Other countries haven’t seen this increase in pedestrian deaths: in every other high-income country, rates are flat or declining. Whatever’s causing the problem seems to be limited to the US.
...
Looking at the data, the strongest evidence seems to be for the “big SUV” hypothesis: the fatality rate for pedestrian accidents has increased dramatically across a variety of states, pointing to “pedestrian accidents becoming more deadly” as a major cause of the increase. But the case for it isn’t open and shut, as pedestrian deaths involving sedans and compacts have also increased. And while there isn’t much evidence for the “distracted by phones” hypothesis, it’s also hard to rule it out completely.
...
If we look at pedestrian deaths per capita, we see that deaths are much more frequent in the West and the South, and less frequent in the Northeast and the Midwest. This does not appear to be due to larger amounts of driving in the South and the West. There’s little correlation between the number of vehicle miles traveled and the pedestrian death rate.
...
If we look at the change in pedestrian deaths over time, we can see that the rise in pedestrian deaths is worse in the South, but besides a handful of states (Minnesota, Rhode Island, New York, West Virginia, New Jersey, and Vermont), every state has seen substantial increases in pedestrian deaths. Whatever’s causing the increase in US pedestrian deaths is happening across the country.
...
The increase in fatalities is essentially entirely on urban roads — deaths on rural roads are flat. On most categories of urban road, pedestrian fatalities have doubled. Whatever is causing the increase in pedestrian deaths, it’s only happening in urban areas.
...
Most pedestrian deaths occur at night, but the rate hasn’t changed much (the fraction of deaths between 6pm and 6am is up slightly from 69% in 2009 to 75% in 2023). Whatever’s causing the increase in pedestrian deaths doesn’t seem specific to one time of day.
Nor is it specific to one time of week. Deaths have become somewhat less likely to occur on Friday and Saturday, and somewhat more likely to occur during the week, but the shift isn’t dramatic.
It’s also not specific to one time of year. The graph below shows pedestrian fatality frequency by month. Pedestrian deaths are more likely to occur in the fall and winter (presumably because there are fewer daylight hours and more driving in darkness), but monthly rates haven’t changed at all.
...
Deaths of children under 10 are actually down significantly (167 deaths in 2009 to 98 deaths in 2023), and deaths for ages 10-19 are down as well. The biggest increase in deaths actually comes from older age brackets: 30-39 year old deaths are up 153%, 60-69 year olds up 167%, and 70-79 year olds up 119%. So the problem isn’t young kids increasingly getting hit by cars that can’t see them.
What about the age of drivers?
Deaths are up in every driver age bracket, with older brackets (30-39, 60-69 and 70-79) up the most in percentage terms. So the problem isn’t reckless young drivers.
Interestingly, driver drug and alcohol use in pedestrian fatalities is greatly exceeded by pedestrian alcohol and drug use. (Pedestrian drug use in particular has more than tripled since 2009, while alcohol use is only up modestly.) It’s not enough to explain all of the huge increase in pedestrian deaths, but it’s notable.
...
Pedestrian accidents getting more deadly seems like fairly strong evidence for the theory that the rise in large SUVs is behind the uptick in pedestrian deaths: it’s not that more pedestrians are getting hit by vehicles, it’s that the ones that are getting hit are more likely to die. There’s other evidence that points to this theory. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzed 17,897 pedestrian accidents across seven states, and found pedestrians were substantially more likely to be killed when struck by tall vehicles and vehicles with blunt front ends.
However, there’s also some muddying evidence here. If the increase of size and frequency of trucks and SUVs was behind the increase in pedestrian deaths, we wouldn’t expect to see an increase in the frequency of pedestrians killed by sedans or compact cars. However, if we look at pedestrian deaths by model of car, we see that pedestrian deaths involving popular sedans have increased as well. Pedestrian deaths involving Honda Civics and Accords, Toyota Corollas and Camrys, and Nissan Altimas have all increased substantially.
Are these (and other sedans and compact cars) being built the same as they have in the past, though? one could easily see other classes of vehicle still being influenced by the US SUV trend and...
Pedestrian deaths involving Honda Civics and Accords, Toyota Corollas and Camrys, and Nissan Altimas have all increased substantially.
Are these (and other sedans and compact cars) being built the same as they have in the past, though? one could easily see other classes of vehicle still being influenced by the US SUV trend and changing in size or shape (or some other way that affects visibility and/or lethality in the case of a pedestrian crash) over the years.
Half the time in the US, it's straight up unsafe to not be driving a bit over the speed limit on the freeway. What really irks me though is when cars are made to feel more safe for the driver...
Half the time in the US, it's straight up unsafe to not be driving a bit over the speed limit on the freeway. What really irks me though is when cars are made to feel more safe for the driver (bigger cars, taller cars, front guards, blindingly bright LED headlights) but make things more dangerous for other people on the road.
The current (11th) gen is no bigger than the 10th gen (which I own), and has been mostly static for at least a decade. It also has a lower roof line than the Fit, which is by all measures a...
the current generation Civic is as big as previous gen Accords
The current (11th) gen is no bigger than the 10th gen (which I own), and has been mostly static for at least a decade. It also has a lower roof line than the Fit, which is by all measures a compact hatchback, and a bumper/hood height typical of sedans for the past twenty years. The Camry has similarly been mostly unchanged in footprint for the past twenty five years.
The seventh generation was introduced in 2000. The Civic's footprint and curb weight (approx 3000lb) have been almost identical for a quarter of a century, and squarely in the traditional compact sedan category. (Yes, the early 90s ones were smaller, closer in line with the Fit. But that's stretching it in terms of relevance.)
Overall average vehicle sizes, in ownership terms, have increased rapidly due to the prevalence of SUVs and pickup trucks, but the sedans still standing have not had radical changes to their dimensions in a very long time.
Edit: You can go all the way back to 1998 for an Accord if you want, and get a much lengthier 188.8L x 70.3W x 56.9H. Length is the primary differentiator in compact vs midsize sedans.
I compared hatches across the board, because I'm a fan of hatchbacks, and they're what I personally observe the most of when I notice Civics in the wild. They kind of change which trim levels it's...
I compared hatches across the board, because I'm a fan of hatchbacks, and they're what I personally observe the most of when I notice Civics in the wild. They kind of change which trim levels it's offered at for some years...like I think you can't currently get the SI as a hatchback unlike in previous years, but you can for every other trim. (I currently drive a previous generation ST hatch.)
Japanese cars are also heavily constrained by the Japanese government's tax policies as well, so there isn't a lot of variance. You pay a lot more to register larger vehicles, so there's pressure to keep them in certain brackets. That's semi-famously why the Fit was introduced: the Civic just slightly tipped outside of a weight or dimensional limit, and they wanted to make sure they had an offering that would have a lower tax rate. (Then you have the kei class with engine displacements measured in cc.)
