ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

How Pedestrian-Friendly Are We, Really?


Email   PrintPrint



Cars don’t kill people. People do.

That’s the premise of a New York Times article that was published this week about pedestrian safety in New York City. With thousands of people flocking to New York City’s International Auto Show this week, the time is ripe to ask: Just how far have we come in making the transition from a car-centered culture to one that embraces walking, biking, and mass transit?

In a busy intersection in Manhattan, taxis outnumber cars and pedestrians

In a busy intersection in Manhattan, taxis, pedestrians and cars vie for street space

Although the dangers automobiles pose for drivers and passengers have been well documented, much less research has examined the safety of others.

New York City, along with many urban areas nationwide, has grown more car-friendly despite having increased spending on mass transit and biking infrastructure. Even as more New Yorkers are choosing public transit over driving, the presence of cars on the road has increased. Despite these trends, research shows, law enforcement officials in the city remain hesitant to punish dangerous drivers, creating an environment in which cyclists and pedestrians feel uncomfortable, and more importantly, unsafe.

“We have this sense of fatalism,” says Columbia University professor of epidemiology Charles DiMaggio. “We think, ‘well, accidents happen.’ But more often than not, they’re preventable.” DiMaggio’s study about pedestrian safety inspired the national Safe Routes to School program in New York, which redesigned busy street corners and intersections to make them safer for children who walk to and from school.

As America’s biggest city, New York has the highest rate of public transportation use nationwide, with 54 percent of people riding to work in 2006. But even in New York, where large mass transit networks render commuting by rail or metro second nature, the car is still king.

Since 2000, the number of cars on the road in New York City went up, along with rates of unsafe driving. In 2012, 60 percent of fatal pedestrian and bicyclist crashes were caused by illegal driving behavior such as speeding and distracted driving. New York City cyclists site driver behavior and traffic as the most common reasons they don’t bike to work. But New York City law enforcement officials have not responded with more traffic monitoring; in fact, in 2011 police issued four times as many tickets for tinted windows as for speeding.

Our love affair with cars is also persistent nationwide. Even as President Obama has called for increased spending on public transit, his administration has continued to fund new highways. The single-highest line item in the stimulus bill—road and highway construction—received more than half of all transportation funding. Even compared with the Mad Men-esque heyday of American cars of the 1950s, current spending on roads continues to outpace funding for public transit: in 2009, the public sector spent five times more on highways than it did in 1956.

People may not be as crazy about their cars as federal spending might suggest. In Los Angeles, long viewed as an automobile haven, the number of cyclists jumped 32 percent between 2009 and 2011. Without policies that promote biking and protect cyclist safety, bikers are still being injured—and killed—at an alarming rate. In 2011, three percent of all traffic deaths in 2011 were bicyclists. That’s a high number, for a city where cycling accounts for less than one percent of the population.

In New York, bikers are also taking to the streets, thanks to advocacy groups like Transportation Alternatives, WEBikeNYC and the New York Bicycle Coalition. Jill Guidera, who leads Transportation Alternatives’ bicycle ambassador program, says groups like hers are part of what makes cycling in the city feasible. Between 2008 and 2012, the annual volume of cyclists jumped 58 percent. But in 2011, 755 people were injured in cycling crashes; three people died. In the same crashes, 10 people in automobiles were injured.

DiMaggio, whose work uses pedestrian injury research to push for safer public policies, says concrete interventions that slow down cars and protect people are necessary to improve public health. DiMaggio’s work, for example, designed narrower streets, built pedestrian islands in large intersections and turned two-way streets into one-way thoroughfares to protect children walking to school. Interventions that prevent the causes of injury rather than addressing the outcomes are critical, says DiMaggio.

“If you package things in a way they don’t break,” says DiMaggio, “You don’t have to worry about dropping them.”

About the Author: Science, health and environment reporter based in Brooklyn, New York. Follow on Twitter @erbrod.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 6 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. hanmeng 8:26 pm 04/5/2013

    I’m afraid the love affair with cars is not just persistent nationwide, but worldwide. Decades ago in Europe and Asia people were happy getting around by bike or public transport, but as their standard of living has risen, they have chosen to drive. Los Angeles is hardly an exception. An increase of 32 percent isn’t much if “cycling accounts for less than one percent of the population”.

    The fact is, people everywhere seem to love to drive, and public transportation almost never seems to pay for itself. That said, I’d just as soon drivers would pay for the use of their own roads, instead of having federal dollars spent on them.

    Link to this
  2. 2. bicyclemichaela 11:42 pm 04/5/2013

    I commute to work in So Cal 5 days a week, 7 miles each way, except when it rains. Then I drive. I suggest that buses should carry more than 2 bikes in their bike rack. I suggest that buses should be made to carry a bike and a trailer. A mom could go shopping with her kid in a trailer and there’d be room on the bus for her bike and a number of other bikes and the bike trailer. The problem is a car is very convenient. But if you could go to the bus, ride it with your kid, your bike and your trailer to the shopping area, get all your groceries and get back on the bus with all that stuff and unload it back at your stop and go home, then maybe it would compete in convenience with a car. But as it is now, if you have to haul the basket onto a bus and there is no room for a kid, it really impossible to go shopping for a family. The buses could haul a trailer around behind them to load the extra bikes and trailers and groceries into. Well, that is the way I see one solution. Now I might be willing to commute even on rainy days if I could be assured that I could get the bike on the bus to go home even if, because of the rain, there are 5 other people who want to get their bikes on the bus too. As it stands now, the bus can only take 2 bike. That’s the pits.
    Thanks for listening.
    Michael

    Link to this
  3. 3. podboq 2:53 am 04/6/2013

    When are people going to quit believing that laws protect anything? They protect nothing! Laws only outline the penalties for violating the law if a lawbreaker is caught.

    You are the only person who can protect you.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Marrow 4:58 am 04/6/2013

    I enjoy driving, bikes simply don’t do it for me. I’m an environmentally minded conservation student so am well aware of the costs. I got by walking for years and using public transport but since having a car I would never go back. In the UK bikes are supposed to stick to the road, personally this is a big issue, its unsafe, inconvenient for drivers and a major source of bike road rage. Why can’t people simply stick to the pavements esp when there are no pedestrians about?

    Link to this
  5. 5. TTLG 12:59 pm 04/6/2013

    I think a big part of the problem is that walking and biking are relatively low-status behaviors compared to driving. So our system is less interested in protecting these people. If drivers of luxury cars were being killed and injured at rates five time higher than people in ordinary cars it is a safe bet that there would be a very large and immediate reaction by the police and lawmakers.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Bob T 12:20 pm 08/18/2013

    I have driven a vehicle since I was 16 and I love my cars and take care of them to the count that each one was the best. And including that I have tinted the glass of every vehicle since then. I have a window film company since 1964 when we used to spray the tint on. The vehicles that most of you see tinted is in a dark nature because the client wants to “look cool” and not be cool… There is a solar film that I install that can reduce 65% heat and UV by 99% but it doesn’t look “cool” and you can see right through the glass. But most clients don’t care I guess because of ego’s not smarts!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X