The Perfect Crime: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

(Photo: Quinn Dombrowski)

(Photo: Quinn Dombrowski)

This week’s podcast is called “The Perfect Crime”: in it, Stephen Dubner describes a way to kill someone without any punishment. (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript, which includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.) But let’s be clear: Dubner isn’t suggesting that anyone actually try this. In fact, the problem is that too many people are doing it already.

So what’s “the perfect crime”? It turns out that if you are driving your car and run over a pedestrian, there’s a good chance — especially if you live in New York — that you’ll barely be punished. Why?

We hear from Lisa Smith, a former prosecutor and now a law professor, who tells us that just 5 percent of the New York drivers who are involved in a fatal crash with a pedestrian are arrested. As it happens, New York has particularly narrow standards for conviction in such cases; there is a lot of variance among states.

Throughout the U.S., there are more than 4,500 pedestrian deaths a year, about 14 percent of traffic fatalities:


In New York City, meanwhile, pedestrian deaths make up an astonishing 52 percent of traffic fatalities.

Who’s to blame for all this pedestrian death? Let’s take a look at data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Reporting System. While 25 percent of pedestrian deaths are attributed to the driver’s failure to yield, pedestrian behavior looks pretty bad too — they lie down in the street, dart into the road, cross improperly, and so on:


But these data may not reflect the entire truth. Dubner speaks with Charlie Zegeer, associate director of the Highway Research Center at the University of North Carolina, who says it’s hard to accurately determine the cause of many pedestrian deaths:

ZEGEER: The reason we don’t know is because the information we have to make that determination is essentially on police crash reports. And so oftentime the only witness is the surviving driver. And so the police officer only hears that one side of the story.

This leads to a conversation about a core issue: who do the roads belong to anyway? You’ll hear from Robert Noland, director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers; the transportation historian Peter Norton, author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City; the Harvard “urban economist” Ed Glaeser; and a couple of New York trauma doctors, Spiros Frangos and Stephen Wall.

The doctors tell us that about 25 percent of the trauma patients who come through Bellevue are pedestrians who’ve been struck by cars. Frangos and Wall have written a series of papers on the topic, including “Vulnerable Roadway Users Struck by Motor Vehicles at the Center of the Safest, Largest U.S. City.” So what can be done to keep New York pedestrians from dying? Frangos and Wall propose — only half-jokingly — helmets for everyone:

WALL: From our data, I think all pedestrians should be wearing helmets. But who would really want to wear a bike helmet when they’re walking, when they’re going out for a date, and that’s also the reason why they don’t wear them when they’re riding their bicycle. But there’s some truth to it.

Audio Transcript

[MUSIC:  Johnny Sangster, “Slowbook”]

Stephen J. DUBNER: Hey podcast listeners. As you may have heard, our new book, Think Like a Freak, is out on May 12. On May 4, the CBS show Sunday Morning is scheduled to run a segment on us and the book. I can’t tell you exactly what’s in it but you’ll probably hear some of this [RADIO SFX] … some of this [BABY/SWORD] … and, yep, some of this [GOLF BALL BEING CRUSHED]. That’s Sunday, May 4, CBS Sunday Morning. And now for today’s program, “The Perfect Crime.”

DUBNER: Let me warn you: what you’re about to hear is a sick idea. Let’s say I want to kill someone.

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle & The Soulphonics, “Soul Of The Earth” (from It’s About Time)]

DUBNER: But I also don’t want to go to prison. In fact, I don’t want to be punished at all. So what do I do? Well, there’s this one idea I have. And because I live in New York City, it probably wouldn’t be very hard to pull off. I ran this idea past a few experts. First, I asked a fellow named Robert Noland:

Robert NOLAND: Oh, if you wanted to kill someone! Yes. Yeah, it probably would be a pretty good way to do it I suppose, without getting caught.

DUBNER: Then I asked Lisa Smith.

Lisa SMITH: Theoretically I agree with you that it could be pulled off as the perfect crime in very particular circumstances.

DUBNER: And finally, I went to Charlie Zegeer. I asked Charlie what I should do next …

Charlie ZEGEER: Seek counseling!