I know it's just a couple individual cases, but my partner and his best friend both had Fits, both had terrible accidents and although in both cases the car was demolished, I guess the interior...
I don't think I'd be comfortable purchasing sub-compact in the United States as I'd be almost guaranteed to come off worse in an accident, even though it's the car that best suits my needs, has the lowest cost to maintain, and the lowest costs to run.
I know it's just a couple individual cases, but my partner and his best friend both had Fits, both had terrible accidents and although in both cases the car was demolished, I guess the interior safety was sufficient because they both walked away with only minor injuries. In my partners case, he was hit by construction truck that crossed into his lane. The police officer at the scene was so freaked out he called my partner to check on him multiple times and said he couldn't believe anyone could have walked away from that.
My girlfriend also lost her Fit to an accident. A car ran a red light at 50+ mph and hit the front third of the Fit, spinning it in a full circle and basically flattening the engine bay. She and...
My girlfriend also lost her Fit to an accident. A car ran a red light at 50+ mph and hit the front third of the Fit, spinning it in a full circle and basically flattening the engine bay. She and her daughter came out of it with the worst of it being nasty bruising, a broken wrist and concussions. The Fit even dialed 911 over Bluetooth automatically.
They're also equipped with explosive seatbelt tensioners (basically a shotgun shell sized charge that yanks the seatbelt hard before impact), which will give you nasty bruising. But they work.
We ended up having to replace it with an HR-V, because there weren't any suitable pre-owned Fits and needed something on short notice.
Man, I’m going to miss our Fit whenever it’s day comes. Have a 2007 that we got in 2012. Also, we have our kids at a private school, and it is SOOOO hard to turn out of the parking lot because...
Man, I’m going to miss our Fit whenever it’s day comes. Have a 2007 that we got in 2012.
Also, we have our kids at a private school, and it is SOOOO hard to turn out of the parking lot because everyone else has a giant truck or SUV - I can’t see through them!
I am very much not a Car Person myself, so my observations are based mostly on noticing rhe differences in car size when I visit my family in the US (I currently live in Germany), so I'm glad...
I am very much not a Car Person myself, so my observations are based mostly on noticing rhe differences in car size when I visit my family in the US (I currently live in Germany), so I'm glad someone who knows more about this stuff commented here!
Did the study account for drivers intentionally striking and killing people in the US because that seems like something that has been becoming more frequent. Edit: 1,000 of deaths per year. Way...
Did the study account for drivers intentionally striking and killing people in the US because that seems like something that has been becoming more frequent.
Edit: 1,000 of deaths per year. Way higher than I would have thought. So intentional strikes is probably only a blip in the total numbers. Wild.
Interesting that in the graphic comparing different countries, two other countries have an uptick starting at 2021. However, due to that graphic's design, it is nearly impossible to tell which...
Interesting that in the graphic comparing different countries, two other countries have an uptick starting at 2021. However, due to that graphic's design, it is nearly impossible to tell which country.
The 30-39 and 60-79 age brackets have seen the largest increase in victims. Pedestrian deaths of children and teenagers are down over this period.
I wonder if this is more due to the fact that kids are less seen around on the streets unaccompanied as often as they used to be. Are kids being hit less because they are outside less?
Great article. Well thought out analysis with lots of supporting data. Thanks for posting. Seems like a complex problem overall. I liked some of the comments on the site as well. Aside from the...
Great article. Well thought out analysis with lots of supporting data. Thanks for posting.
Seems like a complex problem overall. I liked some of the comments on the site as well. Aside from the "Big SUV" and drug use assertions supported by the data, I think the lower visibility due to focus on car occupant safety seems like the most interesting avenue to look into further. From just a quick google, it seems there are some quantitative studies showing increases in blind spots in newer cars, but I didn't find studies specifically correlating this with fatalities. I also thought the distracted pedestrian angle might be interesting too, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason why that might affect the US and not other countries. It's just anecdotal, but from what I've observed while traveling, people in European cities seemed to use their phones while walking just as often as in the US.
Anecdotally, I’d say it’s cultural. I’m from and in Texas, and we just don’t ever expect pedestrians. There’s probably also a latent racism/classism about how people just have cars (which actually...
Anecdotally, I’d say it’s cultural. I’m from and in Texas, and we just don’t ever expect pedestrians. There’s probably also a latent racism/classism about how people just have cars (which actually means trucks and SUVs) and “poor” people don’t have those (they need to “pull themseleves up by their bootstraps” and get a car, and other trash).
We lived in Philadelphia for a year, and it was almost culture shock at how easy it was to walk, how the drivers just waited for you, how people just walked out into the street with full belief that cars would stop for them. I rode the bus that year because it was waaaay more convenient, and I learned to be so much more “aggressive” a pedestrian.
Since much of the south US is built for cars and not people vs old cities/regions that had to adapt to cars, I imagine that’s a huge part of it.
Having grown up in [central] CA, lived in Houston for over a decade, and now live in New England: Pedestrians and cyclists were a thing in CA, and if one was hit it was definitely not normal. But...
Having grown up in [central] CA, lived in Houston for over a decade, and now live in New England:
Pedestrians and cyclists were a thing in CA, and if one was hit it was definitely not normal. But Houston? That place is whack, and it's not about the pedestrians and cyclists. The drivers are straight up crazy. We call a "Houston right/left" when you make a right/left-hand turn from the complete opposite lane, usually across at least two other lanes, and that was the norm. When we moved from there to NE, our insurance dropped by over half. I suspect that the types of drivers are the cause, not the pedestrians or cyclists (and I keep throwing cyclists in there, because I remember at least 5 different incidents happening while I lived in Houston, two of which were migrant workers using their only means of transportation to get to work, one of whom was killed as a result). And in Houston, there are a lot more large cars per capita (at least that's how it seems) than up here in NE. So I suspect that it's not that the stat is that large cars cause these incidents, but that in areas where people have piss poor driving habits also have a higher number of larger-sized vehicles... I'd be curious to see those stats.
If we were talking about an individual case I'd want to be more human about it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply the "victim blaming" label to these kinds of analyses at the population...
If we were talking about an individual case I'd want to be more human about it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply the "victim blaming" label to these kinds of analyses at the population level. Given that the majority of pedestrian deaths are associated with " jaywalking, failing to properly yield, or improperly in the road" with the percentage increasing over time, I think it's appropriate to explore what's going on with pedestrian behavior. Plus, there are some studies that correlate pedestrian phone use with increased accident risk. I'm just saying that I haven't see enough data to show whether it's one of the more significant contributing factors to the recent increase in pedestrians killed by cars.
Resurrecting a dead thread as I've been away. But my first instinct here is to observe that - as I'm sure is common knowledge - Jay walking is a term created deliberately by the car industry to...
Resurrecting a dead thread as I've been away. But my first instinct here is to observe that - as I'm sure is common knowledge - Jay walking is a term created deliberately by the car industry to claim the street for themselves.
In some places it's a crime, in some it isn't. But it seems nuts to me.
In the UK that legal defence doesn't exist outside inter city motorways. It seems wrong to me to maroon pedestrians on the sidewalk. The light is to give them a guarantee at certain times, not to block them the rest of the time.
** Obviously your defence is easier if you hit a pedestrian crossing at a red, but the pedestrian isn't committing a crime by crossing anywhere but a green
My instinct is to say that I'm really sad that we really can't discuss any topic without it always being about blame. There's this awful assumption in all internet discourse that every single bad...
My instinct is to say that I'm really sad that we really can't discuss any topic without it always being about blame. There's this awful assumption in all internet discourse that every single bad thing in the world is always some person or group's fault. Therefore, if you say that anything bad is happening, you are assumed to be blaming some person/group. It's never a system that could use improvement. If we just get really angry at someone and shame them enough, the problem would go away. Any statement that could be construed as saying something negative about a person or group is taken to be in reality blaming that person/group. It's incredibly frustrating to try to talk about structural reasons why things might be changing over time, and only getting responses saying that I'm blaming the wrong people. I'm not trying to blame pedestrians like it's some moral failure. That doesn't even make sense. "Pedestrians bad" isn't a problem we can work on, and is obviously missing the point. There must be some reason that would be more productive to address. While I'd love for the US to focus more on pedestrian and bike infrastructure, we had all this car-centric infrastructure prior to 2010 as well. Unless we can point to some change in how the statistics are collected, blame doesn't explain the change.
I think there’s nuance. In japan, no one jay walks. It could be 3am with not a car on the road and you will still see people wait for the cross light. I think that’s a good thing. It simplifies...
I think there’s nuance. In japan, no one jay walks. It could be 3am with not a car on the road and you will still see people wait for the cross light. I think that’s a good thing.
It simplifies everyone’s life in what is a very dangerous interaction. If you are a driver, you know that there will never be a pedestrian in a major road, ever. If you are a pedestrian, you know there won’t be someone making a left turn into you while you cross. You never have to guess and wonder if the car is the kind of person who would stop or try to kill you.
I don’t think have people make micro life and death decisions is a good thing. If this is a place where a lot of people need to cross the road, build infrastructure. Crosswalks, overhead bridges, underground walkways.
There should be easy and obvious rules such that it’s obvious for all parties, all pedestrians and all drivers, what they’re supposed to do in any given situation.
Large, wide roads. Wider roads encourage drivers to increase speed (myself included). Trying to do 35 on a four lane road is virtually impossible, but doing 35 feels dangerous on an urban two lane...
Large, wide roads. Wider roads encourage drivers to increase speed (myself included). Trying to do 35 on a four lane road is virtually impossible, but doing 35 feels dangerous on an urban two lane street.
This is a big complaint I have about the street in front of my house, it's enormous and doesn't need to be. People haul ass down it, even though there's a blind curve, because...I don't know. I don't know why big, wide streets encourage faster speeds other than you think you can see further and perceive more, so you go faster. Plus it just feels like you're crawling when you're on those big roads.
You would think Canada would track the US quite closely here, given that we drive mostly the same vehicles. Maybe there is more than 'big SUV/truck' at play?
You would think Canada would track the US quite closely here, given that we drive mostly the same vehicles. Maybe there is more than 'big SUV/truck' at play?
Bare minimum, lots of the USA allows right turn on red. Poorly designed and marked crosswalks. Poor to 0 sidewalks everywhere. A hyperfocus on individuality to the point empathy is considered a...
Bare minimum, lots of the USA allows right turn on red. Poorly designed and marked crosswalks. Poor to 0 sidewalks everywhere. A hyperfocus on individuality to the point empathy is considered a bad thing by a very large minority.
Laws in general always putting cars first, and victim blaming pedestrians and cyclists.
They keep making right turn slip lanes and putting cross walks through them in my area. Every time I see it, it looks exactly like how I would design a trap meant to kill people. Looks so nice new...
They keep making right turn slip lanes and putting cross walks through them in my area.
Every time I see it, it looks exactly like how I would design a trap meant to kill people. Looks so nice new and fancy but is in fact so dangerous.
Edit oh and for some reason these right turn slip lanes are always at the first intersection next to a high way. As if it wasn’t already dangerous.
TIL the names for these lanes. I read most of these 3 resources: Right Turn Slip Lanes - Crash Reduction Strategy Summary Safety of Channelized Right-Turn Lanes for Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians...
TIL the names for these lanes. I read most of these 3 resources:
And it seems that it's not clear? The Jiang paper argues that it's more dangerous, but when reading through the paper, it doesn't compare accidents and fatalities. It instead tries to look at dangerous factors (speed, yield rates), but the ultimate goal should be to compare injuries IMO. The Potts paper states that there are fewer crashes, although the Jiang paper notes that the Potts paper is comparing pedestrian data from over 2 decades ago at this point. The Nevada paper seems to believe that channelized lanes are safer (it does reference Potts) and that slip lanes specifically are likely to be an even safer design.
The first two seem to be assessing mvcs only, the third is the only one talking about pedestrians? Anecdotal cause Ive never been a pedestrian crossing a slip lane anywhere except my city, but the...
The first two seem to be assessing mvcs only, the third is the only one talking about pedestrians?
Anecdotal cause Ive never been a pedestrian crossing a slip lane anywhere except my city, but the ones here are very unsafe. They’re shaped to give cars the clear right of way.
Cars going through them do not slow down. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that people driving through these don’t even look at the road as they go through.
That was already happening with normal right on red lanes, but it seems like introducing the slip lanes made it safer for everyone in cars at the expense of making it way more dangerous for pedestrians.
Sorry, what's "mvcs"? But the first two definitely address pedestrians. The first one is citing the second one though so it doesn't really count as another source on its own.
Sorry, what's "mvcs"? But the first two definitely address pedestrians. The first one is citing the second one though so it doesn't really count as another source on its own.
I no longer have the PDF (out and about right now), but in the abstract of the 2nd link, there's this text: You can find more by searching for "pedestrian" in the second link, but the whole paper...
I no longer have the PDF (out and about right now), but in the abstract of the 2nd link, there's this text:
Intersection approaches with channelized right-turn lanes also appear to have similar pedestrian safety performance as approaches with shared through and right-turn lanes. Intersection approaches with conventional right-turn lanes have substantially more pedestrian crashes (approximately 70% to 80% more) than approaches with channelized right-turn lanes or shared through and right-turn lanes.
You can find more by searching for "pedestrian" in the second link, but the whole paper is about pedestrian safety.
I think they're better than a normal right turn on a red, no? When you turn right on a red, you need to be actively looking away from where the pedestrians will be. With these, they're right in...
I think they're better than a normal right turn on a red, no?
When you turn right on a red, you need to be actively looking away from where the pedestrians will be.
With these, they're right in front of you and you shouldn't need to check for oncoming traffic until after you clear the crosswalk?
The whole problem with right on red is that it’s only a benefit for the cars, which is basically how 99% of the US is designed. Just look at some youtube videos of countries where roads are used...
The whole problem with right on red is that it’s only a benefit for the cars, which is basically how 99% of the US is designed.
Just look at some youtube videos of countries where roads are used by more than just cars. Intersection (and roundabouts) are often multi-use (cyclist, pedestrians) and are purposefully designed to slow traffic and made to be safe for all users.
And even in those places it still sucks sometimes to be a cyclist or pedestrian.
The problem from a pedestrian standpoint is that sometimes people don't even check for pedestrians, and so they go at speed through the crosswalk section since the stop line for yielding to cars...
The problem from a pedestrian standpoint is that sometimes people don't even check for pedestrians, and so they go at speed through the crosswalk section since the stop line for yielding to cars is still 10ft or so ahead
With these theres no stopping at all. I see cars fly through them barely even slowing down. They’re positioned at the first intersection after exiting a 75mph highway. I could see how the shape of...
With these theres no stopping at all. I see cars fly through them barely even slowing down.
They’re positioned at the first intersection after exiting a 75mph highway.
I could see how the shape of it might help if traffic was already going slow, and theres no turn on red, but thats not whats happening here. Its a clear right of way to cars with this design.
Maybe Canadian culture tracks more closely with the US Midwest’s driving culture where deaths are on the lower end. Outdoor temperatures could also be at play, at least the Midwest jumps from too...
Maybe Canadian culture tracks more closely with the US Midwest’s driving culture where deaths are on the lower end. Outdoor temperatures could also be at play, at least the Midwest jumps from too cold to be outside to too hot.
This was an interesting read. I do agree with the article that if the increase in pedestrian fatalities from vehicles had to be boiled down to a single reason that it's likely larger and heavier...
This was an interesting read. I do agree with the article that if the increase in pedestrian fatalities from vehicles had to be boiled down to a single reason that it's likely larger and heavier cars (and another commenter here mentioned blind spots), but it's likely a combination of factors. The article did point out that for some car models such as the Civic, fatalities also went up within that model, though I would generalize that most car models have gotten larger, heavier, and more blind-spotty over the period of time they have data for, thus contributing to the SUV theory.
One thing I drew a theory from is the 20 state data that suggested that the issue isn't that more pedestrians are being hit, it's that more are dying and I compared that to the chart showing a VAST increase in the number of drivers who specifically don't report distraction (vs reporting they were not distracted). That increase started around 2016, when tablets started being put in cars and when smart phones really started taking over our lives. One theory I have, considering the increase in fatality rate is mostly in urban areas and not at crosswalks, is that more drivers are distracted now, so when someone walks out into the middle of the road, drivers aren't even attempting to slow down and are striking people at higher speeds, whereas before phones and in-car tablets, they may at least slow down (and be in a smaller vehicle).
I obviously can't say if this is correct or not, but that's a possible conclusion I drew, as I know how shitty people are and they will not report they were texting and driving, or they'll be off to jail. The sharp decline in drivers specifically reporting they weren't distracted and sharp increase in a non-report tells me that either people are lying by omission or that something changed in how that data is reported and collected.
I suspect your hypothesis of distracted driving causing collisions with pedestrians to occur at higher speeds is correct. Pedestrian infrastructure in the US hasn’t gotten any worse, but I imagine...
I suspect your hypothesis of distracted driving causing collisions with pedestrians to occur at higher speeds is correct.
Pedestrian infrastructure in the US hasn’t gotten any worse, but I imagine that drivers paying less attention to their surroundings has caused the individual “pedestrian avoidance maneuvers” that has made up for the shortcomings in US pedestrian infrastructure in the past to be less effective.
I commute on a motorcycle in the San Francisco Bay Area and I would say that about 30% of drivers have no awareness of what’s going on outside of what’s immediately in front of them and about 20% of this group makes no effort to increase their awareness when changing lanes or making a turn.
Larger blind spots in newer vehicles make it harder to be aware of what’s going on around your car, but electronic blind spot monitoring and regular mirror checks can compensate for the decreased visibility. People just need to give at least 80% of their attention to operating their vehicle, but most people just won’t do it.
Two things I didn't see mentioned in the article are hospitals and a change in road design. By road design, I specifically thought of roundabouts. For the last decade or so, my area has been...
Two things I didn't see mentioned in the article are hospitals and a change in road design.
By road design, I specifically thought of roundabouts. For the last decade or so, my area has been changing a lot of formerly stoplight interactions into roundabouts. Roundabouts are great, they improve traffic flow and slow l force cars to slow down on places they previously might have sped up. In areas where this is a brand new design, though, drivers are confused. They stop when they should go, they plow ahead and hope for the best, they generally act in a way that is unpredictable to pedestrians. Trying to cross a busy roundabout is a bit of an adventure when you don't have any idea what a driver will do.
I also wondered about the futzing with stoplight timing that's happened in some areas to catch people with stoplight cameras, but I didn't think that would cover the rural increase.
One thing the US has that neither Canada nor wealthy European areas have is our crazy expensive medical system. This could be as simple as folks leaving the hospital too soon or refusing care because they can't afford it. I don't know if that might explain the south and west vs the rest of the country or not, I've never seen an expense comparison.
Roundabouts confuse me, someone who doesn't live near very many. They seem to work great in neighborhoods; people can't speed anymore and it's really easy to reason about. Roundabouts confuse the...
Roundabouts confuse me, someone who doesn't live near very many. They seem to work great in neighborhoods; people can't speed anymore and it's really easy to reason about. Roundabouts confuse the shit out of me when exiting a highway. I just want to get into town to fill up on gas. There's seemingly like 5 exits (probably not, but it feels like it). Take the 3rd exit? Which is the 3rd exit? If I take the wrong one, I end up going the wrong direction or back on the highway. It's probably a me problem that would go away if I were near them long enough.
I really don't think you should blame yourself. I've never heard of them used in a driving test, and the designs can be inconsistent. I know of several that have stop signs, which makes no sense.
I really don't think you should blame yourself. I've never heard of them used in a driving test, and the designs can be inconsistent. I know of several that have stop signs, which makes no sense.
Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none A "roundabout" with a stop sign or traffic signal is actually called a "traffic circle"...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, information, opinion
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
A "roundabout" with a stop sign or traffic signal is actually called a "traffic circle" (aka "rotary"). In urban planning they are considered different things. In general:
Roundabouts are single-lane with no hard obstructions to level of service but perhaps soft ones. They have a design that forces continuous, low speeds and driver alertness. Having only one lane, they have short pedestrian crossing distances and are therefore a better design for multimodal settings.
Traffic circles/rotaries are multi-lane and have obstructions to LOS like stop signs and traffic lights. Sometimes they ask traffic in the circle to yield to entering traffic, unlike a roundabout where the cars in the circle always have the right of way.
The "design" is consistent insofar as these all adhere to the MUTCD. They're just different pieces of infrastructure. In my opinion, roundabouts are pretty cool and traffic circles are pretty NOT cool.
This wouldn't account for differences with Europe, though, where roundabouts are much more common, unless you think Americans specifically are less able to handle roundabouts than their European...
By road design, I specifically thought of roundabouts
This wouldn't account for differences with Europe, though, where roundabouts are much more common, unless you think Americans specifically are less able to handle roundabouts than their European counterparts (or that there's something different about US roundabouts compared to European ones).
That’s a lot more harsh than my intention. I’d never seen a roundabout in the US until about a decade ago. I know they existed here before that, but they were rare. I only know they existed before...
unless you think Americans specifically are less able to handle roundabouts than their European counterparts
That’s a lot more harsh than my intention. I’d never seen a roundabout in the US until about a decade ago. I know they existed here before that, but they were rare. I only know they existed before that because of the running joke in The American President, the Annette Bening character keeps getting trapped in DuPont Circle, which makes her late.
Because they’re a new feature, many folks don’t know how to handle them. The designs are also inconsistent, sometimes if you’re in the outside lane (or two) you’re forced to exit, sometimes not. Sometimes there are stop signs rafter than yield signs. GPS tells you to take the third exit, which for some reason I always struggle with if the roads aren’t laid out in a way that I expect, the exit might appear to go a different way. So drivers slam on their brakes when they realize they missed their exit, I’ve seen people back up even that happens. They stop when they should go. Then they panic and speed in between cars already in the roundabout.
As for pedestrians, they were once given a light to cross on, now they have to judge the right time to cross. This wouldn’t normally be a big deal, but the driver who is currently stopped is focused on oncoming cars waiting for their chance to go, they aren’t watching for a person walking or rolling by from the other direction. The drivers already in the roundabout are also probably not watching for pedestrians when they exit, so now you have to guess if they look like they’re going to exit here or not. If they do see you and want to exit there, do they realize they can go around again rather than slamming on their brakes? Sounds like it’s not your problem, but it is if the person behind them doesn’t stop and they’re pushed forwards.
When you grow up with something it can feel natural, almost second nature. When presented with it unexpectedly, you have to come up with your own way to deal with it. At least some of us were taught as kids how to walk or bike on a road with no sidewalks, though you’d never know it from the chaos that exists on roads where there are a lot of people. Almost everyone was taught how to cross a busy street, but that’s only going to address the situations you will come up with in that place at that time.
Those statistics combined with the peak starting in about 2009 has me considering one other theory, homelessness. We don't want to notice the homeless people in our cities, so are we just not...
Pedestrian drug use in particular has more than tripled since 2009, while alcohol use is only up modestly
The increase in fatalities is essentially entirely on urban roads — deaths on rural roads are flat. On most categories of urban road, pedestrian fatalities have doubled. Whatever is causing the increase in pedestrian deaths, it’s only happening in urban areas.
Deaths of children under 10 are actually down significantly (167 deaths in 2009 to 98 deaths in 2023), and deaths for ages 10-19 are down as well. The biggest increase in deaths actually comes from older age brackets: 30-39 year old deaths are up 153%, 60-69 year olds up 167%, and 70-79 year olds up 119%. So the problem isn’t young kids increasingly getting hit by cars that can’t see them.
Relatedly, in the majority of pedestrian deaths, the pedestrian is blamed for the accident. In 66% of cases, pedestrians are described as “failing to yield right of way,” “jaywalking,” or “in roadway improperly.”
Those statistics combined with the peak starting in about 2009 has me considering one other theory, homelessness. We don't want to notice the homeless people in our cities, so are we just not mentally noticing them, and therefore hitting them? I would not be surprised if the US has a much higher spike in homeless populations compared to the other countries compared.
There are flaws with this theory though. The main one is that accidents have not increased, they have just become more fatal.
Some folks pointed me to a New York Times article on the problem of US pedestrian deaths from 2023. Contra my original claims (that the increase in deaths doesn’t seem specific to one time of day), the NYT states that nearly all the increase in deaths is at night.
The NYT is correct; This was an error on my part that stemmed from not looking closely enough at the data behind a bad summary statistic. I was correct that there hasn’t been much change in the proportion of deaths during the hours of 6pm to 6am. But 6am is night at some times of year and location, and day in other times and places.. Lighting conditions are not just a function of the clock. If you look at deaths by lighting condition, you find that the increase in deaths is mostly in times of darkness.
Deaths in daylight are only up 28% since 2009; deaths in darkness or lit darkness (streetlights, etc.) are up 103% and 87%, respectively. On its own, this data doesn’t tell us what’s causing the increase in deaths (indeed, the NYT quotes a researcher at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety saying, “I don’t have any definitive answers for this”), but it’s a useful correction.
...
I was pointed to a 2023 study that looked at changes in where pedestrian deaths are occuring. It notes that pedestrian deaths seem to have actually declined in downtowns, even as they’ve increased in suburban areas:
Pedestrian fatalities appear to be concentrating in lower-density suburbs with lower-income, lower-education, and minority populations. Where in our cities are these areas? For our three largest cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, we see a distinct trend. In the “before” period, pedestrian fatalities were concentrated in downtown areas. In the “after” period, they have moved outwards into the suburbs. In Los Angeles and Chicago, the hot spots present in the downtown areas in the “before” periods have largely dissipated in the “after” period. Also, note that the COVID-19 lockdowns took place during our “after” period and may have affected the results.
...
Some readers wondered if a similar uptick in fatalities has been seen for bicyclists. It has: bicyclist deaths are up 86% since 2009. So whatever is causing the increase also seems to be affecting cyclists.
...
[T]he rate of death from traffic accidents among the homeless has dramatically risen in recent years. A study on the causes of death in the homeless across several different locations found that traffic fatalities had increased substantially from 2011 to 2020 (eyeballing the graph, it seems to have roughly quadrupled, from around 40 per 100,000 in 2011 to 150 per 100,000 in 2020).
Wish we had a couple more pieces of data. Maybe something to indicate whether there’s increased flouting of the road rules, more aggressive driver behavior. It had prevalence of speeding show no...
Wish we had a couple more pieces of data. Maybe something to indicate whether there’s increased flouting of the road rules, more aggressive driver behavior.
