Kay Teschke is concerned that this correction gets out: “Eric Jaffe reports very clearly on an very important error in information that was published last week suggesting bike share systems increase head injuries when the opposite was the case.”
Head Injuries Didn’t Rise in Bike-Share Cities. They Actually Fell
In fact, head injuries declined about 14 percent after cities started bike-sharing programs.
Late last week, several media outlets ran stories on a study published in the American Journal of Public Health that allegedly showed head injuries increasing in cities with bike-share programs. Kay Teschke, who studies city cycling at the University of British Columbia, read the news with great interest. Then she read the actual journal publication, and her interest changed to alarm.
“When I actually looked at the data, I thought, oh my goodness, the injuries actually went down,” she says. “In the bike-share cities, the total number of injuries went down, and the number of head injuries went down.” …
(The technical data is then reported.)
… now what do we know? Well, first, that head injuries did increase as a proportion of total injuries in bike-share cities after program implementation, and second, that aggregate annual injuries declined in bike-share cities even as they remained about the same in non-bike-share cities.
The AJPH paper failed to mention the second and arguably more crucial point. So rather than conclude that bike-share systems might be increasing rider safety, the researchers argued that bike-share systems might improve head safety by offering helmets. In that sense, they seemed to miss the forest for the trees.
Full article here.
I think bike share riders are generally safer. They’re tourists that stick to seperated bike lanes. Or, they’re office workers doing short lunch trips. They’re not aggressive couriers nor long distance, road sharing, commuters. So, it doesn’t surprise me that bike share riders are bringing down the injury rate.
I agree: relatively cautious bike share riders would likely bring down the injury rate. But the article’s claim is not about the rate of injuries: it is about absolute number. This means that injuries among non-bike sharers declined after the introduction of sharing. (The only alternative explanation, that the introduction of bike sharing coincided with a decline in non-bike share ridership, seems unlikely.)
This result bolsters the claim that there is safety in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the safer cycling becomes. By this logic, measures that deter ridership make cycling more dangerous: an argument that could be applied equally to mandatory helmet laws and to licensing.
Myself, I haven’t owned a bike in two decades. I live in Burnaby; cycling here appears suicidal or at least extremely unpleasant. If the infrastructure existed I would prefer to bicycle for short trips. I drive just about everywhere. I hate driving.
I’m both not surprised that an activity that’s inherently safe has few injuries. I’m also not surprised that a media that in which the auto and oil industries are major advertisers in turned the facts around to add to the myth of it somehow being dangerous.
It seems the more we look into just how they were brought in without any evidence, it looks like the main reason for mandatory helmet laws is to sell cars.
hm, the media is question is NPR, and does run advertising.
helmet laws certainly add to the myth and their most vocal supporter in Vancouver are at city hall (auto and oil industries are doing nothing at least nothing more than the local cycle associations which are widely complacent when come the helmet law).
A few years ago there was a movement to have local newspapers reject advertising from the automobile industry. The papers replied that without those ads they’d have to shut down. Do you really think the media is going to say negative things about cars when their very existence depends on them?
Every morning and afternoon I see cyclists in or near the Hornby bike lane without helmets. They know they’re safe in that environment and see no good reason to wear a chunk of foam and plastic on their heads.
When I was 20 years old I did the same thing. I’d been riding a bike since I was 4 and could confidently navigate the 1 inch of concrete separating the roadway from the drain if a driver decided that I wasn’t allowed in “their” lane as happened quite a few mornings on the way to UBC.
I’ve read a lot of articles arguing both sides of the law and don’t think there’s any good reason to legislate helmet use and several good reasons not to.
I choose to wear a helmet. I have my reasons. If you choose not to wear one that’s fine with me.