Accessible Version

PEDESTRIANS AND 

CYCLISTS

Cities, States, and 

DOT Are 

Implementing Actions 

to Improve Safety

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2015

GAO-16-66

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-66, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2015

PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS

Cities, States, and DOT Are Implementing Actions to 

Improve Safety

Why GAO Did This Study

Walking and biking are becoming 

increasingly popular modes of 

transportation: nearly a million more 

people reported walking or biking to 

work in 2013 than in 2005. While total 

traffic fatalities declined from 2004 

through 2013 (the most recent year for 

which data are available), this was not 

matched by a similar decline in 

pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. GAO 

was asked to review pedestrian and 

cyclist safety data and challenges in 

addressing this issue. This report 

examines: (1) trends in pedestrian and 

cyclist fatalities and injuries from 2004 

through 2013 and characteristics of 

these fatalities and injuries; (2) safety 

initiatives selected states and cities 

have implemented and their views on 

challenges in addressing this issue; 

and (3) actions taken by DOT to help 

improve safety.

GAO analyzed DOT data on 

pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and 

injuries from 2004 through 2013. GAO 

also reviewed relevant documents and 

reports, and interviewed officials from 

DOT; three states (California, Florida, 

New York); the District of Columbia; six 

cities (Austin, Texas; Jacksonville, 

Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New 

York City, New York; Portland, Oregon; 

San Francisco, California); and 22 nongovernmental organizations with an 

interest in pedestrian and cyclist 

safety. States and cities were selected 

based on number of fatalities, walking 

and cycling activity, and 

recommendations from nongovernmental organizations. Nongovernmental organizations were 

selected to reflect a range of expertise. 

DOT reviewed a draft of this report and 

provided a technical comment, which 

was incorporated.

What GAO Found

Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries represent a growing percentage of all 

traffic fatalities and injuries. For example, pedestrian fatalities comprised 10.9 

percent of all traffic deaths nationwide in 2004, but 14.5 percent in 2013. Cyclists 

represented 1.7 percent of all United States traffic deaths in 2004, but 2.3 

percent in 2013. Estimates of pedestrian and cyclist injuries also grew during this 

same time frame. In 2013, most traffic crashes that resulted in a pedestrian’s or 

cyclist’s death involved men, occurred in urban areas, happened in clear weather 

conditions, and most frequently took place between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Various factors—working separately or in combination—may have contributed to 

these fatalities and injuries, including increased walking and cycling trips; alcohol 

use; distracted road users; or road design practices.

Officials from states and cities in GAO’s review reported that they have 

implemented a number of efforts, but face challenges in addressing pedestrian 

and cyclist safety. For example, states and cities reported collecting and 

analyzing data on walking and cycling activity and crashes to develop safety 

efforts. Officials said that a variety of engineering standards have been used to 

design more walking or cycling facilities, such as sidewalks or bike lanes. State 

and city officials also reported implementing education and enforcement 

initiatives. In addition, three jurisdictions reported that they implemented Vision 

Zero programs, which are comprehensive initiatives to integrate data collection, 

engineering, education, and enforcement actions. However, state and city 

officials GAO interviewed most often cited challenges with prioritization, data, 

engineering, and funding in addressing pedestrian and cyclist safety. Prioritizing 

safety in this area can be difficult according to officials because of, for example, 

differing state and city perspectives on transportation investments. Limited or no 

walking and cycling trip data or incomplete and unreliable crash data also hinder 

efforts, according to many officials. Problems with existing roadways, such as 

wide lanes that may encourage drivers to speed and limited pedestrian and 

cyclist facilities, were also indicated as safety challenges. Officials also noted that 

funding issues can limit the ability to address pedestrian and cyclist safety. These 

challenges may be interrelated: according to some officials, limited data on 

walking and cycling trips can hinder the development of a performance-based 

approach, which could assist jurisdictions in prioritizing pedestrian and cycling 

safety.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has implemented and is planning 

to take further actions to help improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. For example, 

the Mayors’ Challenge—part of DOT’s Safer People, Safer Streets initiative—

encourages officials to prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety. On data collection, 

DOT is leading a pilot project on trip-counting technologies and updating 

guidance for states on data to include in crash reports. On engineering efforts, 

DOT issued a memorandum supporting flexibility in the design of pedestrian and 

cyclist facilities, as well as guidance to help reduce motorist speed. DOT 

oversees 13 funding programs that can award funds—$676.1 million in 2013—to 

be used toward pedestrian and cyclist safety. Given the increase in walking and 

cycling activity and the percentage of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries, 

it will be important that efforts such as these continue.

View GAO-16-66. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Background 3

Pedestrians and Cyclists Represent a Growing Percentage of All 

Traffic Fatalities and Injuries, and Various Factors May Have 

Contributed to Fatalities and Injuries 7

Selected States and Cities Reported Having Implemented 

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Efforts, but Face Various 

Challenges 16

DOT Is Implementing Actions That May Help Improve Pedestrian 

and Cyclist Safety 25

Agency Comments 34

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation 41

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Appendix IV: Accessible Data 44

Data Table 44

Agency Comment Letters 46

Tables

Table 1: United States Pedestrian, Cyclist, and All Traffic Fatalities and 

Estimated Injuries, 2004 through 2013 8

Table 2: DOT Funding Programs That Can Be Used for Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Projects as of October 2015 32

Data Table for Figure 2: Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities as a Percentage 

of All Traffic Fatalities, 2004 through 2013 44

Data Table for Figure 3: Pedestrian Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of 

Area, Light Condition, and Time of Day, 2013 44

Data Table for Figure 4: Cyclist Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, 

Light Condition, and Time of Day, 2013 45

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Cyclist Road Markings and Facilities 6

Figure 2: Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities as a Percentage of All Traffic 

Fatalities, 2004 through 2013 9

Contents
Figure 3: Pedestrian Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light 

Condition, and Time of Day, 2013 11

Figure 4: Cyclist Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light 

Condition, and Time of Day, 2013 13

Page ii GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

 Officials

ACS American Community Survey

BAC blood alcohol concentration

DOT Department of Transportation

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

g/dL grams per deciliter

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

MPO metropolitan planning organization

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials

NASS-GES National Automotive Sampling System–General Estimates

 System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Page iii GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 19, 2015

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rick Larsen

House of Representatives

Walking and biking are becoming increasingly popular modes of 

transportation; nearly a million more people reported walking or biking to 

work in 2013 than in 2005, according to data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. However, while overall traffic fatalities steadily declined from 

2004 through 2013 (the most recent year for which data are available), 

this was not matched by a similar decline in pedestrian and cyclist 

fatalities.1 You asked us to review pedestrian and cyclist fatality and injury 

data and challenges to improving the safety of these vulnerable road 

users. This report examines: (1) the trends in pedestrian and cyclist 

fatalities and injuries from 2004 through 2013 and other characteristics of 

these fatalities and injuries; (2) pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts 

implemented by selected states and cities and their views on challenges 

in addressing this issue; and (3) actions taken by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.

To conduct this work, we analyzed characteristics of pedestrian and 

cyclist fatalities, injuries, and trips over the last decade using 2004 

through 2013 data from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and 

 

1The term “pedestrian” includes any person traveling by foot and any mobility impaired person 

using a wheelchair. We use the term “cyclist” to refer to pedalcyclists and other cyclists, 

meaning a person on a vehicle that is powered solely by pedals.

Letter
National Automotive Sampling System–General Estimates System 

(NASS-GES), and 2005 (the first year of available data) through 2013 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Page 2 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

2 We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing related 

documentation and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We also 

reviewed DOT documents, highway design guides, reports, and other 

relevant documents. We interviewed transportation officials in three 

states, the District of Columbia, and six cities on efforts implemented and 

challenges faced in addressing pedestrian and cyclist safety using a 

semi-structured set of interview questions. We also interviewed 

representatives of 22 relevant non-governmental organizations, including 

organizations involved in transportation engineering and design, cycling 

and walking organizations, and organizations representing state and local 

governments, regional and local planners, and law enforcement and other 

issues. The states (California, Florida, and New York); District of 

Columbia; and cities (Austin, Texas; Jacksonville, Florida; Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; New York City, New York; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, 

California) were selected based on criteria that included both high and 

low numbers of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, high percentages of 

populations reporting walking or cycling to work, and recommendations 

from non-governmental organizations. We selected non-governmental 

organizations with an interest in pedestrian and cyclist safety to reflect a 

range of expertise on this issue. These interviews are not generalizable to 

all transportation agencies or non-governmental organizations; however, 

the information provided a range of perspectives on efforts and 

challenges associated with pedestrian and cyclist safety. We also 

interviewed officials from NHTSA and from DOT’s Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) on actions taken to address pedestrian and cyclist 

safety. Appendix I provides further detail on the objectives, scope, and 

methodology for this review.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to November 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

 

2

FARS is a census of all fatal traffic crashes in the United States that provides uniformly coded, 

national data on police-reported fatalities. NASS-GES consists of data collected from an annual 

sample of about 50,000 police accident reports and is statistically weighted to be 

nationally representative of all police-reported crashes that occur in the United States 

each year. For more information, see appendix I.
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Walking and cycling as a means of commuting to work has generally 

increased in recent years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey (ACS), in 2013, an estimated 4 million 

Americans reported commuting to work in the past week by walking and 

approximately 860,000 reported using a bicycle.

Page 3 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

3 These numbers have risen 

since 2005, the first year of available data: in 2005, an estimated 3.3 million 

people reported their primary method of commuting to work in the past week 

was by walking and approximately 530,000 reported using a bicycle.4 The 

percentage of the population who reported commuting to work in the previous 

week by walking or cycling can vary from location to location. For example, in 

2013, an estimated 2.7 percent of California residents reported that they 

primarily traveled to work by walking, while 6.4 percent of New York State 

residents reported primarily walking to work.5 The percentage of Americans 

commuting to work by walking or cycling may be higher than reported by 

the ACS. The ACS asks respondents to choose the primary means of 

how they traveled to work—and not recreation or other trips—in the 

previous week, and notes that if a respondent used more than one 

transportation mode they are to select the mode used for most of the 

distance. Some entities we spoke with indicated that by allowing 

respondents to select only a single transportation mode, ACS 

undercounts trips in which more than one mode is used. For example, if 

an individual commuted to work from home by cycling 1 mile to a subway 

station, riding a subway for 10 miles, and then walking 0.25 miles to his 

office, that individual would select the “Subway” response on the ACS 

even though three transportation modes were used.

