That's a really good alternate hypothesis to explain the correlation--and one I hadn't thought of. The best way I can think to reject the risk-aversion hypothe

That's a really good alternate hypothesis to explain the correlation--and one I hadn't thought of. The best way I can think to reject the risk-aversion hypothesis (without doing a RCT) would be to see a time-lag. If accident rates drop after ridership increases, that would suggest it's not risk-adverse people coming in later, whereas if ridership increases lead the rate drop, that would indicate that it's not a risk-tolerance thing. On the other hand, ridership increase proceeding accident rate dropping might need to account for newer riders being less experienced. I've read/read about other studies that found the same thing as this one, but I'm having trouble finding them right now. I found [0], but the methodology doesn't look like it would address the risk-aversion hypothesis. Personally, I think we should encourage cycling even if it doesn't lower accident rates, but evidence of improved safety makes it a more rational choice for urban planners. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actually-cyclists-make-city-streets-safer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actua...