[MUSIC: The Whole Bolivian Army, “When Machines Eat” (from North By Nowhere)]

DUBNER: Okay, let me be clear. I don’t actually want to kill anyone. And I don’t endorse the idea of wanting to kill anyone. But if I did, and I were looking for a way to do it and get away with it, how would I do it? I’d wait ‘til they were outside, walking down the street, maybe crossing at the light … and then I’d run them over in my car. Now, I’d have to make sure that no one knew I was trying to run them over. But they’d be dead and I, especially in New York City, would in all likelihood go scot-free.

SMITH: There’s the case that happened with the little boy on the Upper West Side, Cooper Stock. He and his dad were crossing the street. And a driver was making a turn, and he just ran over the little boy, didn’t see him.

DUBNER: Lisa Smith is a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn D.A.’s office; now she’s an assistant professor of clinical law at Brooklyn Law School.

SMITH: So right now all that is is a summons to the driver for failing to yield. But it does not rise to the level of any kind of manslaughter or homicide charge. There was a study that showed that between 2008 and 2012 there were something like almost 1,300 fatal crashes in New York, and there were like 66 drivers arrested.

DUBNER: Now, you might think that a place like New York, with so many pedestrians, would have particularly tough laws against running them over. But you’d be wrong. As Lisa Smith told us, only about 5 percent of the drivers who kill a pedestrian in New York are arrested.

SMITH: Our neighbors have different vehicular laws than we do. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut have vehicular manslaughter statutes that punish traffic fatalities or serious injury that occurs because of simple negligence. New Jersey doesn’t have the same statute as Massachusetts or Connecticut, but even they have vehicular manslaughter statutes that encompass more behavior than what New York has, which is absolutely nothing other than drunk driving.  So around the country in Iowa, Louisiana, Georgia, Nevada, Kansas, California, all over the country there are states with vehicular statutes that punish a failure to yield as a traffic fatality, that punish the driver.

DUBNER: Smith says that New York has some of the narrowest standards for conviction in the country. It’s called the “rule of two” — you need two significant violations of traffic laws in order to bring a charge, including some incredibly reckless or criminally negligent act. Otherwise, it’s just … an accident.

SMITH: I don’t think the current punishment fits the crime.

[MUSIC: Noah Silver, “Glory” (from Busking for Marbles)]

DUBNER: Here’s one scenario Smith suggests. Imagine that instead of driving down the street in New York, you decide to go outside with your gun.

SMITH: Let’s say you go to a crowded street and you start to shoot in the air …

DUBNER: Okay …

SMITH: … but you don’t really intend to kill anybody, right, you’re just fooling around.

DUBNER: All right. And what does the justice system do if this bullet you fired into the air happens to come down and hurt or kill someone?

SMITH: We are much more aggressive And we have much more case law to support us than we do in vehicular accident cases. More often than not the behavior is reckless enough to charge them with some type of felony.

DUBNER: Now is the reckless use of a gun really that much worse than the reckless use of a car? The way Lisa Smith sees it, an accidental shooting is really …

SMITH: …really not something that most of us are imagining we would be participating in. And so we don’t have a problem with severe criminalization of that behavior. Everybody who drives has had the experience where…they were driving perfectly carefully but something went a little wrong and you know they could have had a serious accident. The fear of over-criminalizing vehicular accidents really resonates with every single person.

DUBNER: Every single person who’s a driver, at least.

SMITH: If you’re a driver, you see everything from the driver’s perspective, and I think drivers hear this and they just see this as adding penalties for innocent accidents and they won’t support that at all.

[MUSIC: D. James Goodwin, “A New Team”]

DUBNER: Now, if you believe even a little bit in the power of incentives, you might wonder: how does the lack of punishment for killing pedestrians in a place like New York translate into pedestrian fatalities? It’s hard to answer that question directly. For starters, pedestrians are more common, and concentrated, in a city like New York than they are in the rest of the country. But consider this: in the U.S., pedestrian deaths make up about 14 percent of total traffic fatalities. In New York City, it’s 52 percent of traffic fatalities. That’s roughly 150 dead pedestrians a year in New York. Considering how many people live here, that’s actually a very lower number, compared to other places in the U.S. — but still, 52 percent of all traffic fatalities in New York are pedestrians. And in the vast majority of cases, the driver isn’t arrested or charged with anything substantial. So you may be thinking: well, wait a minute, maybe that’s exactly as it should be – if, that is, the drivers really aren’t to blame. Maybe it’s all the pedestrians’ fault. Maybe they’re the ones who are breaking the traffic laws, or walking drunk, or walking while texting, or listening to music. What share of pedestrians who are killed are clearly at fault?

