Police and local authorities have welcomed government plans to make helmets compulsory for under-18s on e-bikes and fatbikes from 2027, but cycling organisations say the measure misses the point.

Caretaker infrastructure minister Robert Tieman told MPs in a briefing on Thursday that the outgoing cabinet is preparing legislation that will be sent to MPs in autumn 2026.

Police traffic officer Frits Lindeman told broadcaster NOS that helmets were easy to enforce when compared with technical rules covering bikes which have been souped up to go faster. “And a helmet can prevent brain injury,” he said.

Local councils also back the move. The local government association VNG told NOS councils are sometimes struggling to dealing with growing safety risks from fatbikes.

And Amsterdam traffic chief Melanie van der Horst said she was glad that action is being taken “after years of campaigning”.

Road safety organisation VVN has also welcomed the plan as a “good first step” but said again the helmet requirement should be extended to all e-bike users.

A spokesman also told RTL Nieuws that the move could discourage some youngsters from using fatbikes altogether, as happened when helmets were introduced for all categories of mopeds.

Cycling organisations, however, argue the new law targets the wrong problem. The RAI association, BOVAG, ANWB and campaign group Fietsersbond said in a joint statement that accidents are mainly caused by tampering with bikes, illegal imports and reckless riding.

“The real issues are not being tackled,” they said. They also warned that compulsory helmets would discourage cycling, pointing to I&O research figures showing a majority of Dutch people oppose such a rule.

The groups want stricter checks on illegal and modified bikes and stronger enforcement on the street.

MPs had called for a distinction to be made between fatbikes and other e-bikes, but the infrastructure ministry said this is legally unworkable. Setting a minimum age for fatbike riders would also be more complex and take years longer than introducing compulsory helmets, legal experts say.