10 Cycling Myths, Sorted by What the Evidence Supports

Most of the ten claims below are false, overstated or only half true as usually stated, and two depend on where you ride. Myths 5, 6, 7 and 9 rest on published research, law or official statistics, linked at the end. Myths 1 to 4, 8 and 10 are editorial guidance, and each says so.

At a glance

Ten cycling myths and the verdict on each.

Claim	Verdict
1. You need Lycra to ride properly	False
2. Heavier riders need softer saddles	Misleading: shape and fit matter more than softness
3. A higher saddle is always more efficient	Misleading: there is a range, and both ends cause problems
4. Cycling damages your knees	Mostly false; poor fit is the usual culprit
5. E-bikes are cheating	Not supported: assisted riding is still real exercise
6. Always ride in the gutter	False as a rule
7. Helmets do not help	False for crash injury protection
8. You need a different bike for every kind of riding	Overstated
9. Cycling is too dangerous	Rates are low and falling in Great Britain, but risk is not zero and depends on the measure
10. Expensive bikes are much faster	Overstated: the rider usually matters more than the price tag

1. “You need Lycra to ride properly”

Verdict: false. Basis: editorial guidance, plus Highway Code Rule 59. No clothing is required to ride a bicycle. Close-fitting stretch fabric is popular for longer rides because it avoids loose cloth flapping and seams rubbing, and padded shorts add cushioning at the contact points. For a short, easy trip, ordinary clothes work. The practical limits are physical: Rule 59 of the UK Highway Code advises avoiding clothes that may get tangled in the chain or a wheel, so loose trouser legs are worth securing, and wet or cold weather calls for suitable layers. See our guide to cold-weather layering if you ride year-round.

2. “Heavier people need softer saddles”

Verdict: misleading. Basis: editorial guidance; we cite no study on saddle softness. The popular version of this myth is that more body weight means you need more squish. In practice, what matters is whether the saddle supports your sit bones (the bony points at the base of your pelvis) at the right width and shape, and whether your position on the bike puts your weight on the saddle or on the pedals and bars. Very soft saddles can feel good for a few minutes and then let you sink onto soft tissue, so softer is not automatically more comfortable. Comfort is individual, and the only reliable test is riding. Our guide to choosing a saddle covers width and shape, and bike fit covers how position shifts load.

If you have numbness, pain or sores that persist, stop riding that setup and talk to a clinician or a qualified bike fitter rather than just buying a thicker pad.

3. “A higher saddle is always more efficient”

Verdict: misleading. Basis: editorial guidance; published fitting methods give different numbers, so we cite none. “Higher is better” is wrong because a saddle can be too high as well as too low: the right height is a range that depends on your body and your pedaling, and you find it by adjusting in small steps and noticing where discomfort appears. For the actual method, use how to adjust your saddle height. Tighten the seatpost clamp to the torque marked on the part or given by its manufacturer, and keep the post below its minimum-insertion line.

4. “Cycling damages your knees”

Verdict: mostly false as a blanket claim. Basis: editorial guidance; we found no primary source quantifying how often bike setup causes knee pain, so no figure is given. Knee pain on the bike is often linked to setup (saddle height, cleat position, crank length) or to doing too much too soon, which is fixable. If pain is persistent, sharp, or comes with swelling, stop and see a doctor or physical therapist; do not ride through it.

5. “E-bikes are cheating”

Verdict: not supported. A 2018 systematic review (Bourne and colleagues) of 17 studies (11 acute experiments, 6 longitudinal interventions; 300 participants in total) found moderate evidence that riding an e-bike gives physical activity of at least moderate intensity, lower than conventional cycling but higher than walking, and moderate evidence that it can improve cardiorespiratory fitness in inactive people. The authors also rated the longitudinal studies as weak in design and quality, and found the evidence for metabolic and psychological outcomes inconclusive. So “e-bike riders get more exercise than non-cyclists” is not something this review establishes; what it supports is that assisted riding is real exercise. Whether it is “cheating” depends on what you think riding is for. For what e-bikes can legally do, see e-bike laws in the US, UK and EU.

