Thank you for the article and also the piece in the Atlantic. The emphasis on a few bad actors (whether incompetent drivers[1,2] or driving under the influence [3,4,5]) seems central to saving lives.
A key priority for infrastructure advocacy groups (including those that support speed cameras[6] and enforcement) is significantly enhancing the safety of non-car users. These priorities were not central to prior enforcement efforts. Past enforcement efforts, such as drunk driving checkpoints at night and seatbelt laws, have not prioritized pedestrian safety.
Beyond enforcement, physical infrastructure plays a crucial role in pedestrian safety. Understandably, many people find walking in urban areas unsafe. Cars failing to yield to pedestrians right of way causes over 50% of deaths to pedestrians nationally[7]. Slower speeds, wide sidewalks, bump-outs with narrower crosswalks, and narrowing roadways contribute to increased physical safety and the desirability to use non-car transit.
A safety-for-all approach that includes enforcement, accountability for drivers[8], as well as an infrastructure to encourage non-driving is more inclusive and sustainable.
We can't lose sight of the fact that when walking is compared to driving, using your VMT metric, walking is 36 times more deadly[9].
The noted infrastructure improvements, while beneficial in urban environments, are largely irrelevant in suburban areas with large arterials which are the streets with the greatest pedestrian risks.
Regarding your statement that cars failing to yield to pedestrians causes more than 50% of deaths is false. That statistic includes both pedestrians and drivers (not cars, cars are inanimate objects). This quote comes from a NHTSA FARS summary; "...the most common pedestrian actions prior to pedestrian fatalities were failure to yield right-of-way..."
Lastly, citation #9 is flawed, with all due respect to Dr. Pucher (with whom I have had various professional interactions). It is absurd to use miles traveled to quantify risk as it severely skews things against pedestrians by virtue of the simple fact that one can travel much farther in a vehicle than on foot. The appropriate measure of exposure is time as it is universal across all modes (driving, biking, walking, etc). The disparity is greatly reduced. And it doesn't serve anyone to make walking seem such an extremely dangerous activity or mode. It feeds into the narrative that has resulted in prohibiting kids from walking to neighborhood schools. Risk actuarials routinely use duration of activity to compare risk across disparate activities. To make it even more salient, two people walking or biking the same route will have different exposure based on the time it takes to travel because the slower individual will encounter more vehicles along the route, and thus increased exposure.
Thanks for posting this. I have not yet followed the links, but I look forward to reading your research.
One old-fashioned term I use to characterize the problem of traffic safety is "overdetermined." No single factor causes it and no single intervention fixes it. Nor do these various interventions operate within the same timelines. Engineering is the slowest to implement. I would add to enforcement and design public education and peer pressure. When I offer this to most other safety advocates, they often answer, "But Sweden, but the Netherlands," followed with a question begging argument: we know they do design only because they get great results, proving that the only way to get great results is doing design only.
FYI you might want to include in upcoming articles that Families for Safe Streets has an active campaign rn in five states to require ISA for repeat offenders. Today it cleared the final hurdle in VA before the governor’s signature
Honestly a very promising campaign especially for this era. AND there’s a legit argument that it has a big “equity” benefit because repeat offenders wouldn’t have their licenses stripped, which can be economically crippling, given how car centric most of America is
Thank you for the article and also the piece in the Atlantic. The emphasis on a few bad actors (whether incompetent drivers[1,2] or driving under the influence [3,4,5]) seems central to saving lives.
A key priority for infrastructure advocacy groups (including those that support speed cameras[6] and enforcement) is significantly enhancing the safety of non-car users. These priorities were not central to prior enforcement efforts. Past enforcement efforts, such as drunk driving checkpoints at night and seatbelt laws, have not prioritized pedestrian safety.
Beyond enforcement, physical infrastructure plays a crucial role in pedestrian safety. Understandably, many people find walking in urban areas unsafe. Cars failing to yield to pedestrians right of way causes over 50% of deaths to pedestrians nationally[7]. Slower speeds, wide sidewalks, bump-outs with narrower crosswalks, and narrowing roadways contribute to increased physical safety and the desirability to use non-car transit.
A safety-for-all approach that includes enforcement, accountability for drivers[8], as well as an infrastructure to encourage non-driving is more inclusive and sustainable.
We can't lose sight of the fact that when walking is compared to driving, using your VMT metric, walking is 36 times more deadly[9].
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-family-killed-driver-gas-brake-19820123.php
[2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/oracle-park-driver-kills-child-settlement-19410098.php
[3] https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/boyes-cyclist-killed-dui-driver-19574787.php
[4] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/crash-6th-street-black-tesla-hit-run-20049523.php
[5] https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Police-arrest-man-in-S-F-hit-and-run-that-killed-16195437.php
[6] https://walksf.org/2025/02/20/speed-cameras-are-being-installed-lets-celebrate-this-milestone-for-safe-streets-in-march/
[7] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedestrians.aspx
[8] https://www.thewhiteline.org/pages/grassroots-network
[9] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811798.pdf
The noted infrastructure improvements, while beneficial in urban environments, are largely irrelevant in suburban areas with large arterials which are the streets with the greatest pedestrian risks.
Regarding your statement that cars failing to yield to pedestrians causes more than 50% of deaths is false. That statistic includes both pedestrians and drivers (not cars, cars are inanimate objects). This quote comes from a NHTSA FARS summary; "...the most common pedestrian actions prior to pedestrian fatalities were failure to yield right-of-way..."
Lastly, citation #9 is flawed, with all due respect to Dr. Pucher (with whom I have had various professional interactions). It is absurd to use miles traveled to quantify risk as it severely skews things against pedestrians by virtue of the simple fact that one can travel much farther in a vehicle than on foot. The appropriate measure of exposure is time as it is universal across all modes (driving, biking, walking, etc). The disparity is greatly reduced. And it doesn't serve anyone to make walking seem such an extremely dangerous activity or mode. It feeds into the narrative that has resulted in prohibiting kids from walking to neighborhood schools. Risk actuarials routinely use duration of activity to compare risk across disparate activities. To make it even more salient, two people walking or biking the same route will have different exposure based on the time it takes to travel because the slower individual will encounter more vehicles along the route, and thus increased exposure.
Thanks for posting this. I have not yet followed the links, but I look forward to reading your research.
One old-fashioned term I use to characterize the problem of traffic safety is "overdetermined." No single factor causes it and no single intervention fixes it. Nor do these various interventions operate within the same timelines. Engineering is the slowest to implement. I would add to enforcement and design public education and peer pressure. When I offer this to most other safety advocates, they often answer, "But Sweden, but the Netherlands," followed with a question begging argument: we know they do design only because they get great results, proving that the only way to get great results is doing design only.
FYI you might want to include in upcoming articles that Families for Safe Streets has an active campaign rn in five states to require ISA for repeat offenders. Today it cleared the final hurdle in VA before the governor’s signature
Honestly a very promising campaign especially for this era. AND there’s a legit argument that it has a big “equity” benefit because repeat offenders wouldn’t have their licenses stripped, which can be economically crippling, given how car centric most of America is
Thank you, I do plan to discuss this and the excellent work of FSS more generally.