5 ms·

Another problematic bias from the article: "Respondents stating that they used an e-bike were categorized as e-bikers, independent of whether they also used a c

Another problematic bias from the article: "Respondents stating that they used an e-bike were categorized as e-bikers, independent of whether they also used a conventional bicycle." So, since belonging to a group of bicycle use (leisure, sports, commute) is additive in the amount of exercise one receives, the e-bike group is automatically larger than the non-e-bike group. How does this pass peer review?

overkalix 7y ago
Actually, even though the authors classified as e-bikers those that combine both modes of transportation, the sample they end up with is: - 365 e-bikers (2/3 of them from Antwerp and Zürich, only 20 from Barcelona, only 5 from London, only 18 from Örebro). - 7212 cyclists. - 1758 non-cyclists. There are other things far more eyebrow-raising than the skewed sample. > Categorical travel frequency data was converted into an average number of days per month. > Trip distance was derived by selecting the fastest route returned by the Google Maps API > Distances for multimodal trips were assigned to the main mode using the following hierarchy: public transport, car, e-bike, bicycle, walking > Physical activity from active travel modes was almost the same in e-bikers and cyclists (1735 vs. 1656 MET min/wk., respectively)