The New York Times has an interesting piece today about pedestrian deaths in the US. As I've noted before—along with many others—US pedestrian fatalities decreased for decades but then suddenly turned up in 2010. Since then fatalities have continued to drop in other countries but have increased about 50% in the US. Why?
The Times brings something new to this mystery: According to their analysis, pedestrian deaths have gone up only at night. During the day fatalities stopped declining, but didn't go up.
Possible reasons range from automatic transmissions to increased cell phone use to larger cars and trucks on the road. None of these seem really convincing, though. It turns out the evidence just doesn't support them. But there's also this fascinating tidbit:
This prompts an obvious alternative explanation: The increase in fatalities has something to do with pedestrian behavior. If it were driver behavior, after all, every age group would be increasing.
And guess who uses smartphones the most? Ages 18-64. Children largely don't have phones and old people don't use them much. So maybe the big change is pedestrians staring at their phones and walking unsafely?
Saying this is taboo, because we're not supposed to blame virtuous pedestrians when nasty, reckless, polluting drivers are ready at hand. And yet, if this were a matter of bigger cars or distracted drivers, surely they'd be wreaking havoc on kids and the elderly too? Why wouldn't they?
Granted, this is just a guess on my part. And there's another factor here that the Times doesn't mention: Only fatal crashes have gone up. The total number of pedestrian crashes has been rock steady the entire time.
So: the problem is only fatal crashes at night among ages 18-64 in the US. That is indeed very peculiar. And it's at least worth a look to see if this suggests something going on among pedestrians, not just drivers.
The possibility that it is pedestrian behavior seems plausible enough. I have nothing against that hypothesis. But aren't 18-64 year olds also the group that goes out at night. I know that I have had trouble finding a bridge game in the evening because old people (which is the bridge playing population) don't like to go out at night. So all of the games are during the day when I work. Similarly children tend to be limited in when they can go out at night. Older children can, but older children have cell phones these days.
So this particular argument blaming pedestrians is not too convincing.
+1 for 18-64 being out at night
maybe also pedestrians more likely to be inebriated and on their phones at night than during the day
or maybe both drivers and pedestrians are inebriated/distracted by phones at night
I just got paid 7268 Dollars Working off my Laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, My Divorced friend has twin toddlers and made 0ver $ 13892 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.
This is what I do………> > > https://dailyincome95.blogspot.com/
fwiw, first iphone released in 2007
I think at least some of that is addressed by looking at rates rather than absolute figures.
But aren't 18-64 year olds also the group that goes out at night. I know that I have had trouble finding a bridge game in the evening because old people (which is the bridge playing population) don't like to go out at night...So this particular argument blaming pedestrians is not too convincing.
Kevin's chart tracks the percentage increase in pedestrian deaths, not the absolute number. Are you claiming the 18-64 cohort started going out at night a lot more frequently starting at the end of the aughts (and older folks and kids did not)?
That seems a lot less likely than an increase in distracted walking because of smartphone use (the iPhone was released in 2007). Also, there was a modest increase in pedestrian deaths among seniors, if you look at the chart—just a more modest and delayed one. Which would correspond to the fact that older people do in fact use smartphones (they're just likely to be later adopters, and are also less likely to be hard core phone addicts).
Trump will sort this in another year by limiting all mobile transmission to his twitts.
Has the number of drivers over the age of 65 changed? Older eyes have more probles with night vision.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, and it’s why I avoid driving at night when I can. Additionally, lots more cars have very bright halogen lights which can be quite blinding when coming at you.
Yeah, putting modern high-discharge lighting into older vehicles that weren't designed for them is a pretty awful trend.
I think headlight characteristics bear investigation. I have noticed when driving at night, that pedestrians who are off to one side or the other seem less visible than formerly. Yes, I’m older, but another hypothesis that brighter headlights reduce one’s dark adaptation, such that objects not directly in the beam are less salient. (I took multiple undergrad and graduate courses in perceptual psychology)
Even if it has, those same older drivers should be striking pedestrians more, regardless of the pedestrians, ages.
Why? Old people and children aren't out at night. And actually are out at all less than previously.
And the18-64 group is out more at night now??
The figures are for death RATES, not absolute numbers. So a change in the numbers, if any, is irrelevant to the discussion.
