I think his goal was to see if one could use an activity proxy to predict where most rides would occur. Crime data is a fairly natural proxy because it's readily available in an easy-to-use format.

It doesn't seem all that useful — it's fluffy — but it's amusing nonetheless and I don't regret reading it.

I'm curious what leaps of faith do you see in his reasoning? Crimes "caught" versus actual criminal activity seems like the obvious one, but I don't think there's really anything in the piece that makes that distinction necessary. (Police activity might actually be a better proxy for activity than criminal activity.)