ZEGEER: We don’t really know the exact percentage.

DUBNER: That’s Charlie Zegeer. He’s Associate Director of the Highway Research Center at the University of North Carolina.

ZEGEER: And the reason we don’t know is because the information we have to make that determination is essentially on police crash reports. And so often time the only witness is the surviving driver. And so the police officer only hears that one side of the story.

[MUSIC: Andrea Wittgens, “I Know Better” (from Alibi)]

DUBNER: So that’s an important caveat. So, keeping that in mind, let’s look at the numbers we do have about pedestrian fatalities not just in New York City but throughout the U.S. According to NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, only about 25 percent of the time is a driver’s “failure to yield” the official cause of a pedestrian fatality. In another 27 percent, the cause is unknown or unreported. Okay, so what about the pedestrians? Seventeen percent of the fatalities are the result of a pedestrian being “in [the] roadway improperly (standing, lying, working, playing).” Another 16 percent occur when the pedestrian is “not visible.” Nearly 15 percent come from the pedestrian “darting or running into [the] road,” and another 13 percent come from “improper crossing of roadway or intersection.” Now, again, keep in mind that this is according to data that usually comes from police reports – which, as Charlie Zegeer warned us, is bound to overweight the perspective of the driver who lived as opposed to the pedestrian who died. That said, here’s one other number that might get your attention: of the pedestrians killed in fatal crashes in the United States, 37 percent had been drinking, with a blood-alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. If you look at pedestrian fatalities among 25- to 34-year-olds, the drunk-walking number rises to  50 percent. Upon hearing these numbers, you may think – hey, in many cases, it’s totally the pedestrian’s fault for getting hit by a car! And just think of all the guilt and heartache the drivers have to carry around, having killed a pedestrian. But you may also think: wait a minute: even if pedestrians are doing something totally reckless, is the appropriate punishment really death? Who are the roads for, anyway? Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, we’ll try to answer that question. We’ll start at the beginning:

ZEGEER: Okay, let me take you back, can I take you back as far as the late 1920s?

DUBNER: Plus: what makes someone more likely to survive getting hit by a car?

FRANGOS: Say you have 2 individuals — one is 400 pounds and one is 140 pounds and they are punched in the ribs with same force? Whose ribs are more likely to break?


ANNOUNCER: From WNYC: This is FREAKONOMICS RADIO. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.

[MUSIC: Crytzer’s Blue Rhythm Band, “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” (from Chasin’ the Blues)] 

DUBNER: Charlie Zegeer, you’ll remember, is with the Highway Research Center at the University of North Carolina.

ZEGEER: Okay, let me take you back, can I take you back as far as the late 1920s?

DUBNER: Love it.

ZEGEER: Okay, so if we go back as far as the late 1920s, we actually see that the greatest number of pedestrians or the largest number of pedestrians were killed in around the 1930, ’32 timeframe — with almost 16,000 pedestrians killed per year.

DUBNER: Sixteen thousand killed! Sixteen thousand pedestrians killed per year in the ‘30s.?!

ZEGEER: Yes, yes, that’s kind of the maximum.

DUBNER: You’re kidding, seriously?


DUBNER: You could have won a bar bet from me on that so much, because I know the current number is about 4,000, right?

ZEGEER: That’s correct.

DUBNER: Wow, now first of all let’s just distinguish, you’re talking absolute numbers. So when you say 16,000 pedestrians were killed in auto crashes a year. The rate would have even been much, much higher, because we’re talking about a population that was about a third of what we have now right.

