U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

P e d e s t r i a n I n j u r i e s 

a n d F a t a l i t i e s

by 

Justin A. Heinonen

John E. Eck

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 51

Pedestrian Injuries and 

Fatalities

Justin A. Heinonen

John E. Eck

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2005CKWXK001 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the Justice 

Department’s official position. References to specific companies, 

products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of 

the product by the author(s) or the Justice Department. Rather, the 

references are used to supplement discussion of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

October 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 51

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

Neither do they cover all of the technical details about 

how to implement specific responses. The guides are 

written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who 

must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

Understand basic problem-oriented policing 

principles and methods. The guides are not primers 

in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly 

with the initial decision to focus on a particular 

problem, methods to analyze the problem, and means 

to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing 

project. They are designed to help police decide how 

best to analyze and address a problem they have already 

identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools

guides has been produced to aid in various aspects of 

problem analysis and assessment.)

Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that 

is most likely to work in your community. You should 

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; 

you must decide whether they are appropriate to your 

local situation. What is true in one place may not be 

true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work 

everywhere.

•

•
ii Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 

police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion 

series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work on 

a variety of problems.) 

Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides 

illustrate the need for more research on that particular 

problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive 

answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in 

designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you 

exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the 

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest 

of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of 

relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been 

attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references 

listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most 

heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research 

on the subject. 

•

•
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the 

guides. They must frequently implement them in 

partnership with other responsible private and public 

bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public 

utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An 

effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine 

partnerships with others and be prepared to invest 

considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in 

the community with whom police might work to improve 

the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis 

of problems often reveals that individuals and groups 

other than the police are in a stronger position to address 

problems and that police ought to shift some greater 

responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, 

Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, 

provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context 

of addressing specific public safety problems. For the most 

part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problemsolving and police-community partnerships vary considerably 

and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from 

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 

•
iv Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be 

aware of research and successful practices beyond the 

borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research 

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review 

process is independently managed by the COPS Office, 

which solicits the reviews. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency 

may have effectively addressed a problem using responses 

not considered in these guides and your experiences and 

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be 

used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback 

and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to 

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.

popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

the Problem-Specific Guides series

the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools

series

instructional information about problem-oriented 

policing and related topics

an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,

an interactive Problem Analysis Module

a manual for crime analysts

online access to important police research and practices

information about problem-oriented policing 

conferences and award programs. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office and research for the guides was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis 

Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Vehicle and Driver Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Special Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Current and Previous Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Impact on the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Impact on Driver and Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Data, Information, and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Contents vii
viii Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Using a Process Model To Develop Specific Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Pedestrian Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Vehicle and Driver Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Immediate Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Special Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Considering a Combined Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix A: Summary of General Considerations and Responses to 

Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix B: Web Resources for Improving Pedestrian Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix C: Developing a Comprehensive Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes . . . . . 73

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 1

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and 

Fatalities

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide examines the problem of pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. It reviews the factors 

that contribute to such crashes. It then provides a series of 

questions to help you analyze your local pedestrian injury and 

fatality problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem 

and what is known about them from evaluative research and 

police practice.

Pedestrian injuries and fatalities are but one aspect of the 

larger set of problems related to travel and road safety. This 

guide addresses only the particular harms created by unsafe 

pedestrian behavior, vehicle and driver factors, problematic 

physical environments, and other special conditions. Related 

problems not directly addressed in this guide include:

vehicle-vehicle traffic crashes

public intoxication

aggressive driving

drunken driving

street racing

speeding in residential areas

traffic congestion.

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in 

this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For 

the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see 

www.popcenter.org.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
2

General Description of the Problem

Pedestrian-vehicle crashes are a major problem in the 

United States. In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration reported that approximately 4,700 pedestrians 

were killed and another 70,000 injured due to pedestrianvehicle crashes.1

 On average, a pedestrian is killed in a traffic 

collision every 113 minutes and injured every 8 minutes.2 

Although only 8.6 percent of all trips are made on foot, 11.4 

percent of all traffic deaths are pedestrians.3

The times and days pedestrians are most at risk of injury 

differ from those when they are most at risk of death. Most 

pedestrian injuries occur between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., with a 

peak time between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., whereas pedestrian 

fatalities usually happen at night (i.e., between 5:30 p.m. and 

11 p.m.).4 Most pedestrian-vehicle crashes take place on 

Friday and Saturday with the fewest crashes occurring on 

Sunday.5 It is possible that these temporal patterns correspond 

with specific conditions. For instance, most pedestrian injuries 

might occur between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. because overall vehicle 

traffic increases during these hours as drivers commute home 

from work. Furthermore, pedestrian fatalities that occur at 

night could result from a combination of factors such as 

drunken drivers, drunken pedestrians, and poor visibility. 

Analysis of your community’s problem might reveal other 

explanations for temporal patterns of pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities. Finally, the majority of pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities happen to males between the ages of 25 and 44.

Pedestrian-vehicle crashes also tend to concentrate at certain 

places:6

The majority of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (60 percent 

in urban areas; 67 percent in rural areas) occur at places 

other than intersections.

•

Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
3

Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur 

where no traffic control exists.

The patterns mentioned above are general and based on 

research from several different communities. You should 

study the particular patterns in your own community, as they 

may vary from these general patterns. 

Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Injuries and 

Fatalities

Understanding the factors that contribute to your 

community’s problem will help you frame your own local 

analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, 

recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate 

responses.

No single factor is completely responsible for the problem of 

pedestrian-vehicle crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. A 

combination of unsafe pedestrian behavior, vehicle and driver 

factors, problematic physical environments, and other special 

conditions all contribute to them.7 This list of factors is not 

exhaustive, but instead highlights some common causes of 

pedestrian-vehicle crashes that result in injuries and fatalities. 

Local analysis may reveal unique situations, not on this 

list, that you may need to address. Local analysis should be 

based on the pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle (Figure 1). 

This triangle is a modification of the widely used problem 

analysis triangle (see www.popcenter.org for a description). 

Simply stated, pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur when physical 

environments allow pedestrians to come into contact with 

moving vehicles. If this occurs repeatedly, then a pedestrianvehicle crash problem exists. Most such problems will be the 

result of failures on all three sides of the triangle: pedestrians 

who are inattentive or incapable of using the street safely; 

•

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
4 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

drivers who operate in ways that make it difficult for them 

to detect pedestrians in the road; and physical environments 

that encourage unsafe pedestrian and/or driver behavior, 

or fail to adequately separate pedestrians and vehicles. The 

relative importance of each side of the triangle will vary from 

problem to problem. Fixing any one side may reduce the 

problems, in principle. Fixing more than one side should give 

greater assurance that the response to the problem will work.

Figure 1 also lists multiple specific causes of pedestrianvehicle crashes along each side of the triangle, as well as a set 

of special conditions you should consider. Each of these is 

described next.

Pedestrian Behavior

Pedestrian Jaywalking

Perception of risk

Consumption of alcohol

Perception of crossing devices

Speed and pace of life

Speed of crossing devices

Perception of enforcement risk

Unawareness of laws

"Herd mentality"

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Special Conditions

Weather

People with limited mobility

Occupational risks

Children and teens

Shopping centers

Construction

Major Highways

One-way streets

Location of attractions

Unlawful street-vending

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Physical Environment

Lack of crossing devices

Lack of midblock crossing

Width of roads

Poorly timed signals

Poor sidewalks

Absence of sidewalks

Capacity of sidewalks

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Vehicle & Driver

Perception of risk (e.g., 

alcohol comsumption, cell 

phone use, etc.)

Speed of vehicle

Volume of traffic

Type of vehicle

•

•

•

•

Figure 1: Pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle and specific causes of crashes
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 5

Pedestrian Behavior

Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities. In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

in Florida, researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 

80 percent of these incidents.8 Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian 

behavior accounted for 90 percent of crashes where vehicle struck 

a pedestrian.9

Pedestrian jaywalking. Specifically, jaywalking is often cited as 

a poor pedestrian behavior that leads to pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities. Jaywalking is a general term for any form of illegal streetcrossing by a pedestrian.10 There are several types of pedestrian 

behavior that qualify as jaywalking:

walking against a pedestrian walk signal

crossing a street where there is no crosswalk (midblock 

crossing)

crossing a street outside of a marked crosswalk where one is 

present

walking on a street along with the traffic flow (ignoring 

designated pedestrian pathways).

In addition to jaywalking, other unsafe pedestrian behavior could 

also increase the risk of injury or fatality. According to a study of 

5,073 pedestrians involved in traffic crashes, the following factors 

also contributed to pedestrian-vehicle crashes:

11

failing to yield (both drivers and pedestrians)

jogging/walking in the wrong direction

working on a parked car

leaning on a parked car

pushing a disabled car

standing between parked cars

standing in a road.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Despite the link between jaywalking and pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities, jaywalking remains a low-priority police concern. 

One reason could be that police tend to lump pedestrian 

violations into general traffic violations which they often 

consider minor folk crimes.14 Consequently, police might not 

enforce jaywalking violations as actively as other more serious 

crimes. For instance, the widely touted jaywalking crackdown 

in New York City actually resulted in only 99 jaywalking 

tickets being issued for an entire year during the crackdown. 

This level of enforcement is miniscule considering the size of 

New York’s pedestrian population.15 

6 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Jaywalking is often considered to be an urban problem. In 

one study, the frequency of jaywalking was found to be a 

function of city size where jaywalking incidents increase 

as city population increases.12 In addition, the same study 

noted that 71 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

in the United States in 2000 occurred in urban areas. The 

problem of jaywalking, however, is not limited to urban areas. 

Although researchers found urban areas to have three times 

more jaywalkers, suburban jaywalking can be a problem due to 

a lack of sidewalks that separate pedestrians and vehicles.13 

Pedestrians, vehicles, and the physical environment. The interactions 

of these three elements control the risk of pedestrian-vehicle crashes. 

Here, many pedestrians walking among moving vehicles in a low light 

wet environment suggest a hazardous situation.

John Eck
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 7

One reason why police might be reluctant to enforce 

jaywalking violations is because it potentially exposes them 

to allegations of racial profiling. For instance, the city of 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin has established a “zero-tolerance” 

program that aims to reduce quality-of-life violations such as 

speeding, excessive noise, and jaywalking. A one-year analysis 

of the program, however, showed that it appeared to have 

a disparate impact on Milwaukee’s minority population. For 

instance, the police gave the majority of citations for qualityof-life violations, including jaywalking, to ethnic minorities in 

low-income, high-crime areas.16 In fact, blacks, Hispanics, and 

other minorities received three out of every four municipal 

tickets during a one-year span in Milwaukee.17 The potential 

problem is that while blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities 

received roughly 75 percent of quality-of-life citations, these 

groups account for approximately 55 percent of Milwaukee’s 

population.18

In addition to jaywalking’s being a low-priority police 

concern, it appears that law makers also view jaywalking as a 

low-priority problem. The current penalties associated with 

jaywalking reflect this low priority in some cities. For instance, 

in the District of Columbia, pedestrians face a mere $5 fine 

for jaywalking.19 

Although jaywalking contributes to many pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities, it does not necessarily follow that jaywalking is 

inherently risky behavior. If many pedestrians jaywalk without 

getting injured, the number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

might be high, but the risk of a crash for each jaywalking 

incident might be quite low. There is little available research 

on jaywalking’s risk rate. To calculate such risk, we would need 

to know the jaywalking crash rate and jaywalking frequency.
With that said, the following sections describe several factors 

that, when identified, should help your agency move beyond 

solely enforcing jaywalking to reducing actual pedestrianvehicle crashes that result in injuries and fatalities. 

Pedestrian perceptions of risk. Some pedestrians might 

be injured or killed because they are unaware of their own 

risk of being involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash. Often, 

pedestrians have perceptions of low risk when they frequently 

travel familiar routes. In fact, pedestrians who regularly use 

certain paths or crosswalks are likely to reduce the time they 

wait at pedestrian crossings.20 Conversely, pedestrians who 

have been involved in or who have witnessed a pedestrianvehicle crash are willing to wait longer at crosswalks.

Distracted pedestrians are also at higher risk. For instance, 

pedestrians using a cell phone are less likely to look at traffic 

before crossing, to wait for traffic to stop, to look at traffic 

while crossing, or to walk briskly.21 

Pedestrian consumption of alcohol. Drunken driving 

is the cause of many traffic crashes throughout the world. 

Similarly, drinking contributes to unsafe pedestrian behavior 

that results in crashes with vehicles. Pedestrians who have 

been drinking run an even higher risk of getting killed in 

traffic, constituting between 39 percent and 60 percent of all 

pedestrian fatalities.22 Of pedestrian fatalities resulting from 

traffic crashes, between 42 percent and 61 percent of fatally 

injured pedestrians had blood-alcohol content levels (BAC) 

of 0.10 percent or more.23 Drivers with this BAC level are 

considered “impaired” under statutory definition and cannot 

legally drive.24Although also “impaired” under this statutory 

definition, it is not illegal for pedestrians to walk with a BAC 

level of 0.10 percent. Nonetheless, “impaired” pedestrians can 

contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes because they likely 

have slower reaction time, have poor judgment, and are not 

likely assessing the safeness of walking conditions.

8 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 9

For instance, while pedestrians who have not drunk alcohol are 

more aware of increased walking risks, drunken pedestrians tend 

to be more oblivious to traffic conditions, poor lighting, and 

poor weather.25 Consequently, drunken pedestrians are more 

likely to be injured or killed by vehicles because of their inability 

to recognize dangerous walking and traffic conditions. 

Finally, the more one drinks, the higher the risk of being 

involved in a pedestrian-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality. One 

study found that out of 176 pedestrian fatalities, 86 of those 

involved pedestrians who had been drinking, nearly all of whom 

had BACs of 0.10 percent or more.26

Pedestrian perceptions of crossing devices. Some 

pedestrians might not understand or be aware of signs that 

convey safe walking procedures.27 Therefore, some pedestrians 

might inadvertently enter roads and be struck by oncoming 

traffic because they are confused. For instance, some pedestrians 

may jaywalk simply because they do not know where and when 

they have the right-of-way. 

Pedestrian speed and pace of life. Pedestrian non-compliance 

with signs and signals is a significant factor in pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes nationwide.28 Some researchers have suggested that 

pedestrian non-compliance could be due to the pace of life that 

is often associated with larger cities. For instance, pedestrians 

move more quickly in big cities when compared with small 

towns.29 One researcher also discovered that whether male 

pedestrians were in a hurry or not influenced their decision to 

cross the street while the light was red.30 

Pedestrian speed versus crossing-device speed. Crossing 

devices that do not accommodate the rate at which urban 

pedestrians would like to travel may also encourage poor 

pedestrian behavior. For instance, if pedestrians have to wait 

a relatively long time for a walk signal, they are more likely to 

cross midblock to avoid delays.31 
In addition, if a pedestrian is trying to go to the opposite side 

of an intersection after crossing one street, the pedestrian 

will need to cross the adjacent street. However, the timing 

of crossing devices may not correspond to the walker’s 

directional path (see Figure 2). Therefore, after crossing one 

street, a rushed pedestrian may be less inclined to wait for a 

walk signal to cross the next street. Some researchers have 

found that significantly fewer pedestrians jaywalked when 

there were short wait times to cross the second street.32 

10 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Pedestrian perceptions of enforcement risk. Some 

pedestrians may conform to walking regulations because of 

personal preference or habit, while other pedestrians calculate 

the risk of getting caught by police against the benefits of 

jaywalking.33 Because many cities and police departments 

do not give high priority to jaywalking enforcement, the risk 

of getting caught and cited is quite low. Enforcing traffic 

laws is unpopular with officers because it is perceived as 

trivial and can lead to friction between citizens and police.34 

Consequently, the lack of enforcement or penalties could 

result in a larger disregard for pedestrian safety rules, resulting 

in higher crash rates.35 

1. The signal tells 

vehicle to stop and 

the pedestrian to go. 

2. The pedestrian has 

safely crossed, but the 

next signal tells the 

pedestrian to stop and 

vehicles to go. 

3. The pedestrian 

crosses against signal, 

into moving traffic, 

thus creating a risk of 

a crash.

Walk

Don't walk

Figure 2: Signal timing at crosswalks
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 11

§ This point was substantiated by an 

anonymous police officer reviewer 

of this guide whose agency reached 

this conclusion on the basis of an 

internal officer survey.

Pedestrian unawareness of pedestrian laws and safety. 

Another problem related to pedestrian laws is the possibility 

that pedestrians might be unaware of or misunderstand 

pedestrian laws that designate where and when they have 

the right of way. It is also possible that some drivers are 

unaware of their rights and duties or pedestrians’ rights and 

duties. Furthermore, a test on pedestrian safety in one police 

department revealed that a large majority of officers had a 

difficult time identifying pedestrian safety laws and the rights 

and duties of both drivers and pedestrians.§ Given that some 

police officers have trouble identifying driver and pedestrian 

laws and rights, it is possible that many people in the general 

population are unaware of pedestrian laws and safe behavior. 

This, too, may contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes.

Pedestrians’ following the leader. Cues from other 

pedestrians affect the cautiousness and walking behavior 

of pedestrians sharing the same intersection or route. 

For instance, some pedestrians act as “frontliners” (those 

pedestrians nearest to the street at an intersection) while 

others act as “backfielders” (those pedestrians behind other 

pedestrians at an intersection). One study found that when 

“frontliners” crossed, “backfielders” followed without 

examining walking conditions.36 Therefore, if “frontliners” 

cross illegally, other walkers may enter a road without 

adequately assessing their own individual risk. Essentially, this 

situation can be described as a “herd mentality” where each 

member feels an exaggerated sense of protection from being 

part of a group.

Similarly, obedient pedestrians (those who do not jaywalk) 

and disobedient pedestrians (those who do) influence one 

another’s behavior: the disobedient encourage jaywalking 

among the normally obedient, but the obedient can reduce 

jaywalking among the normally disobedient.37 In addition, 
disobedient walkers can diminish pedestrian penalties’ 

deterrent effects. For example, disobedient walkers might 

motivate other pedestrians to cross illegally because their 

behavior indicates that particular situations lack penalties.38 

Vehicle and Driver Factors

Vehicles and their drivers’ behavior are the second major 

group of factors that you should consider. In all, this guide 

identifies four vehicle and driver factors that could contribute 

to pedestrian-vehicle crashes that result in injuries and 

fatalities. Like the pedestrian factors described above, the 

importance of each factor is often unclear because of a lack 

of research and probably varies from problem to problem.

Driver perceptions of risk. Similar to pedestrians, drivers 

can also be unaware of their own risk of hitting a pedestrian. 

Furthermore, some of the factors that affect pedestrian 

perceptions of risk can also influence driver perceptions of 

risk. For instance, alcohol, familiarity with travel routes, and 

cell phone use might reduce a driver’s ability to recognize the 

risk of hitting a pedestrian.

Speed of vehicle. Speeding is a major contributor to vehiclevehicle crashes. It is not surprising, then, that speeding is 

also an important consideration when examining pedestrianvehicle crashes. Speed influences these crashes in two distinct 

ways. First, speed increases the chances of a collision. Simply, 

faster vehicle speeds make it more difficult for drivers to see 

pedestrians, and at the same time, high speeds reduce the 

amount of time the driver and pedestrian have to avoid a 

crash.39 Second, given a crash, the faster the vehicle the more 

severe the injury to the pedestrian. For example, a pedestrian 

hit at 40 miles per hour has an 85 percent chance of getting 

killed, whereas the likelihood goes down to 45 percent at 30 

miles per hour and 5 percent at 20 miles per hour.40

12 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
Volume of traffic. The greater the pedestrian and vehicle 

traffic, the greater the chances that pedestrians and vehicles 

will encounter each other on the street. As mentioned above, 

most pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in urban areas, 

undoubtedly in part because cities have both more vehicles 

and more pedestrians when compared with non-urban areas.41 

Type of vehicle. The type of vehicle involved in a collision 

influences the severity of injury and the chance of death for a 

pedestrian involved in the collision. For instance, an increase 

in the number of light truck vehicles (LTVs) has changed the 

pedestrian injury profile due to their raised bumper height.42 

Unlike LTVs, vehicles with lower bumper heights strike the 

lower part of pedestrians, causing them to hit the car’s hood 

or windshield. Conversely, LTVs strike pedestrians above their 

center of gravity causing them to project forward, increasing 

the probability that the same vehicle will subsequently run 

over them. Consequently, the risk of death in an LTVpedestrian crash is 3.4 times higher than that of crashes 

involving pedestrians and standard passenger vehicles.

Physical Environment

The physical layout of a city and its pedestrian transportation 

routes and crossing devices might encourage some pedestrians 

to cross or enter roads in unsafe situations. The following 

environmental features could encourage risky pedestrian 

behavior.

Lack of pedestrian crossing devices. Pedestrian crossing 

devices serve two purposes. First, they regulate behavior by 

indicating what is right and wrong. For instance, the “Don’t 

Walk” signal indicates that it is wrong to cross at that time. 

Second, crossing devices help people judge safety. The same 

“Don’t Walk” signal also indicates that it is possibly dangerous 

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 13
14 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

to cross at that time. However, when intersections lack 

walking signs, crossing devices, or crosswalks, it is difficult for 

pedestrians to determine appropriate behavior or judge the 

safety of a particular walking route. Consequently, the lack of 

signals at intersections can contribute to pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes that result in injuries and fatalities.

Absence of midblock crosswalks. As mentioned, 

pedestrians might avoid inconvenient intersection crossings 

because they delay the pace of travel. However, midblock 

crossing is implicated in 55 percent of all fatal pedestrianvehicle crashes.43 If convenient midblock crosswalks were 

available at popular crossing points, pedestrians could cross 

these areas that would otherwise be unsafe and illegal. 

Width of roads. Pedestrians are far less likely to jaywalk 

when crossing distance increases.44 This finding suggests that 

narrower roads could encourage unsafe pedestrian behavior. 

Wider roads, however, could promote higher vehicle speeds, 

resulting in a possible trade-off with regard to pedestrian 

safety. 

Poor timing of crossing signals. Fast crossing signals can 

also create problems in some circumstances. For instance, 

wide roads (or widening roads as a strategy) could have the 

unintended consequence of putting specific pedestrian groups 

at higher risk when signals do not allow enough time for 

these groups to cross safely. When crosswalk times are set for 

the average pedestrian, then slower pedestrians—the elderly, 

people with movement-related limitations, parents with 

children, and so forth—may not be able to completely cross 

before traffic starts again. In neighborhoods where slower 

pedestrians make up a significant part of the population 

(e.g., around retirement homes and medical facilities), a 

“crash hotspot,” or area with a high pedestrian-vehicle crash 

frequency, might develop. The box below reveals an example 

of this type of problem, and how the city addressed it. 
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 15

Addressing an Elderly Pedestrian Crash Problem in 

New York City45 

Scanning: The New York City Department of Transportation’s 

Safety Division identified a pedestrian-vehicle crash hotspot on 

Queens Boulevard. 

Analysis: Data on pedestrian-vehicle crashes resulting in fatalities 

as well as an examination of the environment revealed several 

factors that contributed to the problem. First, Queens Boulevard 

is the widest street in New York City. Second, traffic volume is 

heavy across the street’s 12 lanes. Third, elderly pedestrians were 

most often involved in the collisions. In fact, crash data indicated 

that all 20 pedestrians who were killed in the sample were at least 

60 years old or older. Researchers discovered that stoplight signals 

did not allow enough time for elderly pedestrians to cross such a 

wide road.

Response: In 1985, the Safety Division implemented several 

strategies to address the problem. However, the response most 

pertinent to this section was the modification of stoplight signals 

to increase pedestrian crossing time. 

Assessment: Two years after the intervention, researchers determined 

that traffic volume had actually increased by 19 percent on Queens 

Boulevard. Nevertheless, the number of both fatal and likely fatal 

pedestrian injuries decreased after the intervention by 43 percent 

and 86 percent, respectively. During the same time frame, however, 

fatal pedestrian injuries occurring citywide decreased by only 4 

percent. 

Despite the strategy’s initial effectiveness, the city has established new 

efforts to reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes on Queens Boulevard 

as recently as 2003.46 The lesson is that solutions are not permanent 

and need to be revisited as traffic and other conditions change.
16 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Poor conditions of sidewalks. Poor sidewalk conditions 

might influence pedestrians to overlook safety and seek 

better walking conditions along the street. In addition, poor 

sidewalks may be a particular problem for runners or other 

similar groups who prefer smooth surfaces for their activities 

(for example, speed walkers and cyclists). Poor sidewalk 

conditions, including the absence of curb cuts, also places 

people with movement-related limitations in a dilemma; the 

street is risky, but the sidewalk is impassible.

In addition to the conditions of sidewalks themselves, 

obstructions around sidewalks could also be problematic. For 

instance, in residential areas, bushes and trees can overhang 

sidewalks making passage difficult. Leaf and other plant litter, 

or snow and ice, can also cause obstructions when not quickly 

removed. In addition, cars in many urban and congested 

suburban areas often park across the sidewalk while parked 

in their own driveway. This situation could also result in 

pedestrians’ having to leave the sidewalk to walk around the 

cars. 

Absence of sidewalks in certain areas. Some travel paths 

do not have sidewalks at all. The absence of sidewalks could 

encourage or even force some pedestrians to walk along 

dangerous roads. Again, people with limited mobility might 

choose the street over walking on grass, dirt, or uneven 

terrain.

Capacity of sidewalks. Pedestrians prefer to walk on wide 

sidewalks.47 However, pedestrians and vehicles compete with 

each other for how transportation space will be allocated in 

larger cities. In response to greater vehicle traffic volumes, 

some central business districts have reduced sidewalk 

width to accommodate traffic flow.48 In addition, in some 

commercial districts, new sidewalk cafes reduce the available 

space for walking. Consequently, pedestrians often exceed 
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 17

sidewalk capacity, thus encouraging pedestrian use of streets 

and making crashes more common. No studies were found 

that directly discussed whether this problem creates crash 

hotspots. However, given the other findings and what we 

know from other problems, crash hotspots are highly likely.

Special Conditions

Special conditions are circumstances that accentuate one 

or more of the factors already mentioned and concentrate 

them at particular times (e.g., when there is bad weather), at 

particular places (e.g., shopping centers), among particular 

types of people (e.g., those with limited mobility), or some 

combination of times, places, and people (e.g., construction 

sites). Patterns involving these special conditions can be 

difficult to detect. For example, pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

involving shopping centers might be spread over several 

shopping areas with no discernable hotspot on a map. Only 

if you looked specifically for a pattern involving shopping 

centers would you see the pattern. Similarly, people with 

limited mobility may be involved in crashes at a variety of 

places and only by looking for special victim characteristics 

would you notice that this group is particularly vulnerable. 

There are ten obvious and common special conditions 

listed below, but you should consider others that might be 

important in your community. Though potentially difficult to 

detect, once detected it might be easier to identify effective 

solutions; the circumstances may be peculiar enough to point 

to a few obvious ones.
18 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Weather. Inclement weather can influence how pedestrians 

behave and their ability to assess walking conditions. In 

addition, inclement weather can also affect drivers’ ability to 

avoid collisions with pedestrians. Specifically, weather could 

have an effect on pedestrian injuries and fatalities in the 

following ways:

Haste and speed. Poor weather makes people uncomfortable, 

so they are likely to move faster to get out of it. Their 

haste may make them less attentive and more willing to 

take risks. 

Altered walking conditions. Weather can also make walking 

surfaces more dangerous and put pedestrians at a higher 

risk of injury. For example, in the winter, slippery surfaces 

can decrease pedestrians’ ability to move out of danger—

e.g., change direction quickly. In fact, evidence suggests 

that, among older pedestrians, more crashes occur during 

fall and winter months.49 Standing water and puddles 

during other seasons could also contribute to altered 

pedestrian patterns.

•

•

Bad weather can increase pedestrian-vehicle crashes. A snow storm 

has made sidewalks in this residential area difficult to use. It has also 

reduced the driving width of the streets and made them slick.

John Eck
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 19

Reduced visibility for pedestrians. Fog, rain, snow, and darkness 

reduce visibility, and consequently, the amount of time 

pedestrians have to react to vehicles. Precipitation also 

reduces ambient light which makes dawn and dusk more 

problematic. In addition, rain gear and cold-weather 

clothing can restrict visibility. In particular, coat hoods 

can restrict peripheral vision, especially the deep hoods 

that have become more popular. 

Reduced visibility for drivers. Some of the same factors that 

reduce pedestrians’ ability to see also affect drivers’. 

