Dangerous by Design 2026

[Ned Weasel]

This came out a while ago, but in case you missed it:

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/signature-reports/dangerous-by-design/

I hope people start taking this seriously.

[Rothman]

This came out a while ago, but in case you missed it:

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/signature-reports/dangerous-by-design/

I hope people start taking this seriously.

Pedestrian fatalities?  When haven't they been taken seriously?  Heck, that's how Sesame Street got its start...

[Max Rockatansky]

Look at Fresno pulling up a solid top ten finish!  I'll have to tell my wife about that number seven ranking when I'm next going out for a morning run.

How exactly Bakersfield and Delano lumped into a single metro area?  Delano is a pretty decent clip north of Bakersfield via empty farmland and McFarland. 

[Ned Weasel]

Pedestrian fatalities?  When haven't they been taken seriously?  Heck, that's how Sesame Street got its start...

At the risk of being Captain Obvious here--

If U.S. society and engineering culture was taking this with the appropriate level of seriousness, then the numbers wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[Max Rockatansky]

Pedestrian fatalities?  When haven't they been taken seriously?  Heck, that's how Sesame Street got its start...

At the risk of being Captain Obvious here--

If U.S. society and engineering culture was taking this with the appropriate level of seriousness, then the numbers wouldn't be nearly as bad.

Well, I can tell you exactly what the problem with Fresno is.  The city isn't per se all that bad with pedestrian design standards.  The thing is much of the city limit surrounds hardened county islands like Sunnyside and Old Fig Garden.  The county islands don't have unified pedestrian standards nor to they want to be annexed into Fresno. 

FWIW, I prefer running in Sunnyside since most of the road shoulders are dirt or gravel.  They are softer on my feet as opposed to the concrete sidewalks Fresno uses.  The HAWK signal that the city recently installed on Fowler Avenue at Sanger West High School probably causes more issues than it helps.  Most drivers don't understand how the signal works (despite the city mainly pamphlets) and it causes massive backups every morning.

Also, Fresno has a pretty significant homeless issue.  It isn't uncommon to see news stories about a homeless person getting hit while trying to walk across a freeway.  I don't know how you account for something like that in pedestrian planning.

[gonealookin]

The geographical distribution of the "most dangerous states" makes it pretty obvious that there's a problem with the data.

All of the places that are categorized as "most dangerous" for pedestrians have weather that is conducive for walking and running most or all of the year.

I think the data needs to be adjusted as "pedestrian deaths per 100K miles traveled on foot", or something like that.  They are doing the "most dangerous" rating by "pedestrian deaths per 100K population" but failing to account for there just not being that many pedestrians out and about in the northern states in the colder months.  Minnesota and Iowa are allegedly "least dangerous" according to their rankings, but somehow I don't think New Mexico would be 5.5 times more dangerous than Minnesota if you accounted for people walking and running more where the weather is better.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it is worth pointing out that this is a non-profit that seemingly skirts being an overt urbanism group.  Their About Us tab doesn't exactly leave the impression that they have much clout.  Either way, they got a lot of the Vision Zero mentality baked into their page. 

The Smart Growth American Facebook page hasn't been updated since April 2025.  Their Twitter account if I'm reading it correctly doesn't even have a single post?

[kalvado]

The geographical distribution of the "most dangerous states" makes it pretty obvious that there's a problem with the data.

All of the places that are categorized as "most dangerous" for pedestrians have weather that is conducive for walking and running most or all of the year.

I think the data needs to be adjusted as "pedestrian deaths per 100K miles traveled on foot", or something like that.  They are doing the "most dangerous" rating by "pedestrian deaths per 100K population" but failing to account for there just not being that many pedestrians out and about in the northern states in the colder months.  Minnesota and Iowa are allegedly "least dangerous" according to their rankings, but somehow I don't think New Mexico would be 5.5 times more dangerous than Minnesota if you accounted for people walking and running more where the weather is better.

There is a noticeable north-south gradient in total road fatalities as well.  I thought northeast has some advantage of more safety inspections required.. 
I also wonder if increase of pedestrian fatalities would correlate with proliferation of smartphones.
Oh, and an impressive number of those killed pedestrians were drunk, notably in mid-age range, but also in <18 years group.

