Bicycle Injury Interventions

Miscellaneous Interventions


Interventions that cannot be categorized in any of the previous categories, or are the only example of that intervention are included in this section. The first study reviewed for this summary examines the effectiveness of a community intervention in increasing the use of bicycle lights, while the second study examines a riding behavior intervention in a school setting.

Review of miscellaneous intervention studies:


Ferguson et al., 1991

Study design and target population

Non-equivalent control group study

Night cyclists at three sites in Christchurch, NZ, between May 26 and August 22, 1986.


Community-based intervention promoting use of cycle lights (poster displays, educational pamphlets, prize giveaway).


Observed bicycle light use on riders and by examination of parked cycles.


No change in rates of lights used during any portion of the study.

Study quality and conclusions

Promotion campaign had no effect on increasing bicycle light use.

"Parked cycles" data probably underestimates true proportion of riders using lights if those lights are mounted on backpacks.

Winter season may preclude any effect of campaign.


van Schagen et al., 1994

Study design and target population

Non-equivalent control group study

Children 8-9 in two schools in the Netherlands (time of study not indicated) (n=49).


School-based behavioral interventions, one group using imitation (termed ‘modeling’ group) of a bicyclist riding with proper rules and one group being informed of safe and unsafe actions’ consequences (termed ‘ACT’ group). A third group received no intervention.


Written knowledge test and behavioral riding test at a simulated traffic training ground (one pretest, one during intervention, and two post-tests).

Priority decisions (e.g., when to stop, where to look before proceeding at an intersection, correct signaling) assessed also at traffic training ground.


Knowledge test: interventions marginally better from control group (t=1.87, p=0.07), and ACT group significantly better than modeling group (t=3.48, p<0.001).

Behavior test:

Control group significantly worse than either intervention group (t=2.3, p=0.04). No difference between two interventions.

Increase in knowledge test among ACT group dissipated after one month.

Study quality and conclusions

The interventions increase knowledge of safety rules and use of proper riding skills, but are equivalent as long-term interventions.

No effect of interventions seen on priority decisions.

Rather vague descriptions of specifics of two intervention groups. Small number of children in each group.

Summary of miscellaneous interventions

It remains unclear whether an intervention to promote cycle lights can be effective, not to mention the actual effectiveness of cycle lights themselves.

Interventions of riding behavior seem to be effective short-term only. No effects of the interventions were seen on children’s decision making.

Recommendations on effectiveness of miscellaneous interventions

No recommendations can be made at this time on cycle. However, it seems intuitive that cycle lights should decrease collisions between bicycles.

Because children’s riding behavior is resistant to change, intervention focus should be placed on wearing bicycle helmets.

Recommendations for future research

A randomized controlled study might be conducted that examined the effect of bicycle lights on accident rates, where a group of cyclists is randomized either to receive a bicycle light or not to receive one. An intention-to-treat analysis would be able to determine whether cycle lights are effective in reducing collisions, particularly between motor vehicles and bicycles.