The figures are for death RATES, not absolute numbers. So a change in the numbers, if any, is irrelevant to the discussion.
Uh, no, Bobber. Absolute numbers would be irrelevant, sure. But a change in the absolute numbers would indeed be relevant.
Has the number of drivers over the age of 65 changed?
It has surely gone up over the years. But this trend seems very unlikely to not affect older or child pedestrians.
Also, the increase in older drivers has been gradual (along with the general aging of the population), so, if this phenomenon were negatively impacting pedestrian safety, we'd expect the trend to be gradual, not a sudden rise beginning around 2010. As far as I know the average age of the population has been slowly increasing for at least sixty years.
A number of homeless people have been struck and killed by cars in my city recently -- mostly at night, iirc. My first inclination, too, was to blame these dang kids being attached constantly to their devices, esp. with headphones or ear buds and not paying attention to anything around them, but I wonder if it might not be related to an increased number of homeless around the country accidentally stepping out into traffic, esp. in unlit areas where drivers aren't expecting them.
Outside of CA the numbers of homeless people have not increased to any significant extent.
But surely pedestrians in other countries also use smartphones?
Right?
Different cultures, different habits.
The increase in fatalities relative to the total number of pedestrians struck by vehicles certainly suggests that something about the vehicles or the way they're driven has changed. I find it hard to believe that pedestrians die more easily than they used to.
That could be a result of bigger cars. And faster driving.
Exactly. It's almost a commonplace to say increased deaths are due to the dynamics of a collision with an increasingly common five foot tall pickup or SUV grill compared to the nose of a sedan. Direct head or torso impact as opposed to taking the pedestrians legs out from under them so they roll over the hood.
Also, too. 18 to 65 is 60%+ of the population. Seems an odd breakdown.
DING DING DING
It's this. Been responding to every one of Kevin's post about this, and it's this.
Plus roads that are not designed for pedestrian safety, but to move the most possible cars at the highest possible speeds.
Way bigger and taller trucks. Can't see pedestrians. Heck, I'm not even sure they notice when they run over someone.
It it was a visibility issue, I would expect there would be more collisions, but there aren't more collisions, just more deaths. "Taller" is almost certainly an issue, but visibility doesn't appear to be.
Uh, but why then is only 18-64 rates that are increasing? Larger vehicles should be impacting (sorry) all age groups equally if they're increasing the number of fatalities.
"And guess who uses smartphones the most? Ages 18-64"
Why would pedestrians use their phone more at night than during the day? Not to mention that from 12-13 pretty much all kids have a phone, so why not an increase in teens? Also, 18-64 seems to be the majority of pedestrians to begin with, so it is not surprising it is this group that has seen the increase.
There is absolutely nothing presented here by Kevin to suggest the issue is pedestrian behavior. If anything, if accidents remain constant, and the deaths have increased at night that to me suggests the problem is a combination of driving conditions (night driving is more dangerous, and tends to be at faster speeds due to reduced traffic), combined with larger vehicles on the road, so a same number of accidents is more likely to result in pedestrian deaths.
"so a same number of accidents is more likely to result in pedestrian deaths."
Except that increase would have no reason to be largely in the 18-64 year old age group.
I drive through areas densely populated with roadside beggars and noticed there are a lot of jaywalkers. These are on busy roads with 45 mph limits.
Jaywalkers?
You mean, vulnerable road users crossing where they need to instead of adding a mile to their route?
Or maybe vulnerable road users crossing where they want to instead of adding 20 yards to their route to reach the crosswalk. Or maybe crossing when they want to instead of waiting 30 seconds for the light to change.
????????
Yes, jaywalkers.
Jaywalking is only defined in places where there are crosswalks, which would be city streets where there's a crosswalk every block-- and those are almost never a mile apart.
Is it just me or are more people wearing dark or black outfits these days. When I drive at night I am amazed by the number of people trying to cross the street wearing dark pants and a black hoodie. Dark hoodies not only make you harder to see, but decease your ability to hear an approaching car.
Also a viable hypothesis.
Headphones and earbuds are probably a bigger issue than hoodies. When I bike I navigate by sound (so I have a sense of what's coming from behind me) almost as much as by sight, and wearing a hoodie up in the winter under my helmet does not really impact my hearing. I would never wear earbuds playing music.
