Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Differential impacts of ridesharing on alcohol-related crashes by socioeconomic municipalities: rate of technology adoption matters

Authors: Carola Blazquez, José Guillermo Cedeño Laurent, José Ignacio Nazif-Munoz

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

An emergent group of studies have examined the extent under which ridesharing may decrease alcohol-related crashes in countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, and Chile. Virtually all existent studies have assumed that ridesharing is equally distributed across socioeconomic groups, potentially masking differences across them. We contribute to this literature by studying how socioeconomic status at the municipal level impacts Uber’s effect on alcohol-related crashes.

Methods

We use data provided by Chile’s Road Safety Commission considering all alcohol-related crashes, and fatal and severe alcohol-related injuries that occurred between January 2013 and September 2013 (before Uber) and January and September 2014 (with Uber) in Santiago. We first apply spatial autocorrelation techniques to examine the level of spatial dependence between the location of alcohol-related crashes with and without Uber. We then apply random-effects meta-analysis to obtain risk ratios of alcohol-related crashes by considering socioeconomic municipality differences before and after the introduction of Uber.

Results

In both analyses, we find that the first 9 months of Uber in Santiago is associated with significant rate ratio decreases (RR = 0.71 [95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) 0.56, 0.89]) in high socioeconomic municipalities in all alcohol-related crashes and null (RR = 1.10 [95% C.I. 0.97, 1.23]) increases in low socioeconomic municipalities. No concomitant associations were observed in fatal alcohol-related crashes regardless of the socioeconomic municipality group.

Conclusions

One interpretation for the decline in alcohol-related crashes in high socioeconomic municipalities is that Uber may be a substitute form of transport for those individuals who have access to credit cards, and thus, could afford to pay for this service at the time they have consumed alcohol. Slight increases of alcohol-related crashes in low socioeconomic municipalities should be studied further since this could be related to different phenomena such as increases in alcohol sales and consumption, less access to the provision of public transport services in these jurisdictions, or biases in police reports.

Available only for authorised users

Uber. Uber cities. 2020. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/. Accessed 10 Jan 2021.

Chaudhry B, Yasar A-U-H, El-Amine S, Shakshuki E. Passenger safety in ride-sharing services. Procedia Comput Sci. 2018;130:1044–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.146.CrossRef

Xie Y, Danaf M, Lima Azevedo C, Akkinepally AP, Atasoy B, Jeong K, et al. Behavioral modeling of on-demand mobility services: general framework and application to sustainable travel incentives. Transportation (Amst). 2019;46(6):2017–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10011-z.CrossRef

Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2010.

Valente TW, Rogers EM. The origins and development of the diffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Sci Commun. 1995;16(3):242–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547095016003002.CrossRefPubMed

Valente TW, Vega Yon GG. Diffusion/contagion processes on social networks. Health Educ Behav. 2020;47(2):235–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120901497.CrossRefPubMed

Valente TW. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Soc Networks. 1996;18(1):69–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(95)00256-1.CrossRef

Zsifkovits M, Günther M. Simulating resistances in innovation diffusion over multiple generations: an agent-based approach for fuel-cell vehicles. Cent Eur J Oper Res. 2015;23(2):501–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-015-0391-x.CrossRef

Talebian A, Mishra S. Predicting the adoption of connected autonomous vehicles: a new approach based on the theory of diffusion of innovations. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2018;95:363–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.06.005.CrossRef

10.

Wang Y, Douglas MA, Hazen BT, Dresner M. Be green and clearly be seen: how consumer values and attitudes affect adoption of bicycle sharing. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2018;58:730–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.043.CrossRef

11.

Mallat N, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK, Öörni A. An empirical investigation of mobile ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2007;12(1):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-006-0126-z.CrossRef

12.

Manca F, Sivakumar A, Polak JW. The effect of social influence and social interactions on the adoption of a new technology: the use of bike sharing in a student population. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2019;105:611–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.02.010.CrossRef

13.

Jansson J, Pettersson T, Mannberg A, Brännlund R, Lindgren U. Adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: influence from neighbors, family and coworkers. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2017;54:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.012.CrossRef

14.

Martin A, Lagarde E, Salmi LR. Burden of road traffic injuries related to delays in implementing safety belt laws in low-and lower-middle-income countries. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018;19(sup1):1–6.CrossRef

15.

Nazif-Muñoz JI. Did child restraint laws globally converge? Examining 40 years of policy diffusion. Traffic Inj Prev. 2015;16 Suppl 2(sup2):S32–40.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bodin J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2015;34:122–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010.CrossRef

17.