While officials from some of the entities we spoke with noted that 

pedestrian and cyclist safety is generally considered to be primarily a 

 

3The 90 percent confidence intervals are (3,859,900, 4,146,000) and (714,800, 1,000,800) 

respectively. This is the interval that would contain the actual population values for 90 

percent of the ACS samples that the U.S. Census Bureau could have drawn.

4The 90 percent confidence intervals are (3,194,100, 3,460,400) and (399,200, 665,500) 

respectively.

5The 90 percent confidence intervals are (2.6%, 2.8%) and (6.2%, 6.6%) respectively.

Background
local government issue, multiple federal, state, and local government 

agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, contribute efforts to 

improve safety in this area. The federal government—primarily through 

DOT’s NHTSA and FHWA—sets national transportation policies 

pertaining to highway safety, awards transportation funding to states for 

distribution to projects and localities, collects and reports crash data, and 

provides guidance and technical assistance to state and local agencies. 

For example, in 2015 FHWA issued the Separated Bike Lane Planning 

and Design Guide to assist transportation agencies in planning and 

designing separated bike lanes.

Page 4 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

6 Additionally, NHTSA’s National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis collects and analyzes data to support the agency’s motor 

vehicle and highway safety activities. State agencies—such as state DOTs, 

highway safety offices, and police—plan, design, and construct 

transportation facilities (such as roadways); distribute federal and state 

funds to local agencies to construct pedestrian and cyclist facilities (such 

as sidewalks or bike lanes); and assist in education and enforcement 

efforts. Additionally, state DOTs are required, under FHWA’s Highway 

Safety Improvement Program, to create a strategic highway safety plan, a 

statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a framework for reducing 

highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In addition, 

each year each state is required to develop a highway safety plan, which 

is separate from but coordinated with the strategic highway safety plan. 

Local agencies—such as city DOTs, local police departments, or 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)—can use federal, state, and 

local funding to design and construct pedestrian and cyclist facilities, 

enforce traffic laws, and educate the public on traffic safety. Other entities 

also contribute toward pedestrian and cyclist safety, including nongovernmental organizations that focus on developing best practices and 

proposing standards for transportation; biking and walking; engineering 

and design; planning; and law enforcement. For example, the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has 

published guidance—such as the Guide for the Planning, Design, and 

Operation of Pedestrian Facilities and the Guide for the Development of 

Bicycle Facilities—to assist transportation engineers in designing 

 

6

FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, FHWA-HEP-15-025 (May 2015).
pedestrian and cyclist facilities.

Page 5 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

7 According to DOT officials, states adopt 

standards based on these guides or equivalent guides.

Different transportation facilities can be used to accommodate 

pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and others. For example, there are 

several types of pedestrian facilities that allow pedestrians to safely walk 

to their destination and cross roadways when necessary, including 

sidewalks, crosswalks, and crossing signals. There are several types of 

cyclist facilities, which are generally differentiated by the separation of 

cyclists from motorists (see fig. 1). For example, “shared lane markings” 

may be used to emphasize to motorists that a travel lane is to be used by 

motorists and cyclists (e.g., when the lane is too narrow for a car to drive 

side-by-side with a bicyclist). On the other hand, a “separated bike lane” 

provides a barrier—such as a raised curb or planter—to physically 

separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic.

 

7AASHTO, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, GPF-1 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2004) and AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities, GBF-4 (Washington, D.C.: 2012).
Figure 1: Examples of Cyclist Road Markings and Facilities

Page 6 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
Page 7 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

NHTSA’s FARS data show that while overall traffic fatalities decreased 

between 2004 and 2013, the numbers of both pedestrian and cyclist 

fatalities have not experienced that same decline (see table 1). Total 

traffic fatalities in the United States declined by over 10,000 people from 

2004 through 2013: from 42,836 fatalities in 2004 to 32,719 in 2013, or 

about a 24-percent decrease. Among pedestrian fatalities, the number of 

deaths was 4,675 in 2004 and has ranged between 4,109 and 4,892 

since then. According to NHTSA’s NASS-GES data, during the same 

period, the number of pedestrian injuries in the United States was an 

estimated 68,000 in 2004 and 66,000 in 2013.8 Similarly, the number of 

cyclist fatalities in the United States was 727 in 2004 and has ranged between 

623 and 786 since then. The estimated number of cyclist injuries in the United 

States was 41,000 in 2004 and 48,000 in 2013.9

 

8

For 2004, the 95 percent confidence interval is (57,800, 78,200). For 2013, the 95 percent 

confidence interval is (54,200, 77,800). We express our confidence in the precision of 

estimates derived from NASS-GES data as 95 percent confidence intervals. This is the 

interval that would contain the actual population values for 95 percent of the NASS-GES 

samples that NHTSA could have drawn.

9

For 2004, the 95 percent confidence interval is (34,000, 48,000). For 2013, the 95 percent 

confidence interval is (38,800, 57,200).

Pedestrians and 

Cyclists Represent a 

Growing Percentage 

of All Traffic Fatalities 

and Injuries, and 

Various Factors May 

Have Contributed to 

Fatalities and Injuries

Pedestrians and Cyclists 

Comprise a Growing 

Percentage of All Traffic 

Fatalities and Injuries
Table 1: United States Pedestrian, Cyclist, and All Traffic Fatalities and Estimated Injuries, 2004 through 2013

Page 8 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Year

Pedestrian 

fatalities

Pedestrian 

injuries

Cyclist

fatalities

Cyclist

injuries

Total

traffic fatalities

Total

traffic injuries

2004 4,675 68,000 727 41,000 42,836 2,788,000

2005 4,892 64,000 786 45,000 43,510 2,699,000

2006 4,795 61,000 772 44,000 42,708 2,575,000

2007 4,699 70,000 701 43,000 41,259 2,491,000

2008 4,414 69,000 718 52,000 37,423 2,346,000

2009 4,109 59,000 628 51,000 33,883 2,217,000

2010 4,302 70,000 623 52,000 32,999 2,239,000

2011 4,457 69,000 682 48,000 32,479 2,217,000

2012 4,818 76,000 734 49,000 33,782 2,362,000

2013 4,735 66,000 743 48,000 32,719 2,313,000

Sources: FARS for fatalities; NASS-GES for estimated injuries. | GAO-16-66

Note: Estimated injury totals are derived from NASS-GES data and have sampling error associated 

with them. For total injuries, the estimates have a sampling error of no larger than plus or minus 

306,400 at the 95 percent level of confidence. For pedestrian injuries, the estimates have a sampling 

error of no larger than plus or minus 12,100 at the 95 percent level of confidence. For cyclist injuries, 

the estimates have a sampling error of no larger than plus or minus 9,800 at the 95 percent level of 

confidence.

Further, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries represent a growing 

percentage of all traffic fatalities and injuries. Specifically, NHTSA’s FARS 

data show that pedestrian fatalities comprised 10.9 percent of all traffic 

deaths nationwide in 2004, but represented 14.5 percent of all traffic 

fatalities in 2013 (see fig. 2). Data from NHTSA’s NASS-GES show that 

pedestrian injuries represented an estimated 2.4 percent of all traffic 

injuries in 2004, but an estimated 2.9 percent in 2013.10 Likewise, cyclist 

fatalities comprised 1.7 percent of all United States traffic deaths in 2004, but 

represented 2.3 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2013. Cyclists represented an 

estimated 1.5 percent of traffic injuries in 2004, and increased to an 

estimated 2.1 percent of all traffic injuries in 2013.11

 

10For 2004, the 95 percent confidence interval is (2.0%, 2.9%). For 2013, the 95 percent 

confidence interval is (2.2%, 3.5%).

11For 2004, the 95 percent confidence interval is (1.2 %, 1.8%). For 2013, the 95 percent 

confidence interval is (1.6%, 2.6%).
Figure 2: Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities as a Percentage of All Traffic Fatalities, 

Page 9 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

2004 through 2013

In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians died and an estimated 66,000 were injured.12

NHTSA’s FARS data further show that about one-fifth of these pedestrian 

fatalities (18.7 percent, or 885 persons) involved a “hit and run,” where the driver 

of the vehicle fled the scene. The average age of a pedestrian killed in a traffic 

crash was 46, while the estimated average age of a pedestrian injured 

was 36.13 More than two-thirds (69 percent) of the pedestrians who died in 

traffic crashes in 2013 were male. Men aged 50 to 54 made up the largest 

number of pedestrian fatalities (336). Children 14 and under comprised 

236 pedestrian fatalities in 2013. People 65 and older represented 19 

 

12For the estimated number of injured pedestrians, the 95 percent confidence interval is 

(54,200, 77,800).

13For the estimated average age of injured pedestrians, the 95 percent confidence interval is (33.0, 

38.5).

Pedestrian Fatalities and 

Injuries in 2013
percent (896) of the pedestrian fatalities in 2013 and an estimated 10 

percent of pedestrians injured.

