« Palisades Trail Meeting tonight | Main | Graphic from my bank »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Excellent points.

The best thing bikeshare has done is remove the helmets.

back in the dark ages (5 years ago?) I would get yelled at by other bikers for not wearing a helmet. Now the helmet people have been chased out.

if you are biking fast enough in a city to hurt your head you're doing it wrong.

Bikeshare has brought some bad behavior -- too much riding abreast, increase in salmoning (especially on bike lanes) and not using stop signs.

But the strangest is the guy who comes to an intersection, doesn't slow down, then takes the crosswalk rather than going straight. Inexplicable.

IN terms of the study, my other concern is the small sample size of injuries. In DC, how many "Bike trauma" incidents are there on a regular basis.

i wrote to Dr Graves and the journal, requesting that they either revise DC data for the correct dates, or deleted DC and its "control" (NYC?) from the study altogether. Here's a bar graph of first-year CaBi usage https://twitter.com/bikepedantic/status/480361172747943936/photo/1 , showing that 61% of all first-year rides (and thus, exposure) took place in the months that they omitted from the "after implementation" analysis. No telling how much DC data error impacts the aggregate data, but IMHO that's all the more reason to fix it.

There's such a thing as biking too fast in the City?

Damn. I've been doing it wrong for 30 years now.

I hope you submitted your letter to the American Journal of Public Health. You might also suggest that their peer reviewers did a poor job on this paper -- I would never have recommended publication of a paper with so many unsupported points and such a weak analysis -- and that perhaps they should have contacted a cycling expert or two as part of peer review on papers with a unique subject matter.

I suspect what happened with this paper is that the peer reviewers were epidemiologists and CDC types, not people familiar with exercise-based health promotion and its pros and cons in full context.

Any exercise activity has risk of injury, but the risks of inactivity are much higher in my opinion.

If you are not biking fast enough in a city to hurt your head, you are doing it wrong.

Ok, not really, but it's no more illegitimate a statement than its opposite.

The real benefit of bike share, which I think this study supports, is that more cyclists means more safety, period - IE critical mass. More cyclists means more visibility - and it means more drives who have ridden (I imagine a lot of bike share users are also drivers.) So the best strategy for change is simply to get more people of all kinds on bikes - fast riders and slow riders, commuters and weekend warriors, helmet wearers and non-wearers, Idaho stoppers and Idaho disdainers, VCers and gutter bunnies and cycle track lovers.

Graves acknowledged to you that her research is a starting point. If so, then why does she make unsupported recommendations regarding policy? I think its right for you to pressure her on this.

"...the controversial results of Thompson's studies..."

You are being too kind to Thompson. According to the linked article Thompson's results were removed from the CDC website because they do not meet the standards of the federal Data Quality Act, which basically states that known-to-be-incorrect data cannot appear on federal web sites.

The helmet people have been chased out?

I can understand not wanting to be "yelled at" (really? actual yelling?) for not wearing one, but it's not a war between people with foam on their heads and people without.

I've had people yell about me not having a helmet too, but not the last couple of years. Could be luck, could be the bikeshare, who knows. He probably only meant "yell" in the sense that they were loud so as to be heard, not that they were especially angry.

It's telling that Graves was careful not to make conclusions based on not to make conclusions on whether total injuries went up or down, but despite this lack of basic data she felt totally fine making broad policy recommendations and working to publicize her conclusions. Self-serving shaky science and worse policy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader