Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Pedestrian safety

The Traffic Safety Establishment Needs to Take More Responsibility for Soaring Pedestrian Deaths

If America is going to turn this around, the people who design streets and transportation systems will have to accept responsibility. Graph: GHSA

A report on America's rising pedestrian death toll released by the Governors Highway Safety Association [PDF] estimates that about 6,000 people were killed while walking last year -- the highest number in two decades. That's a 22 percent increase over just two years, significantly higher than the overall increase in traffic deaths.

The GHSA notes that vehicle safety technology has improved quite a bit in recent decades, reducing fatalities for drivers, while pedestrians have no such advantage.

There are certainly ways to protect people walking, however. Namely, streets can be designed so fewer drivers travel at lethal speeds. But these solutions don't get much attention from agencies like the GHSA or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Instead, America's traffic safety establishment has long been focused on "behavioral" explanations for traffic deaths -- things like seatbelt usage and drunk driving. And that makes sense, to a point: Government interventions to promote seatbelts and discourage driving under the influence have made driving safer.

But the limitations of that approach are all too apparent as America continues to fall further behind other nations on traffic safety. Countries that have made it a priority to limit motorist speed in crowded places are faring much better than we are. Tens of thousands of lives would be saved each year if the U.S. achieved a safety record comparable to nations like the UK, Germany, or Japan.

For the state DOTs that shape streets and transportation policy, there must be something comforting in the behavioral explanations. By ignoring the role of the high-speed, car-centric transportation systems they've created, they don't have to face their own culpability. They are absolved every time a report comes out on rising pedestrian deaths and the news cycle responds with a round of stories about "distracted walking."

The National Complete Streets Coalition's Emiko Atherton recently wrote that this focus on cell phones is dangerous:

We know street design is part of this problem because there are patterns to where fatal collisions occur. Heat maps of pedestrian fatalities show that pedestrians are struck and killed by cars at the same intersections and along the same corridors over and over again. Are people using cell phones more in these locations? I doubt it. Street design plays a clear role.

There are plenty of transportation engineers fighting for safer street design. Engineers Peter Furth and Ian Lockwood, for instance, cities should make pedestrian safety and convenience, not traffic movement, a higher priority. Several city DOTs are starting to prioritize walking and biking in their official practice as well. But this attitude has yet to penetrate the core institutions of the American engineering establishment.

At the obscure but influential National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which shapes the street design standards followed by engineers around the country, change comes very slowly.

When Streetsblog talked to committee chair Lee Billingsley a few weeks ago, he said the group had no plans to shift course in response to rising fatalities. He insisted that rules governing pedestrian signal timing, for instance, "have stood the test of time," even as America's pedestrian safety record has deteriorated.

How many people will die before the traffic safety establishment does some soul searching about the systems they've designed and starts reforming practices that have needlessly put people at risk?

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

How One Artist Is Helping Neighbors Decide How Their City Should Sound

An Italian researcher is challenging tactical urbanists to think about sound — and helping neighborhoods imagine something better for their auditory environments.

November 5, 2025

PART III: Policy Solutions to the E-Moto Problem

What happens when existing state laws don’t quite seem to fit newer types of electric motor vehicles that are being sold and used? How should we address this problem? Here's Part III of our series.

November 5, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Breathe in the Air

Congratulations, you have a slightly less chance of developing dementia due to half-hearted efforts to curb climate change.

November 5, 2025

Study: Why Can’t San Francisco Plant More Street Trees?

Advocates fight for greenery in their neighborhoods and ask the question: why is the city ripping out more trees than it's putting in?

November 4, 2025

Is a ‘Life After Cars’ Really Possible?

"This book is an invitation to imagine a better world in which people are put before cars," says co-author Sarah Goodyear.

November 4, 2025

PART II: Unpacking the Risks for Riders and Families of Illegal E-Motos

In this second installment of our series, we examine the legal, financial, and safety risks that e-moto riders and their families face every day.

November 4, 2025
See all posts