Page 10 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

14

Most traffic crashes that resulted in a pedestrian death occurred in urban 

areas, happened in clear weather conditions, and most frequently took 

place between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Most pedestrian fatalities (73 

percent) occurred in urban, rather than rural, areas. Additionally, most of 

the fatalities that occurred in both urban and rural areas (2,692) took 

place on an “other principal arterial road” (i.e., a major street or highway, 

often with multi-lane or freeway design, that serves high-volume traffic 

corridor movement) or local road (i.e., a road with a primary purpose of 

feeding larger roads and providing direct access with little or no through 

traffic). Most pedestrian deaths (69 percent) occurred at a nonintersection location, such as in the middle of a block. Pedestrian fatalities 

occurred most frequently (26 percent) between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 

9:00 p.m., or 9:00 p.m. to midnight (23 percent). Most pedestrian fatalities 

(70 percent) occurred while it was dark outside. Furthermore, of the 

fatalities occurring when dark, about 50 percent occurred when a form of 

artificial light, such as a streetlight, was present. Most pedestrian deaths 

(3,840) occurred when there were no adverse weather conditions such as 

rain or snow. Figure 3 summarizes some of the characteristics of the 

pedestrian deaths that occurred in 2013.

 

14For the estimated percentage of pedestrians injured who were age 65 and older, the 95 

percent confidence interval is (6.2%, 14%).
Figure 3: Pedestrian Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light Condition, and Time of Day, 2013

Page 11 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Note: For Gender and Light condition, unknown and ‘other/not reported’ amounts are equal to zero 

percent. For Age, percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

In 2013, 743 cyclists died and an estimated 48,000 were injured.15

According to NHTSA’s FARS data, about 16 percent (122) of the cyclist 

fatalities involved a “hit and run” driver. Most of the cyclists killed (87 

percent) and estimated to have been injured (83 percent) were male.16 In 

2013, the average age of a cyclist who died in a traffic crash was 44, while the 

estimated average age of those injured was 33.17 Men aged 55 to 59 made up 

 

15For the estimated number of injured cyclists, the 95 percent confidence interval is (38,800, 

57,200).

16For the estimated percent of cyclists injured who were male, the 95 percent confidence 

interval is (79%, 87%).

17For the estimated average age of injured cyclists, the 95 percent confidence interval is (31.0, 

34.3).

Cyclist Fatalities and Injuries in 

2013
the largest number of cyclist fatalities (91). Children 14 and under comprised 52 

cyclist fatalities in 2013. People 65 and older represented 13 percent (100) of the 

cyclist fatalities in 2013 and an estimated 5 percent of cyclists injured.

Page 12 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

18

Most traffic crashes that resulted in a cyclist death in 2013 occurred in 

urban areas, happened in clear weather conditions, and most frequently 

took place between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Similar to pedestrians, most 

cyclist fatalities (68 percent) occurred in urban areas and on a principal 

arterial or local road. Additionally, most cyclist fatalities (57 percent) 

occurred at a non-intersection location. In 2013, cyclist deaths occurred 

most frequently (22 percent) between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 

p.m. Unlike pedestrians, more cyclists (405) died during daylight rather 

than in the dark. Of the cyclists killed when it was dark outside, about 50 

percent of these fatalities occurred when a form of artificial light, such as 

a streetlight, was present. Most (80 percent) cyclist fatalities occurred 

during clear weather conditions. Figure 4 summarizes some of the 

characteristics of the cyclist fatalities that occurred in 2013.

 

18For the estimated percentage of injured cyclists aged 65 and older, the 95 percent confidence 

interval is (2.8%, 6.4%).
Figure 4: Cyclist Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light Condition, and Time of Day, 2013

Page 13 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Note: For Gender and Light condition, unknown amounts are equal to zero percent.

Several factors—working separately or in combination—may have 

contributed to pedestrian or cyclist fatalities and injuries. Such factors 

include increased walking and cycling trips; alcohol use; distracted 

walking, cycling, and driving; and historical road design and engineering 

practices. While these factors were highlighted in the documents we 

reviewed and by some of the federal, state, or local officials we 

interviewed, other factors may also have contributed to a pedestrian or 

cyclist fatality or injury.

A greater number of people walking or cycling may have contributed to 

recent occurrences of a pedestrian or cyclist fatality or injury. As noted 

above, the U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS data for 2013 indicated that a 

greater number of people nationwide primarily walked or biked to work: 

some one million more people reported primarily commuting on foot or by 

bicycle since 2005. Potentially even more people may be walking or 

Various Factors May Have 

Contributed to Pedestrian 

and Cyclist Fatalities and 

Injuries

Increased Walking and Cycling 

Trips
biking in general, as ACS data do not include recreational or other trips. 

This greater number of commuters may have had increased exposure to 

crashes, and thus an increased potential for fatalities and injuries. 

Conversely, however, a 2003 study indicates that when the numbers of 

pedestrians or cyclists in a particular location—such as a city block—

increases, motorists may begin to expect to see pedestrians and cyclists 

in the roadway and the number of fatalities and injuries in that area 

decreases.

Page 14 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

19 According to the 2003 study, the greater number of 

pedestrians and cyclists in a concentrated area causes motorists to 

change their behavior. For example, motorists may drive at slower 

speeds or become more visually aware of pedestrians or cyclists sharing 

the roadway. As a result, the study argues, safety improves as more 

walking and cycling takes place and the number of fatalities and injuries 

may decrease.

While some data reliability issues limit the conclusions that can be 

drawn,20 available data suggest that alcohol use has been a contributing 

factor in traffic fatalities and injuries, including those involving pedestrians 

and cyclists. For example, according to NHTSA’s FARS data, in 2013, a 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of 0.01 or higher by any party 

involved in a pedestrian or cyclist traffic death—pedestrians, cyclists, or 

motorists—was present in 49 percent of pedestrian fatalities and 34 

percent of cyclist fatalities.21 Among the 2013 pedestrian fatalities, the motorist 

had a BAC of 0.08 or higher—which is considered alcohol impaired22—15 

percent of the time, the pedestrian had a BAC of 0.08 or higher 34 percent of the 

time, and 6 percent of the time both the pedestrian and motorist had a BAC of 

0.08 or higher. Among the 2013 cyclist deaths, the driver—according to 

DOT officials—had a BAC of 0.08 or higher 12 percent of the time, the 

cyclist 20 percent of the time, and either the driver or cyclist had a BAC of 

0.08 or higher 29 percent of the time (there were some instances where 

both the rider and driver were impaired).

 

19Jacobsen, P.L., “Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling,” 

Injury Prevention, vol. 9, no. 3 (2003).

20Blood alcohol concentration test results are not available for all drivers and nonoccupants (such 

as pedestrians or cyclists) involved in fatal crashes.

21BAC is measured as a mass of alcohol per volume of blood. In the United States, the standard 

measurement is represented as grams per deciliter (g/dL).

22Driving with a BAC at or above 0.08 is considered illegal per se in all fifty states. See 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/impaired_laws.html (September 2015).

Alcohol Use
Distracted driving, walking, and cycling also may have contributed to 

pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries. According to NHTSA, a 

distraction is a specific type of inattention that occurs when a driver 

diverts his or her attention from driving to focus on some other activity 

instead, such as using a cellular phone, text messaging, or eating. 

Nationwide, according to NHTSA FARS data, in 2013, 3,154 people died 

in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted 

driving, of whom 480 (15 percent) were pedestrians, cyclists, or other 

non-motorists. In 411 crashes involving a fatality in 2013 (14 percent of 

the 2,910 fatal distraction-affected crashes in that year), the motorist was 

distracted with a cell phone. Similar to motorists, when pedestrians and 

cyclists use cell phones or are otherwise distracted, they may be less 

aware of their surroundings and more likely to be involved in a crash.

According to FHWA officials, the purpose and goal of street design in the 

United States for decades was, in general, to move motor vehicles from 

their origins to their destinations as expeditiously as possible, and this 

design may have overlooked the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

Design efforts such as widening lanes or minimizing sharp curves may 

have contributed to motorist safety, but may also have contributed to 

declines in pedestrian and cyclist safety. Wider, straighter highways could 

lead to motorist speeding, which not only increases the likelihood of 

crashes with a pedestrian or cyclist, but also the probability that those 

crashes will cause death or a serious injury. More recently, however, 

transportation agencies are beginning to focus on ensuring that roads 

provide safe mobility for all travelers, not just motor vehicles. To do so, as 

discussed in the next section, transportation agencies may install facilities 

specific to pedestrian and cyclist use, such as separated bike lanes, 

which can make road users feel safer. For example, according to FHWA’s 

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, since separated bike 

lanes are physically separated from vehicular traffic, almost all cyclists 

report feeling safer as a result of the separation.

Page 15 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

23

NHTSA collects and reports on other factors—such as failing to yield to 

another road user already in the roadway or improperly being in a 

roadway—that may have contributed to pedestrian or cyclist fatalities. For 

 

23FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, FHWA-HEP-15-025 (May 2015).

Distracted Driving, Walking, 

and Cycling

Historical Road Design and 

Engineering Practices

Other Factors
example, according to NHTSA FARS data, of the pedestrian deaths that 

occurred in 2013, 25 percent of those involved in the crash (i.e., 

pedestrians or motorists) were considered to have failed to yield to the 

other road user, 16 percent were improperly in the roadway, 16 percent 

were not visible to the driver, 15 percent were improperly crossing a 

roadway or intersection, 14 percent were under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs, and 13 percent were darting or running into the road. Similarly, of 

the related factors that contributed to cyclist deaths in 2013, 31 percent of 

the cyclists failed to yield to another road user; 11 percent failed to obey 

traffic signs, signals, or an officer; and 11 percent were not visible to the 

driver.

Page 16 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Officials from the states and city governments included in our review 

highlighted a number of efforts aimed at collecting data, addressing 

engineering concerns, educating the public, and enforcing traffic laws, 

among other efforts to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety.

· Data: Officials from all of our selected state and city governments told 

us their jurisdiction had conducted counts of walking and cycling 

activity or analyzed count and crash data to identify problems and 

develop actions to address safety problems. For example, several 

cities included in our review had efforts underway to count the number 

of pedestrians and cyclists using roadway facilities. These counts can 

be performed manually—in the field using trained personnel or video 

observation—or through automated counting equipment embedded in 

the roadway. For example, Portland operates several fixed, 24-hour 

counting stations on bridges that connect the east and west sides of 

the city over the Willamette River. These counting stations gather bike 

data in 15 minute increments every day of the year. Several state and 

city officials we spoke with have also analyzed crash data, such as 

Selected States and 

Cities Reported 

Having Implemented 

Pedestrian and 

Cyclist Safety Efforts, 

but Face Various 

Challenges

Reported Efforts to 

Improve Safety Include 

Data Collection, 

Engineering, Education, 

and Enforcement
pre-crash maneuvers, the location (e.g., intersection or nonintersection), the time and date, and weather conditions.