Although fully functioning wipers can help with visibility, 

fog, rain, and snow still restrict drivers’ ability to see, 

particularly objects not directly in front of the car.

A pedestrian-vehicle crash hotspot might occur because a 

location that is safe during good weather becomes high risk 

in bad weather. Responses that may be effective in good 

weather, might not work as well in bad weather. Creating 

weather-specific responses may be difficult, but you should 

consider doing so.

People with limited mobility. People who use wheelchairs 

or electric scooters to aid mobility often travel on streets 

instead of sidewalks. The fact that they are slower than most 

cars, and often unexpected, puts them at great risk. Many 

people have temporary limited mobility—parents pushing 

strollers or walking with very young children, or people 

carrying objects or pushing a shopping cart, for example—

that can put them at higher risk of being hit by a vehicle.

People with occupational risks. Some occupations require 

employees to do their job close to traffic. For instance, 

police officers, construction workers, mail carriers, garbage 

collectors, and parking officers often work near roads. Local 

analysis in your community might reveal that these types of 

workers are involved in pedestrian-vehicle crashes more often 

than other types of pedestrians. 

•

•
Children and teens. Children are potentially a high-risk 

group. For instance, pedestrian injury is the third leading 

cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children 

ages five to 14.50 The “dart-out” phenomenon, where 

children quickly enter traffic from between parked cars, is one 

major factor that has contributed to 80 percent of pedestrianvehicle crashes involving children aged six to eight from 1983 

to 1990.51 In addition to the “dart-out” phenomenon, several 

other factors could put children and teens at higher risk:

Walking is a major form of transportation for children.

Children frequently don’t pay attention to traffic 

conditions. 

Children’s height makes them difficult to see.

Teens can be at high risk when in groups (for example, 

since teens often travel in groups, they might be more 

prone to “herd mentality”).

When children and teens use streets as recreation areas, this 

puts them in direct conflict with vehicles. Streets through 

areas with high concentrations of children and teens are 

potential crash locations. It is not clear, however, that 

restricting children and teens from roads is the only way to 

achieve a net safety effect. For instance, the Dutch have built 

mixed-use roads where streets are designed as extensions of 

public space used for nondriving activities such as walking, 

running, and playing rather than separate roads for vehicle 

travel only.§ Some cities in the U.S. have also implemented this 

traffic-calming strategy.

•

•

•

•

20 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

§ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 

3, Speeding in Residential Areas.
Parking areas near shopping centers. Parking areas near 

shopping centers could be highly problematic as there are 

fewer clear pedestrian paths. Consequently, pedestrians 

interact more with cars. Furthermore, pedestrians are often 

encumbered with children, packages, carts, and other items. 

At the same time, drivers are looking for parking spaces, 

reading store signs, avoiding oncoming traffic, and having to 

contend with pedestrians. Therefore, parking areas are marked 

by both distracted pedestrians and drivers, thereby increasing 

the chance of a crash. In fact, one study discovered that the 

majority of a sample of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occurred 

in a shopping business district.52 Efforts to reduce crashes in 

such places likely require owner and vendor participation. 

Street repair and construction sites. Construction of 

sidewalks, streets, and buildings can create temporary unsafe 

environments for pedestrians. Pedestrians who are asked to 

make long detours around these sites may choose instead to 

walk on the streets to save time or avoid the crowded detour 

route. In addition, construction debris and materials can 

create obstacles that force pedestrians into the street. Since 

Encumbered pedestrians are at risk of being involved in crashes. This 

man is crossing a street pushing a shopping cart and holding a cup of 

coffee. The photo was taken through the driver side window to give 

the driver’s view.

John Eck

The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 21
22 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

construction sites are temporary, the problems they create 

may be hidden: because the crashes are spread over a large 

area they may not form a spatial cluster on maps, and if there 

are not good records of where and when construction sites 

existed, it might be difficult to associate crashes with these 

sites. Solving such problems requires coordination with the 

building contractors and the local inspection and licensing 

authorities. 

Major highways. Largely, this guide has focused on 

pedestrian-vehicle crashes that occur in residential or 

urban areas. However, major highways also provide special 

conditions that could contribute to pedestrian-vehicle crashes. 

One problem could entail highway off-ramps. These ramps 

contain rapidly exiting cars entering the traffic stream at an 

angle. Therefore, drivers might not see a pedestrian in time to 

avoid a collision. The same problem could occur at on-ramps 

where vehicles enter the highway at an oblique angle from a 

major thoroughfare.

You should also consider walking along major highways as 

a special risk factor. For instance, it is possible that when a 

motorist’s vehicle breaks down or runs out of gas on the 

highway, the driver will likely exit his or her car to inspect the 

problem or walk to the nearest gas station. In doing so, the 

person exposes him- or herself to high-speed traffic, without 

any form of physical separation from passing vehicles.

One-way streets. Busy one-way streets can create a special 

hazard when motorists looking for vehicle traffic from only 

one direction fail to notice a pedestrian crossing the road in 

the opposite direction from where the motorist is looking.

Location of attractions. A popular attraction could be 

located across the street from where people live. For instance, 

the only nearby store or restaurant might be opposite to a 
The Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 23

large housing complex. In some areas, however, there might 

not be a convenient marked crossing for pedestrians traveling 

to such locations. In this case, the solution might be to install 

a crosswalk or crossing device where pedestrians often cross 

the street to reach a popular attraction. In other cases, the 

solution might be to relocate needed services on the side of 

the road where the majority of residents live, so they do not 

need to constantly cross the street. 

Unlawful street-vending. Unlicensed vendors who sell 

various items (e.g., bottled water, newspapers, windowwashing services) to motorists in streets or from medians risk 

being hit by a car because they move quickly across traffic 

lanes and around stopped cars. In some communities, children 

are increasingly street-vending, especially during summer. 

Doing so provides those who are too young to work legally 

with a way to earn money for themselves and their families.53 

Some police departments have begun fining street vendors, 

while also encouraging young street vendors to sell their items 

from sidewalks.54 

Understanding Your Local Problem 25

Understanding Your Local Problem

The summary of what is known about pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes and resulting injuries and fatalities provides a very 

general overview. To understand your local pedestrian-vehicle 

crash problem, you must combine this general knowledge 

with specific facts describing your local conditions. Carefully 

analyzing your local problem will help you design an effective 

response strategy that fits your specific needs. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups 

have an interest in the pedestrian injury and fatality problem, 

and you should consult them when gathering information 

about the problem and responding to it:

local government agencies (e.g., traffic engineering 

departments, transportation departments, planning 

departments, emergency medical services departments, 

medical examiners’ and coroners’ offices, public health 

departments):

o such agencies could provide data for analyzing the 

problem and also help plan and implement responses

o these agencies can implement costly responses that 

go beyond the scope of local neighborhood or 

resident groups

o when approaching government agencies for help, 

however, it might be useful to suggest building a 

partnership of several organizations instead of 

asking a single agency to take sole responsibility for 

the problem and its solution.

•
26 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

hospitals that handle crash victims: 

o medical staff (i.e., doctors and nurses) often handle 

the aftermath of pedestrian injuries and fatalities 

making them useful advocates to implement 

responses in your community

o some medical staff are injury experts and do 

much in the area of prevention, in addition to the 

aftermath

o since medical staff are usually occupied with patients, 

it might be useful to contact hospital administrators 

for aid.

neighborhood safety groups:

o these groups can use their local knowledge to 

identify the problem and potential contributing 

factors

o their knowledge could be especially useful to identify 

problems involving special factors that can be 

difficult to detect

o government and other agencies might also be more 

inclined to help plan and implement responses 

if approached by organized neighborhood safety 

groups.

neighborhood resident and business associations:

o these groups can help guard against negative public 

reactions to responses that impose a cost on either 

pedestrians or drivers.

local schools:

o schools are critical to developing and distributing 

pedestrian-safety education/awareness campaigns 

and information when children and teens are a highrisk group in your community.

•

•

•

•
Understanding Your Local Problem 27

organizations representing high-frequency walkers (e.g., 

joggers, speed walkers, dog walkers): 

o these organizations could provide input from several 

high-risk groups that help to develop responses.

high-frequency drivers (e.g., commuters, taxi drivers):

o such drivers are likely familiar with travel routes 

and could help to identify problem locations and 

contributing factors.

public transportation authorities that run bus routes: 

o like high-frequency drivers, these authorities are also 

familiar with travel routes and could help to identify 

problem locations and contributing factors.

insurance companies:

o since insurance companies have a financial stake 

in pedestrian-vehicle crashes, they might be apt to 

help develop and fund responses that prevent such 

crashes.

Asking the Right Questions

Ask the following questions to gain a better understanding of 

your community’s pedestrian injury and fatality problem. The 

answers to these questions will help you develop an effective 

response that reduces the frequency of pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities.

Incidents

How many pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in your 

jurisdiction, community, or area of interest? 

What percentage of pedestrian injuries and fatalities is 

the fault of pedestrians? Local data could show which 

factors listed earlier have been contributory causes.

•

•

•

•

•

•
28 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

What are the general circumstances surrounding 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities (e.g., were pedestrians/

drivers intoxicated)? Again, local data could shed light on 

these circumstances.

How concerned is the community with the problem of 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities? This information could 

be useful for planning responses that involve community 

participation.

Does the problem cause traffic congestion or any other 

potentially harmful problems (e.g., traffic slowing at 

crash sites)?

How long has your community had problems with 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities?

Do vehicle-vehicle crashes occur in areas of heavy 

foot traffic because drivers are trying to avoid hitting 

pedestrians?

Locations/Times

Where do pedestrian injuries and fatalities frequently 

occur in your community? Which particular blocks, 

intersections, or other areas? 

In what types of areas do pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities frequently occur in (e.g., residential, 

commercial)? 

Is there a certain community location where pedestrian 

injuries and fatalities repeatedly occur? For instance, 

perhaps your community has a popular business that is 

located midblock but its parking is across a large street. 

When do pedestrian injuries and fatalities frequently 

occur (morning, midday, or evening; day of week; certain 

seasons)?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Understanding Your Local Problem 29

Victims

Who are the pedestrian victims? Are there noticeable 

demographic patterns among them (e.g., sex, occupation, 

age, or limited mobility)?

What are pedestrians doing before crashes occur (e.g., 

shopping, running, drinking)?

Are pedestrian victims mostly community residents or 

visitors from out of town?

Typically, how serious are the pedestrians’ injuries? For 

example, do injuries often require emergency medical 

care? Or are injuries often minor, requiring no medical 

care?

What pedestrian characteristics could have caused them 

to illegally enter or cross a road? For instance, were the 

victims drinking before entering the road? 

Physical Characteristics

Do common physical conditions exist around crash sites? 

For instance, are there certain types of traffic signals or 

crosswalk designs associated with high-frequency crash 

sites?

Are your pedestrian crosswalks clearly identifiable to 

passing motorists as well as to pedestrians? If not, why?

Do signs or signals (or their absence) appear to contribute 

to the crashes? For instance, is a crossing signal’s timing 

interval problematic for some pedestrians, is the crossing 

device broken, or is there no crossing device at the 

intersection?

Are sidewalks crowded near problem locations? For 

instance, is there a popular attraction nearby, or are 

sidewalks too narrow?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
30 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Are certain sidewalks damaged or difficult to use near 

problem locations?

Does weather make walking difficult in your 

community? What season or type of weather is often 

associated with pedestrian-vehicle crashes? 

Current and Previous Responses

Does your community currently have enforceable 

jaywalking laws? 

If so, do police officers commonly enforce jaywalking 

laws? Also, how do officers handle jaywalking incidents 

(e.g., give verbal warnings, issue citations, or something 

else)? If police do not commonly enforce jaywalking 

laws, why not? 

Do police place higher priority on enforcing pedestrian 

laws and safety after injuries and fatalities occur? 

What is the typical investigation process for a 

pedestrian-vehicle crash? Do police typically involve 

other agencies in these investigations? 

Does your agency have a special unit designed to 

handle pedestrian traffic enforcement?

Are local citizens educated on the harms related 

to unsafe pedestrian behavior? If so, how is that 

education conveyed?

Has your community redesigned or installed improved 

crossing devices?

How has your community dealt with pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes in the past? Which agencies were involved? 

What did these agencies do? How successful at 

preventing crashes were they?

Is pedestrian safety routinely considered when planning 

city streets and sidewalks?

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended 

results. You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem 

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they 

have been effective. You should take all measures in both 

the target area and the surrounding area. For more detailed 

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving 

Tools guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to pedestrian injuries and fatalities. 

These measures are divided into two groups: those that 

measure the impact on the problem (so-called outcome 

measures), and those that measure how well your agency the 

responses (so-called process measures). 

Impact on the Problem

Reduced number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities in 

your community

reduced number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities at 

hotspots

reduced calls for police service for pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities

reduced seriousness of injuries (e.g., fewer deaths per 

crash, shorter hospital stays)

reduced number of secondary crashes (e.g., vehiclevehicle crashes caused by drivers avoiding pedestrians) 

associated with the problem.

•

•

•

•

•

Measuring Your Effectiveness 31
Impact on Pedestrian and Driver Behavior

Increased pedestrian perception of risk

increased pedestrian perception of crossing devices

increased driver awareness of pedestrian right-of-way 

laws

improved sidewalk access and mobility

compliance with pedestrian laws after any temporary 

responses (e.g., increased enforcement is removed).

Data, Information, and Analysis

Initially, your agency’s ability to reduce incidents of 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities depends on the data available 

for analysis. For instance, data are necessary to identify 

high-frequency pedestrian-vehicle crash locations where 

you should implement responses or to show if alcohol was 

involved. 

In addition, your agency must also determine which type 

of pedestrian behavior is problematic and which factors 

contribute to pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Several 

methods of data collection could help your agency analyze 

these variables. 

First, your agency could systematically observe pedestrian 

walking behavior at identified problem areas. You could 

identify problem areas through pedestrian injury and fatality 

statistics. Systematic observation allows you to analyze 

variables such as street/sidewalk design, pedestrian signs/

crossing devices, pedestrian paths, etc. To best understand 

the problem, the observers should not be uniformed police 

officers, or if they are, they should be hidden from the 

view of the people being watched. Otherwise, pedestrians 

might change their behavior and you will not know how 

•

•

•

•

•

32 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
they behave when the police are not present. You can use 

videotapes of these observations for detailed analysis and 

group discussion later. You can also use videotapes to help 

illustrate the problem to other stakeholders, educate the 

public, and potentially evaluate the response (by comparing 

before-and-after response video imagery of the same 

location at the same times).

Second, your agency should consider conducting surveys 

of pedestrians in the problem areas. You should design 

surveys to reveal why pedestrians choose certain behaviors 

at particular locations rather than other behaviors. You can 

also use them to learn about pedestrian perceptions of signs, 

signals, and other physical conditions. For an example of 

a police-pedestrian survey from the Madison (Wisconsin) 

Police Department, see www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/

pedestrian.html. 

Third, your agency could interview drivers and pedestrians 

involved in crashes. These data could provide detailed 

accounts of the situation leading up to the crash. In 

addition, police investigative reports can provide important 

information. Data from other first responders (i.e., fire and 

EMS) might also be useful, as well as information from 

emergency room physicians. Because of medical privacy 

legislation, medical staff cannot share much of this data. 

However, discussions with medical professionals can identify 

ways to ensure patient privacy and legal compliance, and still 

yield valuable information.

Fourth, your agency should compare streets with high rates 

of pedestrian injuries and fatalities to similar streets (in terms 

of traffic volume, pedestrian volume, location types, etc.) 

without many pedestrian injuries and fatalities. This will help 

reveal factors that are major contributors to the problem 

(factors found at problem locations but not at similar 

nonproblem locations). 

Measuring Your Effectiveness 33

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 35

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian 

Injuries and Fatalities

Once you have analyzed your local problem and established 

a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider 

possible responses to address the problem. The following 

responses provide a foundation of ideas for addressing 

your particular pedestrian-vehicle crash problem. Several 

of these responses may be applicable to your community’s 

problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local 

circumstances, and that you can justify each response based 

on reliable analysis of your local conditions. In most cases, 

an effective strategy will involve implementing several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are 

seldom effective in reducing or solving such a problem. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: 

carefully consider whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. In some cases, you may need to be shift the 

responsibility to those who can implement more-effective 

responses. For example, it might be that redesigning an 

intersection may be the most effective response. In such 

a circumstance nonpolice public agencies and private 

organizations will have to do most of the work in carrying 

out the response. (For more detailed information on 

shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 

3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.)
36 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy

The following are some general considerations that may 

help you develop and implement an effective response 

strategy.

1. Designating a special pedestrian-safety taskforce 

within your agency. If pedestrian safety problems are 

common and serious, then it may be worth considering 

creating a special group to address these problems. 

Because the pedestrian behaviors that lead to crashes are 

often minor, police officers sometimes ignore them. A 

special group can give them the priority they deserve and 

can have the flexibility to devise creative responses, based 

on analysis, that have an impact on the problems. 

The taskforce might be temporary, with a limited mandate 

to address specific problems, after which it will disband. 

Or it might be a permanent special unit, with long-term 

responsibility. In either case, this response works best if 

the group has the goal of reducing crashes, injuries and 

deaths, and that hard data measure the achievement of 

this goal. Under no circumstances should you measure the 

group’s success by their activities—citations issued, arrests 

made, meetings attended, fliers passed out, etc. In short, 

if the taskforce is not reducing crashes, injuries, or deaths, 

then it is not working.

2. Training city planners to consider pedestrian 

safety. City planners are typically involved in road 

construction, sidewalk repair, sidewalk extensions, etc. 

Therefore, these personnel should be trained to consider 

pedestrian safety when modifying the city environment. 

In doing so, city planners could proactively “design out” 

the possibility of pedestrian injuries and fatalities before 
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 37

they become a community problem. Some of the websites 

listed in Appendix B provide information you could use to 

train city planners on improving pedestrian safety through 

environmental design.

3. Creating ordinances to reduce pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes. Pedestrian ordinances could target certain factors 

that cause pedestrian-vehicle crashes. For instance, some 

communities have ordinances that require drivers to park 

their vehicles a certain distance from marked crosswalks 

to help drivers and pedestrians see each other.55 It is 

likely that many cities have parking enforcement agencies, 

recognizing that enforcement will not be a high police 

priority. To be most effective, ordinances should target 

high-risk locations.

4. Guarding against negative public reactions.

Responses that impose a cost on either pedestrians or 

drivers can cause them to change behaviors. That is the 

point. But some possible changes could displace the 

problem. If drivers shift from major streets to residential 

side streets to avoid traffic calming, for example, they may 

put pedestrians on the side streets at risk. If midblock 

crossing is encouraged, but nothing is done to warn 

drivers, then making it easier to cross midblock will 

increase pedestrian-vehicle crashes. 

There is considerable controversy over perceived police 

differential enforcement against minorities, particularly 

young minority males. Young male pedestrians are at 

higher risk of being involved in crashes than older males 

and women, so enforcement will likely impact them the 

most. If the problem area is in a minority neighborhood, 

perceptions of racial profiling might increase, unless 

police discuss the problem and possible responses with 

the community in advance. 
38 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Even when race is not a factor, those subject to 

enforcement are likely to perceive it as unfair, unless 

the police have already sensitized the community to 

the problem and the need for pedestrians to follow 

crossing rules. In addition, local merchants, who may 

rely on pedestrians or drivers, may feel that anything that 

inconveniences their customers imperils their livelihoods. 

Working with them early in the problem-solving process 

can allay some of these fears and help craft solutions that 

benefit everyone. Finally, gaining community members’ 

and leaders’ support might guard against negative public 

reactions. For example, upset residents might be more 

tolerant of enforcement if their neighbor or a prominent 

community leader is standing alongside the police 

department, explaining the necessity of the enforcement.

One way to gain community support could be to create 

community-pedestrian safety teams or groups. These 

collaborative groups could include representatives from 

law enforcement, city/county traffic engineering, and 

community and business groups. Such groups could help 

get feedback from the community about the problem 

of pedestrian injuries and fatalities, as well as aid in the 

understanding of the problem and the possible solutions. 

All the while, including community participants could help 

create “buy-in” to whatever resulting changes safety teams 

propose.
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 39

Using a Process Model to Develop Specific 

Responses

This guide has focused on two actors involved in the 

process of a pedestrian-vehicle crash: the pedestrian and 

the driver. It has also focused on the physical environment 

immediately around these two actors’ interaction. We can 

usefully expand the ideas the pedestrian-vehicle crash 

triangle summarizes by considering the process by which 

these crashes take place. Figure 3 depicts this process. 

Before pedestrians and drivers are in the same 

environment, either or both have acted early to either help 

prevent a crash or make it more likely. Examples of this 

include drinking, talking on a cell phone, or speeding. As 

the two actors converge, their earlier decisions influence 

what they can do just before a potential crash. We call 

these the immediate actions. Some immediate actions help 

prevent the crash (e.g., looking both ways before crossing, 

crossing at the light, slowing down when pedestrians 

appear to be trying to cross the road, etc) while others 

make the crash more likely (e.g., darting off the curb). 

The physical environment plays a large role here. A 

barricade, for example, can prevent a drunken pedestrian 

from crossing a car’s path. The physical environment 

includes all the proximate physical circumstances that can 

facilitate or prevent a crash (e.g., signs, signals, barriers, 

curbs, cars parked at curbs, ice, lighting conditions). The 

agents’ interaction in this environment determines if a 

crash will occur. 
40 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Finally, as the actors separate, there is the aftermath 

to consider. If the crash was avoided, the aftermath 

might simply be some jangled nerves. If there is a crash, 

the aftermath includes the injuries sustained, vehicle 

damage, traffic congestion, etc. As this guide focuses on 

prevention, we have not addressed the aftermath here. 

Nevertheless, a problem-solver might want to consider 

whether changing how the aftermath is handled—by 

drivers, pedestrians, police, emergency medical services, 

emergency room staff, and others—could reduce the harm 

from crashes that do occur. For example, if a substantial 

number of drivers leave the scene of crashes without 

reporting to police (hit-and-run), this problem might 

require separate examination.

The process model is useful for three reasons. First, the 

model can help you consider the major factors involved 

in a particular pedestrian-vehicle crash problem. Second, 

it can help you organize a list of important questions 

regarding each component of the crash process. Third, the 

model can help your agency better formulate responses 

by considering all areas where they could address the 

problem (e.g., drivers’ early decisions, pedestrians’ 

immediate decisions). (See Appendix C, “Developing a 

Comprehensive Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes.”) 

The responses this guide next discusses target several 

components of the process model.

The process model suggests five separate intervention 

points for a comprehensive response to a pedestrianvehicle crash: two each for the two actors—to influence 

early and immediate actions—and one for the physical 

environment. The responses that follow influence one 

or more of these five points (we have labeled pedestrian 
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 41

and driver interventions as “early” and “immediate” to 

show how they fit into this process). Though you should 

not neglect the aftermath, it is important to remember 

that preventing the crash in the first place should be the 

primary goal.

Figure 3: The process of pedestrian-vehicle crashes

Some evaluation research studies directly examine the problem 

of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Many of these analyses, 

however, report mixed results regarding the effectiveness 

of certain responses. And researchers have not evaluated 

some responses. For these reasons, many of the following 

responses are suggested because of their potential effectiveness 

for particular circumstances, rather than for widespread 

applicability. It is important that you continually evaluate your 

response to assess its impact in your particular community. 

Aftermath Aftermath

Crash/ 

No Crash

Physical Environment

Pedestrians

Early Actions

Drivers & Vehicles

Early Actions

Immediate 

Actions

Immediate 

Actions
42 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and 

Fatalities

Pedestrian Behavior

This set of responses addresses both early and immediate 

actions.

5. Establishing hotspot-specific crackdowns on 

jaywalking (immediate). As mentioned, pedestrians might 

jaywalk if they do not perceive any consequences for their 

actions. Therefore, your agency could consider increasing the 

priority of jaywalking enforcement. This approach works best 

under five conditions: 

First, the enforcement focuses on a known crash hotspot. 

Evidence of crackdown effectiveness against other 

offenses suggests that crackdowns are effective when 

concentrated in small hotspots, but their effects wear off 

(see Response Guide No. 1, The Benefits and Consequences of 

Police Crackdowns). 

Second, the enforcement concentrates on known times of 

crashes in these hotspots.

Third, the police clearly articulate the reasons for 

enforcement to the local community, so it is seen as 

necessary and not arbitrary.

Fourth, officers actually act on the increased priority.

Fifth, the penalties are sufficiently strong to induce 

pedestrians to avoid jaywalking but not so onerous that 

citizen complaints force the police to reduce enforcement 

prematurely. 

It is also important to note that enforcement crackdowns 

are seldom sustainable for long periods, so you should best 

consider crackdowns as a short-term response and not a long-

•

•

•

•

•
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 43

term solution. Consider them to be a short-term supplement 

to other longer-term responses. 

There is some evidence, however, that jaywalking enforcement 

programs may not achieve much deterrence. As mentioned 

above, one report described the “crackdown” that New York 

City waged on jaywalking during the late-1990s. Nonetheless, 

this effort to step up jaywalking enforcement seemed to go 

unnoticed by both police authorities and citizens. In fact, the 

same article noted that the president of the police officers’ 

union claimed he had forgotten about the crackdown, while 

at the same time, dozens of jaywalking New Yorkers said they 

had seen no change in jaywalking enforcement.

Finally, although jaywalking and other types of pedestrian 

behavior have been emphasized as major factors in pedestrian 

injuries and fatalities, it is important not to confuse the ends 

and means of the problem. In other words, your agency’s 

goal should be to reduce pedestrian encounters with moving 

vehicles, not necessarily to reduce jaywalking. Therefore, be 

mindful that you should frame responses aimed at pedestrian 

behavior in the context of reducing actual pedestrian injuries 

and fatalities, rather than part of a more general crime control 

strategy. 

6. Launching location-specific pedestrian-safety 

education/awareness campaigns (early). Some pedestrians 

might not accurately perceive the risk of injury or fatality 

from a collision with a vehicle. Consequently, they engage 

in risky behavior. Pedestrian-safety education/awareness 

campaigns are a way to alert the public to the dangers of 

such behavior.56 Some campaigns appear to be effective. For 

instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

developed an educational video (“Willie Whistle”) intended to 

teach kindergarteners to third-graders safe crossing practices. 
44

§ See Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

An evaluation of the campaign revealed that “dart-and-dash” 

collisions involving four- to six-year-olds were reduced by 30 

percent in test cities.57 In addition, you could target safety 

campaigns toward unsafe driver behavior. Materials that could 

help in designing such campaigns are currently available. For a 

start, see the web resources for improving pedestrian safety in 

Appendix B.

In some cities, citizen groups have also created awareness 

campaigns against jaywalking. For example, volunteers 

in Shanghai, China have monitored some of the city’s 

crosswalks.58 These citizens believe that figurative “whistleblowing” can improve public awareness of the problem of 

jaywalking. 

Education/awareness campaigns are more successful when 

they target people who are directly at risk of the problem.§ 

For instance, if the problem involves a particular high school 

where students jaywalk at the school’s opening and closing 

times, then the campaign should focus on those students and 

not on students in other, low-risk schools. In addition, you 

should isolate the awareness campaign’s geographic coverage 

to problem areas. Using the same example, the message will 

be more effective if delivered at or near the intersections 

where the problem occurs, rather than only in school 

assemblies, for instance. General public-safety campaigns 

targeting the larger community are largely ineffective, as most 

people are unaffected by the problem, and the few that are 

affected forget about the message before they need to apply 

it. 
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

7. Coordinating crossing devices to facilitate 

uninterrupted walking paths (immediate). Some urban 

pedestrians disobey crossing devices because of their pace of 

life. These “rushed” pedestrians may have less need to cross 

against a “Don’t Walk” signal when crossing systems allow 

for an uninterrupted walking sequence. This response could 

be inexpensive, as it only involves manipulating crossingdevice timing. However, one possible drawback of this 

response could be increased traffic congestion. Furthermore, 

coordinating crossing devices at certain locations could 

be difficult if there is a mix of both pedestrians with and 

without limited mobility. In other words, the timing of a 

particular crossing sequence might not accommodate all types 

of pedestrians. 