[Max Rockatansky]

Who exactly is pining to go for a walk to the grocery store in Fresno, Bakersfield and Tucson during the summer months?  100F plus weather will wear you down fast and is never pleasant to be out in.

[kalvado]

Who exactly is pining to go for a walk to the grocery store in Fresno, Bakersfield and Tucson during the summer months?  100F plus weather will wear you down fast and is never pleasant to be out in.

2017 statistics says  3/4 of pedestrian deaths occur after dark, I assume that also correlates with a bit lower temperature.

[Max Rockatansky]

Who exactly is pining to go for a walk to the grocery store in Fresno, Bakersfield and Tucson during the summer months?  100F plus weather will wear you down fast and is never pleasant to be out in.

2017 statistics says  3/4 of pedestrian deaths occur after dark, I assume that also correlates with a bit lower temperature.

That's usually when I go out and run during the summer.  I suppose that tracks since I usually see most other pedestrians out shortly before sunrise or after sundown.

[gonealookin]

Who exactly is pining to go for a walk to the grocery store in Fresno, Bakersfield and Tucson during the summer months?  100F plus weather will wear you down fast and is never pleasant to be out in.

2017 statistics says  3/4 of pedestrian deaths occur after dark, I assume that also correlates with a bit lower temperature.

That's usually when I go out and run during the summer.  I suppose that tracks since I usually see most other pedestrians out shortly before sunrise or after sundown.

Right, whereas nobody is ever "pining" to go for a walk to the grocery store in Minneapolis or Duluth at any time of day in the cold months.

Their numbers show that "where there are more pedestrians, more pedestrians are killed".  No kidding.  What I object to is labeling the places where there are more pedestrians as therefore "more dangerous" just based on those numbers.

I don't doubt their conclusion that Florida and many of its metro areas are pedestrian death traps.  The pedestrians are doddering, and so are the drivers.

[Rothman]

Pedestrian fatalities?  When haven't they been taken seriously?  Heck, that's how Sesame Street got its start...

At the risk of being Captain Obvious here--

If U.S. society and engineering culture was taking this with the appropriate level of seriousness, then the numbers wouldn't be nearly as bad.

Pfft.  Could flip that on its head and say the numbers could be a whole lot worse.

Let's not just spew cliche rhetoric.

[GaryV]

So a lot of noise and statistics, but do they ever say exactly what designs are dangerous?

[Max Rockatansky]

So a lot of noise and statistics, but do they ever say exactly what designs are dangerous?

They do some finger-pointing on their Wordpress document:

https://wordpress.smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Smart-Growth-America-Dangerous-by-Design-2026.pdf

This is what I take away from said document:

-  Policymakers are being bad at their jobs. 
-  People need to value safety more. 
-  Road designs aren't uniform enough. 
-  Road design prioritizes motor vehicle speed first. 
-  The U.S. should be more like Europe and Norway.
-  There is a concept drawing of an intersection in Memphis incorporating modern pedestrian lane markings.  The concept I'm gathering is supposed to be the ideal urban intersection?
-  There are lots of pictures of ugly looking urban roads.  The ugly roads are bad. 

So yeah, not exactly a well thought out critique of what the actual root issues are.  Pretty much all of this is the standard fare Urbanism and Vision Zero fluff we've all seen a billion times.

[kalvado]

So a lot of noise and statistics, but do they ever say exactly what designs are dangerous?

They do some finger-pointing on their Wordpress document:

https://wordpress.smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Smart-Growth-America-Dangerous-by-Design-2026.pdf

This is what I take away from said document:

-  Policymakers are being bad at their jobs. 
-  People need to value safety more. 
-  Road designs aren't uniform enough. 
-  Road design prioritizes motor vehicle speed first. 
-  The U.S. should be more like Europe and Norway.
-  There is a concept drawing of an intersection in Memphis incorporating modern pedestrian lane markings.  The concept I'm gathering is supposed to be the ideal urban intersection?
-  There are lots of pictures of ugly looking urban roads.  The ugly roads are bad. 

So yeah, not exactly a well thought out critique of what the actual root issues are.  Pretty much all of this is the standard fare Urbanism and Vision Zero fluff we've all seen a billion times.

