Where are the most dangerous streets near you?

This interactive map explores pedestrian fatality data in more detail.

This map plots every* pedestrian fatality from 2008-2017. Zoom in and drag, or search for any U.S. address (or city/state) by clicking on the magnifying glass in the lower left corner. Clicking an icon will bring up any available details about that fatality.

This map was generated using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, provided by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. *A total of 495 fatalities from 2008-2017 were excluded due to poor location data.

 

Metro-area rankings and data

This table shows the Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) and other fatality statistics for each of the 100 largest metro areas (defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) in the country.

• The higher a metro area’s PDI, the more dangerous it is for people walking.
• Tables are sortable by any column, but default to sorting by the highest PDI (most dangerous) first.
• More information on change in PDI since Dangerous by Design 2016 and other data are available in the appendix of the full report. Download that here.

2019 Rank	Metro Area	Pedestrian Deaths (2008-2017)	Annual Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 people (2008-2017)	2019 Pedestrian Danger Index
1	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	656	2.82	313.3
2	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	212	3.45	265.4
3	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	165	2.94	245.0
4	North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL	194	2.58	234.6
5	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	162	2.54	230.9
6	Jacksonville, FL	419	2.94	226.2
7	Bakersfield, CA	247	2.83	217.7
8	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	148	2.17	217.0
9	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	900	3.07	204.7
10	Jackson, MS	111	1.92	192.0
11	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	297	2.21	184.2
12	Baton Rouge, LA	182	2.21	157.9
13	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	179	1.57	157.0
14	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	1,549	2.61	153.5
15	Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC	197	2.29	152.7
16	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	140	1.69	140.8
17	Albuquerque, NM	213	2.35	138.2
18	Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI	757	1.76	135.4
19	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	118	1.62	135.0
20	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	126	2.15	134.4
21	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	519	2.23	131.2
22	Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	874	1.95	130.0
23	Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX	1,179	1.82	130.0
24	Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV	453	2.19	128.8
25	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA	1,005	1.79	127.9
26	Fresno, CA	209	2.17	127.7
27	Greensboro-High Point, NC	121	1.62	124.6
28	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	1,037	1.49	124.2
29	Tulsa, OK	148	1.52	116.9
30	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	922	2.08	115.6
31	Raleigh, NC	170	1.37	114.2
32	Oklahoma City, OK	222	1.66	110.7
33	Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC	359	1.51	107.9
34	Stockton-Lodi, CA	151	2.11	105.5
35	Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN	225	1.77	104.1
36	Knoxville, TN	105	1.23	102.5
37	Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN	232	1.29	99.2
38	El Paso, TX	173	2.07	98.6
39	Winston-Salem, NC	89	1.36	97.1
40	Austin-Round Rock, TX	303	1.56	91.8
41	Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN	269	1.37	91.3
42	New Orleans-Metairie, LA	257	2.06	89.6
43	St. Louis, MO-IL	393	1.40	87.5
44	Charleston-North Charleston, SC	165	2.27	87.3
45	Kansas City, MO-KS	234	1.13	86.9
46	Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA	407	1.81	86.2
47	Tucson, AZ	199	1.98	86.1
48	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	281	1.45	80.6
49	Richmond, VA	175	1.39	77.2
50	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	2,520	1.91	76.4
51	Wichita, KS	68	1.06	70.7
52	Salt Lake City, UT	155	1.34	70.5
53	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	67	1.21	67.2
54	San Diego-Carlsbad, CA	610	1.87	64.5
55	Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD	496	1.78	63.6
56	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	66	1.04	61.2
57	Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO	352	1.28	58.2
	National Average	49,340	1.55	55.3
58	Chattanooga, TN-GA	60	1.10	55.0
59	Columbus, OH	225	1.13	53.8
60	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	111	1.08	51.4
61	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	86	1.02	51.0
62	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT	145	1.20	50.0
63	Columbia, SC	175	2.19	49.8
64	Toledo, OH	72	1.19	49.6
65	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	1,045	1.73	46.8
66	Akron, OH	56	0.80	44.4
67	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	49	0.80	44.4
68	Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY	131	1.15	44.2
69	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	102	1.23	43.9
70	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	194	0.90	42.9
71	Dayton, OH	85	1.06	42.4
72	Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA	78	1.39	42.1
73	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	178	1.13	41.9
74	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	70	1.25	41.7
75	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	213	1.24	41.3
76	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	764	1.27	39.7
77	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT	101	1.07	39.6
78	New Haven-Milford, CT	121	1.41	38.1
79	Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA	57	1.05	36.2
80	Boise City, ID	43	0.65	36.1
81	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	59	0.65	36.1
82	Cleveland-Elyria, OH	162	0.79	35.9
83	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	288	1.22	35.8
84	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	106	1.21	34.6
85	Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	1,022	1.07	34.5
86	Providence-Warwick, RI-MA	195	1.21	33.6
87	San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA	659	1.44	33.5
88	Worcester, MA-CT	102	1.10	33.3
89	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	237	0.68	30.9
90	Urban Honolulu, HI	154	1.56	30.6
91	Rochester, NY	110	1.02	29.1
92	Pittsburgh, PA	211	0.90	27.3
93	New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	3,210	1.60	27.1
94	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	360	0.98	26.5
95	Springfield, MA	76	1.21	24.7
96	Syracuse, NY	71	1.07	23.8
97	Colorado Springs, CO	55	0.80	23.5
98	Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	465	0.98	19.6
99	Madison, WI	56	0.88	18.0
100	Provo-Orem, UT	45	0.78	17.3