ZEGEER: That’s correct. If we can also look at the percentage of traffic deaths that involved a pedestrian being killed, that’s another sort of kind of measure that is insightful. And so if we look at that measure, if we go back to the late 1920s again, almost 40 percent, 40 percent of all traffic-related deaths in this country involved a pedestrian being killed. So that was pretty much at that level until about the mid-1940s when it actually got a little bit above 40 percent. And then a downward trend over the next few decades, until now, we’re looking at about 13 to 14 percent of all traffic-related deaths on our highways in this country involved a pedestrian being killed.

DUBNER: So as much as overall traffic fatalities have fallen over the decades, the share of pedestrian deaths has fallen much, much, more.

ZEGEER: That’s correct.

[MUSIC: The Diplomats of Solid Sound, “Hot Stick” (from Instrumental, Action, Soul)]

DUBNER: Okay, so that is a massive improvement, to be sure. How did this happen? How did pedestrian deaths fall so much?

NOLAND: The policy that we followed on trying to save pedestrians is to stick them in cars, so they are no longer pedestrians. And that will reduce your pedestrian fatalities ‘cause you don’t have as many anymore.

DUBNER: Robert Noland is director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers. He says that as the automobile rose to exalted status in America, the roads – and the entire landscape really – were built to privilege them, the cars. This is most pronounced in the parts of the country with high pedestrian and bicyclist deaths, like the Southeast.

NOLAND: They focus very much on traffic flow and making the roads wider, straighter, and faster. With the assumption that that’s safer. And what a lot of the guidelines do is they look at freeways, which are very safe, and they’re safe because it’s controlled access. You don’t have any intersections. And they take those sorts of design guidelines and they apply it to a city, to city streets or suburban streets and create these very large arterial roads, which tend to be the most dangerous roads whether for drivers or for pedestrians.

[MUSIC: Teddy Presberg, “Free Love” (from Blueprint of Soul)]

DUBNER: So who are the roads actually made for?

Peter NORTON: I wish people asked that, and I think they don’t ask it because I think we think we know what it’s for, and it’s so obvious what it’s for. It’s for cars of course.

DUBNER: That’s Peter Norton.

NORTON: I’m the author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City.

DUBNER: To Norton, there’s no mystery here.

NORTON: A street’s for cars. It’s automatic. If I say what’s a street for somebody is going to say car right away. It’s like free-association in psychology. It’s just automatic. And I think that’s really interesting because if you’d asked that same question to a random person a hundred years ago I think they would have had more different answers, like a variety of different answers. And none of them would have said that a street is for cars, even though there were a lot of cars then.

DUBNER: We should point out that not everyone, everywhere, thinks the streets are only for cars.

ZEGEER: I will say that not everything being done in Europe is really good from a safety standpoint, but they do have many strategies and activities that we could learn from, from the U.S.

DUBNER: That’s Charlie Zegeer again. While the pedestrian death rate in the U.S. is much better than in many Asian and African countries, we are far behind many European countries.

ZEGEER: We visited countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, England, and one of the overriding things that we learned, and this was one of our overall recommendations is that what is being done for pedestrian and bike safety in some of these countries is not just a random series of actions. Instead it’s actually a deliberate combination of their policies, their approaches and their influences from several standpoints, and that these combinations of policies and funding allocations and engineering and enforcement issues are really what kind of sets them apart from other countries, in particular the U.S. in some ways. Secondly, we also found that they have a different hierarchy of how they provide streets. They actually put equal or even greater priority on pedestrian bike, safety, and public transit than they do on automobile transportation. Thirdly they’re not bashful about developing and implementing innovative strategies at traffic signals to help pedestrians safely get across.

DUBNER: You know, I have to say this whole topic kind of baffles me because if you think about costs and benefits of anything, which we do all the time, even when we think we don’t do it. You know, when we like something we understand that the upside is great for us than the downside, and everybody has his own personal preferences and so on. I guess the thing that astonishes me is that even though you’ve told us how much traffic fatalities and particularly pedestrian fatalities have fallen so much over really the last century or so, if you were to tell me that 4,000 people in the U.S. were going to die when their TV’s fall of the wall and kill them, or 4,000 people die from, you know, archery and getting shot in the head with arrows, there would be outrage nonstop, right? The TV bracket manufacturers would be sued by everybody, the archery manufacturers would be sued by everybody, and yet here we have 4,000 a year and we kind of celebrate how much better we’ve gotten. And yet, I guess I just don’t quite get why that cost is accepted so easily. Is it just because we’re used to it? Is it because it’s better than it used to be? Is it because the mobility of the automobile is so fantastic that we’re willing to incorporate those costs? Do you have any thoughts on that?

