Purpose: Six million people use crutches as mobile aids in the US. Rigid designs with no axial mobility limit sensory feedback and lead to secondary injury on the upper joints. Spring-loaded designs offer compliance but may compromise stability. We designed a biologically inspired tensegrity crutch with a compliant module aiming to achieve favorable mechanical properties. The terminal module was a pre-stressed self-tensile two-cell tensegrity structure. We compared the tensegrity crutch to commercial rigid and spring-loaded crutches in mechanical tests using axial loading, in overground straight and turning walking, and in participant experience. Methods: In human trials, healthy young adults (N=18) with no recent lower-body injury performed straight walking and turning trials at a comfortable self-selected pace. A knee blocker simulated unilateral injury of the dominant leg. After using each type of crutch, participants reported their perceived levels of effort, comfort, pain, stability, and usability. Results: Compared to the rigid design, both spring-loaded and tensegrity conditions reduced peak loading rates. The tensegrity design improved effort, comfort, pain, and usability. Spring-loaded crutches reduced perceived stability and walking speed. Conclusion: The biologically inspired tensegrity crutches were an overall improvement to existing designs. Simulations and mechanical testing suggest that nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, and force feedback are among the beneficial mechanical properties that underlie this improvement.