 

State rankings and reports

In addition to metro areas, Dangerous by Design also examines statewide PDI. After that table, brief state reports provide yet another layer of state-level data.

This table below shows the PDI for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

• More information on change in PDI since Dangerous by Design 2016 and other pieces of state-level data are available in the appendix of the full report. Download it here.

2019 Rank	State	Pedestrian Fatalities (2008-2017)	Annual Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 people (2008-2017)	2019 Pedestrian Danger Index
1	Florida	5,433	2.73	182.0
2	Alabama	841	1.74	145.0
3	Delaware	250	2.67	127.1
4	Louisiana	1,047	2.25	125.0
5	Mississippi	551	1.84	122.7
6	Georgia	1,782	1.76	117.3
7	New Mexico	537	2.58	117.3
8	Texas	4,831	1.79	111.9
9	Arizona	1,503	2.23	111.5
10	South Carolina	1,144	2.37	107.8
11	Nevada	601	2.12	101.0
12	Tennessee	856	1.31	100.8
13	North Carolina	1,762	1.77	98.3
14	Oklahoma	596	1.54	85.6
15	Arkansas	427	1.44	84.7
16	California	7,127	1.84	68.2
17	Missouri	779	1.29	67.9
18	Maryland	1,059	1.78	65.9
19	Michigan	1,409	1.42	64.6
20	Kentucky	610	1.38	57.5
	National Average	49,340	1.55	55.3
21	New Jersey	1,543	1.73	54.1
22	Indiana	725	1.10	52.4
23	Virginia	865	1.04	43.3
24	Utah	321	1.09	42.0
25	Connecticut	425	1.18	40.7
26	Ohio	1,058	0.91	39.6
27	West Virginia	214	1.16	38.7
28	Oregon	557	1.40	36.8
29	Colorado	590	1.10	36.7
30	Hawaii	226	1.60	36.4
31	Kansas	242	0.83	36.1
32	Illinois	1,323	1.03	33.2
33	Pennsylvania	1,502	1.17	30.0
34	Rhode Island	127	1.20	30.0
35	Washington	712	1.01	28.1
36	District of Columbia	101	1.53	26.8
37	Wisconsin	491	0.85	25.8
38	Idaho	121	0.74	25.5
39	Montana	130	1.27	24.9
40	North Dakota	62	0.84	24.7
41	New York	2,958	1.50	24.6
42	Maine	130	0.98	23.9
43	Minnesota	361	0.66	23.6
44	New Hampshire	97	0.73	23.6
45	Nebraska	116	0.62	23.0
46	Massachusetts	725	1.08	22.5
47	South Dakota	72	0.85	22.4
48	Wyoming	48	0.82	20.5
49	Iowa	210	0.68	19.4
50	Alaska	93	1.26	16.0
51	Vermont	50	0.80	13.8

State reports

These fact sheets, produced in collaboration with AARP, take a closer look at how pedestrian deaths vary state-by-state, including how the number of deaths have changed between 2008-2017 and who is most at risk. Click on the map below to download any of the state reports, or explore the tables on this page to compare the states where older adults and people of color were most disproportionately at risk of being struck and killed while walking.

Older adults

This table shows the average annual fatality rate per 100,000 people by age group. It also ranks the states by relative risk for older adults, but you can click to resort the table by any column.

Rank	State	Fatality rate, age 50+	Fatality rate, age 65+	Fatality rate, age 75+	Relative risk, age 50+
1	District of Columbia	2.90	2.93	2.77	2.88
2	Vermont	1.27	1.70	2.96	2.66
3	Hawaii	2.65	3.56	5.04	2.62
4	New York	2.36	3.22	4.45	2.27
5	Massachusetts	1.66	2.30	3.02	2.22
6	California	2.89	3.35	4.51	2.12
7	Rhode Island	1.80	2.88	4.03	2.12
8	Nebraska	0.92	0.96	1.20	2.01
9	Utah	1.69	1.76	2.28	1.90
10	Nevada	3.10	3.04	4.17	1.89
11	New Hampshire	1.02	1.62	2.29	1.87
12	Connecticut	1.65	2.05	2.91	1.81
13	Wisconsin	1.18	1.43	2.07	1.77
14	New Jersey	2.39	2.9	3.55	1.75
15	Iowa	0.93	1.00	1.00	1.72
16	Washington	1.38	1.64	2.38	1.70
17	Idaho	1.01	1.24	1.80	1.65
18	Oregon	1.86	1.61	2.46	1.64
19	Minnesota	0.87	1.14	1.52	1.59
20	Pennsylvania	1.52	1.86	2.39	1.58
21	Virginia	1.36	1.37	1.30	1.57
22	Illinois	1.34	1.57	2.07	1.54
23	Kansas	1.08	1.30	1.75	1.51
24	Wyoming	1.04	1.12	1.52	1.47
25	Alaska	1.62	1.59	3.08	1.45
26	Colorado	1.38	1.46	2.01	1.42
27	Arizona	2.75	2.36	2.87	1.40
28	Texas	2.17	2.10	2.71	1.33
29	Florida	3.13	2.75	3.33	1.32
30	Tennessee	1.53	1.29	1.45	1.28
31	Maryland	2.06	2.06	2.67	1.28
32	Maine	1.12	1.73	3.02	1.28
33	Michigan	1.64	1.41	1.95	1.27
34	Georgia	2.04	1.73	2.50	1.26
35	Oklahoma	1.68	1.35	1.88	1.15
36	Ohio	0.99	1.01	1.30	1.14
37	Indiana	1.19	1.32	1.63	1.12
38	Alabama	1.82	1.68	1.82	1.08
39	South Carolina	2.46	2.03	2.71	1.07
40	North Carolina	1.79	1.49	1.71	1.02
41	Kentucky	1.39	1.38	1.45	1.01
42	Louisiana	2.23	1.50	1.60	0.99
43	Montana	1.25	1.76	2.53	0.97
44	Mississippi	1.8	1.41	1.63	0.97
45	Arkansas	1.35	0.97	1.07	0.91
46	Delaware	2.49	2.15	2.86	0.90
47	North Dakota	0.77	0.67	0.20	0.88
48	Missouri	1.17	1.29	1.48	0.87
49	New Mexico	2.32	1.95	2.74	0.86
50	West Virginia	1.01	0.73	0.94	0.81
51	South Dakota	0.70	0.62	0.99	0.76

People of color

This table shows the average annual fatality rate per 100,000 people by racial or ethnic group. It also ranks the states by relative risk for people of color, but you can click to resort the table by any column.