Hypothesis: If you are trying cash in your life insurance for your family, and don't want a suicide to look like suicide, this is one way to do it.
Also, whenever I see whacky mortality behavior, I think drugs. But cell phones seem logical.
I wonder how scooters classify? I have seen some nutty stuff from people on scooters lately.
Agree about scooters: I've seen too many people ride them as if they were king of the road. Do bicyclists count as pedestrians too?
The fact that cars are bigger and more deadly to pedestrians with longer stopping distances and wider wheelbases might only show up when...
...at night when visual distances decreases?
It's not like these deaths are happening where we're improving non-automobile infrastructure like grade-separated paths and raised or narrowed crosswalks.
C'mom Kevin. Don't you think it's more likely that 18-64 year-olds are far more likely to be pedestrians at night? If the problem is simply that deaths are up at night, that would likely fully explain the differential response by age group.
The figures are for death RATES, not absolute numbers. So a change in the numbers, if any, is irrelevant to the discussion.
Uh, no, Bobber. Absolute numbers would be irrelevant, sure. But a change in the absolute numbers would indeed be relevant.
I highly doubt it's pedestrians scrolling on their phones. If it were, deaths among teens would be rising, and homeless people wouldn't be such a large proportion of the dead (most homeless people stay put when using phones, so they can use free wifi).
The deaths are clustered at dusk. That is the key. Old people tend to stay indoors once it gets dark, but the 18-65 crowd is commuting, walking dogs, running errands, etc.
The biggest factor is likely the lighting at night, both from street lights and headlights on cars. Everyone complains about how blinding headlights are now. Even when bicyclists and pedestrians have flashing lights, the lights of oncoming traffic make it hard to see anything on the edges of the road. To make it worse, street lighting is often nonexistent. Where I live the street lamps have had their copper wire stolen, but "dark sky" initiatives also play some role.
Other things play supporting roles. The greater number of people walking along suburban "stroads" (wide streets with fast traffic) because of the movement of poorer people out into the suburbs. The taller vehicles that kill instead of maim. Distracted drivers looking at any number of screens (phone or dash). The move toward faster driving that grew during the pandemic.
But I mostly think it's a lighting issue, especially since the lights on SUVs and trucks are placed so high off the ground. Pedestrians just can't stand out enough when all the headlights of rush hour are blazing.
"To make it worse, street lighting is often nonexistent. "
Not sure where you live but this is not my experience. Bright streetlights are everywhere. They just put a super bright light about 40 feed from my house and now my whole front yard is lit up like it's noon all night long.
Flashing lights also make it harder for approaching drivers to judge distance. They can create an illusion of greater distance.
what a terrible post. cars are bigger and faster and not enough have automatic emergency braking.
for climate change reasons and just better cities and human health we need protected bike lanes, bigger side walks, transit oriented communities.https://x.com/Qagggy?t=sGtGEApvvNNu5SIdVDWyTA&s=09
what a terrible post. cars are bigger and faster and not enough have automatic emergency braking.
Which should result in an increase in deaths at all times of the day and among all age groups.
Part of it is drivers not paying attention...I've literally seen pedestrians diving out of the crosswalks because drivers aren't stopping.
Part of it is heavier vehicles, which make the consequences of a hit that much more lethal.
Part of it is clothing and the lack of reflection in earning morning or nighttime hours.
But a larger part is pedestrians not doing their part and being heads up instead of locked in on their phone, whether scrolling, streaming or talking.
Not one of these "parts" you mention accounts for the increase in deaths only occurring at night, nor being concentrated among a single age cohort.
"Children largely don't have phones . . "
You sure about that, old man?
Like I point out every time you post about this, it's not a mystery.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians
Do you not remember posting charts about the increasing portion of the American car market that is "light trucks" (and SUVs) in the early 2010s? Because I got turned onto that tidbit by your blog over on Mother Jones.
It's funny that you've forgotten it?
So light trucks don't hit old people and children?
Tell me you live in Irvine California without telling me you live in Irvine California.
To echo several other comments here, yeah if total collisions are constant and deaths are up, that pretty much points to vehicles being the issue. And we know that vehicle design has been rapidly changing to make them much more deadly in a pedestrian collision.
