Trends in Bicycle Accidents and Injury Analysis in Poland: Insights from 2016 to 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of the study is clearly stated, but the introduction could benefit from more specific context on the role of bicycles and electric scooters in urban transportation systems, particularly in relation to traffic safety. A clearer delineation of how these modes contribute to both positive trends and safety risks would strengthen the foundation of the research.

The findings provide a good overview of trends in bicycle-related accidents. However, the results could be more comprehensive by breaking down the data further, such as by accident severity, time of day, or by location (e.g., urban vs. rural areas). This would allow for a deeper understanding of the patterns and risks associated with different conditions.

The conclusion proposes a multifaceted approach to addressing bicycle-related accidents, which is crucial. However, it would be beneficial to provide more specific recommendations, particularly for stakeholders (e.g., local governments, urban planners, medical professionals). For instance, specific infrastructural improvements, such as bike lanes or traffic signal modifications, and public education campaigns could be detailed further.

The time frame from 2016 to 2023 provides a relevant period for analysis, but it would be useful to discuss any potential shifts in traffic patterns during this period. For example, did the rise of electric scooters correlate with increased accidents during certain years? Furthermore, acknowledging the limitations of the study, such as regional variability or the focus on a single country, would add transparency to the conclusions.

Last, this is not a medical journal, please remove Figure 3.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper writing can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his  valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. The responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions are in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work analyses bicycle accident trends, focusing on the accidents in Poland. The article is mainly focused on the data provided by the Polish Police. The authors use this data to point out different aspect related to accidents accruing trends such as deaths vs. injury accidents, accidents evolution between 2016-2023, accidents cause, etc. The article is somehow interesting and related to the Safety journal area of interest.

Please find my recommendations and observations below:

1. My main concern regarding this work comes from the fact that the manuscript is closer to be a technical report rather than a scientific article. The overall presentation style should be improved. In many points, especially in sections 1-3, the authors seem to wrote the manuscript in a hurry, without providing sufficient details. The authors fail to present a clear motivation and a clear impact of the aspects they present (sections 1-3), simply and briefly describing their ideas.
2. The introduction adequately presents the motivation of this study, but it is rather short. Additionally, the introduction only contains one reference. I would recommend the authors to slightly extend this section by making reference to other studies on related topics and their finding. I would also try to emphasize what is the importance of this work.
3. Section 2 presents the software and analysis tools used to investigate the data sets. Again this section seems too short. Some additional details could be provided regarding the tests: egg. Grubbs, Lilliefors, Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Jarque-Bera, Levene. Additionally, a short concluding fragment for this section could be introduced.
4. Section 3 requires a short introduction, introducing the following paragraphs.
5. Section 3 requires a closing section explaining how this data can be used and which are the conclusions that this data provides. The authors should try to point out the main aspects and try to come with some recommendations.
6. Section 4 and 5 are fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his  valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. The responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions are in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic under consideration is relevant for traffic safety specialists, as traffic accidents involving bicycles are still frequent and require special attention, as they are characterized by serious consequences. However, the manuscript itself requires substantial corrections.

1. In my opinion, the Abstract is written incorrectly, because it simply presents Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions separately.

2. The Introduction must reveal the issues under consideration, based on sources of scientific literature. In this case, only one source is mentioned in the Introduction. At the end of the Introduction it is written: "The aim of this article is to present data on accidents involving cyclists in Poland". I don't think that this can be the aim of the article - to present data. This is not a scientific problem, the data can also be accessed by examining the relevant sources of information.

3. Section 2 briefly describes the materials and methods, and Section 3 presents the research results. Section 3 provides general statistical data, although there are no references to the sources for them. Accidents, deaths and injured are divided into different groups by year, age, day of the week, etc. A certain analysis of the data is provided, which only reflects very general trends that can be largely predicted without deeper analysis. In some places, it can be seen that the depiction of linear dependence does not really reflect the true nature of the dependence.

4. Section 4 should present a discussion of the results. References to sources should be included here unless You are comparing the results of Your own research with the results of research by other authors. However, in this case, an analysis of literary sources is performed here, which are not presented at the beginning of the manuscript. Furthermore, this section differs substantially from the material presented previously in terms of its style and examined issues. The purpose of the presentation of Figure 3 at the end of this section is also not very clear. Although there is no reference to the source for this figure, it can be understood from the first sentence of this section that this is not part of the research conducted by the authors themselves or a presentation of the results.

5. The Conclusions are more general in nature than reflecting the specific results of the conducted research.

Thus, although the research topic is relevant, the structure of the manuscript itself, the order and consistency of information presentation, the discussion of results and the conclusions drawn from it, are not appropriate. At the beginning, very generalized statistical information is presented with a rather superficial analysis, and then in Section 4, the presentation of information of a completely different nature, analysis of sources, etc. is moved on. This manuscript requires very substantial corrections, including highlighting the results of the authors' own scientific research, their novelty, originality, and significance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his  valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. The responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions are in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are well addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the reviewers have not addressed all the recommendation in an adequate mode. Please recheck my previous recommendations for points 2-4 and further consider them.

Main aspects:

Introduction:

• Include some reference to similar works, present their approach and their conclusions;
• Emphasize the importance of this work;

Section 2:

• Present the methods in a narrative manner;
• Add a short concluding fragment for section 2.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. Detailed below are the responses to the reviewer comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors for the corrections. But, unfortunately, not all comments were taken into account and properly corrected.

The Abstract and Introduction have been adjusted based on provided comments. Some corrections have been made to Section 3. But in my opinion, provided analysis of the data  reflects only very general trends that can be largely predicted without deeper analysis. In some places, it can be seen that the depiction of linear dependence does not really reflect the true nature of the dependence.

Section 4 should present a discussion of the results. References to sources should be included
here unless You are comparing the results of Your own research with the results of research by other authors. Furthermore, this section differs substantially from the material presented previously in terms of its style and examined issues.

The Conclusions are more general in nature than reflecting the specific results of the conducted
research.

Thus, although the research topic is relevant, the structure of the manuscript itself, the order
and consistency of information presentation, the discussion of results and the conclusions drawn from it, are not appropriate. At the beginning, very generalized statistical information is presented with a rather superficial analysis, and then in Section 4, the presentation of information of a completely different nature, analysis of sources, etc. is moved on. This manuscript requires very substantial corrections, including highlighting the results of the authors' own scientific research, their novelty, originality, and significance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his effort in reviewing the manuscript and for his valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. In the attached file are the responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. 

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort they devoted to evaluating our work. Their valuable feedback and suggestions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my recommendations have been addressed. No other observations.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback. We appreciate your review and are glad that all your recommendations have been addressed.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors for the manuscript corrections! However, in my opinion, the manuscript has not been revised sufficiently according to my comments:

- provided analysis of the data reflects only very general trends that can be largely predicted without deeper analysis;

- Section 4 should present a discussion of the results. References to sources should be included here unless You are comparing the results of Your own research with the results of research by other authors. Furthermore, this section differs substantially from the material presented previously in terms of its style and examined issues;

- The Conclusions are more general in nature than reflecting the specific results of the conducted research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your effort in reviewing the manuscript and for your valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard. We organized the manuscript in accordance with the your comments. The responses to the your suggestions are highlighted in red in the additional file. We hope that the changes made to the manuscript meet your expectations

On behalf of authors

Prof. Sebastian Glowinski

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors for the corrections made to the manuscript!