Rank	State	Fatality rate, White non-Hispanic	Fatality rate, Black/African American	Fatality rate, Hispanic/Latino	Fatality rate, Asian/Pacific Islander	Fatality rate, American Indian/Alaska Native	Relative risk, people of color
1	South Dakota	0.48	0.00	0.34	1.71	4.72	5.27
2	North Dakota	0.52	0.68	1.74	0.00	6.52	4.99
3	Montana	0.96	2.35	0.86	0.00	6.10	3.26
4	Alaska	0.68	0.82	0.20	0.19	5.21	3.10
5	Michigan	0.99	2.97	1.05	1.07	7.56	2.03
6	Missouri	1.08	2.82	0.80	1.84	0.00	1.84
7	Georgia**	0.82	1.72	1.12	0.98	0.35	1.57
8	Wisconsin	0.72	2.10	1.02	0.80	3.50	1.44
9	Arkansas	1.28	2.67	0.87	1.04	0.53	1.43
10	Mississippi	1.53	2.31	1.85	3.79	3.06	1.42
11	District of Columbia	1.06	1.79	2.03	1.23	0.00	1.40
12	Alabama	1.45	2.50	2.17	1.75	0.42	1.40
13	Ohio	0.83	1.62	1.12	0.88	0.00	1.35
14	South Carolina	1.99	3.45	2.55	0.14	1.30	1.34
15	Tennessee	1.05	1.88	1.37	1.47	0.00	1.33
16	Louisiana	1.93	3.00	1.39	1.37	0.00	1.29
17	North Carolina	1.53	2.70	1.70	0.80	2.81	1.25
18	Indiana*	0.79	1.91	0.77	0.53	0.63	1.23
19	Oklahoma	1.37	2.63	1.23	1.09	3.49	1.20
20	Virginia	0.82	1.49	0.98	0.83	0.46	1.14
21	Minnesota	0.61	0.87	0.51	0.60	4.74	1.13
22	Kentucky	1.30	1.97	0.61	0.84	1.10	0.90
23	New Mexico	1.79	3.58	1.83	0.98	9.42	0.89
24	Maryland*	1.42	1.83	0.76	0.71	0.00	0.89
25	Arizona*	1.43	2.79	1.69	0.41	9.47	0.88
26	New York**	1.06	1.06	1.01	0.99	1.06	0.87
27	Washington	0.94	1.40	0.84	1.04	5.64	0.85
28	Wyoming	0.79	0.00	0.53	0.00	4.60	0.83
29	Nebraska	0.56	1.24	0.83	0.24	1.91	0.82
30	Illinois	0.88	1.51	0.89	0.73	0.00	0.79
31	Hawaii	1.83	1.16	1.20	2.13	14.73	0.79
32	Rhode Island	1.19	2.61	0.94	0.85	3.90	0.76
33	Massachusetts	0.99	1.66	0.97	1.11	0.00	0.76
34	Delaware	2.80	3.05	2.18	1.15	0.00	0.73
35	Kansas	0.82	1.37	0.73	0.63	2.51	0.73
36	New Jersey	1.60	2.50	1.66	1.24	1.08	0.72
37	Iowa	0.63	1.16	0.46	0.72	1.00	0.71
38	West Virginia	1.19	1.58	0.38	0.68	0.00	0.66
39	Utah	0.92	1.23	1.36	1.62	4.42	0.64
40	New Hampshire	0.73	0.57	0.23	0.93	0.00	0.59
41	Colorado	0.92	2.01	1.48	1.15	1.99	0.57
42	Connecticut*	1.04	1.26	0.84	0.91	0.00	0.56
43	Idaho	0.73	1.92	0.66	0.00	3.73	0.54
44	Nevada	2.28	3.49	1.38	1.70	1.57	0.46
45	Florida	2.84	3.04	2.65	1.67	3.21	0.46
46	Texas	1.45	2.42	1.49	0.74	1.72	0.43
47	Oregon	1.47	2.16	1.03	1.26	3.76	0.42
48	Maine	0.90	0.00	0.00	0.00	3.74	0.40
49	California	1.84	3.14	1.59	1.47	2.98	0.38
50	Vermont	0.85	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
NA	Pennsylvania***	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

* > 15 percent of pedestrian fatalities have missing or incomplete race and/or ethnicity data.
** > 30 percent of pedestrian fatalities have missing or incomplete race and/or ethnicity data.
*** Pennsylvania data not reported as a result of missing or incomplete race and/or ethnicity data in 86 percent of pedestrian fatalities.

