Bicycling is a popular activity that individuals and especially children overindulge. Unfortunately, there is public concern regarding this activity due to a high number of injuries that are associated with high levels of hospitalization. 35% to 40% of pediatric head injuries are attributed to bicycling. Also, poor bicycling procedures have led to increased traumatic brain injury and death. Bicycle safety and helmet is an imperative topic to nursing practice because it helps in the development of effective strategies to promote helmet use. Past research has indicated that all bicycle users do not uniformly use the helmets. Hence, in order to prevent preventable injuries that tend to overwhelm the healthcare system, nurses can use the evidence on the effectiveness of helmet use to plan for campaigns aiming to alleviate the situation (Macpherson & Spinks, 2008). A review by Thompson (cited in Macpherson & Spinks, 2008) indicates that 88% of head injuries and 65% of facial injuries can be reduced by the use of helmets among cyclists regardless of age. Identifying effective strategies in bike safety and reduction of bicycling-associated injuries will enable nurses to integrate these strategies in their practice; thereby, offer evidence-based interventions. SRRs are the best sources of evidence like the one reviewed herein because the studies included rigorous methodologies (Garg, Hackam, & Tonelli, 2008). Studies for inclusion in this review were obtained from reputable databases, such as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Injuries Group, EMBASE, CINAHL, and TRANSPORT. Also, government websites and references used in the selected publications were included in this review. The studies used in this review were experimental studies that aim to establish an absolute cause and effect relationship. Hence, these studies were of high rigor. In addition, their methodological approach affirms this strong rigor because studies included in this SRR had to be:  1. Cluster randomized controlled trials.  2. Interrupted time series analysis with concurrent comparison groups.  3. Controlled before-after study. In accordance with the recommendations by Abalos, Carroli, Mackey, and Bergel (2001), this review articulately stated its study participants, types of interventions and expected outcomes, as well as the methods used to identify the studies. The inclusion criterion of the studies to be involved in the SRR depicts evidence of high level because there is inclusion of at least one well-designed Randomized Controlled Trial as mentioned by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (2016). However, the levels of evidence of the different types of studies based on the inclusion criterion are varied. The cluster randomized controlled trials fall in level II. In reference to a study by Grijalva et al. (2007), a time series analysis is a type of quasi-experimental study whose rigor of evidence is at level III. Controlled pre-post/before-after study is also a quasi-experimental study with level III kind of evidence. Unfortunately, the actual review did not identify any RCT, thus only quasi-experimental designs were used in the SRR and the evidence was of level III. The studies included in the SRR have been described in a systematic manner. Initially, a brief description of the different studies in reference to the problem, hypothesis, methodology, adequacy of the sample size on