Carpenter CS, Stehr M. The effects of mandatory seatbelt laws on seatbelt use, motor vehicle fatalities, and crash-related injuries among youths. J Health Econ. 2008;27(3):642–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.09.010.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sen A, Mizzen B. Estimating the impact of seat belt use on traffic fatalities: empirical evidence from Canada. Can Public Policy. 2007;33(3):315–35. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.33.3.315.CrossRef

19.

Brubacher JR, Desapriya E, Erdelyi S, Chan H. The impact of child safety restraint legislation on child injuries in police-reported motor vehicle collisions in British Columbia: an interrupted time series analysis. Paediatr Child Health. 2016;21(4):e27–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/21.4.e27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Geroski PA. Models of technology diffusion. Res Policy. 2000;29(4–5):603–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00092-X.CrossRef

21.

Zhang Y, Zhang Y. Exploring the relationship between ridesharing and public transit use in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8) Available from:. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081763.

22.

Rayle L, Dai D, Chan N, Cervero R, Shaheen S. Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp Policy (Oxf). 2016;45:168–78.CrossRef

23.

Dias FF, Lavieri PS, Garikapati VM, Astroza S, Pendyala RM, Bhat CR. A behavioral choice model of the use of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation (Amst). 2017;44(6):1307–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9797-8.CrossRef

24.

Alemi F, Circella G, Mokhtarian P, Handy S. What drives the use of ridehailing in California? Ordered probit models of the usage frequency of Uber and Lyft. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2019;102:233–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.016.CrossRef

25.

Conway MW, Salon D, King DA. Trends in taxi use and the advent of ridehailing, 1995–2017: evidence from the US National Household Travel Survey. Urban Sci. 2018;2(3):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030079.CrossRef

26.

Carmody P, Fortuin A. “Ride-sharing”, virtual capital and impacts on labor in Cape Town, South Africa. Afr Geogr Rev. 2019;38(3):196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2019.1607149.CrossRef

27.

Schechtner K, Hanson M. Shared mobility in Asian megacities: the rise of the apps. In: Disrupting Mobility. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51602-8_5.CrossRef

28.

Wang Y, Zheng B, Lim EP. Understanding the effects of taxi ride-sharing—a case study of Singapore. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2018;69:124–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.01.006.CrossRef

29.

Hall JD, Palsson C, Price J. Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit? J Urban Econ. 2018;108:36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2018.09.003.CrossRef

30.

Laakso S. Giving up cars–the impact of a mobility experiment on carbon emissions and everyday routines. J Clean Prod. 2017;169:135–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.035.CrossRef

31.

Brazil N, Kirk DS. Uber and metropolitan traffic fatalities in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(3):192–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww062.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Greenwood BN. Temple University, Wattal S, Temple University. Show me the way to go home: an empirical investigation of ride-sharing and alcohol related motor vehicle fatalities. MIS Q. 2017;41(1):163–87. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.08.CrossRef

33.

Peck J. New York City drunk driving after Uber. New York: City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics; 2017.

34.

Morrison CN, Jacoby SF, Dong B, Delgado MK, Wiebe DJ. Ridesharing and motor vehicle crashes in 4 US cities: an interrupted time-series analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(2):224–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx233.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Huang JY, Majid F, Daku M. Estimating effects of Uber ride-sharing service on road traffic-related deaths in South Africa: a quasi-experimental study. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2019;73(3):263–71. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211006.CrossRef

36.

Nazif-Muñoz JI, Batomen B, Oulhote Y, Spengler J, Nandi A. State or market? How to effectively decrease alcohol-related crash fatalities and injuries. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2020;74(6):502–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-213191.CrossRef

37.

Martin-Buck F.P. Driving safety: an empirical analysis of ridesharing’s impact on drunk driving and alcohol-related crime. 2016. Available from: http://www.frankmartinbuck.com/Ridesharing%20and%20Alcohol-Related%20Crime%20by%20Frank%20Martin-Buck.pdf

38.

Brazil N, Kirk DS. Ridehailing and alcohol-involved traffic fatalities in the United States: the average and heterogeneous association of uber. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238744.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Dills AK, Mulholland SE. Ride-sharing, fatal crashes, and crime: ride-sharing, fatal crashes, and crime. South Econ J. 2018;84(4):965–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12255.CrossRef

40.

Young M, Farber S. The who, why, and when of Uber and other ride-hailing trips: an examination of a large sample household travel survey. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2019;119:383–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.018.CrossRef

41.