 

Traffic deaths for people walking, biking, and rolling continue to rise

2018 was the deadliest on record for people walking and riding bicycles in nearly three decades. In 2018, drivers in the United States struck and killed 6,283 people walking, and another 857 people were struck and killed while riding bicycles. Deaths among these vulnerable users continue to rise nationwide even as overall deaths stagnate or decline. Between 2009 and 2018, traffic deaths among motor vehicle occupants declined by one percent, but over the same decade traffic deaths among people walking increased by 53 percent. Similarly, traffic deaths among people bicycling increased by 36 percent during this time period.

Download the report

In this interim update, Smart Growth America reexamined the top 20 most dangerous states for people walking over the past decade based on our Pedestrian Danger Index. Although rankings within the top 20 states shifted slightly, in 2020 the same states comprise the top 10 and top 20 most dangerous places for people walking compared to our Dangerous by Design 2019 report.

Most states failed to meet their unambitious “safety” targets

Our federal and state governments are not doing nearly enough to address this safety crisis. Through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), each state is required to set “safety” targets for the number of deaths and serious injuries on their roadways. In exchange, the federal government provides funding to implement safety projects and programming. Beginning in 2018, states set a target for the number of non-motorized deaths and serious injuries combined, which includes people walking, biking, using wheelchairs, and riding scooters and other non-motorized vehicles. Unfortunately, 18 states set targets for more non-motorized users to be killed and injured compared to the most recent year of data reported at the time.

Smart Growth America assessed how states fared compared to their 2018 HSIP targets for deaths and serious injuries among people walking, biking, and rolling. Although the National Transportation Safety Board issued official recommendations to create a nationwide database of all traffic injuries, these data are not yet available, so SGA projected serious injuries for 2018 based on recent trends in the share of fatalities versus serious injuries over recent years.

The results are uninspiring. A total of ten states aimed for more people to be killed or seriously injured while walking, biking, and rolling, and then exceeded that target. Another eight states set targets to increase deaths and serious injuries but fortunately remained below their goal. Among states that aimed to improve safety for non-motorized users, only eight states successfully achieved their goals while 24 states saw deaths and serious injuries exceed their targets.

To explore the number of deaths and serious injuries among people walking, biking, and rolling state by state over the past five years, download the PDF of the Dangerous by Design 2020 interim report below:

Download the report

 

Which congressional districts are the most dangerous for people walking?

This short addendum to Dangerous by Design segments all pedestrian fatalities by congressional district and shows which districts are the most deadly in absolute numbers and by rate, controlling for the size of the population. See the table below for the 100 most dangerous U.S. House districts.

100 most dangerous congressional districts for people walking, ranked

Click to sort the table, which shows only 25 rows at once. You can also search for your rep’s name using the search bar

