This article seems to be based on a butchery of statistics, for the sake of a headline. It's referring to total deaths, not per capita, let alone per pedestrian. The article breathlessly claims that, "...more than 7,500 pedestrians were killed by drivers last year — the highest number since 1981."
Not only has the population increased by more than 100 million people since 1981, but the number of pedestrians has increased even faster than the number of people has, with ever more people going carless - especially in some of the largest and most densely packed cities, like NYC.
That these values are staying so low seems to be the real story, as it would seem to indicate that cities are doing a great job of adjusting to an increasing pedestrian population. But, if it bleeds - it leads, I suppose. Perhaps with the modern addendum that if it doesn't bleed, then just splash some ketchup on it.
Like mentioned it's not just population growth. It's population growth alongside the fact that there's more pedestrians than ever. And unfortunately I missed probably also perhaps the single biggest factor: smart phones. Not only do you have more pedestrians than ever, they're also now going to be walking around with their faces shoved into a smart phone instead of paying attention to their surroundings.
That pedestrian deaths were higher at some point in the past is what's the real story here.
> That pedestrian deaths were higher at some point in the past is what's the real story here.
I deeply disagree with this take. I am living in a world in which boxes of metal fly around my unprotected flesh at high speeds, and "will I make it home safe today" is not only a dice roll for my life, but one in which the odds are getting worse by the day. One thing that keeps these numbers comparatively low is a pervasive culture of fear among people who walk, since they need to keep their head on a swivel and be prepared to save their lives at a moment's notice from someone else's negligent behavior in a motor vehicle. Another thing that keeps these numbers comparatively low is that many people in more walkable areas choose to walk less, or not at all, due to that danger. Another thing that keeps these numbers comparatively low is the proliferation of exurban developments in the past four decades in which walking anywhere is an absolute nonstarter.
It is interesting, perhaps, that pedestrian deaths used to be worse. It is not a consolation, nor is it the "real story."
I would say the "real story" is that pedestrian deaths are rebounding in the U.S. even though in European nations pedestrian deaths continued falling significantly after 2009.[1]
I can definitely see your perspective. It's hard for me to respond here because I tend to be obsessed with data, and data is surprisingly hard it is to find this topic. Even something as simple as a real car ownership rate over time, and not registrations / population (which is about as meaningful as guns / population in terms of ownership), is surprisingly hard to find.
>It's referring to total deaths, not per capita, let alone per pedestrian.
What exactly does it matter? Deaths per capita is a stupid statistic anyway. The pedestrian deaths are at least 3 times as numerous in the USA than, for example, the Nordic countries. (in terms of pedestrian deaths/driven distance)
If anything, the article is trying to make a point that the car centricism in the US is bad, and steps should be taken to make it less so.
Not only has the population increased by more than 100 million people since 1981, but the number of pedestrians has increased even faster than the number of people has, with ever more people going carless - especially in some of the largest and most densely packed cities, like NYC.
That these values are staying so low seems to be the real story, as it would seem to indicate that cities are doing a great job of adjusting to an increasing pedestrian population. But, if it bleeds - it leads, I suppose. Perhaps with the modern addendum that if it doesn't bleed, then just splash some ketchup on it.