ZEGEER: Well, you raise a really good question, and I’ll first say that we do not celebrate the numbers, even 4,000, certainly that’s less than 16,000 but you know, even one pedestrian death is one too many. But you are correct that society has pretty much accepted or ignored such a tragic toll if we had 4,000 people die every year in airplane crashes, certainly there would be something done. But yet if a pedestrian dies from being stuck by a motor vehicle it may not even make the front page of the local newspaper.

[MUSIC: Magnus Moone, “Rain”]

DUBNER: As much as pedestrian deaths have fallen in the U.S. over the long term, in recent years the trend is moving in the wrong direction. In 2002, pedestrians made up 11 percent of U.S. traffic fatalities. Ten years later, the share of pedestrian death was 14 percent. Why the increase? One clue may lie in this fact: 73 percent of U.S. pedestrian deaths occur in cities– and the U.S., like the rest of the world, is getting increasingly urbanized. Here’s Ed Glaeser, he’s an economist at Harvard who studies cities:

Ed GLAESER: Pretty much every city in the U.S. already has infrastructure that’s dedicated toward cars and infrastructure that dedicated towards pedestrians. It’s just a question of you know keeping them off the same infrastructure at the same point in time.

DUBNER: Keeping them off the same infrastructure at the same point in time…. Hmm… so maybe one good solution is just  to keep pedestrians away from cars entirely? Minneapolis has had a pedestrian bridge system for years – in part because it’s so damn cold there in the winter there. It’s 11 miles of foot-traffic only. So perhaps it won’t surprise you to learn that Minneapolis is considered one of the safest American cities for pedestrians. Here in New York City – where, remember, 52 percent of traffic deaths are pedestrians — there’s a relatively new park, called the High Line, it’s built on an old elevated rail bed, and accessible only to pedestrians.

Stephen WALL: Honestly, I think it’s an amazing idea – to come up with creative ways to just separate these entities.

DUBNER: Stephen Wall is an emergency-medicine doctor at Bellevue Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Manhattan:

[Beeper Sound]

Gretta COHN: Uh Oh.

Spiros FRANGOS: See that sounds like trauma, and I can even tell you what that is —  well, pedestrian struck.

DUBNER: Spiros Frangos is a trauma surgeon at the same hospital.

DUBNER: We sent producer Gretta Cohn to visit with Frangos and Wall.

COHN: Could you read what the beeper says?

WALL: As long as there’s no uh PHI.

FRANGOS: Level 1 female pedestrian struck. Loss of consciousness, high speed. If I was covering the trauma service I would quickly pick up and head over to the emergency department.

COHN: And what would be the first thing that you would do?

FRANGOS: Well, generally the patient arrives and we quickly go through what we call the ABCs, assessing the airway, assessing breathing, assessing circulation, and put in some IVs. Resuscitate the patient, and then we try to delineate what the potential injuries are, and what the imaging workup and immediate therapies should be, including operative.

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle & The Soulphonics, “Soul Of The Earth” (from It’s About Time)]

FRANGOS: 25 percent of all the trauma patients that come to Bellevue Hospital are pedestrians struck by motor vehicles and probably about another 10 percent are bicyclists struck by motor vehicles.

COHN: 25 percent I mean, that is a lot!

FRANGOS: Of all of our trauma admissions, that’s correct.

DUBNER: Frangos and Wall have done some research on pedestrian and bicyclist safety in New York.

FRANGOS: For pedestrians we looked at whether or not they were in the crosswalk when they were crossing, we asked them whether they were crossing with the green light or against, were they crossing mid block, um, were they on the sidewalk when they were struck. What were they doing. Were there any distracting behaviors at the time such as: were they on their cell phone, did they have an iPod on. For cyclists we asked them whether they were wearing their helmet, whether they were in a bike lane, whether they were going the right direction in the bike lane. And we took all that information which totaled almost 1,500 patients, and put it in a database, and then started analyzing our data, and we were lucky enough to come up with some interesting results.