Rank	Congressional district	Member of Congress	Pedestrian fatalities (2008-17)	Pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 people 2008-17)	Cosponsoring "The Complete Streets Act of 2019"? (More info)
1	Arizona's 7th district	Ruben Gallego	344	4.48	Yes
2	Nevada's 1st district	Dina Titus	287	4.19	Yes
3	South Carolina's 6th district	James E. Clyburn	270	4.05	NO
4	Florida's 24th district	Frederica S. Wilson	292	3.98	Yes
5	Florida's 13th district	Charlie Crist	275	3.87	NO
6	Florida's 5th district	Al Lawson, Jr.	272	3.79	NO
7	Texas's 35th district	Lloyd Doggett	279	3.59	NO
8	Michigan's 13th district	Rashida Tlaib	235	3.43	Yes
9	Florida's 10th district	Val Butler Demings	261	3.42	Yes
10	Florida's 6th district	Mike Waltz	245	3.36	NO
11	Texas's 18th district	Sheila Jackson Lee	252	3.36	NO
12	South Carolina's 7th district	Tom Rice	230	3.34	NO
13	Georgia's 5th district	John Lewis	242	3.29	Yes
14	New Mexico's 3rd district	Ben Ray Lujan	227	3.28	NO
15	Texas's 30th district	Eddie Bernice Johnson	244	3.27	Yes
16	Florida's 14th district	Kathy Castor	238	3.22	Yes
17	Florida's 20th district	Alcee L. Hastings	242	3.22	NO
18	California's 8th district	Paul Cook	223	3.11	NO
19	Arizona's 1st district	Tom O'Halleran	228	3.1	NO
20	Louisiana's 2nd district	Cedric L. Richmond	240	3.08	Yes
21	California's 34th district	Jimmy Gomez	214	2.97	NO
22	Tennessee's 9th district	Steve Cohen	210	2.97	Yes
23	Florida's 8th district	Bill Posey	212	2.94	NO
24	Florida's 15th district	Ross Spano	219	2.94	NO
25	Florida's 1st district	Matt Gaetz	217	2.92	NO
26	California's 37th district	Karen Bass	206	2.85	NO
27	California's 6th district	Doris O. Matsui	209	2.85	NO
28	California's 21st district	TJ Cox	202	2.84	NO
29	Florida's 22nd district	Theodore E. Deutch	208	2.84	NO
30	Michigan's 14th district	Brenda L. Lawrence	196	2.83	NO
31	New Mexico's 1st district	Debra A. Haaland	195	2.82	NO
32	Alabama's 7th district	Terri A. Sewell	189	2.8	NO
33	Pennsylvania's 2nd district	Brendan Boyle	198	2.78	NO
34	Florida's 16th district	Vern Buchanan	208	2.73	NO
35	California's 43rd district	Maxine Waters	195	2.71	NO
36	Florida's 4th district	John H. Rutherford	202	2.7	NO
37	Florida's 12th district	Gus M. Bilirakis	197	2.7	NO
38	Texas's 33rd district	Marc A. Veasey	192	2.67	NO
39	California's 16th district	Jim Costa	192	2.66	NO
40	Louisiana's 3rd district	Clay Higgins	206	2.65	NO
41	Delaware at-large	Lisa Blunt Rochester	248	2.65	NO
42	New York's 2nd district	Peter T. King	191	2.65	NO
43	Mississippi's 2nd district	Bennie G. Thompson	191	2.64	NO
44	Florida's 27th district	Donna E. Shalala	194	2.63	NO
45	Maryland's 4th district	Anthony G. Brown	193	2.6	NO
46	California's 23rd district	Kevin McCarthy	189	2.59	NO
47	Missouri's 1st district	Wm. Lacy Clay	188	2.54	NO
48	California's 51st district	Juan Vargas	185	2.53	NO
49	California's 36th district	Raul Ruiz	186	2.53	NO
50	South Carolina's 4th district	William R. Timmons IV	175	2.51	NO
51	Florida's 7th district	Stephanie N. Murphy	185	2.51	NO
52	Georgia's 13th district	David Scott	180	2.47	NO
53	Georgia's 2nd district	Sanford D. Bishop Jr.	166	2.42	NO
54	New Jersey's 10th district	Donald M. Payne Jr.	179	2.41	NO
55	Texas's 1st district	Louie Gohmert	170	2.39	NO
56	Texas's 29th district	Sylvia R. Garcia	174	2.38	NO
57	Florida's 17th district	W. Gregory Steube	173	2.37	NO
58	Florida's 9th district	Darren Soto	185	2.37	NO
59	North Carolina's 7th district	David Rouzer	182	2.37	NO
60	Kentucky's 3rd district	John A. Yarmuth	175	2.37	NO
61	Florida's 23rd district	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	175	2.36	NO
62	Alabama's 1st district	Bradley Byrne	162	2.32	NO
63	Florida's 11th district	Daniel Webster	168	2.31	NO
64	Maryland's 2nd district	C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger	173	2.3	NO
65	Florida's 26th district	Debbie Mucarsel-Powell	175	2.3	NO
66	California's 40th district	Lucille Roybal-Allard	163	2.3	NO
67	Texas's 36th district	Brian Babin	166	2.29	NO
68	Indiana's 7th district	Andre Carson	171	2.29	Yes
69	Texas's 27th district	Michael Cloud	166	2.28	NO
70	Georgia's 4th district	Hank Johnson Jr.	165	2.26	NO
71	Texas's 20th district	Joaquin Castro	171	2.24	NO
72	Louisiana's 5th district	Ralph Abraham	168	2.23	NO
73	Arizona's 9th district	Greg Stanton	167	2.21	NO
74	New Jersey's 2nd district	Jeff Van Drew	160	2.19	NO
75	California's 29th district	Tony Cardenas	157	2.19	NO
76	Texas's 14th district	Randy K. Weber Sr.	159	2.19	NO
77	New Jersey's 1st district	Donald Norcross	159	2.17	NO
78	Florida's 3rd district	Ted S. Yoho	155	2.17	NO
79	California's 31st district	Pete Aguilar	159	2.17	NO
80	New York's 4th district	Kathleen M. Rice	155	2.15	NO
81	Florida's 21st district	Lois Frankel	158	2.14	NO
82	New Jersey's 3rd district	Andy Kim	157	2.13	NO
83	Georgia's 12th district	Rick W. Allen	151	2.13	NO
84	New York's 12th district	Carolyn B. Maloney	154	2.12	NO
85	Tennessee's 5th district	Jim Cooper	158	2.11	NO
86	California's 46th district	J. Luis Correa	153	2.11	NO
87	New York's 1st district	Lee M. Zeldin	152	2.11	NO
88	California's 1st district	Doug LaMalfa	148	2.1	NO
89	Florida's 2nd district	Neil P. Dunn	149	2.1	NO
90	Arizona's 3rd district	Raul M. Grijalva	155	2.1	NO
91	California's 35th district	Norma J. Torres	153	2.1	NO
92	Oklahoma's 5th district	Kendra S. Horn	166	2.09	NO
93	California's 9th district	Jerry McNerney	153	2.07	NO
94	North Carolina's 12th district	Alma S. Adams	168	2.07	NO
95	Florida's 25th district	Mario Diaz-Balart	154	2.07	NO
96	Texas's 16th district	Veronica Escobar	151	2.06	NO
97	California's 44th district	Nanette Diaz Barragan	146	2.02	NO
98	Mississippi's 4th district	Steven M. Palazzo	152	2	NO
99	North Carolina's 9th district	Vacant	150	1.96	NO
100	Louisiana's 4th district	Mike Johnson	149	1.96	NO