8. Installing pedestrian countdown-timer signals at 

problem intersections (immediate). Some pedestrians 

might avoid waiting at crossing lights because of the 

uncertainty of how the long the wait might be.59 Countdowntimer signals inform pedestrians how much time they 

have until a “Walk” signal flashes, thereby removing the 

uncertainty. In one community, this crossing system resulted 

in a 12 percent reduction in jaywalking.60

Another type of timer signal counts the amount of time 

a pedestrian has left to cross, rather than the amount of 

time until a “Walk” signal flashes. Walkers view the devices 

favorably because they provide additional information, and 

they understand them better than conventional pedestrian 

signals.61 Easily understood crossing systems could discourage 

pedestrians from resorting to jaywalking. The signals are easy 

to install, have a positive maintenance record, and have been 

credited with a 52 percent reduction in pedestrian injury 

collisions.62 

45
Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

9. Addressing pedestrian drinking behavior (early). If 

the problem stems from pedestrians’ drinking at bars, then 

focusing on that might be effective (see box). 

46

Addressing Pedestrians’ Early Actions: Bar Management and Pedestrian 

Safety in Shawnee, Kansas63

In some circumstances, bars’ serving practices combine with street crossing configurations 

and traffic flow to create dangerous situations. In this example, a police effort to reduce calls 

from a problem bar seems to have had the positive side effect of reducing pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes. The Shawnee Police Department’s crime analyst, Susan Smith, had identified one 

bar we will call “Ferro’s” as the source of a very high number of calls, particularly involving 

assaults. 

Ferro’s was located on a major thoroughfare. The bar attracted 

a very large crowd, but patrons had to park on the far side 

of the thoroughfare. Large numbers of patrons, therefore, 

crossed the road sober and returned to their cars drunk. 

To reduce the violence calls, police put pressure on the owners 

to improve their bar management practices. Among the many 

changes the owners introduced was a reduction in the number 

of patrons, which lessened the crowding and accompanying 

provocations leading to fights. Though the police looked into 

ways to move the parking area to the same side of the street 

as Ferro’s, they were unsuccessful. 

Nevertheless, the bar management improvements may have reduced pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes, as can be seen in the accompanying table. Smith’s work and police pressure to 

change Ferro’s practices began in May 2004. If the figures for 2005–06 are indicative of 

future crashes, then changing bar management reduced the problem from two thirds to three 

quarters of the 2002–04 levels. The decline might be due to fewer patrons’ crossing the street, 

or to patrons’ being less inebriated when returning to their vehicles. In either case, if a random 

fluctuation did not cause the drop in crashes, it seems quite likely that the drop was due to 

changes in bar practices, as there were no other changes in the immediate area that could have 

caused this drop.

Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes 

Before and After Changing 

Bar Management Practices

 Year Accidents

 2001 4

 2002 6

 2003 8

 2004 7

 2005 2

 2006 1
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 47

§ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 

3, Speeding in Residential Areas, for 

further information on controlling 

speeding.

Vehicle and Driver Factors

All of these responses address early decisions, though one also 

influences immediate decisions. Because of drivers’ isolation 

in their vehicles and the speed they are traveling, it is difficult 

to craft immediate responses directed drivers. The physical 

environment responses, shown later, have immediate effects on 

drivers and/or pedestrians. 

10. Enforcing speeding violations and other unsafe driver 

behaviors at high-risk locations (early). Since pedestrians 

are more likely to be injured or killed as vehicle speeds increase, 

police could establish speed zones and increase the number of 

speeding citations at high-risk locations.§ One way to establish 

a speed zone could be to install traffic cameras at problem 

intersections. In addition, local court authorities should 

aggressively enforce violations related to pedestrian safety. 

Beyond speeding enforcement, police should also issue citations 

for unsafe driver behavior that could put pedestrians at risk at 

intersections (e.g., running red lights, turning on red without 

looking, failing to yield right-of-way to pedestrians). 

The more focused enforcement is at high-risk places, and 

the more the community understands the reasons for the 

enforcement, the less likely it is to create pressure from 

the public to curtail the enforcement. As with pedestrian 

enforcement, you should consider speed enforcement a 

temporary strategy supporting a longer-term solution.

11. Increasing driver’s perceptions of risk regarding 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities (early). An information 

program’s impact is probably very low unless police highly 

target the program at drivers who frequent high-risk locations, 

and it occurs at those locations. Highly visible warning signs 

and other devices near crash hotspots may be more effective 

than general campaigns. During traffic stops at high-risk 

locations, police officers could distribute information regarding 
48 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

§ See the POP guide titled Drunk 

Driving for further information on 

controlling drunken drivers.

pedestrian and vehicle safety. Another way to make drivers 

aware of the risk of pedestrian injuries and fatalities is 

through community-based safety campaigns. For instance, 

community residents could post lawn signs notifying drivers 

to slow down because children are at play. In addition, similar 

to the anti-speeding strategy the Madison Police Department 

used, community volunteers could join police officers on 

traffic stops to help explain to speeding drivers the dangers 

of pedestrian-vehicle crashes. Though it is often difficult to 

convey information to drivers in moving vehicles, in highly 

specific circumstances, there may be opportunities to make 

some of these approaches very useful. 

12. Diverting or calming traffic near pedestrian-vehicle 

crash hotspots (early and immediate). Police could use 

barricades or other rerouting devices to direct vehicle traffic 

away from high-risk locations. In addition, installing speed 

bumps or speed humps is another option. Speed bumps or 

humps calm traffic without directly causing drivers to divert 

from their typical travel routes. In both cases, vehicle traffic 

could increase in other nearby areas as drivers try to avoid 

traffic calming. Consequently, areas not experiencing many 

pedestrian injuries and fatalities could become high-risk 

locations. So traffic calming should work best when there are 

few good alternative routes and maintaining rapid traffic flow 

is not a high priority. In addition, it might be best to divert 

traffic to nearby areas that have small pedestrian populations.

13. Addressing drunken drivers (early). This response is 

likely most appropriate in “night life” areas marked by both 

heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Police could establish 

DUI checkpoints to deter drunken motorists from driving 

in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic. They could use this 

response in conjunction with monitoring drunken pedestrians, 

as mentioned above. Interventions with bar owners regarding 

serving policies might also be useful in some circumstances.§ 
Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 49

Immediate Physical Environment

Because the physical environment surrounds the immediate 

decisions, all of these interventions are designed to influence 

pedestrian and/or driver decisions in the immediate context of 

a potential crash. In addition, some of the following responses 

focus on improving existing crossing systems and other safety 

measures. Some crash hotspots, however, might not have any 

crossing systems or safety measures to begin with. Therefore, 

your agency might consider less expensive devices before 

resorting to some of the more sophisticated crossing systems 

and safety measures discussed below.

14. Constructing pedestrian barriers to separate foot 

traffic from vehicles at pedestrian-vehicle collision 

hotspots. This response is based on the idea that physical 

separation keeps pedestrians from crossing streets at prohibited 

sites. In two cities, significant decreases occurred in the 

number of pedestrians crossing midblock before and after the 

installation of pedestrian barricades.64 One drawback, however, 

is that installing such barricades can be expensive.65 However, 

using more-inexpensive barricades, such as shrubs and planters, 

could also be an option. A variation on these barricades is to 

place them down the middle of very wide streets, in a median. 

Pedestrians thinking of crossing would note that they could not 

cross completely so they would go to the appropriate crossing. 

One drawback to this option is that the barricade can act as a 

trap for pedestrians who miscalculate and try to cross the street. 
15. Installing curb extensions at problem locations.

At both intersections and midblock areas, the curb can be 

extended into the road to narrow the distance between 

crossing points and increase visibility for both drivers and 

pedestrians (e.g., when looking past parked cars).66 One 

problem with curb extensions is that they place pedestrians 

closer to moving traffic when compared with traditional 

intersections. In addition, curb extensions could affect bus 

routes, require maintenance, and interfere with street drainage 

patterns.67

16. Installing crossing systems that include a pedestrian 

detection system. These crossing systems have low 

poles with sensors on both sides of the crosswalk. When 

pedestrians approach, warning lights that are raised above 

the pavement send a bright beam of light toward oncoming 

traffic to yield.68 The systems run on solar power, so power 

loss is not a problem, at least in areas with sufficient sunlight. 

These systems give pedestrians the right-of-way, which caused 

a reduction in pedestrians’ crossing outside the crosswalk in 

 A variety of safety barriers are possible. The first photo shows a 

simple barrier designed to separate children from their parents’ 

vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times at a private school. 

The second photo shows a barrier along a busy street that was 

designed to enhance the environment. The barrier consists of a 

decorative chain, plantings, street furniture, and a change in the 

walking surface. It leads to a designated crossing point marked by 

signs and lights. The lights are pedestrian-controlled.

John Eck

50 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
one evaluation.69 The appearance of these crossing systems, 

however, could confuse both drivers and pedestrians creating 

a worse hazard. 

17. Installing fluorescent strong yellow-green (SYG) 

pedestrian warning signs. If the visibility of pedestrian 

warning signs is creating a problem, your agency could 

consider using fluorescent SYG pedestrian warning signs 

made from microprismatic material.70 These types of signs are 

more reflective and more visible to drivers when compared 

with traditional engineer-grade yellow pedestrian warning 

signs.71 Overall, SYGs have produced marginal improvements 

in pedestrian safety during daylight conditions.72 One problem 

with SYGs is that they are not as effective (i.e., less reflective) 

under low ambient-light conditions.73 Therefore, SYGs might 

not be appropriate for reducing pedestrian-vehicle crashes at 

hotspots where most crashes occur at dusk, at dawn, or in the 

evening. 

18. Designing wider roads and increasing existing 

roads’ width to deter jaywalking. We could not locate 

an evaluation of this response’s effectiveness. Two obvious 

drawbacks of this response, however, are that road widening 

is expensive, and construction could be inconvenient for 

the community. Another consequence is that wider roads 

could encourage faster traffic and longer risk-exposure 

times for pedestrians. Therefore, it might work best if you 

install pedestrian barricades if you widen roads, and you 

may want to also increase crossing-signal time for higherrisk pedestrians, as well. In doing so, this strategy could both 

potentially curb jaywalking and still allow enough time for 

higher-risk pedestrians to cross safely. Your agency should 

consider the characteristics of people involved in pedestrianvehicle crashes before implementing this response. Note that 

this solution is opposite to the idea of traffic calming. 

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 51
52 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

19. Increasing the length of crossing signal intervals.

This response might be most useful at wider roads where 

specific pedestrian groups (e.g., the elderly, people with limited 

mobility) are frequently injured or killed because they do not 

have enough time to cross safely. For reasons mentioned 

above, this response might be necessary if your agency widens 

roads to deter jaywalkers.

20. Improving sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways.

You should have damaged sidewalks repaired and congested 

walkways widened. Your agency could reduce jaywalkingrelated pedestrian-vehicle crashes by providing an acceptable 

travel surface for pedestrians. Your agency might need to 

cooperate with homeowners or apartment managers when 

controlling sidewalk obstructions is their responsibility. If 

the local government is responsible for trees planted along 

sidewalks, the appropriate city agency should prune them to a 

height that allows pedestrians to pass safely.

21. Encouraging pedestrians to cross at controlled 

intersections. Midblock bus stops increase the risk 

pedestrians will cross midblock, even when there is no 

crossing. The city of San Diego relocated several bus 

stops from midblock to locations closer to intersections.74 

This strategy increased the use of marked crosswalks and 

pedestrian signals at the intersections.

22. Increasing lighting near high-risk intersections 

and pedestrian routes. To ensure that drivers can see 

pedestrians at night, the city should install lights near highrisk intersections and pedestrian routes. If lights are already 

present in these types of areas, you should have their 

brightness assessed and increased, if needed. 
23. Providing midblock pedestrian islands when blocks 

are long and streets are wide. If pedestrians have to walk 

very long distances out of their way to cross a street, then 

they are more likely to cross in midblock. Facilitating safe 

crossing midblock is an option in such cases. When the 

streets are wide, a safe haven in the middle of the street lets 

pedestrians make two short crossings. Further, they have to 

look only one way for oncoming traffic, rather than having 

to look for vehicles coming from two directions. You should 

ensure that the islands are clearly marked for pedestrians and 

visible to drivers, so they can easily move around them but 

still see pedestrians.

24. Providing marked midblock crossings on narrow 

streets. In areas where pedestrian traffic and street crossing 

is common, you can have designated midblock crossings 

marked on the pavement and through signs. This notifies 

drivers about pedestrians’ right-of-way in such crossings. You 

often find such a response in shopping areas, on streets with 

busy bus stops on both sides (thus facilitating transfers), and 

around college campuses. Clearly, these crosswalks impede 

vehicle traffic, so they are best used on streets where flow 

speed is not essential and traffic calming is desirable.

A pedestrian safety island. This island is on a busy street bounding 

a large university. It was created when the university built a student 

housing complex on the opposite side of the street. It is marked by 

signs, but does not have a light.

John Eck

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 53
In addition, raising crosswalks’ table higher than the road (so 

they act like speed humps), and/or building crosswalks out of 

textured material, can also draw drivers’ attention to them. In 

snowy communities, however, such crosswalks might not be 

viable due to snowplow damage. 

25. Establishing parking regulations in low-visibility 

areas. Cars parked on the street could flank some crossing 

areas while cars parked at the end of driveways could block 

sidewalks. Consequently, pedestrians might cross from 

between cars parked where it is difficult to see oncoming 

traffic, or enter roads to avoid parked cars. Therefore, 

removing parked cars from such areas could increase both 

pedestrian and driver visibility.

26. Creating pedestrian flag locations. The city of 

Madison has installed pedestrian flags at 50 intersections as 

part of the “Flags Over Dane County” program. These flags 

are meant to make drivers aware of pedestrian traffic, causing 

them to yield. Specifically, pedestrians first use red flags to 

signal their intent to cross the street, then cross while still 

holding the flags. Although flag-carrying pedestrians have 

the right-of-way, they should not assume that carrying a flag 

is a safeguard in itself. Pedestrians should still be cautious of 

heavy vehicle traffic and the fact that some motorists might 

not see a flag. For more information on Madison’s specific 

strategy, see www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/pedestrianflags.

html.

27. Using portable pedestrian warning signs. You can use 

portable warning signs to make both drivers and pedestrians 

aware of pedestrian safety near crash hotspots. Portable signs 

are likely less expensive than more-permanent environmental 

changes. In addition, you can quickly install portable signs if 

other crash hotspots develop. 