6. “You should always ride in the gutter”

Verdict: false as a rule. Note: the first paragraph below is UK law and does not apply in the US; the second covers California. Hugging the edge has real downsides: it is where debris and drain covers collect, and it can invite passes in a lane too narrow to pass safely. Official guidance reflects this, though it comes from the UK and the US rule differs. UK Highway Code Rule 72 says to ride in the center of your lane to be clearly visible on quiet roads (moving left if a faster vehicle comes up behind), in slower-moving traffic (moving left when traffic ahead flows more freely), and at junctions and narrowings where drivers could not safely overtake. On busy roads with faster vehicles, it says to allow them to overtake where safe while keeping at least 0.5 meters, and further where safer, from the curb edge. Rule 67 advises leaving a door’s width or 1 meter when passing parked vehicles.

US law is different. California Vehicle Code 21202(a) requires a bicyclist moving slower than the normal flow of traffic to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge, with exceptions: overtaking another bicycle or vehicle, preparing for a left turn, approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, and when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge (including substandard-width lanes), the last one “subject to the provisions of Section 21656”. Section 21656 concerns slow vehicles holding up traffic, so the lane-position exception is not unlimited. Other states differ; check your own state’s vehicle code before relying on any general advice. Our basic rules of cycling on roads covers road positioning in more depth.

7. “Helmets don’t actually help”

Verdict: false for crash injury protection. The Cochrane review of helmets (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson) found that helmets reduced the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury by 63% to 88% across all ages of cyclists. In crashes involving motor vehicles the reduction was 69%, against 68% for crashes from other causes. For the face, upper and mid-face injuries fell by 65%; helmets did not prevent lower-face injuries. Two limits matter: the review was first published in 1999 (searches last updated in 2006), and it is observational, because it found no randomized trials and included five case-control studies. Whether to make helmets mandatory is a separate policy question with its own research. A helmet does not prevent crashes, and it must fit and be fastened properly; Highway Code Rule 59 says to wear one that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and is securely fastened. See how helmets work and helmets under $100. Replace a helmet after any significant impact, following the manufacturer’s guidance.

8. “You need a specialist bike for each type of riding”

Verdict: overstated. Basis: editorial guidance. A sensible all-round bike covers a lot of ground, and many riders never need more. Specialist bikes do exist for good reasons: tire clearance, gearing and geometry suit particular terrain, and a hybrid is not ideal for rough trails or racing. The honest answer is to buy for the riding you actually do now, and add a second bike only when the first clearly limits you. Start with road, hybrid or mountain bike for a beginner.

9. “Cycling is too dangerous”

Verdict: the risk is real but small per mile, and falling. The best official data we could open is for Great Britain, not the US. The Department for Transport factsheet for 2023 records 87 pedal cyclist deaths in reported road collisions on 3.61 billion pedal-cycle vehicle miles, which works out to roughly 24 deaths per billion miles (our division of its figures). Between 2004 and 2023 the fatality rate per mile fell 53%, and 58% of cyclist deaths in 2019 to 2023 were on rural roads, which carry 31% of traffic. These are reported collisions only, and the factsheet warns that cyclists need not tell police about a collision, so serious injuries are undercounted. We do not compare this with driving, because the measure (per mile, per hour or per trip) changes the ranking and we have no like-for-like source. You can lower your own risk with visibility (commuter lights), sensible road positioning, a maintained bike (pre-ride checklist) and calmer routes (how to map a safe route).

10. “Expensive bikes are much faster”

Verdict: overstated. Basis: editorial guidance; we found no reliable source giving a speed gain per dollar, so we give no percentage. Price buys lighter parts, better components and sometimes better aerodynamics, so a pricier bike can be faster for the same rider, but the gap depends on the bikes, terrain and rider. For everyday riding, fit, tires and fitness usually matter at least as much. Spend first on fit, tires, brakes and lights.

Sources

Last reviewed: October 2026.