EMOL. Uber detecta mayor aumento de viajes entre zonas periféricas y el centro en horarios punta (2017). https://www.emol.com/noticias/Nacional/2017/03/04/847800/Uber-detecta-mayor-aumento-de-viajes-entre-zonas-perifericas-y-el-centro-en-horarios-punta.html Accessed 16 Aug 2021.

42.

Tirachini A, Gomez-Lobo A. Does ride-hailing increase or decrease vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT)? A simulation approach for Santiago de Chile. Int J Sustain Transp. 2020;14(3):187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1539146.CrossRef

43.

Tirachini A, del Río M. Ride-hailing in Santiago de Chile: users’ characterisation and effects on travel behaviour. Transp Policy (Oxf). 2019;82:46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.07.008.CrossRef

44.

Marambio-Tapia A. Narratives of social mobility in the post-industrial working class and the use of credit in Chilean households. Rev Régul. 2017;(22) Available from:. https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.12512.

45.

Ministry of Social Development and Family: CASEN, Survey of Household Finances 2017. https://www.desarrollosocialyfamilia.gob.cl/informacion-social/encuesta-casen-2017. 2017. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

46.

Peña S, Mäkelä P, Valdivia G, Helakorpi S, Markkula N, Margozzini P, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in alcohol consumption in Chile and Finland. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;173:24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.12.014.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Comisión Nacional de Seguridad de Tránsito, CONASET: Request of Information, Transparency Law. http://www.subtrans.gob.cl/transparencia/solicitud_informacion.html (n.d). Accessed 23 Aug 2019.

48.

Falcone SD. El delito de negativa injustificada de un conductor a someterse a los exámenes de detección de alcohol o sustancias estupefacientes o psicotrópicas. Revista de derecho (Valparaíso). 2015;(44):143–69.

49.

Rizzi LI, Fariña P. Alcohol en conducción y su incidencia en la ocurrencia de accidentes de tránsito con víctimas fatales en Chile: falencias en las estadísticas nacionales. Estudios de Transporte. 2014;18(1):3–9.

50.

National Institute of Statistics: Census 2017. https://www.censo2017.cl. Accessed 19 Feb 2020.

51.

García-Echalar A, Rau T. The effects of increasing penalties in drunk driving laws-evidence from Chile. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218103.CrossRefPubMedCentral

52.

Observatorio de Ciudades UC. Plataforma de visualización ICVU 2020–2011. 2020. https://observatoriodeciudades.com/projects/plataforma-de-visualizacion-icvu/ Accessed 24 Feb 2021.

53.

Flahaut B, Mouchart M, San Martin E, Thomas I. The local spatial autocorrelation and the kernel method for identifying black zones. A comparative approach. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35(6):991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00107-0.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Songchitruksa P, Zeng X. Getis–Ord spatial statistics to identify hot spots by using incident management data. Transp Res Rec. 2010;2165(1):42–51. https://doi.org/10.3141/2165-05.CrossRef

55.

Manepalli U, Bham G, Kandada S. Evaluation of hot spots identification using kernel Kensity estimation (K) and Getis-Ord (Gi*) on I-630. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on road safety and simulation: Transportation Research Board; 2011. p. 17.

56.

Scott M, Roy SS, Prasad S. Spatial patterns of off-the-system traffic crashes in Miami–Dade County, Florida, during 2005–2010. Traffic Inj Prev. 2016;17(7):729–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2016.1144878.CrossRef

57.

Blazquez CA, Picarte B, Calderón JF, Losada F. Spatial autocorrelation analysis of cargo trucks on highway crashes in Chile. Accid Anal Prev. 2018;120:195–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.022.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Ouni F, Belloumi M. Pattern of road traffic crash hot zones versus probable hot zones in Tunisia: a geospatial analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2019;128:185–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Shabanikiya H, Hashtarkhani S, Bergquist R, Bagheri N, VafaeiNejad R, Amiri-Gholanlou M, et al. Multiple-scale spatial analysis of paediatric, pedestrian road traffic injuries in a major city in north-eastern Iran 2015-2019. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):722. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08911-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Song L, Li Y, Fan WD, Wu P. Modeling pedestrian-injury severities in pedestrian-vehicle crashes considering spatiotemporal patterns: Insights from different hierarchical Bayesian random-effects models. Anal Methods Accid Res. 2020;28(100137):100137.

61.

Getis A, Ord JK. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal. 2010;24(3):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00261.x.CrossRef

62.