But what does seem odd is why 2008 is such a strong inflection point. It does roughly coincide with iPhone release. Also with the economic crash. But also is roughly when truck/SUV design really started to lean into the gigantic, flat-front design that's a know killer.
To echo several other comments here, yeah if total collisions are constant and deaths are up, that pretty much points to vehicles being the issue.
How careful are the data compiled, I wonder? If we've seen a sizable increase in pedestrian deaths involving vehicles, perhaps it's the case that law enforcement or public safety authorities have reduced their focus on less serious incidents (and thus underreport them relative to the status quo fifteen years ago)?
I also think it's possible both vehicles and pedestrians are the issue: the former are often larger (with poorer sight lines) than in previous eras, and so are inherently more dangerous, no argument. But the latter are in a weaker position to protect themselves from these dangerous situations if their heads are buried in their phones.
Hybrid and electric vehcicles also tend to be heavier than the equivalent sized car with a gas engine only.
And cars are just phenomenally more quiet than they used to be.
But it isn't just pedestrians on their phones, but drivers also. And drivers being really zeroed in on music that's designed so exactly for listening while driving.
I find it very surprising that this needed to be a guessing game! Is there not a known answer to this question? If not, why not? Is this not important information (indeed even life or death) that could help people make better life choices? Do they not carefully investigate EVERY car fatality and file a report regarding the circumstances involved? One might imagine that such publicly filed reports could be extended to a range of other fatal circumstances where community learning and prevention might occur. Perhaps even GPT could be put to analyze the totality of such reports and then report back insights gained. It is highly surprising that such reports would be filed away and never brought forward to motivate safety improvements.
Giant vehicles are probably unique to the US and cell phones probably not. But giant vehicles do not obviously explain the age difference.
Probably patterns of behavior that are there for adults under 65 that aren't there for adults who are more likely to be retired because they're 65+.
Namely, adults age 18-64 are more likely to be out being a pedestrian during peak traffic times and/or peak times for vehicle-pedestrian collisions, or times/places when traffic is more likely to be deadly to pedestrians than those in other age groups.
Namely, adults age 18-64 are more likely to be out being a pedestrian during peak traffic times and/or peak times for vehicle-pedestrian collisions, or times/places when traffic is more likely to be deadly to pedestrians than those in other age groups
That wouldn't affect the trend. That would only impact absolute levels. Are you saying there's been an increase (since the beginning of the 2010s, when smart phone use was becoming ubiquitous) in walking during peak times?
I think we can all agree that the population least likely to be pedestrians outside at night is under-18 and over-65.
We should also all be able to agree that smart phone usage has rapidly increased since its introduction in 2008-2009.
I'm certain most of us recall that a lot of people took early retirements during the Great Recession, starting the boom of the, err, boomer retirements.
Finally, I'm sure we all recognize that the groups most at risk of causing crashes, measured by crashes per million (all crashes) and 100 million (fatal crashes) miles driven, are the youngest and oldest drivers.
So, what conclusion would you draw?
Pedestrian phone use does not contribute to an overall increase in accidents, but it does contribute to an increase in the fatality of those accidents?
This makes no sense at all.
Kevin makes a wild, unsupported assumption when he says that every pedestrian age group should be affected equally if the cause was something other than pedestrian behavior (drivers, or their cars, roads, etc...). This doesnt seem like a logical conclusion and Kevin doesnt try to support it.
I think it seems pretty logical, actually. Are you suggesting drivers are going out hunting only prime age adults? It may not be smartphone use on the part of pedestrians, but that at least seems plausibly connected to the phenomenon at hand. Can you provide an alternative hypothesis?
If collision rates haven’t generally changed but death rates have increased for 18-64 year olds, that sure seems like it has to be about vehicle and road design - the age divergence might be because kids and older people are more physically vulnerable, and are already more likely to die when hit by a car, whereas healthier, more robust people in that central range who might have survived a collision with a smaller, lighter car are instead dying to new, heavier cars that might be moving more rapidly.
It’d be nice to have additional data on this, of course, and this is largely conjecture - but I really can’t see how changed pedestrian behavior could lead to the data as described.