Analysis of count or crash data has been used as the foundation for 

planning other safety activities, such as installing new transportation 

facilities, educating the public on safety issues, or enforcing traffic 

laws, according to most of the state and local officials we interviewed. 

For example, officials from the Portland Bureau of Transportation told 

us that they designed a program to address the safety concerns along 

10 corridors, which includes public outreach and short-term safety 

improvements, based on the agency’s analysis of crash trends. The 

analysis identified these 10 arterial roadways, typically four- to fivelane roadways, which account for 3 percent of the roadway network, 

but 51 percent of pedestrian fatalities. Similarly, in 2013, the city of 

Minneapolis analyzed trip data and crash data from between 2000 

and 2010 to better understand the causal factors behind nearly 3,000 

crashes and to tailor education, engineering, and enforcement efforts 

to meet the city’s goal of reducing cyclist-motorist crashes by 10 

percent annually.

Page 17 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

24

· Engineering: Most state and city officials—specifically those from 

planning agencies or departments of transportation—we interviewed 

told us that their jurisdictions consult a variety of engineering 

standards to help them determine the characteristics and technical 

details of pedestrian and cyclist facilities. For example, several 

officials said that they use guidance and highway design documents—

such as AASHTO’s Pedestrian and Bike Guides, the National 

Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway 

Design Guide, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) 

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive 

Approach—when designing pedestrian or cyclist facilities.25 Moreover, 

according to an official from one non-governmental organization we 

interviewed, there are several types of pedestrian and cyclist facilities 

within each design guide to select from, each representing varying 

 

24City of Minneapolis Public Works Department, Understanding Bicyclist-Motorist Crashes 

in Minneapolis, Minnesota (January 2013). 

25AASHTO, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, GPF-1 (July 

2004); AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, GPF-4 (2012); NACTO, 

Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2011); and ITE, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: 

A Context Sensitive Approach, RP-036A (2010).
costs for installation and maintenance. Additionally, several states and 

cities in our review have adopted “Complete Streets” policies that 

require transportation planners to consider designing roadway 

improvements to be used by all anticipated road users—including 

people walking, cycling, driving, or taking public transportation—and 

to enhance economic development opportunities for communities. 

Several state and city officials reported having installed pedestrian 

and cyclist facilities—such as marked crosswalks, pedestrian crossing 

islands, and separated bike lanes—within their jurisdictions. 

According to these officials, such facilities have contributed to 

improved traffic safety. For example, New York City Department of 

Transportation officials indicated that by 2014, 7 miles of separated or 

protected bicycle lanes installed on six avenues between 2007 and 

2011 had yielded a 20 percent decline in overall injuries and a 2 

percent decline in cyclist injuries even as bicycle volumes increased.

Page 18 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

26

· Education: Most state and city officials we interviewed told us about 

educational and outreach efforts to help raise public awareness of 

pedestrian and cyclist safety issues. For example, two states included 

in our review (California and Florida) have collaborative public health 

campaigns with universities and other agencies to educate the public 

about walking and cycling safety. In several jurisdictions, there have 

been concerted efforts to train public employees, drivers of buses, 

garbage trucks, or taxis about pedestrian and cyclist safety. Several 

state and city officials we interviewed also described distributing 

pamphlets; developing media advertising campaigns; or conducting 

outreach to some limited English-speaking populations to provide the 

public with information on pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, laws, 

and safety. Officials from several states and cities described having 

their law enforcement officers attend “bike rodeos” to teach safe riding 

and walking tips and to distribute helmets and other safety equipment 

to children and other participants. Additionally, officials from several 

law enforcement agencies noted that their officers undergo specific 

training on pedestrian and cyclist safety and traffic laws.

· Enforcement: According to officials from all of the state and city law 

enforcement agencies we interviewed, their agencies use crash data 

to identify high-frequency crash areas (e.g., corridors and 

intersections) and to target traffic enforcement campaigns in these 

 

26This analysis was based on 5 years of data pre-installation and 3 years of data post-installation 

of the bicyclist lanes, according to New York City Department of Transportation officials.
locations. As part of enforcement campaigns, officers may warn 

violators for a period of time, before issuing citations. New York City 

also recently criminalized “failure to yield” from a traffic violation 

punishable by a fine to a more serious penalty. If a driver fails to yield 

to a pedestrian or cyclist with the right of way and causes an injury or 

fatality, the driver may be charged with a misdemeanor and could face 

jail time. Other cities may have similar laws as well, though the 

decision to prosecute traffic offenses that result in fatalities depends 

on the circumstances and evidence, according to some city officials 

we interviewed.

Of the cities included in our review, two cities—New York City and San 

Francisco—and the District of Columbia have implemented 

comprehensive efforts to address traffic safety, known as “Vision Zero” or 

sometimes referred to as a “Toward Zero Deaths” policy.

Page 19 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

27 Under these 

programs, a jurisdiction commits to the idea of eliminating fatalities within its 

traffic system, including pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist fatalities. Vision 

Zero or Toward Zero Deaths policies are comprehensive in scope, in that 

they target areas for improvement and implement activities to integrate 

data collection, engineering, education, and enforcement efforts. For 

example, New York City instituted its Vision Zero program in February 

2014 and implemented several actions to use crash data to prioritize 

areas and corridors for improvements (data); redesign problematic 

intersections and corridors and lower the citywide speed limit 

(engineering); hold town hall meetings and other public workshops and 

launch public information campaigns (education); and install speed 

cameras and increase law enforcement activity (enforcement). According 

to the New York City officials we interviewed, the first year of the Vision 

Zero program (2014) showed a reduction over the prior 3-year average 

for both overall and pedestrian fatalities (7 percent and 13 percent, 

respectively).

 

27This information is as of September 2015.
Officials from the 21 state and city entities and the 22 non-governmental 

organizations we interviewed most often cited difficulties with 

prioritization, data, funding, and engineering as challenges to addressing 

cyclist and pedestrian safety. These challenges may be interrelated. For 

example, according to some officials we interviewed, it is difficult to 

prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts, in part, due to differing state 

and local perspectives about necessary transportation investments and 

competing public safety needs. Moreover, some officials also described 

limited data on walking and cycling trips as a challenge, which can hinder 

the development of a performance-based approach that could assist 

jurisdictions in prioritizing and linking transportation investments to 

outcomes such as pedestrian and cycling safety.

In 14 state and city interviews and 16 non-governmental organization 

interviews, officials and representatives told us about difficulties with 

prioritizing pedestrian and cyclist safety. For example, some of these 

officials described differing state and city perspectives about necessary 

investments in transportation, competing public safety needs, a lack of 

political will, or a lack of a performance-based approach. Several of the 

state and city officials we spoke with noted that pedestrian and cyclist 

safety may not be a priority for their agencies. For example, officials from 

one state DOT told us that the DOT’s district offices have different 

priorities, with some promoting more comprehensive efforts—such as 

Toward Zero Deaths policies—and others placing relatively less focus on 

pedestrian and cyclist safety issues. Officials from two law enforcement 

agencies we spoke with stated that they choose to focus more on other 

crimes over enforcement of pedestrian and cyclist laws. A local cycling 

advocacy group official told us that transportation planners may value 

larger-scale projects that move people regionally, rather than the 1- to 3-

mile commutes typically taken by cyclists and pedestrians.

In 13 state and city interviews and in 20 non-governmental organization 

interviews, officials described data problems such as incomplete or 

unreliable pedestrian or cyclist crash data and limited or no walking and 

cycling activity data. Specifically, officials from several states, cities and 

non-governmental organizations told us that crash data collected by law 

enforcement may be incomplete or unreliable because officers may not 

be able to readily identify all causal factors, their crash data collection 

forms may be too complicated or ill-suited for capturing pedestrian and 

cyclist information, or officers may not fully investigate crashes that 

involve pedestrians or cyclists. For example, officials from a local cycling 

advocacy organization told us police reports oftentimes suffer from 

systematic bias because officers tended to rely on motorists’ accounts of 

Page 20 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Officials Reported Issues 

with Prioritization, Data, 

Engineering, and Funding 

of Pedestrian and Cyclist 

Safety as Key Challenges

Prioritization Challenges

Data Challenges
what led up to a crash when compiling their reports or were unable to 

interview the cyclist because he was being transported to a hospital. 

Crash data may also fail to include crashes that occurred outside of public 

roadways—including private parking lots or off-road trails—as well as 

data on injured persons who present directly to a hospital and do not 

contact the police, according to officials from one state DOT agency. 

Officials from one local cycling advocacy organization noted that crash 

data may also fail to identify cyclist facilities, for example whether the 

crash occurred on a sidewalk or in a bike lane. DOT officials also noted 

this issue, stating that basic information about a crash, such as the 

presence or absence of sidewalks, may not always be available. These 

data quality issues could be due to limited or insufficient training on data 

collection, or the hit-and-run nature of many crashes involving 

pedestrians and cyclists, according to some officials we interviewed. 

Differences in the definitions of terms—specifically differences in how 

injury and fatality data are captured and reported at the federal and city 

level—may affect the comparability of data. Incomplete and unreliable 

crash data makes it difficult for states, cities, and others to plan and 

implement efforts to address crashes, according to one non-governmental 

organization official.

Additionally, while officials from most states and cities included in our 

review told us about counting efforts under way, these efforts are 

voluntary and—where counting does occur—not standardized across 

jurisdictions. For example, officials from one state DOT told us that some 

of the agency’s districts and some cities within the state count the number 

of pedestrian and cyclist trips within the district or city, while others do 

not. Officials from another state DOT told us that count data is collected 

differently from city to city and is not consistent for local and state roads. 