Herbison P, Robertson MC, McKenzie JE. Do alternative methods for analysing count data produce similar estimates? Implications for meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0144-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Kontopantelis E, Reeves D. Metaan: random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2010;10(3):395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1001000307.CrossRef

64.

Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer. 1977;35(1):1–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1977.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Cheng J, Pullenayegum E, Marshall JK, Iorio A, Thabane L. Impact of including or excluding both-armed zero-event studies on using standard meta-analysis methods for rare event outcome: a simulation study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e010983. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010983.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Harbord RM, Higgins JPT. Meta-regression in Stata. Stata J. 2008;8(4):493–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0800800403.CrossRef

67.

Fernández I, Manuel-Navarrete D, Torres-Salinas R. Breaking resilient patterns of inequality in Santiago de Chile: challenges to navigate towards a more sustainable city. Sustainability. 2016;8(8):820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080820.CrossRef

68.

Agostini CA, Hojman D, Román A, Valenzuela L. Segregación residencial de ingresos en el Gran Santiago 1992–2002: una nueva aproximación metodológica. Revista EURE-Revista de Estudios Urbano Regionales. 2016;42(127):159–84.

69.

Han Y, Grogan-Kaylor A, Delva J, Xie Y. Estimating the heterogeneous relationship between peer drinking and youth alcohol consumption in Chile using propensity score stratification. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(11):11879–97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111111879.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

70.

Araya D, Paraje G. The impact of prices on alcoholic beverage consumption in Chile. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205932.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública. Décimo estudio nacional de drogas en población general de Chile, 2012. 2013. https://www.senda.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decimo-Estudio-de-Drogas-Pob-General-2012.pdf Accessed 18 Aug 2021.

72.

Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública. Décimo segundo estudio nacional de drogas en población general de Chile, 2016. 2017. https://www.senda.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/InformeENPG2016.pdf Accessed 18 Aug 2021.

73.

Cortés Y. Spatial accessibility to local public Services in an Unequal Place: an analysis from patterns of residential segregation in the metropolitan area of Santiago. Chile Sustainability. 2021;13(2):442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020442.CrossRef

74.

Celhay PA, Gil D. The function and credibility of urban slums: evidence on informal settlements and affordable housing in Chile. Cities. 2020;99(102605):102605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102605.CrossRef

75.

Tiznado Aitken, IA. Accesibility and affordability impacts on transport-related inequalities and poverty: the case of Santiago, Chile. 2020. https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/37859

76.

Iglesias V, Giraldez F, Tiznado-Aitken I, Muñoz JC. How uneven is the urban mobility playing field? Inequalities among socioeconomic groups in Santiago de Chile. Transp Res Rec. 2019;2673(11):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119849588.CrossRef

77.

Basso F, Frez J, Martínez L, Pezoa R, Varas M. Accessibility to opportunities based on public transport GPS-monitored data: the case of Santiago. Chile Travel Behav Soc. 2020;21:140–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.06.004.CrossRef

78.

Naimi TS, Xuan Z, Sarda V, Hadland SE, Lira MC, Swahn MH, et al. Association of state alcohol policies with alcohol-related motor vehicle crash fatalities among US adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(7):894–901. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1406.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Duce M, Lillo RM. Controles de identidad realizados por Carabineros: Una aproximación empírica y evaluativa sobre su uso en Chile. Revista de Estudios de la Justicia. 2020;24(33):167–203. https://doi.org/10.5354/0718-4735.2020.57635.CrossRef

80.

National Commission of Energy: Sistema de Información en línea de precios de combustibles en estacones de servicio 2021. http://www.bencinaenlinea.cl/web2/buscador.php?region=7. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

Title: Differential impacts of ridesharing on alcohol-related crashes by socioeconomic municipalities: rate of technology adoption matters
Authors: Carola Blazquez
José Guillermo Cedeño Laurent
José Ignacio Nazif-Munoz
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12066-z

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Differential impacts of ridesharing on alcohol-related crashes by socioeconomic municipalities: rate of technology adoption matters

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Practices of anti-malaria pharmaceuticals inventory control system and associated challenges in public health facilities of Oromiya special zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia

Contested solidarity and vulnerability in social media-based public responses to COVID-19 policies of mobility restrictions in Singapore: a qualitative analysis of temporal evolution

Population-level interventions targeting risk factors of diabetes and hypertension in South Africa: a document review

Minority stress, depression, and cigarette smoking among Chinese gay versus bisexual men: a two-group structural equation model analyses

Does the implementation of a national oral health policy reduce inequalities in oral health services utilization? The Brazilian experience

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines