You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 27, Issue 3
  • Assessing the impact of a local community subsidised rideshare programme on road traffic injuries: an evaluation of the Evesham Saving Lives programme

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Assessing the impact of a local community subsidised rideshare programme on road traffic injuries: an evaluation of the Evesham Saving Lives programme
  1. David K Humphreys1,
  2. Michelle Degli Esposti1,
  3. Frances M Williams2,
  4. Michelle C Kondo3,
  5. Christopher Morrison2,4
  1. 1Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
  2. 2Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3Independent Researcher, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr David K Humphreys, Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK; david.humphreys{at}spi.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Alcohol-related vehicle crashes pose a significant challenge to public health in suburban communities. The Evesham Saving Lives programme operated between late 2015 and 2019 in two townships (Evesham and Voorhees) in New Jersey. The programme subsidised rideshare (eg, Uber) trips from bars and restaurants between the hours of 21:00 and 02:00 to prevent alcohol-related traffic injuries.

Methods This study used data from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to examine changes to rates of injury crashes between 2010 and 2018. We used an ecological difference-in-difference design with Bayesian conditional autoregressive Poisson models to compare rates of injury crashes between participating municipalities (n=2) and non-participating municipalities (n=75). Sensitivity analyses included comparison with a weighted synthetic control series.

Results The Evesham Saving Lives programme was associated with 18% fewer injury crashes overall (IRR=0.82, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.76, 0.88). Reductions in crashes were estimated to be greatest at night (IRR=0.62, 95% CrI: 0.48, 0.79), with moderate reductions in the afternoon (IRR=0.80, 95% CrI: 0.72, 0.88). We estimate that around three lives were saved (95% CrI: 2, 5) and around 371 injuries were prevented (95% CrI: 204, 625), potentially making considerable savings in terms of medical and economic expenses.

Conclusions These findings support the claim that improving the convenience and reducing the costs of alternative night-time transportation can prevent road traffic injuries. Future studies should aim to replicate these analyses in programmes that have been implemented in other suburban communities across the US.

  • public health
  • regulation
  • motor vehicle occupant
  • rural
  • alcohol
  • programme evaluation

Data availability statement

Data used in this study can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043728

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data used in this study can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @DKHumphreys

    • Contributors DKH and CM conceived of the study. Data collection was undertaken by all authors. Analysis was led by CM, MDE and FMW. DKH and CM wrote the manuscript, with significant contributions from MDE, FMW and MCK. All authors read and edited the manuscript prior to submission.

    • Funding This study received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49CE003094) and the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health (K01AA026327).

    • Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on the map(s) in this article do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. The map(s) are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.