Your data doesn't prove anything in this context. While traffic accidents involving pedestrians will involve two parties (the pedestrian and the motorist), a mo

Your data doesn't prove anything in this context. While traffic accidents involving pedestrians will involve two parties (the pedestrian and the motorist), a motor vehicle may involve just the motorist. It also fails to normalize the data in a meaningful context. There are many areas where people would either be foolhardy to walk, or it is outright illegal to walk. That forces people to spend more time in a vehicle (so the absolute numbers are meaningless). Places where pedestrians do not go tend to have higher speed traffic (increasing the risk to motorists). For your numbers to be meaningful, you need to compare like to like. To say that pedestrians are less likely to be in a traffic accident you need to compare hours driving to hours walking in areas with traffic. Fatality rates are more of a judgement call. Distracted driving on a highway is going to increase the fatality rate for motorists (higher speeds) while having little impact on pedestrians (the ratio of motorists to pedestrians is much higher). Distracted driving on urban streets is going to decrease the fatality rate for motorists (lower speeds), while it almost certainly represents the fatality rate for pedestrians as you presented it. Ignoring the environment is valid if you are only concerned about the impact on other motorists. Considering the environment is important if you want to make meaninful comparisons to pedestrian fatalities (or injuries).