ABSTRACT
Introduction: Bicycling has individual and collective health benefits. Safety concerns are a deterrent to bicycling. Incomplete data on bicycling volumes has limited epidemiologic research investigating safety impacts of bicycle infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes. Methods: In this case-control study, set in Atlanta, Georgia, USA between 2016-10-01 and 2018-08-31, we estimated the incidence rate of police-reported crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles (n = 124) on several types of infrastructure (off-street paved trails, protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, conventional bike lanes, and sharrows) per distance ridden and per intersection entered. To estimate underlying bicycling (the control series), we used a sample of high-resolution bicycling data from Strava, an app, combined with data from 15 on-the-ground bicycle counters to adjust for possible selection bias in the Strava data. We used model-based standardization to estimate effects of treatment on the treated. Results: After adjustment for selection bias and confounding, estimated ratio effects on segments (excluding intersections) with protected bike lanes (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.5 [95% confidence interval: 0.0, 2.5]) and buffered bike lanes (IRR = 0 [0,0]) were below 1, but were above 1 on conventional bike lanes (IRR = 2.8 [1.2, 6.0]) and near null on sharrows (IRR = 1.1 [0.2, 2.9]). Per intersection entry, estimated ratio effects were above 1 for entries originating from protected bike lanes (incidence proportion ratio [IPR] = 3.0 [0.0, 10.8]), buffered bike lanes (IPR = 16.2 [0.0, 53.1]), and conventional bike lanes (IPR = 3.2 [1.8, 6.0]), and were near 1 and below 1, respectively, for those originating from sharrows (IPR = 0.9 [0.2, 2.1]) and off-street paved trails (IPR = 0.7 [0.0, 2.9]). Conclusions: Protected bike lanes and buffered bike lanes had estimated protective effects on segments between intersections but estimated harmful effects at intersections. Conventional bike lanes had estimated harmful effects along segments and at intersections.
ABSTRACT
Transient exposures are difficult to measure in epidemiologic studies, especially when both the status of being at risk for an outcome and the exposure change over time and space, as when measuring built-environment risk on transportation injury. Contemporary "big data" generated by mobile sensors can improve measurement of transient exposures. Exposure information generated by these devices typically only samples the experience of the target cohort, so a case-control framework may be useful. However, for anonymity, the data may not be available by individual, precluding a case-crossover approach. We present a method called at-risk-measure sampling. Its goal is to estimate the denominator of an incidence rate ratio (exposed to unexposed measure of the at-risk experience) given an aggregated summary of the at-risk measure from a cohort. Rather than sampling individuals or locations, the method samples the measure of the at-risk experience. Specifically, the method as presented samples person-distance and person-events summarized by location. It is illustrated with data from a mobile app used to record bicycling. The method extends an established case-control sampling principle: sample the at-risk experience of a cohort study such that the sampled exposure distribution approximates that of the cohort. It is distinct from density sampling in that the sample remains in the form of the at-risk measure, which may be continuous, such as person-time or person-distance. This aspect may be both logistically and statistically efficient if such a sample is already available, for example from big-data sources like aggregated mobile-sensor data.