DUBNER: So what’d they learn? Seven percent of the pedestrians who got hit were using an electronic device — at least that’s how many said they were using an electronic device. These data, we should note, were self-reported. Seventy-seven percent of the people who got hit were crossing the street at the time; 67 percent reported that they were crossing with the signal, and got hit by a turning vehicle. Alcohol, not surprisingly, played a factor.

FRANGOS: We found that 15 percent of injured pedestrians had alcohol in their system. And about 11 percent of injured bicyclists had alcohol in their system.

DUBNER: A pedestrian who’d been drinking was more than twice as likely to cross a street in the middle of the block. The data also turned up something the researchers hadn’t considered.

FRANGOS: There haven’t been a lot of studies in the trauma literature to suggest that obese people are less injured than normal sized individuals, ours is one of the first studies to suggest that. It makes – there is some plausibility to the argument. Say you have 2 individuals, one is 400 pounds and one is 140 pounds. and they are punched in the ribs with same force. Whose ribs are more likely to break? Right? Likely the under-weight or normal-weight person. So there is there is some plausibility to the argument that that layer that cushion layer of soft tissue, fat, is protective, that said what we do know is that when those patients, the overweight and obese, are admitted to the hospital that they are more likely to have a worse outcome. Because of associated co-morbidities.

[MUSIC: Jessie Torrisi & The Please, Please Me, “Cannonball” (from Brûler Brûler)]

DUBNER: Frangos and Wall aren’t suggesting that we all go out and gain a few hundred pounds to protect ourselves from cars. Especially when there’s a much simpler solution. Here’s Stephen Wall.

WALL: From our data, I think all pedestrians should be wearing helmets. But who would really want to wear a bike helmet when they’re walking, when they’re going out for a date, and that’s also the reason why they don’t wear them when they’re riding their bicycle. But there’s some truth to it. I think I’m going to get in trouble for that.

[Beeper Sound]

WALL: You might be getting a trauma right now, let’s see if it’s a pedestrian struck.

FRANGOS: No, it’s a stab wound to the head.

DUBNER: No matter how accidental that stabbing may have been, we’re guessing it led to something more than a mere traffic ticket for failure to yield.


Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Eric M. Jones says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 52
  2. Ferris says:

    One thing to consider on the increase in pedestrian fatalities is this dramatic increase in the safety design of cars. If you look at the graph 2003 and 2012 end with ~4,700 fatalities. While the total fatalities has decreased. This is possible correlative evidence that with the advent of releasing engine blocks, side panel airbags, rotating wheel drive for slick surfaces, and the auto brake sensors have exponentially increased the value of life to the driver of the vehicle. Also, because of the steady rise in gas. The top heavy gas guzzlers have(had for awhile) been abandoned for the fiscal friendly sedan, which is half as likely to flip. While no new mass market technology has increased the value of life for pedestrian victims.

    I think the best way to reduce pedestrian would be something akin to the incorporation of the bullet train. Provide commuters on the outside of Manhattan a cultural hub that would regulate transportation in a manner as fast/faster than vehicle at the same cost.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
    • NZ says:

      Because in the age of the affordable, safe, comfortable, and stylish car, it’s so easy and inexpensive to implement mass transit options that people will actually use!

      Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7
      • Ferris says:

        Never claimed it would be easy(or likely) but the fuel costs of bullet trains would keep costs down on the commuter to as much or less than the current value. It would be mildly expensive to initially implement but the preference of cars is that they are a) convenient(which is why I recommended a centralized hub outside of Manhattan) and b) faster that current models of mass transit(buses, current train, etc.)

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
    • eric says:

      Good observation, looks like pedestrian deaths remained approximately constant, but traffic fatalities in general have reduced, likely for many of the reasons you mention, causing pedestrian deaths to make up a larger percentage of overall fatalities.