The number of people struck and killed while walking has climbed dramatically in certain districts. Here are the representatives who have seen the greatest increase in preventable pedestrian deaths in their districts

Interactive map of all congressional districts

Find your district on the map and click it to see the fatality totals, rate, and the representative’s name.

 

Who is most at risk?

Who are the victims of these tragic crashes? Although people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and income levels suffer the consequences of dangerous street design, some neighborhoods and groups of people bear a larger share of the burden than others.

Older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes involving people walking.

Even after controlling for differences in population size and walking rates, we see that drivers strike and kill people over age 50, Black or African American people, American Indian or Alaska Native people, and people walking in communities with lower median household incomes at much higher rates.

People age 50 and up, and especially people age 75 and older, are overrepresented in deaths involving people walking. This age group is more likely to experience challenges seeing, hearing, or moving, and if these trends are any indication, we are not devoting nearly enough attention to the unique needs of older adults when we design our streets.

These disparities become even more pronounced when we account for variations in walking rates by age. The relative pedestrian danger for older adults age 50 and above is more than a third higher than it is for the general population, and for people age 75 and up it is almost twice as high.

Drivers strike and kill people of color, especially Black or African American and American Indian or Alaska Native people, at higher rates compared to White, Non-Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander people. The figure below highlights the relative danger by census-designated racial and ethnic groups of being struck and killed while walking, controlling for differences in walking rates and population size.

