relative risk regardless.
They're an objective statistic. It's easy to lie with statistics, whether to others or yourself.

Another area this comes up a lot is guns. Anti-gun people insist that owning a gun increases your risk of dying by gun suicide. Common sense of course says that if you're not suicidal then that statistical risk is irrelevant. The suicidal impulse, not the gun, is the real risk factor. But it's easy to lie with statistics.
 
I'm sorry, there is literally no way that bikes are safer than cars. None. Not even in a place like the Netherlands, where biking is a way of life and public thoroughfares are designed for bikes.

The population of the Netherlands means the fatality rate for bikes there is approximately 12 per 100,000 every year.

That's almost identical to the car fatality rate in the US, a place where we're often told car accidents are a public health emergency.

But the average person in the Netherlands bikes about 620 miles per year. An average US driver drives 14,000 miles per year. This means that per mile ridden, a bike is over 20x riskier to take than an automobile.

People are forever talking about how planes and trains and buses are so, so much safer per mile than automobiles, but no one ever talks about the absolutely devastating rates of bicycle fatalities relative to miles traveled. The stats for US bicycling are insanely far off and obviously collected by weird pro-cycling charities (do you believe the average random bicycle rider in the US will ride 5000+ miles, or over 10x more miles per year than the average in the Netherlands? No, neither do I, especially when these same stats also tell us 1/6th of Americans bicycle each year and only 1% of all daily trips are made by bicycle. These trips tend to be significantly shorter in terms of miles driven than car or truck trips, yet they are 2.6x more likely to result in a fatality. Once you figure in miles driven vs. biked, it's obvious a bike is 10-20x more dangerous on a per-mile basis than a car, whether you're in helmet-using, car-centric America or the bike-centric, no-helmet Netherlands. There's not a country out there where bikes are a per-mile safety net positive versus automobiles.
Had trouble believing this but you're right as far as i can tell.
Table below has the amount of fatal traffic accidents per Billion kilometers travelled.
FS_Fietsers_Afb1.webp

From left to right it lists, Motorcycles, Mopeds, Bicycles, Pedestrians, Cars and Miscellaneous/Unknown.
Car by far the safest, even beating out pedestrians somehow. Guess one jogger getting hit by a car would have a giant impact cause of the metric used.
 
The reality is that cycling on the road is dangerous and I have never really seen any issue with cyclists just using the sidewalk. At worst they cause some moderate injuries (which would be by most accounts very rare) to those walking on the sidewalk (hell the cyclist is more likely to be more severely injured than the pedestrian tbh), while obviously not ideal its better than cyclists dying on the streets at a far more common rate.

I just don't understand why we can't go back to when cycling on the sidewalk was allowed decades ago.
Cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous by the numbers because every time you exit onto the roadway to cross you run the risk of just popping up out of nowhere in the motorists' fields of view.
 
Cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous by the numbers because every time you exit onto the roadway to cross you run the risk of just popping up out of nowhere in the motorists' fields of view.
If a cyclist is on the sidewalk they have to stop at crosswalks the same as any other pedestrian and wait to cross, that was how it was done prior to bikes being ousted from sidewalks.

Just crossing the road blind from the sidewalk on a bike is also just as dangerous as doing the same thing on the road.
 
Your core argument was “cyclists riding on the sidewalk is dangerous because cyclists can’t be bothered to stop at traffic control devices/avoid causing collisions.”
Sorta. That would be an interpretation of my perspective and I would respect that if that's your argument, but I would regard it as a little silly.

My argument is that if cyclists have to come to a full stop at every street corner, which is what solely sidewalk riding would imply, then that reduces cycling to uselessness.

I think cycling in the street offers a big benefit if cyclists can not act like shitheads and hug the right side of the street and motorists can give them a little leeway. It makes our streets more efficient.
 
My argument is that if cyclists have to come to a full stop at every street corner, which is what solely sidewalk riding would imply, then that reduces cycling to uselessness.
The only times cyclists would have to stop at an intersection are the same as foot traffic: if that intersection is currently controlled by a red light or a stop sign. Incidentally, these are the same rules vehicular traffic must abide in the street.
I think cycling in the street offers a big benefit if cyclists can not act like shitheads and hug the right side of the street and motorists can give them a little leeway. It makes our streets more efficient.
I think it’s suicidal to bike in any street going faster than 30mph. And while vehicular traffic yielding properly to cycling or pedestrian traffic is a nice pipe dream, the reality is there is no amount of right-of-way to un-hit you with a car, and (combined with the ability to stop or change direction much more easily than a car) one should make consideration if such.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo