3 ms·

So, it's an important problem, but the first thing I thought was, "are people walking more or less than they did 20 years ago?" Certainly where I live, there a

So, it's an important problem, but the first thing I thought was, "are people walking more or less than they did 20 years ago?" Certainly where I live, there are more cyclists than there were 20 years ago, and while I could believe that pedestrianism does not necessarily go up or down in tandem with cycling, I cannot believe it has stayed exactly the same. Do we walk to places more than 20 years ago (perhaps because more people are unable to afford a car, as wealth inequality grows)? Or do we walk less, such that the increase in pedestrian deaths is even worse than this article suggests, indicating a downward spiral in which people walk less because it seems too dangerous, which makes drivers less aware that there are pedestrians to look out for, which makes people walk even less? This article doesn't say. It seems a pretty fundamental point to be leaving out of a discussion of pedestrian death rates. They don't even mention whether these rates represent an increase in per capita deaths, or just reflect population increases. Without turning pedestrian death rates into per-person-per-mile-walked kind of rates, I don't see how you can draw many conclusions at all.

blue_devil 7y ago
I believe these calculations are not as relevant for policy because practically you care that people keep dying from being hit by cars. Say, 10 people dead are 10 people dead. They are not less important when they account for 1% vs. 0.0001% of walking people, per mile/km or whatever, are they?
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Sure, but the rate is what helps to figure out why the change. If the rate of pedestrian death per mile walked is actually going down, but they are walking lots more, then you want to keep doing whatever you're doing, to keep the rate going down. If the rate per mile walked is going up, you need to consider some sort of about face, changing what you have been doing before.

blue_devil 7y ago

I believe these calculations are not as relevant for policy because practically you care that people keep dying from being hit by cars. Say, 10 people dead are 10 people dead. They are not less important when they account for 1% vs. 0.0001% of walking people, per mile/km or whatever, are they?

rossdavidh 7y ago
Sure, but the rate is what helps to figure out why the change. If the rate of pedestrian death per mile walked is actually going down, but they are walking lots more, then you want to keep doing whatever you're doing, to keep the rate going down. If the rate per mile walked is going up, you need to consider some sort of about face, changing what you have been doing before.