It had prevalence of speeding show no increase, but what about magnitudes of speeding? Or numbers on red lights being ran?
I saw a video recently of an intersection with unbelievable numbers of cars just running the light. lets see if i can find it
From the article:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Are these (and other sedans and compact cars) being built the same as they have in the past, though? one could easily see other classes of vehicle still being influenced by the US SUV trend and changing in size or shape (or some other way that affects visibility and/or lethality in the case of a pedestrian crash) over the years.
Half the time in the US, it's straight up unsafe to not be driving a bit over the speed limit on the freeway. What really irks me though is when cars are made to feel more safe for the driver (bigger cars, taller cars, front guards, blindingly bright LED headlights) but make things more dangerous for other people on the road.
The current (11th) gen is no bigger than the 10th gen (which I own), and has been mostly static for at least a decade. It also has a lower roof line than the Fit, which is by all measures a compact hatchback, and a bumper/hood height typical of sedans for the past twenty years. The Camry has similarly been mostly unchanged in footprint for the past twenty five years.
Civic 11: 179.1L x 70.9W x 55.5H (inches)
Civic 10: 179.4L x 70.8W x 56.5H
Civic 8: 168L x 69W x 57H
Civic 7: 168.4L x 67.7W x 58.7H
The seventh generation was introduced in 2000. The Civic's footprint and curb weight (approx 3000lb) have been almost identical for a quarter of a century, and squarely in the traditional compact sedan category. (Yes, the early 90s ones were smaller, closer in line with the Fit. But that's stretching it in terms of relevance.)
Overall average vehicle sizes, in ownership terms, have increased rapidly due to the prevalence of SUVs and pickup trucks, but the sedans still standing have not had radical changes to their dimensions in a very long time.
Edit: You can go all the way back to 1998 for an Accord if you want, and get a much lengthier 188.8L x 70.3W x 56.9H. Length is the primary differentiator in compact vs midsize sedans.
I compared hatches across the board, because I'm a fan of hatchbacks, and they're what I personally observe the most of when I notice Civics in the wild. They kind of change which trim levels it's offered at for some years...like I think you can't currently get the SI as a hatchback unlike in previous years, but you can for every other trim. (I currently drive a previous generation ST hatch.)
Japanese cars are also heavily constrained by the Japanese government's tax policies as well, so there isn't a lot of variance. You pay a lot more to register larger vehicles, so there's pressure to keep them in certain brackets. That's semi-famously why the Fit was introduced: the Civic just slightly tipped outside of a weight or dimensional limit, and they wanted to make sure they had an offering that would have a lower tax rate. (Then you have the kei class with engine displacements measured in cc.)
I know it's just a couple individual cases, but my partner and his best friend both had Fits, both had terrible accidents and although in both cases the car was demolished, I guess the interior safety was sufficient because they both walked away with only minor injuries. In my partners case, he was hit by construction truck that crossed into his lane. The police officer at the scene was so freaked out he called my partner to check on him multiple times and said he couldn't believe anyone could have walked away from that.
My girlfriend also lost her Fit to an accident. A car ran a red light at 50+ mph and hit the front third of the Fit, spinning it in a full circle and basically flattening the engine bay. She and her daughter came out of it with the worst of it being nasty bruising, a broken wrist and concussions. The Fit even dialed 911 over Bluetooth automatically.
They're also equipped with explosive seatbelt tensioners (basically a shotgun shell sized charge that yanks the seatbelt hard before impact), which will give you nasty bruising. But they work.
We ended up having to replace it with an HR-V, because there weren't any suitable pre-owned Fits and needed something on short notice.
Man, I’m going to miss our Fit whenever it’s day comes. Have a 2007 that we got in 2012.
Also, we have our kids at a private school, and it is SOOOO hard to turn out of the parking lot because everyone else has a giant truck or SUV - I can’t see through them!
I am very much not a Car Person myself, so my observations are based mostly on noticing rhe differences in car size when I visit my family in the US (I currently live in Germany), so I'm glad someone who knows more about this stuff commented here!
Did the study account for drivers intentionally striking and killing people in the US because that seems like something that has been becoming more frequent.
Edit: 1,000 of deaths per year. Way higher than I would have thought. So intentional strikes is probably only a blip in the total numbers. Wild.
Interesting that in the graphic comparing different countries, two other countries have an uptick starting at 2021. However, due to that graphic's design, it is nearly impossible to tell which country.
I wonder if this is more due to the fact that kids are less seen around on the streets unaccompanied as often as they used to be. Are kids being hit less because they are outside less?
Great article. Well thought out analysis with lots of supporting data. Thanks for posting.
Seems like a complex problem overall. I liked some of the comments on the site as well. Aside from the "Big SUV" and drug use assertions supported by the data, I think the lower visibility due to focus on car occupant safety seems like the most interesting avenue to look into further. From just a quick google, it seems there are some quantitative studies showing increases in blind spots in newer cars, but I didn't find studies specifically correlating this with fatalities. I also thought the distracted pedestrian angle might be interesting too, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason why that might affect the US and not other countries. It's just anecdotal, but from what I've observed while traveling, people in European cities seemed to use their phones while walking just as often as in the US.
Anecdotally, I’d say it’s cultural. I’m from and in Texas, and we just don’t ever expect pedestrians. There’s probably also a latent racism/classism about how people just have cars (which actually means trucks and SUVs) and “poor” people don’t have those (they need to “pull themseleves up by their bootstraps” and get a car, and other trash).
We lived in Philadelphia for a year, and it was almost culture shock at how easy it was to walk, how the drivers just waited for you, how people just walked out into the street with full belief that cars would stop for them. I rode the bus that year because it was waaaay more convenient, and I learned to be so much more “aggressive” a pedestrian.
Since much of the south US is built for cars and not people vs old cities/regions that had to adapt to cars, I imagine that’s a huge part of it.
Having grown up in [central] CA, lived in Houston for over a decade, and now live in New England:
Pedestrians and cyclists were a thing in CA, and if one was hit it was definitely not normal. But Houston? That place is whack, and it's not about the pedestrians and cyclists. The drivers are straight up crazy. We call a "Houston right/left" when you make a right/left-hand turn from the complete opposite lane, usually across at least two other lanes, and that was the norm. When we moved from there to NE, our insurance dropped by over half. I suspect that the types of drivers are the cause, not the pedestrians or cyclists (and I keep throwing cyclists in there, because I remember at least 5 different incidents happening while I lived in Houston, two of which were migrant workers using their only means of transportation to get to work, one of whom was killed as a result). And in Houston, there are a lot more large cars per capita (at least that's how it seems) than up here in NE. So I suspect that it's not that the stat is that large cars cause these incidents, but that in areas where people have piss poor driving habits also have a higher number of larger-sized vehicles... I'd be curious to see those stats.