Moreover, count data of pedestrian and cyclist trips generally exhibits 

more variability than those of motor vehicles for a number of reasons. For 

example, pedestrian and bicycle trips tend to be shorter than automobile 

trips and are often made for different purposes, and motor vehicles tend 

to be easier to detect than pedestrians and bicycles. Challenges such as 

these limit the ability to compare data from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or to 

combine those data to create a regional or statewide perspective, 

according to an official from a non-governmental organization 

representing regional governments. Also, while several state and city 

officials we spoke with indicated that they use the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

ACS trip data, they also told us that they found this information to be 

problematic because walking and cycling activity is generally 

undercounted. Further, one non-governmental organization official also 

pointed to a lack of guidance on best practices for performing pedestrian 

Page 21 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
and cyclist counts, a gap that poses a challenge for jurisdictions 

undertaking such efforts.

Limited data on walking and cycling trips also makes it challenging to 

develop a performance-based approach to addressing pedestrian and 

cyclist safety. Several state, city, and non-governmental organization 

officials noted the lack of a performance-based approach to implementing 

or assessing pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts. Specifically, though 

states and cities may use available crash data as previously discussed 

(e.g., fatalities and estimated injuries) to determine how and where to 

target safety efforts, officials from several non-governmental 

organizations noted that states and cities lacked performance measures, 

such as crash rates, to indicate progress in advancing safety. The Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 transformed surface 

transportation programs by including provisions for both DOT and its 

grantees to move toward a national performance-based approach to link 

surface transportation programs to performance.

Page 22 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

28 We have previously 

reported that implementing a national performance-based approach for 

surface transportation can be challenging, as data may not be available 

for measuring performance in some areas.29

In interviews with 16 states and cities and 15 non-governmental 

organizations, problems with existing roadways or issues in engineering 

new facilities were cited as challenges to pedestrian and cyclist safety. 

Some of these officials described an array of problems with existing 

roadways. These include such things as wide, straight lanes that may 

encourage high motor vehicle speeds and a lack of pedestrian and cyclist 

facilities, such as few or no sidewalks. Further, several state and city 

officials noted that the lack of sidewalks within their jurisdictions may be 

particularly acute in rural and other areas outside city centers. According 

to officials from one city, these underserved areas are predominantly in 

low-income neighborhoods, leading to transportation equity issues 

between lower- and higher-income areas. Other types of problems with 

existing roadways reported to us included poorly lit and unmarked 

crosswalks, right-of-way constraints, and terrain issues.

 

28Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).

29GAO, Surface Transportation: DOT Is Progressing toward a Performance-Based Approach, 

but State and Grantees Report Potential Implementation Challenges, GAO-15-217

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 2015).

Engineering Challenges
Engineering new facilities is also a challenge, according to some officials 

we interviewed. While many design guides on pedestrian and cyclist 

facilities are available, officials from several non-governmental 

organizations told us that some state and city governments may struggle 

with having too much flexibility, which could result in design inconsistency 

within a jurisdiction, or that they may not have the expertise to incorporate 

the guidance. On the other hand, officials also told us that sometimes it is 

the engineers who are reluctant to adopt or use newer design guides that 

may prove better for pedestrian and cyclist safety, because they have 

more experience with other standards.

In 16 state and city interviews and 14 non-governmental organization 

interviews, officials told us that funding issues—such as limited funding, 

the distribution of funds, and restrictive funding—posed challenges to 

improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. For example, officials from one 

state DOT told us that their cyclist and pedestrian safety programs are 

funded through a combination of federal and state sources, but that 

funding totals to about one percent of the overall agency budget. Officials 

from a second state DOT we interviewed also cited sufficient funding as 

problematic, with their state and cities choosing to allocate funds toward 

the maintenance of existing infrastructure that is generally in poor 

condition. Similarly, officials from another state DOT told us 3 percent of 

their state agency’s 5-year construction budget is set aside to address all 

forms of road safety improvements, making it difficult to fund pedestrian 

and cyclist safety efforts. Moreover, according to several city and nongovernmental organization officials we interviewed, the cost of pedestrian 

or cyclist facilities and data collection can be expensive. For example, 

officials from one city DOT told us that it cost $8 million to install one mile 

of sidewalk on one side of the street. A 2013 report prepared for FHWA, 

estimated the typical costs of separated bikeway projects between 

$536,664 and $4,293,320 per mile, depending on site conditions, path 

width, and materials used.

Page 23 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

30 A 2014 National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program report said that the costs of counting equipment could range more than 

$3000 per unit, not including permitting and installation.31 Challenges with 

adequate funding may deter states and cities from constructing pedestrian 

 

30UNC Highway Safety Research Center, Costs for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Infrastructure 

Improvements, (October 2013).

31National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Guidebook on Pedestrian and 

Bicyclist Volume Data Collection, NCHRP Report 797 (Washington, D.C.: 2014).

Funding Challenges
and cyclist facilities and having officers attend bike rodeos to perform 

safety outreach, according to several officials we interviewed.

The distribution of funds and the restrictive nature of some funding can 

also be challenging, according to officials from several state, city, and 

non-governmental organizations. Specifically, officials from several cities 

and non-governmental organizations told us that federal funding for 

pedestrian and cyclist safety would be more efficiently and effectively 

used if it went directly to city governments, since these entities typically 

have the best understanding of their local needs and can devise the most 

suitable interventions. Several state and non-governmental organization 

officials also noted that applying for federal funding could be confusing, a 

situation that can discourage some cities, such as those from rural areas, 

from seeking federal funds. Several non-governmental organization 

officials also told us that despite the availability of federal funds, 

accessing this funding may be restricted based on program or funding 

eligibility. For example, officials from one non-governmental organization 

told us that certain federal-aid highway funds (DOT’s Transportation 

Alternatives Program and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program) have restrictions on using funds on noninfrastructure projects, such as purchasing portable pedestrian and cyclist 

counting technology. According to DOT, restrictions are based on 

program eligibility, and as discussed below, there are other funding 

sources that cover different pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts.

State, city, and non-governmental organization officials reported facing 

other challenges, including some related to education and enforcement.

· In 11 state and city interviews and 8 non-governmental organization 

interviews, officials said that more overall education on pedestrian and 

cyclist safety issues was needed. Moreover, several of these officials 

said that reaching some populations—such as the elderly, children, 

the mentally ill, and those with limited English proficiency—is 

particularly difficult or will take concerted effort beyond generic 

outreach efforts like public service announcements or additional 

signage. Several city and non-governmental organization officials told 

us that there is a general lack of recognition that pedestrians and 

cyclists are legitimate road users, with officials from one city noting 

the tension that exists between cyclists and motorists sharing a 

roadway.

· In 8 state and city interviews and 8 non-governmental organization 

interviews, officials told us that law enforcement officers needed 

Page 24 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Other Challenges
additional training or that their pedestrian and cyclist laws were not 

being properly enforced. Officials from several cities and pedestrian 

and cyclist advocacy organizations discussed the need for law 

enforcement officers to have more knowledge regarding traffic laws 

and on how to properly document traffic crashes involving pedestrians 

or cyclists. As previously mentioned, officials from several state and 

city governments also described that traffic enforcement is not as 

much of a focus for officers as other crimes, such as homicide and 

burglaries.

DOT, primarily through NHTSA and FHWA, has implemented and is 

planning to take additional actions to help improve pedestrian and cyclist 

safety, including actions that could help address prioritization, data, 

funding, and engineering challenges identified by the state and city 

officials we interviewed. In general, officials from the states and cities we 

interviewed did not have recommendations on additional actions DOT 

could undertake to help improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. However, 

given that the number of pedestrian and cyclist commuting trips has 

increased in recent years and that pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and 

injuries represent a growing percentage of all traffic fatalities and injuries, 

it will be important that efforts to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety 

continue.

DOT has taken actions to help state and city officials prioritize and place 

a greater focus on pedestrian and cyclist safety. In March 2010, the 

Secretary of Transportation issued a policy statement on pedestrian and 

cyclist infrastructure and safety. Per this document, DOT’s policy is to 

incorporate safe and convenient walking and cycling facilities into 

transportation projects. The policy notes that “every transportation 

agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and 

opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and 

bicycling into their transportation systems.” The policy also notes that 

“walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly 

communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle 

emissions and fuel use.” Additionally, the policy encourages 

transportation agencies and local communities to consider installing 

walking and cycling facilities that go beyond minimum design standards, 

for example by planning for and installing facilities that accommodate 

increased usage by pedestrians and cyclists, rather than retrofitting those 

facilities in the future.

Page 25 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

DOT Is Implementing 

Actions That May 

Help Improve 

Pedestrian and 

Cyclist Safety

DOT Actions That May Help 

Address Prioritization 

Challenges
Additionally, in September 2014, the Secretary of Transportation 

launched the Safer People, Safer Streets initiative, a comprehensive and 

coordinated approach that builds off DOT’s existing work to improve 

pedestrian and cyclist safety. As part of this initiative, which is scheduled 

to last one and a half years, DOT has already or has plans to provide 

states and cities with new resources, issue new research, and highlight 

existing planning and analysis tools for state, city, and other 

transportation officials.

In January 2015, DOT launched the Mayors’ Challenge as part of the 

Safer People, Safer Streets initiative, which can also help state and local 

leaders prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety. The Mayors’ Challenge is 

directed toward leaders of any political jurisdiction, including a town, city, 

county, tribal land, territory, or state. Participants in the Mayors’ 

Challenge—as of August 2015, according to DOT officials, there were 

over 230 participants—pledge to issue a public statement about the 

importance of pedestrian and cyclist safety, form a local action team to 

advance safety and accessibility goals, and take action in one or more of 

seven areas: (1) take a ‘complete streets’ approach to design road 

projects for all road users, (2) identify and address barriers to make 

streets safe and convenient for all road users, (3) gather and track 

walking and biking data, (4) design streets that are safe and convenient 

for all road users while also anticipating future walking and cycling 

demands, (5) create and complete walking and cycling networks during 

facility maintenance projects, (6) improve walking and biking laws and 

regulations, and (7) educate the public about and enforce proper roaduse behavior. During the course of the Mayors’ Challenge, DOT plans to 

provide technical assistance and opportunities for peer exchange in each 

of the seven areas noted above. According to DOT officials, the Mayors’ 

Challenge was initially scheduled to conclude in March 2016 but due to 

additional cities joining and high interest, the Challenge will be extended. 