      Basically we are not killing more pedestrians. Actually considering population increase during that time, per capita pedestrian fatalities would have reduced a little. But we are killing a lot less other people on the roads most likely due to advances in vehicle driving safety.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  3. Jake says:

    Seems to me that pedestrian fatalities are making up a larger share of total traffic fatalities because cars are getting safer, and walking isn’t. If you look at the data, the number of annual pedestrian fatalities hovers around 4700, from 2003-2012 while the total number of traffic fatalities decreases from 42000-33000. That tells me that for some reason there are 10k less non-pedestrian fatalities, so driving has become safer (probably due to improved safety measures on cars), while walking has remained at about the same level of safety. This may back up your point that pedestrians should start wearing safety gear if we really want to bring that number down.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
    • valar84 says:

      Driving has become safer… for car occupants. It hasn’t become any safer for cyclists and pedestrians hit by drivers, the equation of kinetic energy is still the same, one half of mass times speed squared. Technology can’t change that (though there are ways to mitigate it, like a pedestrian crumple zone to reduce acceleration during collisions).

      Technology has made driving more forgiving for car occupants by having their car protect them in case of a crash. But it hasn’t made car drivers drive more carefully, only a culture change through policies prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists could achieve that.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
      • Walker says:

        Driving has actually become safer for pedestrians as well through things like back up cameras better breaking, better headlights and systems that will automatically stop the car before it hits something. In fact, I read recently that in the next few years, all cars will have to provide a means for the driver to see the area immediately behind the rear bumper to keep drivers from backing over children playing behind the car.

        However, it is likely that cars have gotten safer for drivers more quickly than they have for pedestrians. But this is what makes the primary statistics relied upon in this episode so misleading. The statistic of pedestrian deaths as a proportion of total traffic deaths is very dependent on the number of overall traffic deaths.

        Presumably, if the number of pedestrian deaths are going down, then life is getting safer for pedestrians, but if the number of occupant deaths is going down faster, this ratio will go up, which according to the logic of this episode would incorrectly mean that things are getting more dangerous for pedestrians.

        By the way, this is pretty much what has been going on in NYC and why the ratio of pedestrian deaths to overall traffic deaths is so high in NY.

        Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
  4. archie4oz says:

    This totally applies in LA considering the amount of hit&run incidents in LA (which is an epidemic, especially amongst cyclists).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  5. Aloke says:

    You did not cover automobile designs to make them safer for pedestrians. These could be through redesign of bumpers, hoods and through crash avoidance like automatic braking when the vehicle detects imminent impacts w pedestrians (using IR or vision cameras). Europeans have taken the lead on such initiatives as well.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
    • Flaco says:

      This has already happened. European Union pedestrian safety standards have made their way to most cars sold in the US. Cars in recent years have higher bumpers, higher and softer hoods, higher cowl heights. I don’t approve.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Duffy says:

    Why are bicyclists asked if they were wearing helmets when they were hit by a car?
    How does that help us understand the causes of crashes?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
    • A.J. says:

      Very simple. The victims are blamed and this has been the case since automobiles “own the road.”

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 3
      • RogerP says:

        Automobiles certainly do not “own the road”.

        Pedestrians have right of way on driveways, zebra crossings and walkways at controlled intersections. Legally, you mow them down at your peril.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
      • James says:

        The laws made by your state legislature may say that pedestrians have the right of way. The laws of physics say that a few thousand pounds of moving metal won’t stop on a dime. Step out in front of an oncoming car, and guess which set of laws is going to win?

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
    • cd says:

      If there are good figures on what fraction of cyclists wear helmets over all, this would give useful information on risk compensation behaviors. I’ve definitely heard that drivers give you more passing distance if you’re not wearing a helmet, which would plausibly affect crash risk.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
  7. Walker says:

    Gah! This episode left me wanting to shout at my radio. There were three major flaws in this episode:

    1) Looking at the ratio of pedestrian fatalities to all fatalities in New York has a major denominator problem. I expect that New York City has very few occupant fatalities by most reasonable measurements because there are very few places in New York City where cars can drive fast enough to have a fatal accident. (I was hoping to find a comparison of occupant deaths per mile, but could not do so). If you have very few occupant deaths, then pedestrian deaths are going to seem huge, even if New York City is relatively safe for pedestrians.

    2) Killing someone by shooting a gun into the air is not comparable to killing someone in a car accident. When you shoot a gun into the air, even if you are not intentionally killing the person, you are still intentionally doing something tremendously stupid On the other hand, I suspect most traffic violations are not intentional, but rather a momentarily lapse of attention. The comparison does work with driving drunk, since there, you are choosing to do something stupid, but that is illegal.