Although nationwide data do not include information about the household income of individuals who are struck and killed while walking, they do reveal where people are walking when they are killed. People are struck and killed while walking at much higher rates in lower-income communities compared to higher-income ones.

The lower a metro area’s median household income, the more dangerous its streets are likely to be for people walking.

This is unsurprising, given that low-income communities are significantly less likely than higher-income communities to have sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and street design to support safer, slower speeds.

Protecting the safety of all people who use the street, especially the people most vulnerable to being struck and killed, needs to be a higher priority for policymakers, and this priority must be reflected in the decisions we make about how to fund, design, operate, maintain, and measure the success of our roads.

 

Take action

What else can be done?

It’s thankfully not a mystery—we have the recipe in our hands. At the federal level, we need a strong, federal Complete Streets policy as a first major step, but here are nine other concrete actions that policymakers, local leaders, engineers, and others can take at the state, metropolitan, or local level.

State actions

1. Set performance targets that will improve safety. State DOTs must be held accountable for making reductions in serious injuries and fatalities and should be penalized for failing to meet those targets. They certainly shouldn’t receive funding for plans to increase fatalities. Read more in the full report on page 7.

2. Prioritize safety over vehicle movement. Though states might have a long list of goals or objectives for their transportation system, moving vehicles quickly and efficiently and maintaining pavement conditions generally take precedence. One way to make safety a higher priority is to get rid of the “level of service” design metric. Level of service, used by nearly all states, measures the success of a street solely based on vehicle delay. Minimizing vehiclae delay as the number one goal often produces the roads that are the most dangerous by design.

3. Provide state transportation officials and engineers with the most up-to-date training and education on implementing Complete Streets. In states that have made a policy commitment to Complete Streets, often the professional staff tapped to implement changes lack the knowledge required, or the policies and decision-making frameworks already in place need to be updated to support Complete Streets. At the request of state or city DOTs, the National Complete Streets Coalition (and other programs within Smart Growth America) have provided staff with the training needed to embed Complete Streets in their day-to-day work and make safer projects a reality.

State or local actions

1. Prioritize projects that will benefit those who suffer disproportionately. Some groups, including people of color and people walking in lower-income communities, are disproportionately struck and killed while walking. To address this, decision-makers should prioritize the projects that would benefit these vulnerable users. For example, the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, when deciding which projects to fund in their selection process, awards extra points to projects that will improve safety for people walking or biking in certain disadvantaged areas.

2. Embrace the flexibility provided by FHWA to design safer streets. New design guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2016 gave states and cities wide latitude to design streets to best suit local needs and rolled back old regulations that treated all streets and roads like highways. This cleared the way for states, metro areas, and local communities to use federal dollars to design safer streets, yet many states falsely claim that federal guidelines continue to restrict innovative street design.

3. Design roads to reduce speeds wherever possible. For people on foot, the likelihood of surviving a crash decreases rapidly as speeds increase past 30 mph. The federal government already knows that excessive speed is a deadly problem in our nation’s transportation system—the National Transportation Safety Board recently acknowledged this in a powerful report to FHWA. The current practice of measuring how fast most traffic travels on a road and then setting speed limits so that only 15 percent of the drivers are exceeding that limit results in artificially high speed limits—and unsafe streets for everyone. Rather than designing roads that encourage speeding and then relying upon enforcement, states and cities should design roads to encourage safer, slower driving speeds in the first place.

4. Pass actionable Complete Streets policies that lay the groundwork for implementation. The National Complete Streets Coalition’s policy framework provides guidance on how to craft a strong policy that sets up clear next steps to embed Complete Streets in routine transportation planning.

5. Stop referring to pedestrian fatalities as unavoidable “accidents.” City and state leaders should set an example by replacing the word “accident” with “crash” when discussing these preventable deaths. It’s a small change that can make a big difference. Read more in the report on page 22.

6. Test out bold, creative approaches to safer street design. Poor street design is neither an insurmountable nor expensive problem. Some cities have found success by testing out low-cost, short-term interventions to create safer streets and then measuring the results to gauge the impact of their projects to work toward permanent solutions.