DOT officials told us that at the conclusion of the Mayors’ Challenge, 

participants will be invited to a capstone event to celebrate 

accomplishments and share best practices. DOT officials noted that the 

agency plans to perform additional research and encourage cities and 

states to implement additional actions to improve pedestrian and cyclist

safety based on the lessons learned and challenges identified by the 

Mayors’ Challenge participants.

Both FHWA and NHTSA have taken actions to support state and city 

efforts to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety data collection and 

analysis. For example, in April 2015, FHWA announced the BicyclePedestrian Count Technology Pilot Project, which provides technical 

Page 26 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

DOT Actions That May Help 

Address Data Challenges
support and grants to 10 MPOs to purchase pedestrian and cyclist 

counting equipment. The pilot is intended to collect more and better data 

on pedestrian and cyclist activity to support planning and investment 

decisions, as well as targeted safety improvements. According to DOT 

officials, the pilot is scheduled to conclude in 2016, and at that time, 

FHWA will work with the 10 MPOs to identify best practices in counting 

pedestrian and cyclist activity, as well as strategies to address any 

challenges the MPOs identify. As another data collection activity, FHWA 

periodically conducts the National Household Travel Survey to help 

inform transportation planners and policy makers on travel and 

transportation patterns. The National Household Travel Survey collects 

data on daily trips taken in a 24-hour period and includes data points like 

the purpose of the trip (e.g., work, shopping), all modes of transportation 

used (e.g., car, bus, walk, bicycle), and how long the trip took. Some of 

the state and city officials we spoke with noted that the data within the 

National Household Travel Survey is helpful for their planning and other 

needs, and the data are generally more useful than the commuting to 

work data included in the American Community Survey. Data from the 

most recent National Household Travel Survey was issued in 2009, and 

DOT officials stated that FHWA is planning to begin a new round of the 

Survey in 2015 with a scheduled issuance in 2017.

In addition, NHTSA, FHWA, and others played key roles in developing the 

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), a voluntary set of 

minimum traffic crash data elements that can help states determine what 

crash data to collect on their police accident reports. MMUCC data 

elements have standardized definitions to promote comparability of these 

data within the highway safety community. Although the MMUCC includes 

some data elements that capture crashes involving pedestrians and 

cyclists, DOT officials told us that the MMUCC is currently being updated 

and that the newest edition—which could be issued sometime in 2016—

could include additional data elements specific to traffic crashes involving 

pedestrians and cyclists.

Further, DOT has noted that improving the quality and availability of 

pedestrian and cyclist data—including crash and count data—is 

fundamental to the Secretary’s Safer People, Safer Streets initiative. As

part of that initiative, DOT has committed to supporting improvement in 

data collection and analysis as a means to achieve performance-based 

design and decision making. DOT plans to host three training sessions 

with a focus on data needs and how better data can be used to develop 

policies. Also, DOT is updating its Traffic Monitoring Analysis System and 

Traffic Monitoring Guide—systems that help collect traffic data and report 

Page 27 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
on traffic volume—to include pedestrian and cyclist counts. Additionally, 

DOT has established a Non-Motorized Toolkit, a web-based system that 

allows researchers and planners to share analytic tools on pedestrian and 

cyclist data analysis. By overseeing implementation of a pilot program, 

conducting surveys, and providing assistance and guidance in data 

collection, DOT is taking steps that could help address the data 

challenges identified by the state and city officials we interviewed. Such 

actions may also help DOT, states, and cities better collect trip count 

data, a step that could allow these entities to implement a performancebased approach for pedestrian and cyclist safety.

DOT has implemented actions that may help address engineering 

challenges. For example, FHWA has endorsed or issued its own 

guidance on engineering practices that can help improve pedestrian and 

cyclist safety. FHWA issued a memorandum in August 2013 expressing 

the agency’s support for using a flexible approach to pedestrian and 

cyclist facility design. In the memorandum, FHWA encourages state and 

local transportation agencies to appropriately use design guides—

including the AASHTO, NACTO, and ITE design guides—and other 

resources to help fulfill the aims of the DOT 2010 policy statement and, 

potentially, improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. FHWA 

reinforced this design flexibility in an August 2015 document, in which the 

agency stressed that it supports a flexible approach to planning and 

designing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Further, FHWA and NHTSA have issued guidance that, in part, can help 

to reduce motorist speed and the likelihood of a crash with a pedestrian 

or cyclist. For example, FHWA’s 2015 Separated Bike Lane Planning and 

Design Guide notes that installing separated bike lanes has the potential 

to improve traffic safety for all street users—for example, by organizing all 

traffic modes and reducing pedestrian crossing distances—while also 

contributing to increased cycling volumes.

Page 28 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

32 Additionally, NHTSA’s 2013 

Countermeasures that Work guidance provides transportation officials with 

information on, among other things, the effectiveness of reducing and 

enforcing speed limits.33 For example, Countermeasures that Work notes that 

reducing speed limits is a relatively low-cost change that can reduce all types of 

 

32FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, FHWA-HEP-15-025, (May 2015).

33NHTSA, Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State 

Highway Safety Offices, Seventh Edition, 2013, DOT HS 811 727, (Washington, D.C.: April 2013).

DOT Actions That May Help 

Address Engineering 

Challenges
crashes and crash severity. In an August 2015 document, FHWA 

described additional sources the agency has developed to help state and 

city transportation officials set appropriate speed limits, including a 2012 

FHWA guidance document (Methods and Practices for Setting Speed 

Limits) and a web-based tool (USLIMITS2) in which users input data, 

such as a roadway’s characteristics, to receive recommendations on 

speed limits for that roadway.

As part of the Safer People, Safer Streets initiative, DOT plans to promote 

engineering and design improvements to help ensure the availability of 

safe and efficient walking and cycling routes. The Department is doing 

this through actions in several areas as described below:

1. Road safety assessments: DOT’s modal administrations—including 

Page 29 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

FHWA, NHTSA, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal 

Railroad Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration—performed road safety assessments in every state, as 

well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Road safety 

assessments help participants—such as staff from DOT modal 

administrations, as well as state and local transportation agencies—

define their pedestrian and cyclist transportation safety concerns. 

Assessments also help to generate discussion and build relationships 

between pedestrian and cyclist safety stakeholders.

2. Roadway reconfiguration guidance: In November 2014, FHWA issued 

guidance on how to reconfigure lanes on a roadway to create space 

for other uses and travel modes like walking or cycling. This activity is 

known as a ‘road diet’. The FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide

aims to help state and local transportation agencies determine if 

implementing a road diet is a good fit for a certain road.34 Additionally, 

FHWA suggested that states consider implementing road diets as part of 

the agency’s most recent iteration of its Every Day Counts effort. 

Every Day Counts, which began in 2010, is meant to help shorten 

roadway project time frames and accelerate use of technology and 

innovation by convincing states to adopt proven, rapidly deployable 

innovations. By including road diets in Every Day Counts, FHWA is 

sharing information on a quickly deployable project that can help to 

reduce crashes and injuries.

 

34FHWA, Road Diet Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-14-028 (Washington, D.C.: November 

2014).
3. Separated bike lane design guidance: In May 2015, FHWA issued

Page 30 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, which describes 

separated bike lanes, reviews planning considerations, offers flexible 

design recommendations, and outlines next steps for the development 

of this cyclist facility. The guide notes that this facility type is evolving 

and that there is a need for design flexibility.

4. Assisting state and local agencies in selecting countermeasures:

FHWA’s PedSafe (Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure 

Selection System) and BikeSafe (Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System) provide state and local 

transportation officials with information on countermeasures and other 

treatments that can be installed to help improve pedestrian and cyclist 

safety. Most recently updated in 2013 and 2014 respectively, the 

PedSafe and BikeSafe selection tools allow users to input a specific 

location, select the goal of the treatment (i.e., reduce traffic volumes 

or mitigate crashes), and describe the location (i.e., the roadway’s 

speed limit, traffic volume, etc.). The tool then provides the user with a 

list of recommended treatments, describes those treatments and 

factors to consider prior to installation, and provides case studies of 

where the treatment has been implemented.

5. Focus states and cities: Since 2004, FHWA has focused extra 

resources on the states and cities with the highest pedestrian 

fatalities. Beginning in 2015, the list of states and cities was revised to 

include cyclist fatalities. Under this effort, FHWA concentrates its 

technical assistance on evaluating, planning, and solving pedestrian 

and cyclist safety issues in states with the highest pedestrian and 

cyclist fatalities. For example, FHWA provides free technical 

assistance and courses to each of these states and cities and free bimonthly webinars on subjects of interest. According to DOT officials, 

NHTSA has collaborated with FHWA to provide funding to selected 

focus cities for implementation of pedestrian safety education and 

enforcement. These demonstration projects provide direct assistance 

to participating focus cities and produce best practices and lessons 

learned for other cities.

Additionally, FHWA oversaw implementation of the Nonmotorized 

Transportation Pilot Program, which provided over $25 million in funding 

to each of four communities—Columbia, Missouri; Marin County, 

California; Minneapolis area, Minnesota; and Sheboygan County, 

Wisconsin—to demonstrate how walking and cycling infrastructure and 

programs can increase rates of walking and cycling. Under the program, 

the communities implemented on- and off-road infrastructure and 

engaged in outreach, education, and marketing efforts. In the final report 
on the pilot program, FHWA noted that the pilot resulted in increases and 

continual growth of nonmotorized travel activities—counts pointed to an 

increase of 22 percent for walking and 49 percent for cycling—slower 

driving speeds, safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, and 

improved awareness of pedestrian and cyclist issues.

