73% of deaths come from cars hitting bicycles, not from cyclists falling
In Portugal, a debate over who bears the burden of road safety has surfaced through a cycling advocacy group's rejection of proposed rules requiring helmets and reflective gear for electric bicycle users. MUBi's challenge to the Social Democratic Party's proposal is not merely technical — it is a question of moral architecture: when danger flows overwhelmingly from one class of road user toward another, which party should be asked to change? The group's position, grounded in fatality data and international precedent, invites Portugal to reconsider whether compliance measures imposed on the vulnerable can ever substitute for the structural reforms that protect them.
- Three out of four cyclist and scooter deaths between 2020 and 2022 were caused by motor vehicles — yet the proposed law asks cyclists, not drivers, to change their behavior.
- MUBi warns that mandatory helmet laws, as seen in Australia and New Zealand, don't just inconvenience riders — they drive people off bikes entirely, threatening shared systems like Lisbon's GIRA.
- The e-bike speed argument used to justify the rules collapses under scrutiny: electric assist is legally capped at 25 km/h, making these machines no faster than a fit commuter on a standard bicycle.
- Portugal's interior ministry is already leading a broader road code reform, and MUBi is pressing hard to ensure that process is shaped by evidence, expert input, and civil society — not reactive compliance politics.
- The group is pushing for a Safe System framework: 30 km/h urban speed limits, proportional driver accountability, and infrastructure investment — the proven formula behind Europe's safest and most cycle-friendly cities.
Portugal's cycling advocacy group MUBi has issued a sharp rebuke of a Social Democratic Party proposal that would require electric bicycle users to wear helmets and reflective clothing. The group's objection goes beyond the specific rules — it challenges the underlying logic of placing road safety responsibility on cyclists rather than on the motorists whose vehicles are doing the killing.
The data MUBi cites is difficult to argue with: between 2020 and 2022, Portugal's National Road Safety Authority recorded that 73 percent of cyclist and scooter fatalities resulted from collisions with motor vehicles, with cars involved in 84 percent of those cases. If the goal is to reduce deaths, MUBi argues, the intervention should target the source of danger — not ask the most vulnerable road users to absorb it more gracefully.
The group also raises a practical warning drawn from international experience. When Australia and New Zealand made helmets compulsory, cycling rates fell noticeably, especially among younger riders. Portugal risks the same outcome, potentially undermining shared bike schemes like Lisbon's GIRA, which depend on spontaneous, frictionless use. A bike-share system cannot function if every ride requires personal safety equipment.
MUBi is calling on the PSD to withdraw the proposal and redirect its energy toward the interior ministry's ongoing road code reform. The measures the group advocates — 30 km/h urban speed limits, clearer proportional liability for drivers, and sustained infrastructure investment — reflect what traffic safety experts call the Safe System approach, and what the best-performing cycling nations in Europe have already put into practice. Portugal, MUBi suggests, should follow the evidence rather than the instinct to regulate the rider.
Portugal's cycling advocacy group MUBi has pushed back hard against a proposal from the Social Democratic Party to require helmets and reflective clothing for electric bicycle users, arguing the measures represent a fundamental misreading of where road danger actually comes from.
The group released a statement this week rejecting what it calls "misaligned and disproportionate" rules that would shift responsibility for road safety away from motorists and onto the cyclists themselves. The specific target is e-bikes—bicycles with electric assist that are capped by law at 25 kilometers per hour. MUBi's objection cuts deeper than just the helmet rule; it's about how Portugal approaches the question of who bears the burden when people share the road.
The numbers tell a stark story. Between 2020 and 2022, according to Portugal's National Road Safety Authority, 73 percent of deaths involving cyclists and scooter riders came from collisions with motor vehicles. Of those collisions, 84 percent involved cars. This is the baseline fact: the danger comes overwhelmingly from cars hitting bicycles, not from bicycles failing to wear helmets. MUBi's argument is that if you want to reduce deaths, you address the thing that's actually killing people.
The group points to what traffic safety experts call the "Safe System" approach—a framework that treats road danger as a systemic problem requiring solutions at multiple levels: better infrastructure design, lower speed limits in cities, and stricter accountability for drivers. This is the opposite of placing the onus on the most vulnerable road users to protect themselves. It's the difference between saying "wear a helmet" and saying "we're going to redesign this intersection so cars can't hit you in the first place."
There's also a practical concern. Mandatory helmet laws have been tried elsewhere, and the results are instructive. In Australia and New Zealand, making helmets compulsory led to measurable drops in bicycle use, particularly among young people. If Portugal adopts similar rules, MUBi warns, it could hollow out the country's shared bike systems—like GIRA in Lisbon—which depend on casual, low-friction access. You can't run a bike-share program if every user has to carry a helmet.
On the specific claim that e-bikes are inherently riskier because of speed, MUBi notes the legal reality: electric assist cuts out at 25 kilometers per hour. Beyond that, it's pure human power. The speed argument, the group suggests, doesn't hold water. What matters is what's hitting you, not how fast you're going when it does.
MUBi is calling on the PSD to withdraw the proposal and instead engage in a broader conversation about road code reform—one that's being led by Portugal's interior ministry. The group wants that conversation grounded in evidence, international best practice, and input from civil society and experts. The measures it's advocating for are different: urban speed limits of 30 kilometers per hour, clearer rules about proportional responsibility among different road users, and sustained investment in safe infrastructure. These are the things that work in European countries with the best safety records and the highest cycling rates. The question now is whether Portugal will listen.
Notable Quotes
The proposals are misaligned and disproportionate, shifting road risk responsibility from motorists to vulnerable cyclists rather than addressing systemic infrastructure and driver behavior— MUBi (Associação pela Mobilidade Urbana em Bicicleta)
Safe System approaches treat road danger systematically through infrastructure design, speed reduction, and driver accountability—not by placing the burden on vulnerable road users— MUBi
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does MUBi think a helmet requirement is the wrong response to bicycle deaths?
Because 73 percent of those deaths come from cars hitting bicycles, not from cyclists falling. If you make helmets mandatory, you're essentially telling the person on the bike that their safety is their problem—when the actual problem is a car driver.
But wouldn't a helmet help in those collisions anyway?
Maybe in some cases, yes. But that's not the point. The point is that you're treating the symptom, not the disease. You're saying to vulnerable road users: protect yourselves better. You're not saying to car drivers: drive more carefully, or to cities: redesign your streets so this doesn't happen.
What happens if Portugal passes this rule?
MUBi points to Australia and New Zealand. When they made helmets mandatory, fewer people rode bikes. Fewer people means less political will to build bike infrastructure, which means the roads stay car-dominated, which means the danger never actually decreases.
What about shared bike systems like GIRA?
They collapse. If every casual user has to have a helmet, the friction goes up. People stop using them. The whole point of a bike-share is that you grab a bike and go. You can't do that if you need equipment.
So what does MUBi actually want instead?
They want what works in the safest European cities: lower speed limits in urban areas, better infrastructure, and rules that hold drivers accountable. They want the road code reform to be based on evidence, not on shifting blame to cyclists.
Is there any legitimate safety argument for the helmet rule?
Not one that MUBi finds convincing. E-bikes are capped at 25 kilometers per hour by law. Beyond that, it's human power. The speed argument doesn't apply. The real issue is the cars.