The Impact of Mandatory Helmet Laws on Urban Bike-Sharing and Sustainable Mobility in Prague

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-The study effectively addresses the dual challenge of promoting cyclist safety while encouraging cycling. It provides a balanced view of the benefits and potential drawbacks of mandatory helmet laws (MHL).

2- The numeric values depicted on the bars in Figure 3 lack clarity and require enhancement for better readability.

3-  The survey briefly touched on demographic variables but did not explore their impact on MHL in depth. To enhance the comprehensiveness and clarity of the study, it is recommended to include an analysis of how factors such as gender, age, and education influence MHL. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of its effects across different demographic groups.

4-The study briefly mentions psychosocial factors. However, expanding on how these factors influence helmet use and cycling behavior could provide valuable insights.

5-I commend the authors for their foresight and motivation in addressing this issue. The study emphasizes the significance of appropriate infrastructure, policies, and best practices over mandatory measures. By focusing on these elements, the research aims to mitigate potential negative impacts on cycling usage. This approach underscores the importance of promoting cycling safety without relying solely on mandatory helmet laws, thereby addressing safety concerns while encouraging cycling activity. 

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is an interesting topic. But I think this status has not achieve the publication requirement. There are some comments.

1、There is a lack of adequate literature reviews. The references used in Section two are all before 2019. Some new literature needs to be added.

2、There are no methods described in the Section 3.

3、The analysis is very simple. The authors should do some more in-depth analysis of the data, , not just statistical statistics.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in the article is vital from the point of view of a large city resident's daily life. This research explores the potential impacts of the proposed Mandatory Helmet Law (MHL) on urban cycling in the city, mainly focusing on bike-sharing programs. Analyses were conducted based on a survey in which 448 urban cyclists participated from Paruge. This survey examines the relationship between helmet legislation, cycling rates, and sustainable mobility goals. As the authors indicated, this sample cannot be said to be necessarily representative of the whole bike-riding population in Prague. As their study focused only on one city, there is an obvious possibility that these results do not translate to other countries or contexts. However, the results obtained from this study allow us to draw preliminary conclusions. And the authors defined these correctly. Introducing an MHL in Prague would present a dynamic and multi-faceted challenge to the city's efforts to promote sustainable urban mobility through cycling. While the law might aim to enhance cyclist safety by reducing head injuries, the findings of this study suggest that it could also lead to a decrease in cycling participation, particularly among bikeshare users. Survey data indicate that almost two-thirds of bike-sharing users would cycle less if such a law were implemented. This decline would pose a significant risk to Prague's sustainability and active mobility goals.

The division of content into sections is correct. The introduction formulates the thesis and research objectives well. The literature review is complete. From its analysis, a research gap is identified, which the article's authors explore.

The entire research process, including all the methods used and created, has been described in great detail. The survey is prepared in the correct form. It allows for the multi-aspect relation analysis and building a user profile of bike systems in Prague.

The work is readable. The authors use correct English.

To sum up, the scope of the study may be limited, but despite the well-constructed survey, it allows for a deep, multi-faceted analysis. Contrary to appearances, it can be transferred to another city or region to some extent—primarily as results that can be referred to.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their study, the authors consider the local problem of the desire (or unwillingness) of Prague residents to wear bicycle helmets when renting bicycles. Obviously, the city authorities had arguments that should have been presented in the article. In general, it would have been useful for the authors to provide statistics on bicycle use in Prague in section 3.1. to emphasize the importance of the problem. I also suggest showing comparative statistics for other cities and countries, and providing an analysis of legislation in other cities and countries where similar laws are in effect. It is also necessary to consider the arguments of the authorities of those cities where similar laws have been introduced. Based on this analysis, it may be necessary to revise the "Discussion" section. In addition, a large number of references are quite old.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added some references. While there are still some problems needed to be improved.

• The section 3.1 background should not been described in the section 3. The basic features of data should been described clearing in this section. I have not found any method in the section3.
• The Figure 1 is just the data description. This contents should been described in the Data section.
• P190-196, how to get this data should been described clearly. These problems also arise in the following sections.
• Readers hope understand the deep causal relationship, not just the simple display of results. If so, what factors lead to the traveler's travel mode shift, and what is the degree of influence?

Author Response

Thank you for the further feedback. Responses are in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with my comments. These additions generally allow me to recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the further feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no cmments now.