54 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
28. Installing in-street yield-to-pedestrian signs. In-street 

yield-to-pedestrian signs might be more visible to drivers than 

pedestrian signs that are located near intersection sidewalks. In 

Madison, in-street yield-to-pedestrian signs led to a significant 

increase in drivers’ yielding to pedestrians in two out of 

three test locations.75 At the site where researchers found no 

improvement, the in-street yield sign was placed on a raised 

median and farthest from vehicle travel lanes.76 Therefore, 

this response’s effectiveness might depend on where you place 

the signs and on the intersections’ characteristics. 

Special Conditions

29. Maintaining walking surfaces in inclement weather. 

If your community experiences snowy and icy weather, 

your agency might want to encourage local government 

and business owners to maintain safe walking surfaces. For 

instance, perhaps snow removal and sidewalk de-icing near 

dangerous intersections might enable pedestrians to avoid 

crashes with cars.

30. Improving conditions for pedestrians with limited 

mobility. In areas where pedestrians with limited mobility 

represent a large proportion of the population, it might be 

possible to design sidewalks to accommodate wheelchair/

scooter travel. At minimum, sidewalks should be smooth, 

have no obstructions, and have useable curb cuts (i.e., they 

do not fill with water, snow, or ice in inclement weather). 

In addition, your agency could encourage pedestrians 

with limited mobility to use high-visibility accessories on 

their chairs and scooters. In any case, during scanning and 

analysis, police should look at victims’ capabilities and 

assess whether there is a separate problem associated with 

a special population. If so, partnering with a local, state, or 

national organization for such people is advisable. It is worth 

noting that many of the same features that aid people with 

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 55
movement-related limitations also help people without these 

limitations (e.g., all pedestrians benefit from sidewalks without 

buckled pavement, cracks, and water traps).

31. Making streets safer for children and teens. You 

can apply most of the responses in this guide to specific 

problems involving children and teens. However, there may 

be particular considerations. Improving or creating recreation 

sites that serve the needs of children and teens can shift their 

play from streets to safe areas. But doing so will work only if 

the recreation sites facilitate the play they are interested in: a 

playground for toddlers will not serve the needs of 12- or 16-

year-olds, for example. Along walking routes to schools, it has 

been common practice for crossing guards, parents, and older 

children to provide street-crossing supervision. 

Consulting with schools, recreation departments, parents, and 

others involved with children and teens will be important in 

crafting an effective response. For instance, the HamiltonWentworth (Ontario) Police Department partnered with 

various city departments, the board of education, parents’ 

associations, and other related traffic-safety councils 

to develop KIDestrian.77 This strategy resulted in the 

development and distribution of a pedestrian safety book, 

along with kits that included a series of safety information 

and practical exercises.78 In addition, you might consult with 

older children and teens to understand what responses these 

groups find most appealing.

32. Improving pedestrian safety in shopping-center 

parking areas. You could improve parking areas with some 

of the same measures used to make city streets safer for 

pedestrians. For example, local commerce organizations 

or business owners could install signs, crossing devices, 

crosswalks, and lighting to increase visibility for both 

pedestrians and drivers.

56 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
33. Monitoring construction sites. Your agency could 

partner with builder associations to make sure pedestrian 

detour routes are more convenient and safer to use. In 

addition, your agency could make sure debris and other 

construction materials do not block pedestrian paths.

34. Improving safety for workers at higher risk of 

crashes. You could encourage the training of newly hired 

workers in high-risk positions to avoid dangerous situations 

and behaviors during orientation seminars. In addition, 

high-visibility gear and equipment (e.g., reflective clothing, 

vehicle warning lights) could also make workers more visible 

to oncoming motorists. You should encourage agencies 

whose employees work on the streets to adopt safer standard 

operating procedures.

35. Separating pedestrians from highway entrance/exit 

ramps. Building pedestrian tunnels and bridges near highway 

ramps provides a place for pedestrians to walk that separates 

them from merging traffic. However, some liabilities to 

both structures exist. First, pedestrian tunnels could induce 

the fear of being mugged. Therefore, tunnels should be 

well lit and short and wide enough that someone, upon 

entering, can see the other side. Second, tunnels should not 

contain obstructions behind which people could hide. Third, 

pedestrian bridges could become icy and dangerous in the 

winter. Fourth, building both pedestrian tunnels and bridges 

is very expensive. Fifth, some pedestrians might avoid these 

structures because they require extra effort to descend or 

climb stairs. Finally, overpasses can also create opportunities 

for vandalism and throwing objects at vehicles passing below.

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 57
36. Relocating popular attractions or services. When 

nearby attractions or services are across the street from where 

many residents live or from parking facilities or locations, it 

might be possible to relocate such places on the side of the 

road where most people live or park, so they do not need to 

cross the road. Relocating businesses is likely very expensive 

and would require major rezoning. In addition, established 

business owners might be reluctant to move their location.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

37. Redesigning dangerous vehicles. Vehicles, in particular 

light truck vehicles, should be redesigned to minimize 

the harm caused in pedestrian-vehicle crashes. However, 

redesigning vehicles likely does little to reduce the actual 

occurrence of pedestrian-vehicle crashes. Therefore, the 

response is largely limited to reducing the severity of the 

crash rather than the likelihood of the crash itself. Though 

redesigning vehicles is beyond any single local government’s 

ability, restricting which types of vehicles can use particular 

streets may be useful in some circumstances. 

38. Launching a general pedestrian-safety education/

awareness campaign. As mentioned, publicity campaigns 

used to educate the public on pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

should target a specific audience, ideally potential victims 

and offenders.§ Therefore, informing the general public 

about pedestrian-vehicle crashes is probably a waste of 

resources as such campaigns may not reach the relatively few 

people who need to know. Furthermore, a general education 

campaign would not target the times and places most salient 

to the pedestrians and drivers involved. Outside of the crash 

hotspots, bill boards, radio and television spots, and other 

media efforts are unlikely to convey the message to the right 

people when they can use it. 

58 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

§ See Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
39. Launching a general enforcement campaign against 

jaywalkers. Enforcement is effective when highly focused, 

and then only as an interim solution. Citywide enforcement 

campaigns to improve pedestrian safety are unlikely to work 

for four reasons: 1) police are spread too thin to create a 

strong deterrent; 2) the average patrol officer has many other 

higher-priority tasks; 3) police will direct most of the effort 

at locations where pedestrian-vehicle crash risks are low; and 

4) broadscale enforcement undermines police authority by 

increasing negative police-citizen interactions.

Considering a Combined Response

Some communities could experience multiple factors that 

cause a pedestrian injury and fatality problem. For instance, 

it is possible that your community has high-risk areas due to 

pedestrian behavior and vehicle and driver factors, as well as 

structural issues. The following example shows how the city 

of San Diego used enforcement, education, and engineering 

to address pedestrian and structural factors.

Responses to the Problem of Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities 59
60 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

A Combined Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle 

Crashes in San Diego79

In 1998, the city of San Diego experienced 24 fatal crashes 

involving pedestrians, with pedestrians’ being at fault 80 percent 

of the time. In 1999, the city experienced a 50 percent increase 

in fatal crashes involving pedestrians, with pedestrians’ being at 

fault 72 percent of the time. Analysts discovered that the problem 

disproportionately occurred along two main streets.

Police used the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and 

Assessment) process to address the problem. Following analysis, 

the San Diego Police Department developed a response that 

included enforcement, education, and engineering strategies.

The strategy involved these elements:

Enforcement: A multiunit approach to aggressive jaywalking 

enforcement resulted in 859 pedestrian-officer contacts.

Education: Officers from the Traffic Safety Office developed a 

brochure outlining pedestrian safety and responsibility. In addition, 

media coverage highlighted the problem of pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes, applicable laws, and the police department’s response.

Engineering: The problem was related to midblock bus stops, where 

riders exited and crossed the street midblock rather than walking 

to the nearest pedestrian-regulated intersection. Therefore, the city 

moved eight different bus stops from midblock locations closer to 

intersections (thereby increasing the use of marked crosswalks and 

pedestrian signals).

Later evaluation revealed that there was nearly a 20 percent 

reduction in the pedestrian-vehicle crash rate in the project area.
61

Appendix A: Summary of General 

Considerations and Responses to Pedestrian 

Injuries and Fatalities

 

The table below summarizes the responses to pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the 

conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors 

you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is 

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you 

can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, 

an effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem.

1 36 Designating 

a special 

pedestriansafety task 

force within 

your agency 

A subunit 

within your 

agency focuses 

on enforcing 

pedestrian 

regulations

Creating a subunit 

within your agency 

may require 

funds to support 

additional staffing, 

training, and 

equipment

...your 

community’s 

pedestriansafety problems 

are common 

and serious

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

2 36 Training city 

planners to 

consider 

pedestrian 

safety

Educating 

planners on 

pedestrian safety 

could result in 

“designing out” 

unsafe walking 

conditions

In some cases, 

“designing out” 

unsafe walking 

conditions might 

not be possible 

due to training 

or structural 

modification 

costs; your agency 

would also have to 

establish a working 

relationship with 

city planners or 

those responsible 

for road design

...planners take 

training seriously 

and actually put 

it into practice 

and structural 

modification

Appendix A
6

62 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

3 37 Creating 

ordinances 

to reduce 

pedestrianvehicle crashes 

Officially 

regulates 

situations that 

could increase 

the crash risks

For reasons 

mentioned above, 

police may not 

give high priority 

to enforcing safety 

ordinances

...police enforce 

ordinances 

seriously, 

especially 

at high-risk 

locations

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

4 37 Guarding against 

negative public 

reactions

Your agency 

should work 

with residents, 

businesses, and 

community 

groups to allay 

their fears about 

the negative 

impact of 

pedestrian safety 

strategies 

Regardless of 

early efforts to 

work with the 

public, there will 

still likely be 

some controversy 

surrounding 

problem 

displacement and 

certain strategies’ 

fairness

...your agency 

partners with 

residents, 

businesses, and 

community 

groups early in 

the problemsolving process

5 42 Establishing 

hotspot-specific 

crackdowns 

on jaywalking 

(immediate)

It increases 

the threat 

of citations 

and penalties 

An enforcement 

crackdown may 

not be an adequate 

long-term 

response; it could 

also unnecessarily 

anger the public

...enforcement 

is focused 

on hotspots, 

concentrated at 

known times in 

hotspots, seen 

as necessary by 

the community, 

considered 

high priority, 

and coupled 

with sufficient 

penalties

43

Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Launching 

location-specific 

pedestriansafety 

education/ 

awareness 

campaigns 

(early)

High-risk 

pedestrians are 

educated on the 

risks associated 

with pedestrianvehicle crashes

Avoid campaigns 

that are too 

general because 

the message may 

not reach the 

intended audience 

or address the 

problem

...the awareness 

campaign targets 

pedestrians at 

high risk and is 

close to where 

the problem 

occurs

Pedestrian Behavior
Appendix A 63

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

7 Coordinating 

crossing 

devices to 

facilitate 

uninterrupted 

walking paths 

(immediate) 

When 

pedestrians 

cross one street, 

the adjacent 

crossing 

signal is timed 

to allow an 

uninterrupted 

walking 

sequence

...pedestrianvehicle crashes 

occur where 

pedestrian 

walking 

sequences are 

restricted by 

lengthy time 

intervals

Adjusting signals 

to facilitate 

uninterrupted 

walking 

sequences 

might disrupt 

vehicle flow, 

causing traffic 

congestion; 

in addition, a 

timed crossing 

sequence might 

not accommodate 

all pedestrians’ 

speed

It provides a 

timer indicating 

how much time 

is left to cross 

the street or 

how much time 

is left before a 

“Walk” signal 

flashes

Installing 

pedestrian 

countdowntimer signals 

at problem 

intersections 

(immediate)

...your 

community’s 

pedestrians 

jaywalk 

because of the 

uncertainty of 

the waiting time 

before they can 

cross the street

Countdown 

signals still allow 

pedestrians to 

cross against 

“Don’t Walk” 

signals, unlike 

pedestrian 

barricades

8 45

It targets unsafe 

pedestrian 

behavior as 

a result of 

drinking alcohol 

Addressing 

pedestrian 

drinking 

behavior (early) 

...if police 

and other 

stakeholders 

(i.e., bar 

owners) 

at hotspot 

locations 

collaborate 

The police alone 

should not bear 

the burden 

of addressing 

pedestrian 

drinking behavior 

9 46

Increased 

enforcement may 

increase traffic 

congestion or 

cause further 

distractions; this 

response could 

also be hard to 

maintain over a 

long time period

...enforcement 

campaigns 

are waged in 

high-risk areas 

where speeding 

is causing 

the problem

Enforcement 

may deter 

drivers from 

speeding

Enforcing 

speeding 

violations and 

other unsafe 

driver behaviors 

at high-risk 

locations (early)

10 47

Vehicle and Driver Factors

45
64 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Installation 

of pedestrian 

barriers could be 

expensive and 

disliked by hurried 

pedestrians

...your agency 

has properly 

planned to 

identify high 

frequency crash 

sites where 

the barriers 

would be most 

effective 

It prevents 

pedestrians 

from jaywalking 

by physically 

taking away the 

opportunity to 

do so

Constructing 

pedestrian 

barriers to 

separate foot 

traffic from 

vehicles at 

pedestrianvehicle crash 

hotspots 

14

Implementing 

changes in state 

driver’s exams 

could be difficult 

for communities 

dealing with a 

local problem

...enforcement 

strategies are in 

place to increase 

the distribution 

of pedestrianawareness 

information

During traffic 

stops, police 

distribute 

pedestrianawareness 

information; 

also, driver’s 

classes/exams 

could be 

redesigned 

to emphasize 

pedestrian 

awareness

Increasing 

driver’s 

perceptions of 

risk regarding 

pedestrian 

injuries and 

fatalities (early)

11 47

Traffic redirection 

could create 

high-risk areas on 

adjacent streets

...your agency 

accurately 

identifies highrisk areas 

The use of 

speed bumps or 

route redirection 

slows traffic 

in high-risk 

areas or lessens 

congestion in 

those areas

Diverting or 

calming traffic 

near pedestrianvehicle crash 

hotspots (early 

and immediate)

12 48

DUI checkpoints 

could increase 

traffic congestion, 

create additional 

distractions, 

and disrupt 

neighborhood 

businesses

...your 

pedestrian injury 

and fatality 

problem is 

concentrated 

in heavily 

trafficked 

nightlife districts

DUI check 

points deter 

drunken drivers 

from driving in 

dense pedestrian 

areas

Addressing 

drunken drivers 

(early)

