Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Around the Block

Why Can’t We Have Traffic-Calming “3-D” Crosswalks Like Iceland?

This 3-D crosswalk in Iceland wouldn’t pass muster with the people who determine federal engineering guidance. Photo: Linda Bjork/Instagram

People around the world are fascinated by the 3-D illusion of this painted crosswalk in the small town of Ísafjörður in Iceland. It's a creative and simple way to get motorists to slow down.

But if you try to make an eye-catching crosswalk design in the United States, the transportation engineering establishment won't approve. That's what happened to a group of neighbors in St. Louis who painted their local crosswalks and were told by the city the new markings were a safety hazard.

There's no good research to support that position, so why do authorities frown at any deviation from standard crosswalk design? The Federal Highway Administration's guidance outlines the agency's thinking:

In 2011, the FHWA issued an additional Official Ruling4 that crosswalk art -- defined as any freeform design to draw attention to the crosswalk -- would degrade the contrast of the white transverse lines against the composition of the pavement beneath it. In deviating from previous Official Rulings on the matter that concluded an increased factor of safety and decreased number of pedestrian deaths were not evident after installation, this 2011 Official Ruling stated that the use of crosswalk art is actually contrary to the goal of increased safety and most likely could be a contributing factor to a false sense of security for both motorists and pedestrians.

Despite the FHWA's apparent certainty, there is no rigorous empirical evidence that crosswalk art reduces safety for pedestrians.

It would be one thing if the U.S. had an exemplary pedestrian safety record to uphold. Then strict conformity with the "rules" would make good sense. But American streets are dangerous places to walk, and pedestrian fatalities are skyrocketing -- rising nearly 50 percent since 2009.

Meanwhile, FHWA is still using discredited studies from 40 years ago to discourage the installation of crosswalks. It's clear that the flow of car traffic is still prioritized over public safety at the top levels of the American engineering establishment. Instead of overhauling guidelines to reduce the death toll, we get stale guidance that discourages grassroots interventions to make streets safer.

The bottom line: Federal traffic safety officials take conformity with an unsafe system much more seriously than actual safety outcomes.

More recommended reading today: Transportation for America reports that a program that addresses neighborhood public health disparities is under threat in the Trump administration's heartless budget proposal. And the State Smart Transportation Initiative shares a new tool that can help communities measure walkability.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Talking Headways Podcast: Getting California High Speed Rail Done

It took a while, but California is figuring out the best, most-cost-effective way to do fast trains.

October 30, 2025

Spooky Stuff: On Halloween, Some States Will Have Deadlier Roads Than Others

Find out how yours ranks — and what policymakers can do to make streets less scary.

October 30, 2025

Who Are Thursday’s Headlines For?

Non-drivers still perceive streets as being for cars even when they have bike lanes. And that's because, in many cases, they are.

October 30, 2025

An Olympian Task: Replicating Paris’s Bike Boom in Los Angeles

The Olympics can help transform the streets of Los Angeles  — if they look to the example of Paris.

October 29, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Are a Clear and Present Danger

Rescinding the "endangerment finding" could not only exacerbate climate change, it could also throw entire industries into chaos.

October 29, 2025

What’s More Regressive: Modest Driving Surcharges to Help Fund Transit, or Forced Car Ownership?

Do Illinois state senators and reps really want to make the financial burden on their constituents less "regressive"? If so they can start by ensuring that as many people as possible can live their lives without spending $12,000 annually just to leave their homes.

October 28, 2025
See all posts