By supporting multiple engineering design standards, offering guidance to 

state and city officials on how to reduce traffic speeds, providing further 

research and resources to states and cities, and implementing the 

nonmotorized transportation pilot program, DOT has taken actions that 

can help address the engineering challenges raised by the state and city 

officials we interviewed.

DOT oversees multiple programs that can award funds to be used toward 

pedestrian and cyclist safety. According to DOT, federal surface 

transportation law provides flexibility to states and MPOs to fund 

pedestrian and cyclist improvements from 13 funding programs (see table 

2). In 2013, according to DOT, it obligated $676.1 million for 2,424 new 

pedestrian or cyclist facilities and programs. According to DOT officials, 

many pedestrian and cyclist facilities are not built as standalone projects 

but as part of an overall road project. Depending on the specific 

requirements of each program, the funds can be used toward different 

transportation projects, including construction of pedestrian and cyclist 

facilities, development of safety education programs, and expansion of 

police officer patrols. According to DOT officials, DOT makes state and 

city transportation agencies aware of these funding programs—and their 

potential applicability toward pedestrian and cyclist facilities and safety 

efforts—by regularly updating an FHWA website listing each of the 13 

funding programs, what actions each program can fund, and links to more 

information on each program. FHWA also produced a document in 

August 2015 to clarify misconceptions about the applicability of federal 

funds for pedestrian and cyclist projects. As noted above, some state and 

city officials we spoke with told us that while federal funds can be used 

toward pedestrian and cyclist projects, the funds may be prioritized 

toward other projects first, such as improving or maintaining motorist 

facilities. However, by making state and city officials aware of its funding 

programs—and through other actions like the Safer People, Safer Streets 

program and the Mayors’ Challenge—DOT can help state and city 

officials address pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Page 31 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

DOT Actions That May Help 

Address Funding Challenges
Table 2: DOT Funding Programs That Can Be Used for Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects as of October 2015

Page 32 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Activity TIGERaFTA ATI CMAQb HSIP

NHPP/ 

NHS STP

TAP/ 

TE RTP SRTScPLAN

d

402 FLTTP

Access enhancements to public 

transportation (includes benches, 

bus pads)

X X X X N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

ADA/504 Self 

Evaluation/Transition Plan X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X X N/A X N/A X

Bicycle and/or pedestrian plans X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X X N/A N/A X N/A X

Bicycle lanes on road X X X X X X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Bicycle parking X X X X N/A X X X X X N/A N/A X

Bike racks on transit X X X X N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Bicycle share (capital and 

equipment; not operations) X X X X N/A X X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Bicycle storage or service centers X X X X N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Bridges/overcrossings for 

bicyclists and/or pedestrians X X X X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Bus shelters and benches X X X X N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Coordinator positions (State or 

local) N/A N/A N/A X

f N/A N/A X Xg N/A X N/A N/A N/A

Crosswalks (new or retrofit) X X X X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Curb cuts and ramps X X X X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Counting equipment X X X N/A X X X X X X X

e N/A X

Data collection and monitoring for 

bicyclists and/or pedestrians X X X N/A X X X X X X X

e N/A X

Helmet education (for bicyclists) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X

g N/A X N/A X N/A

Historic preservation (bicycle and 

pedestrian and transit facilities) X X X N/A N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Landscaping, streetscaping 

(bicycle and/or pedestrian route; 

transit access); related amenities 

(benches, water fountains)

X X X N/A N/A N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A X

Lighting (pedestrian and bicyclist 

scale associated with 

pedestrian/bicyclist project)

X X X N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Maps (for bicyclists and/or 

pedestrians) N/A X X X N/A N/A X X N/A X X

e N/A N/A

Paved shoulders for bicyclist 

and/or pedestrian use X N/A N/A X

e

X X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Police patrols N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X

g

X

g N/A X N/A X N/A

Recreational trails X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X X N/A N/A N/A X

Safety brochures, books N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X

g

X

g N/A X Xe

X N/A
Page 33 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Activity TIGERaFTA ATI CMAQb HSIP

NHPP/ 

NHS STP

TAP/ 

TE RTP SRTSc

PLAN

d

402 FLTTP

Safety education positions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X

g

X

g N/A X N/A X N/A

Separated bicycle lanes X X X X X X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Shared use paths/transportation 

trails X X X X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Sidewalks (new or retrofit) X X X X X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Signs/signals/signal 

improvements X X X X X X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Signed bicycle or pedestrian 

routes X X X X N/A X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Spot improvement programs X X N/A N/A X N/A X X X X N/A N/A X

Stormwater impacts related to 

pedestrian and bicycle projects X X X N/A X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Traffic calming X X N/A N/A X X X X N/A X N/A N/A X

Trail bridges X N/A N/A X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Trail/highway intersections X N/A N/A X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Training N/A N/A N/A X N/A N/A X X X X X

e

X N/A

Tunnels/undercrossings for 

bicyclists and/or pedestrians X X X X

e

X X X X X X N/A N/A X

Source: DOT. | GAO-16-66

Note: ADA/504: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant program; 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration Capital Funds; ATI: Associated Transit Improvement (1% setaside of FTA); CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program; HSIP: Highway 

Safety Improvement Program; NHPP/NHS: National Highway Performance Program/National 

Highway System; STP: Surface Transportation Program; TAP/TE: Transportation Alternatives 

Program/Transportation Enhancement Activities; RTP: Recreational Trails Program; SRTS: Safe 

Routes to School Program; PLAN: Statewide or Metropolitan Planning; 402: State and Community 

Highway Safety Grant Program; and FLTTP: Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Program 

(Federal Lands Access Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, Tribal Transportation 

Program).

a

Subject to annual appropriations.

b

Several activities may be eligible for CMAQ funds as part of a bicycle and pedestrian-related project, 

but not as a highway project. CMAQ funds may be used for shared use paths, but may not be used 

for trails that are primarily for recreational use.

c

Available until expended.

d

Planning funds must be for planning purposes: for “Maps”: system maps and GIS; for “Safety 

brochures, books”: as transportation safety planning; for “Training”: bicycle and pedestrian system 

planning training.

e

Eligible, but not competitive unless part of a larger project.

f

Limit one per state.

g

Activity is eligible only as a Safe Routes to School project benefiting schools for kindergarten through 

8th grade.
In addition to those noted above, as part of the Safer People, Safer 

Streets initiative, DOT has taken or plans to take additional actions that 

can help address pedestrian and cyclist safety in the following areas:

· Behavioral safety and education: DOT is providing guidance and tools 

to help individuals understand how their behaviors affect their own 

safety and the safety of others. For example, according to DOT 

officials, NHTSA is conducting research on the role of electronic 

distractions of drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists in crash risk. 

Additionally, NHTSA is reviewing enforcement and education 

techniques used in three pilot cities to help improve training for police 

officers and guidance for communities and in November 2014 

released Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide

for use by enforcement agencies in deploying pedestrian safety 

enforcement.

Page 34 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

35 Also, DOT officials noted that the agency is planning to 

conduct research on the risk associated with walking or cycling while 

impaired by alcohol. Finally, DOT plans to develop and broadly 

disseminate new education materials on pedestrian and cyclist safety.

· Vehicle safety: DOT is studying technologies that can make roads and 

vehicles safer, including those technologies that can warn road users 

about potential dangers or that can intervene to avoid a crash. For 

example, DOT is examining vehicle-to-pedestrian communication 

technologies that can help drivers see pedestrians and warn 

pedestrians that they are crossing or entering a roadway. Additionally, 

DOT is researching systems that can help drivers detect pedestrians 

and help them avoid or reduce the severity of a crash, such as 

warning systems and automated braking systems.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In the 

response (reproduced in app. II), DOT highlighted efforts it has taken to 

improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. DOT also provided a technical 

comment, which we incorporated.

 

35NHTSA, Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide, DOT HS 812 059 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2014).

Additional DOT Actions That 

May Help Improve Pedestrian 

and Cyclist Safety

Agency Comments
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix III.

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure

Page 35 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Our work for this report focused on city, state, and federal actions taken 

to help improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. In particular, this report 

examines: (1) the trends in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries 

from 2004 through 2013 and other characteristics of these fatalities and 

injuries, (2) pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts implemented by selected 

states and cities and their views on challenges in addressing this issue, 

and (3) actions taken by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to 

improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.

To determine the characteristics of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and 

injuries, we reviewed data produced by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) on pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and 

injuries from 2004 through 2013, the 10 most recent years for which these 

data are available. NHTSA data came from two sources: the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive 

Sampling System–General Estimates System (NASS-GES). FARS is a 

census of all fatal traffic crashes in the United States that provides 

uniformly coded, national data on police-reported fatalities. NASS-GES 

consists of data collected from an annual sample of about 50,000 police 

accident reports and is statistically weighted to be nationally 

representative of all police-reported crashes that occur in the United 

States each year. We analyzed these data to determine the estimated 

number of injuries involving pedestrians and cyclists. We also analyzed 

the NASS-GES data to estimate characteristics of pedestrians and 

cyclists injured in crashes. We used agency technical documentation for 

NASS-GES and guidance from NHTSA statisticians to estimate the 

sampling error associated with our estimates derived from NASS-GES

data. We express our confidence in the precision of estimates derived 

from NASS-GES data as 95 percent confidence intervals. This is the 

interval that would contain the actual population values for 95 percent of 

the NASS-GES samples that NHTSA could have drawn. To describe the 

number of people walking or cycling to work, we used data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) from 2005 (the first 

year of available data) through 2013, the nine most recent years for which 

these data are available. We analyzed these data to determine the 

estimated number of people who commuted to work by walking or 

cycling. The American Community Survey (ACS) is a probability sample 

and estimates derived from ACS data have sampling error associated 

with them. We express our confidence in the precision of estimates as 90 

percent confidence intervals. This is the interval that would contain the 

actual population values for 90 percent of the ACS samples that the U.S. 