13 48

Immediate Physical Environment

49
Appendix A 65

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Redesigning streets 

may be costly and 

may inconvenience 

travel ease during 

construction; this 

could also increase 

the crash risk for 

specific groups of 

pedestrians (i.e., 

the elderly) by 

increasing crossing 

distance; if this is 

the case, increasing 

crossing signal 

intervals may be 

necessary

...many of your 

community’s 

pedestrianvehicle crashes 

occur on narrow 

streets

Increasing 

crossing 

distances could 

create the 

illusion of risk, 

keeping some 

pedestrians from 

jaywalking

Designing 

wider roads 

and increasing 

existing roads’ 

width to deter 

jaywalking

18 51

Curb extensions 

put pedestrians 

closer to moving 

traffic; in addition, 

curb extensions 

could potentially 

create several 

infrastructure 

problems (see 

description above)

...poor driver/

pedestrian 

visibility or 

long crossing 

distances 

are creating 

problems

Street curbs 

are extended 

into roads to 

narrow crossing 

distances and 

improve driver/

pedestrian 

visibility at 

intersections or 

midblock areas

Installing curb 

extensions 

at problem 

locations

15 50

Installation 

of automated 

crossing systems 

might be too 

costly, and it 

might upset 

drivers by 

restricting their 

mobility; in 

addition, these 

crossing systems 

could be visually 

confusing to 

pedestrians and 

drivers

...a cause of 

jaywalking in 

your community 

relates to rushed 

pedestrians 

(pace of life) 

who might 

be more 

compliant if 

given automatic 

right-of-way

It initiates 

crossing 

beams when 

pedestrians 

approach 

crosswalk

Installing 

crossing 

systems that 

include a 

pedestrian 

detection 

system 

16 50

SYGs are not 

as effective (i.e., 

less reflective) in 

low ambient-light 

conditions 

...crashes 

occur during 

daytime hours, 

when reflective 

material is 

most visible

Traditional 

pedestrian 

warning signs 

are replaced with 

signs made from 

highly reflective 

and morevisible material 

Installing 

fluorescent 

strong yellowgreen (SYG) 

pedestrian 

warning signs 

17 51
66 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Installing and 

maintaining lights 

may be costly

...high-risk 

areas are marked 

by inadequate 

lighting and 

poor visibility

Better visibility 

may help 

pedestrians and 

drivers assess 

the safety of 

walking/driving 

conditions

Increasing 

lighting near 

high-risk 

intersections 

and pedestrian 

routes 

22 52

Longer crossing 

intervals mean 

that traffic 

will stop at 

intersections 

longer; this 

could result in 

traffic congestion 

at certain 

intersections

...longer 

walking intervals 

are needed at 

wider roads; 

also, it works 

best if the 

area has a high 

proportion of 

slower moving 

pedestrians

It adjusts 

crossing devices 

to increase the 

time pedestrians 

have to cross the 

street

Increasing 

the length of 

crossing signal 

intervals

19 52

Sidewalk 

improvement and 

redevelopment 

may be costly 

and temporarily 

inconvenience 

pedestrian travel

...a high 

frequency of 

pedestrianvehicle crashes 

occur near 

locations where 

sidewalks are 

damaged and 

overcrowded

Better walking 

conditions 

may provide 

pedestrians 

with more 

incentive to stay 

on designated 

walking paths

Improving 

sidewalks and 

other pedestrian 

walkways 

20 52

Rerouting bus 

stops may 

make public 

transportation 

more timeconsuming and 

less convenient 

for riders

...your 

community 

relies heavily 

on public 

transportation

Public 

transportation 

systems establish 

pickup/drop-off 

spots near areas 

with crossing 

devices

Encouraging 

pedestrians 

to cross at 

controlled 

intersections 

21

Installing islands 

may require 

extensive road 

construction and 

costs

...pedestrians 

have to travel 

long distances 

to cross 

certain streets; 

also, islands 

should be 

clearly marked 

and visible 

to vehicles

It allows two 

shorter crossings 

when streets are 

wide

Providing 

midblock 

pedestrian 

islands when 

blocks are long 

and streets are 

wide 

23 53

52
Appendix A 67

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Pedestrian flags 

might not be 

as noticeable 

or effective as 

more permanent 

environmental 

changes; also, 

pedestrians should 

still use caution 

while crossing, 

as there is no 

guarantee drivers 

will notice the 

flags

...flags are 

installed at risky 

locations and 

are visible to 

both drivers and 

pedestrians

The city installs 

warning flags at 

intersections or 

other crossing 

areas

Creating 

pedestrian flag 

locations 

26 54

Midblock 

crosswalks impede 

vehicle traffic and 

should be used 

on streets where 

flow speed is not 

essential

...street crossing 

is common 

away from 

intersections and 

areas without 

crossing devices

Midblock 

crossings are 

marked with 

signs to calm 

traffic and 

alert drivers 

to pedestrians’ 

right-of-way

Providing 

marked 

midblock 

crossings on 

narrow streets

24 53

Removing parking 

spots could 

increase moving 

traffic if drivers 

cannot find 

parking places; 

also, drivers 

may avoid such 

areas due to the 

inconvenience; 

therefore, this 

strategy may not 

be suitable for 

business districts

...they are 

established at 

locations where 

pedestrians 

frequently cross 

streets between 

cars

It removes 

parked cars 

that restrict 

the visibility of 

both pedestrians 

and drivers

Establishing 

parking 

regulations in 

low-visibility 

areas

25

Portable warning 

signs might not 

be as noticeable 

or effective as 

more-permanent 

environmental 

changes

...warning signs 

are installed at 

risky locations 

and are visible 

to both drivers 

and pedestrians

The city places 

portable 

warning signs at 

intersections or 

other crossing 

areas

Using portable 

pedestrian 

warning signs

27 54

54
68 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Improvements to 

sidewalks could be 

costly and benefit 

only a few

...it is 

implemented in 

areas with a high 

proportion of 

pedestrians with 

limited mobility

It makes 

sidewalks more 

usable and 

pedestrians with 

limited mobility 

more visible

Improving 

conditions for 

pedestrians with 

limited mobility

30 55

These signs’ 

effectiveness 

might depend on 

where they are 

placed (e.g., which 

intersections)

...drivers have 

difficulty seeing 

pedestrian 

warning signs 

that are posted 

near sidewalks 

at intersection 

crosswalks

The city installs 

pedestrian signs 

in the middle of 

roads to warn 

drivers to yield 

to pedestrian 

traffic

Installing instreet yield-topedestrian signs

28 55

Substances used 

to clear sidewalks 

(i.e. de-icers, salt) 

could damage 

surfaces, resulting 

in additional costs

...your 

community 

experiences 

winter weather 

that includes 

ice and snow

It makes walking 

surfaces safe and 

accommodating, 

even in poor 

weather

Maintaining 

walking surfaces 

in inclement 

weather

29 55

Special Conditions

You need to 

examine carefully 

the particular 

needs of children 

and teens and 

bring older 

children and teens 

brought into the 

problem-solving 

process

...special 

circumstances 

put children 

and teens at 

particular risk

It addresses the 

specific needs 

of children and 

teens

Making streets 

safer for 

children and 

teens

31 56

Surrounding 

businesses might 

have to cover the 

expense of the 

safety measures 

...safety 

measures are 

aimed at both 

pedestrians 

and drivers, 

since both are 

distracted in 

parking areas

It uses measures 

similar to those 

aimed at making 

city streets and 

intersections 

safer for 

pedestrians

Improving 

pedestrian 

safety in 

shopping-center 

parking areas 

32 56
Appendix A 69

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Relocating 

businesses is likely 

very expensive 

and would require 

major rezoning; 

also, established 

business owners 

might be reluctant 

to move their 

location

...a crash 

hotspot results 

from many 

residents having 

to continually 

cross from a 

central location 

to patronize 

attractions 

or services

Frequently 

patronized stores, 

restaurants, or 

other businesses 

are relocated 

to the side of 

the road where 

people live so 

they do not need 

to cross the 

street

Relocating 

popular 

attractions 

or services

36 58

Construction sites 

are temporary 

and frequently 

change locations; 

changing 

conditions could 

make monitoring 

difficult; 

therefore, your 

agency could 

work with local 

government 

to require 

contractors to 

agree to site 

monitoring at the 

permitting stage 

of construction

...your 

agency forms 

partnerships 

with building 

companies so 

that monitoring 

continues 

throughout 

the project’s 

duration

It ensures that 

pedestrian 

routes are 

convenient and 

accessible 

Monitoring 

construction 

sites

33 57

Workers may not 

use safe practices 

unless they are 

regulated

...workers take 

the training 

seriously

It trains highrisk workers 

to consider 

dangerous 

conditions and 

behavior while 

on the job; also, 

workers can use 

special gear to 

make themselves 

more visible 

to drivers 

Improving 

safety for 

workers at 

higher risk 

of crashes

34 57

Various 

unintended 

consequences of 

both structures 

might not be 

considered before 

construction; see 

above for possible 

consequences

...pedestrian 

tunnels and 

bridges are 

built so that 

pedestrians 

are physically 

separated from 

merging traffic

It provides safe 

walking routes 

for pedestrians 

near high-speed 

traffic

Separating 

pedestrians 

from highway 

entrance/exit 

ramps

35 57
70 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Response 

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

This response 

requires 

cooperation with 

government 

agencies 

and vehicle 

manufacturers, 

which may be 

beyond your 

agency’s scope

...problematic 

designs (e.g., 

light truck 

vehicles) are 

identified and 

improved

Vehicle body 

changes can 

minimize the 

seriousness 

of injury and 

chance of death 

upon collision

Redesigning 

dangerous 

vehicles

37 58

Most problems 

affect only certain 

people during 

certain times; 

therefore, a 

general message 

may not reach 

those who would 

benefit the most 

...the problem 

is widespread 

and affects 

many people in 

your community

It uses the 

mass media 

to promote 

pedestrian safety 

to a general 

audience

Launching 

a general

pedestriansafety 

education/

aware-ness 

campaign

38 58

It can create 

perceptions of 

racial profiling, 

puts police in 

conflict with 

many citizens who 

are not at risk, 

maybe expensive, 

and is difficult to 

maintain

...crashes 

are common, 

largely due to 

jaywalking, and 

there are no 

concentrations

Police crack 

down on 

jaywalking 

throughout the 

jurisdiction

Launching 

a general

enforcement 

campaign 

against 

jaywalkers

39 59

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

* “Immediate” refers to responses that take effect just moments before a possible crash. “Early” marks responses that take 

effect long before potential crashes. See Figure 3 and accompanying text.
Appendix B 71

Appendix B: Web Resources for Improving 

Pedestrian Safety

Government

The Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

“The Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection 

System are meant to provide practitioners with the latest 

information available for improving the safety and mobility of 

those who walk. The online tools provide the user with a list 

of possible engineering, education, or enforcement treatments 

to improve pedestrian safety and/or mobility based on user 

input about a specific location” (source: from the URL below, 

accessed January 6, 2007). www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/

index.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research 

Page

It contains reports on effective safety procedures, and other 

information useful for understanding pedestrian safety. 

www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pedbike.htm.

National Transportation Library

It contains various reports, documents, and other 

publications on safety issues. http://ntl.bts.gov/display.

cfm?sub=e2&cat=5.

Advocacy

Active Living Research

“The chief aim of Active Living Research is to increase 

knowledge about active living by supporting research to 
72 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

identify environmental factors and policies with potential 

to substantially increase levels of physical activity among 

Americans of all ages, incomes and ethnic backgrounds” 

(source: from the URL below, accessed January 6, 2007).

www.activelivingresearch.org/index.php/What_We_are_

Learning/117.

National Center for Bicycling and Walking

“The mission of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking 

(NCBW) is to help create bicycle-friendly and walkable 

communities across North America by encouraging and 

supporting the efforts of individuals, organizations, and 

agencies” (source: from the URL below, accessed January 6, 

2007). www.bikewalk.org. 

Partnership for a Walkable America

“The Partnership for a Walkable America (PWA) is a national 

coalition working to improve the conditions for walking in 

America and to increase the number of Americans who walk 

regularly. The members are national governmental agencies 

and non-profit organizations concerned about three main 

areas: health, safety and the environment” (source: from the 

URL below, accessed January 6, 2007). www.Walkableamerica.

Org.

Safe Kids Worldwide

“Safe Kids Worldwide is a global network of organizations 

whose mission is to prevent accidental childhood injury, 

a leading killer of children 14 and under. More than 450 

coalitions in 15 countries bring together health and safety 

experts, educators, corporations, foundations, governments, 

and volunteers to educate and protect families” (source: from 

the URL below, accessed January 6, 2007). www.safekids.org.
Appendix C 73

Appendix C: Developing a Comprehensive 

Response to Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes

This guide has emphasized the interaction of three factors—pedestrians, drivers, and the physical environment—that 

cause pedestrian-vehicle crashes. This interaction is reflected 

in the pedestrian-vehicle crash triangle (Figure 1), and in the 

process of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (Figure 3). The practical 

implication is that a comprehensive response should address 

more than one factor: pedestrians, drivers, physical environment, early decisions, and immediate decisions. The following 

checklist is based on this insight.

This checklist also uses the five main categories of situational 

crime prevention responses (for more information, see www.

popcenter.org): increasing risks, increasing effort, decreasing 

rewards, decreasing excuses, and decreasing provocations. 

Increasing risks involves making the perceived penalty 

for misbehavior more likely. For example, increased enforcement of speeding or jaywalking increases the risk of 

fines for people who do so. 

Increasing effort involves making it harder to engage in 

troublesome behavior. For example, traffic calming forces 

drivers to slow down by making it more difficult to speed. 

Decreasing rewards decreases the gain from misbehavior. For example, if pedestrians cross midblock to catch 

buses, moving bus stops to corners removes the incentive 

to cross midblock. 

Decreasing excuses involves making it more difficult for 

people to justify their misbehavior. For example, providing clearly marked crossing points for pedestrians reduces 

their ability to claim they did not know where to cross. 

•

•

•

•
74 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Decreasing provocations involves reducing inducements 

to misbehave. For example, altering crossing-walk timing 

to facilitate pedestrian movement reduces pedestrians’ 

perceived need to jaywalk. 