True safety messages would be pretty totalitarian, disproportionately affect minorities and poor, and so on.
Those would be:
1. Don't drink and walk where vehicles are. More so marijuana use.
2. Don't wear dark clothes without reflective marks where vehicles present.
3. Use crosswalks, or at least look where you walk

[Scott5114]

The geographical distribution of the "most dangerous states" makes it pretty obvious that there's a problem with the data.

All of the places that are categorized as "most dangerous" for pedestrians have weather that is conducive for walking and running most or all of the year.

Eh, it can also be construed as "These are all places where living was only comfortable after the air conditioner was invented, and thus were mostly designed after the car was invented".

On the other hand, the fact that our state is in the top ten of the states list, but Las Vegas is not on  the city list, probably means that Nevada's affinity for alcohol is a key factor. Las Vegas is highly car centric but that's not true of many of the other cities.

[kphoger]

Who exactly is pining to go for a walk to the grocery store in Fresno, Bakersfield and Tucson during the summer months?  100F plus weather will wear you down fast and is never pleasant to be out in.

2017 statistics says  3/4 of pedestrian deaths occur after dark, I assume that also correlates with a bit lower temperature.

nobody is ever "pining" to go for a walk to the grocery store in Minneapolis or Duluth at any time of day in the cold months.

Having lived in a Midwestern suburban area with no car before, I'd much rather go to the grocery store in 100°+ weather than 10°- weather.

Also, the farther south you are, the longer it stays light in the evening, so the less likely you are to be going to that store after dark to begin with.

Their numbers show that "where there are more pedestrians, more pedestrians are killed".  No kidding.  What I object to is labeling the places where there are more pedestrians as therefore "more dangerous" just based on those numbers.

I know, a real shocker, right?

In other news, did you know Florida also has more drownings than Kansas does?

Could flip that on its head and say the numbers could be a whole lot worse.

Let's not just spew cliche rhetoric.

But.. but.. but.. Even one death is too many!

Drive Walk to zero!

[vdeane]

I think a lot of the north-south difference has more to do with sunbelt cities being newer and having wider roads, faster traffic, and land use/transportation that's more hostile to walking in general.

[kalvado]

I think a lot of the north-south difference has more to do with sunbelt cities being newer and having wider roads, faster traffic, and land use/transportation that's more hostile to walking in general.

North-south exists not only for pedestrians. And please note, this is normalized per miles h although per capita looks similar
https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-

[hotdogPi]

This corresponds with the Human Development Index more than north/south. (As usual, New Mexico is in the worst 10 on most metrics, which is why I'm not calling it a red/blue map. Also see North Dakota and South Dakota.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index_score

[interstatefan990]

I think a lot of the north-south difference has more to do with sunbelt cities being newer and having wider roads, faster traffic, and land use/transportation that's more hostile to walking in general.

North-south exists not only for pedestrians. And please note, this is normalized per miles h although per capita looks similar
https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-

That New Mexico-Colorado-Wyoming vertical stretch is especially odd.

[vdeane]

I think a lot of the north-south difference has more to do with sunbelt cities being newer and having wider roads, faster traffic, and land use/transportation that's more hostile to walking in general.

North-south exists not only for pedestrians. And please note, this is normalized per miles h although per capita looks similar
https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-

Those types of roads aren't exactly the safest for drivers, either, even if they feel more comfortable to drive on.  High speeds + lots of traffic, driveways, and intersections = trouble.  There's a reason why New Urbanists call them "stroads".

That New Mexico-Colorado-Wyoming vertical stretch is especially odd.

Looking at the way Albuquerque is, I'm not surprised that NM is high.  WY and MT are both rural with high speeds, so it doesn't take much to get their "per 100 million" number up.  Boise is another new auto-oriented city.

The ones that really surprise me are Oregon and Utah.

[kphoger]

Here's my overall take on the map:

It's a fairly narrow range between 0.65 and 1.55 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles for the map to be drawn with such starkly different colors.  When you make the max and min of most any map dark red and dark blue, the results are going to look like there's a stark difference between regions, even if there really isn't much of one.

[kalvado]

Here's my overall take on the map:

It's a fairly narrow range between 0.65 and 1.55 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles for the map to be drawn with such starkly different colors.  When you make the max and min of most any map dark red and dark blue, the results are going to look like there's a stark difference between regions, even if there really isn't much of one.

3x is actually quite a bit of a difference.