 |
Bicycle Injury Interventions
Miscellaneous Interventions
Background
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:
Author | 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. |
Intervention | Community-based intervention promoting
use of cycle lights (poster displays, educational pamphlets, prize giveaway). |
Outcomes | Observed bicycle light use on riders
and by examination of parked cycles. |
Results | 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. |
Author | 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). |
Intervention | 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. |
Outcomes | 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. |
Results | 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.
^ Back to Top
| |
| 
| 