Combining the factors discussed in this guide with situational 

prevention techniques reveals 25 intervention categories (see 

Table 1). A comprehensive response involves using multiple 

situational approaches against multiple causes. This approach 

ensures that one intervention’s weaknesses are offset by other 

interventions’ strengths.

In the example shown in the table, the response consists of 

types of four interventions involving pedestrians (immediate 

decisions), drivers (early decisions), and the physical environment. These four interventions involve four different situational prevention types: increasing risks to drivers, decreasing 

drivers’ excuses for speeding, decreasing pedestrian provocations to jaywalk, and increasing the difficulty of jaywalking. 

Notice that because speeding enforcement may not be sustainable, the signs remain as a reminder. Even so, in this example, 

police may have to employ periodic speeding crackdowns. 

Lastly, the “Planning Framework for Preventing PedestrianVehicle Crashes” checklist is designed to provide you with a 

useful planning tool when developing a response. Supervisors 

can also use it for approving a response before implementation. Finally, you can use it to document the relationships 

among the interventions you apply.

•
Appendix C 75

Table 1 

Example of a Comprehensive Response 

Situational 

Prevention Type

Pedestrians Drivers & Vehicles Physical 

Environment

Increase Risks Enforce 

speeding in

an area 

Increase Effort

Install pedestrian 

barricades 

midblock

Decrease 

Rewards

 

Decrease 

Excuses

Erect signs 

warning of 

pedestrians 

Decrease 

Provocations

Coordinate 

crossinglight timing

 

Early Immediate Early Immediate
76 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Planning Framework for Preventing Pedestrian-Vehicle Crashes

 Problem: ____________________________________ Date: ______________________

INTERVENTION CLASSIFICATIONS

 

Planning Assessment*

1. Have you used at least one intervention for pedestrians, drivers, and the physical environment? 

Yes p No p

2. If not, which factor is lacking an intervention? ________________________________________

3. Have you used at least two different situational prevention types for the interventions? 

Yes p No p

4. If not, which situational prevention types are not used? _________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

*You should consider changes or additions to your overall action plan if you answered “No” to any 

of the above questions. 

SITUATIONAL 

PREVENTION TYPE

Early Pedestrian 

Decisions

Immediate 

Pedestrian 

Decisions

Early Driver 

Decisions

Immediate 

Driver 

Decisions

Increase 

Risk 

Increase 

Effort 

Reduce Rewards

Remove Excuses

Reduce Provocations

TOTAL 

INTERVENTIONS

Physical 

Environment
Endnotes 77

Endnotes

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in Lee and 

Abdel-Aty (2005), p. 775.

2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2005).

3 Ernst et al. (2004).

4 Campbell et al. (2004).

5 Campbell et al. (2004).

6 Campbell et al. (2004).

7 Campbell et al. (2004).

8 Lee and Abdel-Aty (2005).

9 Teanby, Gorman, and Boot (1993).

10 Mullen, Cooper, and Driskell (1990).

11 Campbell et al. (2004).

12 Do (2002).

13 Moudon et al. (1997).

14 Hill and Roemer (1977).

15 Wilgoren (1999).

16 Umhoefer (2000).

17 Umhoefer (2000).

18 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005).

19 Collins (1998).

20 Hamed (2001).

21 Hatfield and Murphy (2007).

22 Carole Millar Research (1998).

23 Campbell et al. (2004).

24 Campbell et al. (2004).

25 Carole Millar Research (1998).

26 Rehabilitation Alcohol Test, in Campbell et al. (2004).

27 Redmon (2003).

28 Markowitz et al. (2006).

29 Walmsley and Lewis (1989).

30 Keegan and O’Mahoney (2003).

31 Cui and Nambisan (2003).

32 Jason and Liotta (1982).
78 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

33 Yagil (2000).

34 Giacopassi and Forde (2000).

35 Giacopassi and Forde (2000).

36 Harrell (1991).

37 Mullen, Cooper, and Driskell (1990).

38 Russell, Wilson, and Jenkins (1976).

39 Harkey and Zegeer (2004).

40 Harkey and Zegeer (2004).

41 Harkey and Zegeer (2004).

42 Roudsari et al. (2004).

43 Cui and Nambisan (2003).

44 Chu, Guttenplan, and Baltes (2004).

45 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989).

46 New York City Department of Transportation (n.d.).

47 Moudon et al. (1997).

48 Campbell et al. (2004).

49 Campbell et al. (2004).

50 Ernst et al. (2004).

51 Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994).

52 Davis and Huelke, in Campbell et al. (2004).

53 Associated Press (2007).

54 Associated Press (2007).

55 Campbell et al. (2004).

56 Hamed (2001).

57 Blomberg, in Campbell et al. (2004).

58 Sonnenberg (2006).

59 Keegan and O’Mahoney (2003).

60 Keegan and O’Mahoney (2003).

61 Markowitz et al. (2006).

62 Markowitz et al. (2006).

63 Smith (2005–2007).

64 Berger, in Retting, Ferguson, and McCartt (2003), p. 9.

65 Ostram and Ericksson (2001).
66 Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007).

67 Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007).

68 Hakkert, Gitelman, and Ben-Shabat (2002).

69 Hakkert, Gitelman, and Ben-Shabat (2002).

70 Clark, Hummer, and Dutt (1996).

71 Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering 

Division, Arlington (Virginia) (n.d.).

72 Clark, Hummer, and Dutt (1996).

73 Clark, Hummer, and Dutt (1996).

74 San Diego Police Department (2001).

75 City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic 

Engineering Division (1999).

76 City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic 

Engineering Division (1999).

77 Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994).

78 Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994).

79 San Diego Police Department (2001).

Endnotes 79

References 81

References

Associated Press (2007). “Officials: Street Water Sales 

Risky.” Wisconsin State Journal, July 2, p. C3.

Campbell, B., C. Zegeer, H. Huang and M. Cynecki (2004). 

A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States 

and Abroad. McLean (Virginia): U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Carole Millar Research (1998). Alcohol and the Pedestrian 

Road Casualty. Development Department Research 

Programme Research Findings No. 49. Edinburgh: 

Scottish Office Central Research Unit.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989). 

“Current Trends: Queens Boulevard Pedestrian Safety 

Project–New York City.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report 38(5): 61–63.

Chu, X., M. Guttenplan and M. Baltes (2004). “Why 

People Cross Where They Do: The Role of the Street 

Environment.” Unpublished.

City of Madison Department of Transportation, Traffic 

Engineering Division (1999). “Field Evaluation of 

Experimental In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Signs.” 

Submitted to Federal Highway Administration.

Clark, K., J. Hummer and N. Dutt (1996). “Field 

Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-Green 

Pedestrian Warning Signs.” Transportation Research Record

1538: 39-46.
82 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Collins, G. (1998). “Walking the Walk, Against the Light.” 

New York Times, January 14, p. 3B.

Cui, Z., and S. Nambisan (2003). “Methodology for 

Evaluating the Safety of Midblock Pedestrian 

Crossings.” Transportation Research Record 1828:75–82.

Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering 

Division, Arlington (Virginia) (n.d.). “ITE Pedestrian 

Project Award Application”. Retrieved March 26, 2007. 

www.ite.org/activeliving/files/C-2-C_ppa019.pdf.

Do, A. (2002). “Walking the Safety Walk.” Public Roads

66(2):2–6.

Ernst, M., L. Bailey, A. Canby and K. McCarty (2004). 

Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come? Pedestrian 

Safety, 1994-2003. Washington, D.C.: Surface 

Transportation Policy Project.

Giacopassi, D., and D. Forde (2000). “Broken Windows, 

Crumpled Fenders, and Crime.” Journal of Criminal Justice

28(4):397–405.

Hakkert, A., V. Gitelman and E. Ben-Shabat (2002). “An 

Evaluation of Crosswalk Warning Systems: Effects 

on Pedestrian and Vehicle Behaviour.” Transportation 

Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 5(4):275–

292.

Hamed, M. (2001). “Analysis of Pedestrians’ Behavior at 

Pedestrian Crossing.” Safety Science 38(1):63–82.

Hamilton-Wentworth Police Department (1994). 

“KIDestrians: Child Pedestrian Safety.” Submission for 

the Herman Goldstein Project Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing (finalist). 
References 83

Harkey, D., and C. Zegeer (2004). “PEDSAFE: Pedestrian 

Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.” 

McLean (Virginia): U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration.

Harrell, W. (1991). “Factors Influencing Pedestrian 

Cautiousness in Crossing Streets.” Journal of Social 

Psychology 131(3):367–372.

Hatfield, J., and S. Murphy (2007). “The Effects of 

Mobile Phone Use on Pedestrian Crossing Behaviour 

at Signalised and Unsignalised Intersections.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 39(1):197–205.

Hill, M., and T. Roemer (1977). “Toward an Explanation 

of Jaywalking Behavior: A Linear Regression 

Approach.” Man-Environment Systems 7(6):342–349.

Jason, L., and R. Liotta (1982). “Pedestrian Jaywalking 

Under Facilitating and Nonfacilitating Conditions.” 

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15(3):469–473.

Keegan, O., and M. O’Mahony (2003). “Modifying 

Pedestrian Behaviour.” Transportation Research Part A: 

Policy and Practice 37(10):889–901.

Lee, C., and M. Abdel-Aty (2005). “Comprehensive 

Analysis of Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes at Intersections 

in Florida.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 37(4):775–

786.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2007). “Slow 

Down LA County: Neighborhood Traffic Management 

Program”. Retrieved March 25, 2007. http://ladpw.org/

TNL/NTMP/Page_02.cfm.
84 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Markowitz, F., S. Sciortino, J. Fleck, and B. Yee (2006). 

“Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience with an 

Extensive Pilot Installation.” ITE Journal 76(1):43–48.

Moudon, A., P. Hess, M. Snyder, and K. Stanilov (1997). 

Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, 

Medium-Density Environments. Olympia: Washington State 

Department of Transportation.

Mullen, B., C. Cooper, and J. Driskell (1990). “Jaywalking 

as a Function of Model Behavior.” Personality and Social 

Psychology Bulletin 16(2):320–330.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis (2005). “Traffic Safety 

Facts: 2004 Data.” Washington, D.C.: National Center 

for Statistics and Analysis.

New York City Department of Transportation (n.d.). 

“Queens Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Study.” 

Ostrom, M., and A. Eriksson (2001). “Pedestrian Fatalities 

and Alcohol.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 33(2):173–

180.

Redmon, T. (2003). “Assessing the Attitudes and Behaviors 

of Pedestrians and Drivers in Traffic Situations.” ITE 

Journal 7(3):26–30.

Retting, R., S. Ferguson and A. McCartt (2003). “A Review 

of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering Measures 

Designed To Reduce Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle 

Crashes.” American Journal of Public Health 93(9):1456–

1463.
References 85

Roudsari, B., C. Mock, R. Kaufman, D. Grossman, B. 

Henary and J. Crandall (2004). “Pedestrian Crashes: 

Higher Injury Severity and Mortality Rate for Light 

Truck Vehicles Compared With Passenger Vehicles.” 

Injury Prevention 10(3):154–158.

Russell, J., D. Wilson and J. Jenkins (1976). “Information 

Properties of Jaywalking Models as determinants of 

Imitated Jaywalking: An Extension of Model Sex, Race 

and Number.” Sociometry 39(3):270–273.

San Diego Police Department (2001). “Project To Address 

and Reduce the Number of Traffic Collisions Involving 

Pedestrians.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Smith, Susan (2005–2007). Shawnee Police Department. 

Communication with J. Eck.

Sonnenberg, B. (2006). “Put Your Best Foot Forward.” 

Time International, July 24, p. 17.

Teanby, D., D. Gorman and D. Boot (1993). “Pedestrian 

Accidents on Merseyside: The Case for Criminalization 

of Jaywalking.” Injury 24(1):10–12.

Umhoefer, D. (2000). “Ticket Blitz Has Winners, Losers.” 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, June 18, p. 015A.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2005). “2005 American 

Community Survey.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.
86 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Walmsley, D., and G. Lewis (1989). “The Pace of 

Pedestrian Flows in Cities.” Environment and Behavior

21(2):123–150.

Wilgoren, J. (1999). “Cross at Green? No. In Between: 

Only a Few Jaywalkers Are Getting Tickets, or Qualms.” 

New York Times, April 9, p. 1B.

Yagil, D. (2000). “Beliefs, Motives and Situational Factors 

Related to Pedestrians’ Self-Reported Behavior at 

Signal-Controlled Crossings.” Transportation Research Part 

F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 3(1):1–13.
About the Authors 87

About the Authors

Justin A. Heinonen

Justin A. Heinonen is currently a doctoral student at the 

University of Cincinnati’s Division of Criminal Justice. 

Heinonen is also a research associate in the University of 

Cincinnati’s Policing Institute, where he is currently working 

on the Uptown Consortium project. This project involves 

providing consortium members with ongoing analyses 

of crime problems and hot spots in uptown Cincinnati, 

recommending the most effective responses for these 

locations, and assessing the effectiveness of each response 

in terms of crime reduction. His specific research interests 

include situational crime prevention, crime mapping, whitecollar crime, and victimology. Heinonen holds a bachelor’s 

degree in criminal justice from the University of Toledo, and 

a master’s degree in criminal justice from Bowling Green State 

University. 

John E. Eck

John E. Eck is a criminal justice professor at the University 

of Cincinnati, where he teaches police effectiveness, criminal 

justice policy, research methods and crime prevention. His 

research has focused on the development of problem-oriented 

policing, police effectiveness, crime patterns, and crime 

prevention. Eck was a member of the National Academy of 

Sciences’ Committee to Review Research on Police Policy 

and Practices. He is an individual affiliate of the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing. Eck is the coauthor (with Ronald 

V. Clarke) of Crime Analysis for Problem-Solvers: In 60 Small 

Steps, as well as the author or coauthor of many publications 

on problem-oriented policing, crime mapping, and crime 

prevention. Eck received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees 

from the University of Michigan, and his doctorate from the 

University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 89

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-

932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana 

Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-

932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. 

Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
90 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
91

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John 

E. Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets 

and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-

76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and 

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. 

Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
92 Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities

Response Guides series:

The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel 

Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke 

and John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

Using Crime Prevention Through Enviornmental 

Design in Problem Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
93

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Transient Encampments

Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including:

Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

Interactive training exercises

Online access to research and police practices

Online problem analysis module

Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing and 

situational crime prevention

A complete listing of other POP Guides

A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e090725108 October 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

www.cops.usdoj.gov