Always a favourite bit of bait. Ken Ohrn thanks Kay Teschke for the link: “A solid read for those who like rigor and research. It debunks a recent alarmist report that claims bike-share systems are awfully dangerous.”
From The Conversation:
Hard Evidence: do bikeshare schemes lead to more head injuries among cyclists?
.
… the users of these bike hire schemes are less likely to wear helmets, high-visibility clothing or specialist cycling Lycra than people riding their own bikes. We’ve argued this is a good thing, as it helps normalise the image of cycling away from a specialist past-time, reducing the perception that riding a bicycle is a risky activity or only for super-sporty people.
But a recent study by Janessa Graves and colleagues published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that there was a link between the introduction of bikesharing schemes in North American cities and the risk of bicycle-related head injuries. So it was argued that helmets should be incorporated into the schemes as standard from the outset.
We suggest that these concerns are misplaced, and agree with the many other commentators who have argued that the study’s data don’t justify the authors’ conclusions. In fact, the paper’s data could be reasonably interpreted to argue the opposite – that the take-up of bikesharing schemes leads to lower risk of injury. …
What this study does tell us fits with the possibility that injury risks may actually be lower when using hire bikes, and that the introduction of these schemes may go hand-in-hand with a general lowering of risk. So for now, calls for bikesharing schemes (or all cyclists) to require helmets are not supported by the evidence available.
.
So how is the bike share program dealing with the renegade cyclists, the likes of which caused the horrific accident on the Stanley Park Seawall, which gave all cyclists a black eye?
lol
WHEN WILL ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 300 DEATHS OF CAR PASSENGERS THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN BC?????
(which also gives all drivers a black eye)
How will Pacific Flying Club, which rents lovingly maintained Cessna aircraft to its members, take responsibility for some unfortunate soul who piles into a field in a homebuilt aircraft?
Ah! another peer reviewed article.
So A couple of media outlets (Washington Post, NPR,..) use it to generate wrongly alarmist headlines.
The journalists are not to be blamed too much for that: they are not epidemiologists and just reported what some unscrupulous researchers told to them: “Risk of head injury among cyclists increased 14 percent after implementation of bike-share programs in several major cities according to a new study from the University of Washington and Washington State University” which has been published after been peer reviewed in the American Journal of Public Health (How to argue against that?).
However The journalists are to be blamed to not bringing appropriate correction to their original paper, in face of evidence of misrepresentation of the facts as pointed by many on different social media..
The unscrupulous researchers could be blamed for their lack of ethic ( the 14% increase in risk of head injury is such a blatant lie, it is not something they argue in the published paper…but still …) that said bad apples will ever exist…
In fact The main culprit to be blamed for what looks like a scientific fraud is the AJPH editor (Dr. Mary Northridge):
Such an article should have never been allowed to be published under such a form (the thrust of the article is at odd with the data and the conclusion misplaced, as also noticed by many including Kay Teschke)…clearly the paper has not been properly peer reviewed…
However, just the name of the authors should have already been sufficient to ring some alarm bells:
One of the co-author of the article is Frederick P. Rivara, considered by many as nothing more than a charlatan: In effect it is not stranger to deeply flawed studies and scientific controversies. (see for example http://crag.asn.au/1121 )
Considering the infamous record of the Rivara research team, the minimum of precaution to be taken by the Editor could have been to choose at least some reviewers showing more scrutinity ability than complacency.
To be sure, flawed studies are not the exclusivity of bike helmet lobbyists (thought they could hold the golden palm)…but they seem to touch all research surrounding bike issues as we have seen before…