And it gives me scary victim blaming vibes.
If we were talking about an individual case I'd want to be more human about it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply the "victim blaming" label to these kinds of analyses at the population level. Given that the majority of pedestrian deaths are associated with " jaywalking, failing to properly yield, or improperly in the road" with the percentage increasing over time, I think it's appropriate to explore what's going on with pedestrian behavior. Plus, there are some studies that correlate pedestrian phone use with increased accident risk. I'm just saying that I haven't see enough data to show whether it's one of the more significant contributing factors to the recent increase in pedestrians killed by cars.
Resurrecting a dead thread as I've been away. But my first instinct here is to observe that - as I'm sure is common knowledge - Jay walking is a term created deliberately by the car industry to claim the street for themselves.
In some places it's a crime, in some it isn't. But it seems nuts to me.
In the UK that legal defence doesn't exist outside inter city motorways. It seems wrong to me to maroon pedestrians on the sidewalk. The light is to give them a guarantee at certain times, not to block them the rest of the time.
** Obviously your defence is easier if you hit a pedestrian crossing at a red, but the pedestrian isn't committing a crime by crossing anywhere but a green
My instinct is to say that I'm really sad that we really can't discuss any topic without it always being about blame. There's this awful assumption in all internet discourse that every single bad thing in the world is always some person or group's fault. Therefore, if you say that anything bad is happening, you are assumed to be blaming some person/group. It's never a system that could use improvement. If we just get really angry at someone and shame them enough, the problem would go away. Any statement that could be construed as saying something negative about a person or group is taken to be in reality blaming that person/group. It's incredibly frustrating to try to talk about structural reasons why things might be changing over time, and only getting responses saying that I'm blaming the wrong people. I'm not trying to blame pedestrians like it's some moral failure. That doesn't even make sense. "Pedestrians bad" isn't a problem we can work on, and is obviously missing the point. There must be some reason that would be more productive to address. While I'd love for the US to focus more on pedestrian and bike infrastructure, we had all this car-centric infrastructure prior to 2010 as well. Unless we can point to some change in how the statistics are collected, blame doesn't explain the change.
I think there’s nuance. In japan, no one jay walks. It could be 3am with not a car on the road and you will still see people wait for the cross light. I think that’s a good thing.
It simplifies everyone’s life in what is a very dangerous interaction. If you are a driver, you know that there will never be a pedestrian in a major road, ever. If you are a pedestrian, you know there won’t be someone making a left turn into you while you cross. You never have to guess and wonder if the car is the kind of person who would stop or try to kill you.
I don’t think have people make micro life and death decisions is a good thing. If this is a place where a lot of people need to cross the road, build infrastructure. Crosswalks, overhead bridges, underground walkways.
There should be easy and obvious rules such that it’s obvious for all parties, all pedestrians and all drivers, what they’re supposed to do in any given situation.
Large, wide roads. Wider roads encourage drivers to increase speed (myself included). Trying to do 35 on a four lane road is virtually impossible, but doing 35 feels dangerous on an urban two lane street.
This is a big complaint I have about the street in front of my house, it's enormous and doesn't need to be. People haul ass down it, even though there's a blind curve, because...I don't know. I don't know why big, wide streets encourage faster speeds other than you think you can see further and perceive more, so you go faster. Plus it just feels like you're crawling when you're on those big roads.
You would think Canada would track the US quite closely here, given that we drive mostly the same vehicles. Maybe there is more than 'big SUV/truck' at play?
Bare minimum, lots of the USA allows right turn on red. Poorly designed and marked crosswalks. Poor to 0 sidewalks everywhere. A hyperfocus on individuality to the point empathy is considered a bad thing by a very large minority.
Laws in general always putting cars first, and victim blaming pedestrians and cyclists.
Same with Canada
They keep making right turn slip lanes and putting cross walks through them in my area.
Every time I see it, it looks exactly like how I would design a trap meant to kill people. Looks so nice new and fancy but is in fact so dangerous.
Edit oh and for some reason these right turn slip lanes are always at the first intersection next to a high way. As if it wasn’t already dangerous.
TIL the names for these lanes. I read most of these 3 resources:
And it seems that it's not clear? The Jiang paper argues that it's more dangerous, but when reading through the paper, it doesn't compare accidents and fatalities. It instead tries to look at dangerous factors (speed, yield rates), but the ultimate goal should be to compare injuries IMO. The Potts paper states that there are fewer crashes, although the Jiang paper notes that the Potts paper is comparing pedestrian data from over 2 decades ago at this point. The Nevada paper seems to believe that channelized lanes are safer (it does reference Potts) and that slip lanes specifically are likely to be an even safer design.
The first two seem to be assessing mvcs only, the third is the only one talking about pedestrians?
Anecdotal cause Ive never been a pedestrian crossing a slip lane anywhere except my city, but the ones here are very unsafe. They’re shaped to give cars the clear right of way.
Cars going through them do not slow down. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that people driving through these don’t even look at the road as they go through.
That was already happening with normal right on red lanes, but it seems like introducing the slip lanes made it safer for everyone in cars at the expense of making it way more dangerous for pedestrians.
Sorry, what's "mvcs"? But the first two definitely address pedestrians. The first one is citing the second one though so it doesn't really count as another source on its own.
Mvc = motor vehicle collision
I did just skim through and look at section headers only, which sections mentions pedestrians?
I no longer have the PDF (out and about right now), but in the abstract of the 2nd link, there's this text:
You can find more by searching for "pedestrian" in the second link, but the whole paper is about pedestrian safety.
I think they're better than a normal right turn on a red, no?
When you turn right on a red, you need to be actively looking away from where the pedestrians will be.
With these, they're right in front of you and you shouldn't need to check for oncoming traffic until after you clear the crosswalk?
The whole problem with right on red is that it’s only a benefit for the cars, which is basically how 99% of the US is designed.
Just look at some youtube videos of countries where roads are used by more than just cars. Intersection (and roundabouts) are often multi-use (cyclist, pedestrians) and are purposefully designed to slow traffic and made to be safe for all users.
And even in those places it still sucks sometimes to be a cyclist or pedestrian.
The problem from a pedestrian standpoint is that sometimes people don't even check for pedestrians, and so they go at speed through the crosswalk section since the stop line for yielding to cars is still 10ft or so ahead
With these theres no stopping at all. I see cars fly through them barely even slowing down.
They’re positioned at the first intersection after exiting a 75mph highway.
I could see how the shape of it might help if traffic was already going slow, and theres no turn on red, but thats not whats happening here. Its a clear right of way to cars with this design.
Maybe Canadian culture tracks more closely with the US Midwest’s driving culture where deaths are on the lower end. Outdoor temperatures could also be at play, at least the Midwest jumps from too cold to be outside to too hot.
