4.6 Article

Helmet Use Among Personal Bicycle Riders and Bike Share Users in Vancouver, BC

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 465-472

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.04.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Population Health Intervention Research Grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research [120515]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Public bike share users have low prevalence of helmet use, and few public bike share systems make helmets available. In summer 2016, a public bike share system launched in Vancouver, BC. Each bicycle is equipped with a free helmet, in response to BC's all-ages compulsory helmet law. This study assessed the prevalence of helmet use among adult cyclists on personal and public bicycles in Vancouver. Methods: A survey of adult cyclists (age estimated at >= 16 years) at five screen line sites and at 15 public bike share docking stations was conducted. Observations were made on fair weather days in 2016. Observers recorded the gender of the rider, bicycle type, helmet use, and helmet type. In 2016, multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of helmet use by personal and trip characteristics. Results: Observers conducted 87.5 hours of observation and recorded 11,101 cyclists. They observed 10,704 (96.4%) cyclists on personal bicycles and 397 (3.6%) public bicycle users. Overall, the prevalence of helmet use was 78.1% (n=8,670/11,101), higher for personal bicycle riders (78.6%, n=8,416/10,704) than bike share users (64.0%, n=254/397). Helmet use was associated with gender, bicycle facility type, and day and time of travel. Conclusions: In a city with all-ages helmet legislation, helmet use is high but differs across infrastructure types and cyclist characteristics. Bike share systems could increase helmet use by providing complementary helmets coupled with supportive measures. (C) 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据