Census Bureau could have drawn. To assess the reliability of the FARS 

and NASS-GES data, we reviewed relevant documentation and spoke 

Page 36 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

with agency officials about data quality control procedures. To assess the 

reliability of the ACS data, we reviewed relevant documentation. For all 

three data sets, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report, specifically to provide a high-level overview of 

pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, injuries, and trips within recent years.

To describe pedestrian and cyclist safety efforts implemented at the state 

and local level, we reviewed related reports and other documentation and 

interviewed officials from relevant non-governmental organizations with 

an interest in pedestrian and cyclist safety and selected states and cities. 

Specifically, we reviewed reports, highway design guides, and other 

publications to understand some of the actions taken by various entities 

to help improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. Further, we interviewed 

officials from a total of 22 relevant non-governmental organizations on 

safety trends and efforts implemented to address pedestrian and cyclist 

safety. These interviews were not meant to be comprehensive in scope, 

nor generalizable to all transportation agencies or non-governmental 

organizations. We selected the non-governmental organizations with an 

interest in pedestrian and cyclist safety to reflect a range of expertise on 

this issue. We grouped these entities into the following five categories: (1) 

organizations representing state/local governments, (2) pedestrian/cyclist 

advocacy organizations, (3) engineering/design/research organizations, 

(4) organizations representing regional or local planners, and (5) 

organizations representing law enforcement and other issues. 

Additionally, we selected and interviewed—via a set of semi-structured 

interview questions—a number of officials from three states, the District of 

Columbia, and six cities to collect information on efforts implemented and 

challenges faced in improving pedestrian and cyclist safety, as well as 

additional actions DOT could take to address this issue. We selected 

these states and cities based on criteria that included both high and low 

amounts of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, high percentages of 

populations reporting walking or cycling to work, and recommendations 

from DOT and non-governmental organization officials. Based on these 

criteria, we chose to interview officials from the State of California, the 

State of Florida, the State of New York, and the District of Columbia. We 

also chose to interview officials from the following cities: Austin, Texas; 

Jacksonville, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York City, New York; 

Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. At the state-level, we 

chose to interview officials from the transportation agency, the highway 

safety office, and the state police or highway patrol. For the cities within 

the states we selected (e.g., San Francisco, California), we chose to 

interview officials from the transportation agency, the police department, 

the metropolitan planning organization, and a local pedestrian or cyclist 

Page 37 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

advocacy organization. For the remaining cities, we interviewed officials 

from the transportation agency. The non-governmental and state and 

local organizations we contacted are listed at the end of this section. The 

information obtained in these interviews is not meant to be 

comprehensive in scope, nor is the information generalizable to all 

entities at the federal, state, or local level. However, the information 

provided a range of perspectives on efforts and challenges associated 

with pedestrian and cyclist safety.

To determine the actions taken by DOT to help improve pedestrian and 

cyclist safety, we reviewed relevant guidance, reports, and other 

documentation produced by DOT, such as the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design 

Guide and NHTSA’s Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices.

Page 38 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

1 Additionally, 

we interviewed officials from FHWA, NHTSA, and the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation on actions DOT has implemented or plans to 

implement to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.

We interviewed officials from the following entities:

State of California Entities

· California Department of Transportation

· California Highway Patrol

· California Office of Traffic Safety

San Francisco, California Entities

· San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

· San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

· San Francisco Police Department

· Metropolitan Transportation Commission

 

1

FHWA, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, FHWA-HEP-15-025 (May 2015) 

and NHTSA, Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for 

State Highway Safety Offices, Seventh Edition, 2013, DOT HS 811 727 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2013).

State, Local, and NonGovernmental 

Organizations Contacted
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

State of Florida Entities

· Florida Department of Transportation

· Florida Department of Transportation–State Safety Office

· Florida Highway Patrol

Jacksonville, Florida Entities

· Jacksonville Department of Public Works

· Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office

· North Florida Bicycle Club

· North Florida Transportation Planning Organization

State of New York Entities

· New York State Department of Transportation

· New York State Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee

· New York State Police

New York City, New York Entities

· New York City Department of Transportation

· New York City Police Department

· New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

· Transportation Alternatives

District of Columbia Entities

· District of Columbia Department of Transportation

· District of Columbia Department of Transportation–Highway Safety 

Office

· Metropolitan Council of Governments/National Capital Region 

Transportation Planning Board

· Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

· Washington Area Bicyclist Association

Additional City Entities

· Austin Transportation Department

· Minneapolis Department of Public Works

· Portland Bureau of Transportation

Organizations Representing State/Local Governments

· American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

· Governors Highway Safety Association

· National Association of City Transportation Officials

Page 39 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Pedestrian/Cyclist Advocacy Organizations

· Alliance for Biking and Walking

· League of American Bicyclists

· National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Engineering/Design/Research Organizations

· American Road & Transportation Builders Association

· Institute of Transportation Engineers

· Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

· National Cooperative Highway Research Program

· Toole Design Group

· University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center

Organizations Representing Regional or Local Planners

· Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

· National Association of Development Organizations

· National Association of Regional Councils

· National Complete Streets Coalition

Organizations Representing Law Enforcement and Other Issues

· Mothers Against Drunk Driving

· National Sheriffs’ Association

Page 40 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 41 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation

Page 42 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Susan Fleming, at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made 

important contributions to this report: Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; 

Carl Barden, Leia Dickerson, Georgette Hagans, Terence Lam, Leslie 

Locke, Joshua Ormond, Daniel Paepke, Cheryl Peterson, Michelle 

Weathers, Elizabeth Wood, and Friendly Vang-Johnson.

Page 43 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(541127)
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Data Table for Figure 2: Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities as a Percentage of All Traffic 

Page 44 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Fatalities, 2004 through 2013

Year Pedestrians Cyclists

"2004 10.9 1.7

"2005 11.2 1.8

"2006 11.2 1.8

"2007 11.4 1.7

"2008 11.8 1.9

"2009 12.1 1.9

"2010 13 1.9

"2011 13.7 2.1

"2012 14.3 2.2

"2013 14.5 2.3

Data Table for Figure 3: Pedestrian Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light 

Condition, and Time of Day, 2013

Female Male

31 69

Age "0-14 "15-24 "25-34 "35-44 "45-54 55-64 65+ Age Unknown

Percentage 5 12 14 13 19 16 19 1

Rural Urban

27 73

Dawn Dusk Daylight Dark

2 2 26 70

Time of day Fatalities

Midnight to 3 am 543

3 am to 6 am 459

6 am to 9 am 411

Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Data Table
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 45 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Time of day Fatalities

9 am to Noon 251

Noon to 3 pm 266

3 pm to 6 pm 474

6 pm to 9 pm 1236

9 pm to Midnight 1067

Unknown 28

Data Table for Figure 4: Cyclist Fatalities by Gender, Age, Type of Area, Light Condition, 

and Time of Day, 2013

Female Male

13 87

Age "0-14 "15-24 "25-34 "35-44 "45-54 55-64 65+ Age Unknown

Percentage 7 15 10 10 22 22 13 1

Rural Urban

32 68

Dawn Dusk Daylight Dark

2 2 52 43

Time of day Fatalities

Midnight to 3 am 38

3 am to 6 am 38

6 am to 9 am 85

9 am to Noon 79

Noon to 3 pm 85

3 pm to 6 pm 130

6 pm to 9 pm 160

9 pm to Midnight 125

Unknown 3
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 46 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

U .S. Government Accountability Office 

44 1 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548 

Ms. Fleming,

The U .S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has invested significant 

resources toward improving pedestrian and bi cyclist safety through its 

strong leadership, sound technical assistance, and extensive outreach to 

State and local entities. Actions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

are critical as the number of people walking and riding bicycles is 

increasing across the country. Our Safer People, Safer Streets initiative 

has enabled the Department to enhance internal communications, as well 

as reach a broader audience with the tool s and resources that will save 

lives and prevent injuries. Highlights of our efforts include the following:

· Launching the Mayors' Challenge which is helping more than 230 

local communities use DOT resources to address their most pressing 

safety concerns. Our technical assistance is empowering these 

communities to take critical safety actions, such as adopting a 

complete streets approach, removing barrier s to access, and 

improving safety laws and regulations.

· Promoting initiatives, tools, and resources about proven safety 

countermeasures such as road diets, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and 

medians/pedestrian crossing islands, all of which improve nonmotorist safety.

Agency Comment 

Letters

Text of Appendix II: 

Comments from the 

Department of Transportation

Page 1
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

· Developing educational resources addressing vulnerable populations, 

and training courses and materials for law enforcement to conduct 

pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement. The materials are written 

in various languages for English as a Second Language (ESL) 

teachers and student s and are also aimed at older populations, 

young adults, and children.

· Conducting a pedestrian or bicycle assessment, under DOT 

leadership, in each State that brought together diverse audiences and 

built collaboration to solve a specific problem in each participating 

community.

· Working with our State-level stakeholder s to analyze data and 

identify pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues as they make project 

funding decisions.

· Identifying policy options in our 2015 draft "Beyond Traffic: Trends 

and Choices 2045, " that can help build upon recent advances to 

ensure continued growth and improved safety in cycling and walking 

over the next 30 years.

The Department is committed to building upon its efforts to elevate the 

importance of protecting people who walk and bicycle. We will continue to 

seek solutions to the most challenging issues in pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety, whether it is improving safety data, ensuring access for all, or 

making safety improvement s to street crossings around transit.

We appreciate this opportunity to offer an additional perspective on the 

GAO draft report. Please contact Madeline M. Chulumovich, Director of 

Program Management and Improvement, at (202) 366-6512 with any 

questions or additional details about our comments.

Sincerely,

Jeff Marootian

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Page 47 GAO-16-66 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety

Page 2
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.