This was an interesting read. I do agree with the article that if the increase in pedestrian fatalities from vehicles had to be boiled down to a single reason that it's likely larger and heavier cars (and another commenter here mentioned blind spots), but it's likely a combination of factors. The article did point out that for some car models such as the Civic, fatalities also went up within that model, though I would generalize that most car models have gotten larger, heavier, and more blind-spotty over the period of time they have data for, thus contributing to the SUV theory.
One thing I drew a theory from is the 20 state data that suggested that the issue isn't that more pedestrians are being hit, it's that more are dying and I compared that to the chart showing a VAST increase in the number of drivers who specifically don't report distraction (vs reporting they were not distracted). That increase started around 2016, when tablets started being put in cars and when smart phones really started taking over our lives. One theory I have, considering the increase in fatality rate is mostly in urban areas and not at crosswalks, is that more drivers are distracted now, so when someone walks out into the middle of the road, drivers aren't even attempting to slow down and are striking people at higher speeds, whereas before phones and in-car tablets, they may at least slow down (and be in a smaller vehicle).
I obviously can't say if this is correct or not, but that's a possible conclusion I drew, as I know how shitty people are and they will not report they were texting and driving, or they'll be off to jail. The sharp decline in drivers specifically reporting they weren't distracted and sharp increase in a non-report tells me that either people are lying by omission or that something changed in how that data is reported and collected.
I suspect your hypothesis of distracted driving causing collisions with pedestrians to occur at higher speeds is correct.
Pedestrian infrastructure in the US hasn’t gotten any worse, but I imagine that drivers paying less attention to their surroundings has caused the individual “pedestrian avoidance maneuvers” that has made up for the shortcomings in US pedestrian infrastructure in the past to be less effective.
I commute on a motorcycle in the San Francisco Bay Area and I would say that about 30% of drivers have no awareness of what’s going on outside of what’s immediately in front of them and about 20% of this group makes no effort to increase their awareness when changing lanes or making a turn.
Larger blind spots in newer vehicles make it harder to be aware of what’s going on around your car, but electronic blind spot monitoring and regular mirror checks can compensate for the decreased visibility. People just need to give at least 80% of their attention to operating their vehicle, but most people just won’t do it.
Two things I didn't see mentioned in the article are hospitals and a change in road design.
By road design, I specifically thought of roundabouts. For the last decade or so, my area has been changing a lot of formerly stoplight interactions into roundabouts. Roundabouts are great, they improve traffic flow and slow l force cars to slow down on places they previously might have sped up. In areas where this is a brand new design, though, drivers are confused. They stop when they should go, they plow ahead and hope for the best, they generally act in a way that is unpredictable to pedestrians. Trying to cross a busy roundabout is a bit of an adventure when you don't have any idea what a driver will do.
I also wondered about the futzing with stoplight timing that's happened in some areas to catch people with stoplight cameras, but I didn't think that would cover the rural increase.
One thing the US has that neither Canada nor wealthy European areas have is our crazy expensive medical system. This could be as simple as folks leaving the hospital too soon or refusing care because they can't afford it. I don't know if that might explain the south and west vs the rest of the country or not, I've never seen an expense comparison.
Roundabouts confuse me, someone who doesn't live near very many. They seem to work great in neighborhoods; people can't speed anymore and it's really easy to reason about. Roundabouts confuse the shit out of me when exiting a highway. I just want to get into town to fill up on gas. There's seemingly like 5 exits (probably not, but it feels like it). Take the 3rd exit? Which is the 3rd exit? If I take the wrong one, I end up going the wrong direction or back on the highway. It's probably a me problem that would go away if I were near them long enough.
I really don't think you should blame yourself. I've never heard of them used in a driving test, and the designs can be inconsistent. I know of several that have stop signs, which makes no sense.
Comment box
A "roundabout" with a stop sign or traffic signal is actually called a "traffic circle" (aka "rotary"). In urban planning they are considered different things. In general:
The "design" is consistent insofar as these all adhere to the MUTCD. They're just different pieces of infrastructure. In my opinion, roundabouts are pretty cool and traffic circles are pretty NOT cool.
This wouldn't account for differences with Europe, though, where roundabouts are much more common, unless you think Americans specifically are less able to handle roundabouts than their European counterparts (or that there's something different about US roundabouts compared to European ones).
That’s a lot more harsh than my intention. I’d never seen a roundabout in the US until about a decade ago. I know they existed here before that, but they were rare. I only know they existed before that because of the running joke in The American President, the Annette Bening character keeps getting trapped in DuPont Circle, which makes her late.
Because they’re a new feature, many folks don’t know how to handle them. The designs are also inconsistent, sometimes if you’re in the outside lane (or two) you’re forced to exit, sometimes not. Sometimes there are stop signs rafter than yield signs. GPS tells you to take the third exit, which for some reason I always struggle with if the roads aren’t laid out in a way that I expect, the exit might appear to go a different way. So drivers slam on their brakes when they realize they missed their exit, I’ve seen people back up even that happens. They stop when they should go. Then they panic and speed in between cars already in the roundabout.
As for pedestrians, they were once given a light to cross on, now they have to judge the right time to cross. This wouldn’t normally be a big deal, but the driver who is currently stopped is focused on oncoming cars waiting for their chance to go, they aren’t watching for a person walking or rolling by from the other direction. The drivers already in the roundabout are also probably not watching for pedestrians when they exit, so now you have to guess if they look like they’re going to exit here or not. If they do see you and want to exit there, do they realize they can go around again rather than slamming on their brakes? Sounds like it’s not your problem, but it is if the person behind them doesn’t stop and they’re pushed forwards.
When you grow up with something it can feel natural, almost second nature. When presented with it unexpectedly, you have to come up with your own way to deal with it. At least some of us were taught as kids how to walk or bike on a road with no sidewalks, though you’d never know it from the chaos that exists on roads where there are a lot of people. Almost everyone was taught how to cross a busy street, but that’s only going to address the situations you will come up with in that place at that time.
Those statistics combined with the peak starting in about 2009 has me considering one other theory, homelessness. We don't want to notice the homeless people in our cities, so are we just not mentally noticing them, and therefore hitting them? I would not be surprised if the US has a much higher spike in homeless populations compared to the other countries compared.
There are flaws with this theory though. The main one is that accidents have not increased, they have just become more fatal.
Here's a followup from the author:
More on US Pedestrian Deaths
...
...
...
Wish we had a couple more pieces of data. Maybe something to indicate whether there’s increased flouting of the road rules, more aggressive driver behavior.
It had prevalence of speeding show no increase, but what about magnitudes of speeding? Or numbers on red lights being ran?
I saw a video recently of an intersection with unbelievable numbers of cars just running the light. lets see if i can find it
I have a feeling the fact that americans complain about missing paths to get somewhere by foot all the time might be one part of the reason.