If collision rates haven’t generally changed but death rates have increased for 18-64 year olds, that sure seems like it has to be about vehicle and road design
Perhaps, but if that were the case we wouldn't expect to see the death rate for day time walkers, or children walkers, or older walkers, remain the same.
The assumption that kids dont have smartphones is a bad one.
The assumption thay smart phones dont exist in other countries is also a bad one.
There is no logic here, only assumptions. If we assume phone use is the distinguishing factor, assume that all else is equal, and assume that phone use isnt a thing in other countries, it looks logical! But this isnt actually logic to assume the conclusion.
The article actually included data about driver phone use by hour....which was logically left out of this post as it provides evidence that driver behavior is to blame.
Clipping out actual evidence and replacing it with unsupported assumptions......is not good....certainly not logical.
What are the ages of the drivers? Could it be aging baby boomers losing their night vision to cataracts? I've had friends in my cohort who have been amazed at how much better their night vision is after cataract surgery.
Pedestrian safety is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I think Kevin is half right and missing a key point. Broadly pedestrian accidents can be divided into two groups based on fault: driver (the majority) and pedestrian (the minority).
When pedestrians are at fault they are usually crossing when and where they are not supposed to be, and I can’t recall a single police report that cited cell phone us as a factor…and trust me, cops bend over backwards to blame pedestrians. Nor does it make sense that someone playing Frogger would be doing it while watching their phone.
I think the more likely scenario is when the driver is at fault. I’m a serial pedestrian, and I’ve had hundreds of encounters with cars that would have hit me if I hadn’t altered my legal, right-of-way, behavior. Being prepared to dodge cars breaking the law is a normal part of taking a walk. I can easily see phones being a factor here, not in causing illegal pedestrian behavior but it making it more likely that a pedestrian will be unable to see the reckless driver in time.
I can’t recall a single police report that cited cell phone us as a factor...I think the more likely scenario is when the driver is at fault. I’m a serial pedestrian, and I’ve had hundreds of encounters with cars that would have hit me if I hadn’t altered my legal, right-of-way, behavior. Being prepared to dodge cars breaking the law is a normal part of taking a walk.
I hear you, but I think it's pretty likely that, since the arrival of smartphones (and, especially, the social media many seem addicted to), pedestrians are often more distracted. And this hampers their ability to protect themselves from reckless drivers. Law enforcement rightly blames many such incidents on drivers even in those cases where a more alert pedestrian might have saved themselves from a deadly encounter with a dangerous person behind the wheel.
And again, reckless drivers shouldn't exempt older people and children.
and trust me, cops bend over backwards to blame pedestrians
Seems unlikely as a general rule.
The big pass cops give drivers is speeding. If you read reports of accidents “Speed was not a factor” is almost always there unless it was a drag race or utterly reckless driving. Yet that’s an obvious lie, as every mile per hour matters a lot in any collision, but especially pedestrians accidents. So the fact that the driver was doing the same 33-in-a-25 as everyone else matters, a lot, and should shift a lot of the fault to the driver.
But the police need some sort of evidence to state the driver's speed- otherwise it's a "guestimate" that won't hold up in court . You can sometimes derive speed from the damage when a vehicle hits another car or other hard object, but not with collisions with pedestrians. Witnesses might state a car was speeding if going much faster than normal traffic-- but if a car is going with traffic they won't consider it speeding.
In many cities biking infrastructure has improved a lot in the last twenty years. We should be seeing some decline in biking accidents with cars and this should also help protect pedestrians by separating them further from traffic.
I walk a lot and boy howdy have I seen idiocy both behind and in front of the wheel; pedestrians aren't blameless, no, but drivers are in a better position to cause more problems if they drive badly.
Also, "18-64"? Seems like a terribly wide definition to work from. Break it up into groups defined by something like a twelve year span, then we'll see.
Guess which group is more prone to doing their pedestrianating out in the street instead of on the sidewalk?
I think Kevin's smartphone thesis is plausible, though I'd note that people use smartphones during the day, too. One alternative idea is cannabis legalization: presumably people in their prime work years tend to wait until after work to partake (yes, obviously there are exceptions), so there may be an increase in weed-buzzed walking during the evening, and I'd guess it indeed concentrates in the broad 18-64 age cohort. Also, the most walk-friendly neighborhoods in the country tend to be found in blue cities where weed has been legalized.