    3) It is unlikely that harsh criminal punishments would decrease the number of traffic fatalities. People don’t fail to see a child crossing the street because they don’t have sufficient incentives, they do so because they had a momentary lack of attention. Also, there are already substantial incentives for not running over a small child, including the wrongful death lawsuit you can expect for doing so and the lifetime of guilt, not to mention that the same sort of inattention that causes you to run over a small child also causes you to get into an accident that could kill you as well.

    4) Saying that walking drunk causes accidents is not the same thing as saying people who walk drunk deserve to die. It is just saying that the thing that caused their death was their own negligence, not the negligence of the driver.


    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 21
    • Simon says:

      The biggest improvement we could make to the safety of everyone in cities is to get rid of the crazy notion that the best form of personal transportation is a 2-ton farting metal box on wheels. Failing that, a serious safety improvement that would lower driver inattention substantially would be to ban seat belts and replace driver air bags with a driver flick-knife.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 17
      • Walker says:

        Your suggestion really isn’t productive. There are many circumstances where mass transit is a better form of transportation in the city than cars, but that is far from always the case. Among other things, trains stop running at some point and run only once per hour at other points. The truth is that, at least in NYC, there is a very low chance of a pedestrian being killed in a traffic accident, and a substantial portion of the time, it is a result of the pedestrian doing something stupid.

        Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11
      • James says:

        Not everyone lives in cities, and outside (sub)urban areas, the best form of transportation usually IS that box on wheels. Though it certainly doesn’t need to fart or be made mostly of metal, and could easily be put on a diet to reduce its weigh to something under a svelte ton or less. See e.g. Ariel Atom, Lotus, and more.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
    • Mike K says:

      Your last point is what brought me here to vent. I don’t understand how anyone could call the death of a pedestrian caused by the pedestrian’s stupid behavior a “punishment” for that behavior. It is a consequence.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
    • RogerP says:

      I agree with your point 3 about harshness of punishment not being a deterrent, but would suggest that a high probability of being caught and convicted of an offence would be.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
      • Walker says:

        I don’t see how increasing the chance of being caught and convicted really would change anything. Again, most of the time, traffic deaths are not the result of people consciously choosing to do something dangerous, but rather a momentary lapse in attention or judgment, neither of which can really be effected by incentives.

        Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
    • Mark says:

      I somewhat disagree with #3. In many European countries they have shown that putting the responsibility on a driver to avoid a collision has led to a different mindset. For instance, say a ped jaywalking was killed by a motorist. the prevail fault would lie on the driver. they would have to prove that they did everything they could to avoid the collision. If excessive speed was involved then driver would be 100% at fault. They look at it as though the driver is operating the primary object (weapon) that causes the injury/fatality. Motor vehicles are the primary cause of death not a person crossing illegally. It’s how you look through the looking glass they gives you a different perspective, hence culture.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
      • BKE says:


        And experience shows, that ‘strict liability’ laws do not result in masses of innocent drivers sent to jail. They result in safer streets, where anyone can be confident to let their child walking to school.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
    • Lyle says:

      “because they had a momentary lack of attention”. People make a conscious choice to operate a very powerful piece of equipment they can barely control, in a dangerous environment, in which only a momentary lack of attention or patience can KILL SOMEONE. Someone else, that is, not themselves, or their own loved ones.

      They consciously choose to accept the risk of killing someone else. If the risk to themselves, or to their family members was equally high, they would choose to do otherwise. But instead, they armor their own family members in layers of steel and pillows, and armor the outside of their machines with things like “roo bars”, all because assign so much higher value to the lives of their loved ones than to the lives of strangers.

      Then they justify it by telling themselves (and everyone else) that anyone who doesn’t armor himself up likewise is recklessly endangering himself and deserves whatever happens because he’s taking unreasonable chances. “Hey, if he doesn’t value his own life, why should I?”.

      Through the looking glass, indeed.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 11
      • Walker says:

        In fact, cars are relatively safe, for both occupants and pedestrians, given the amount they are used. As they explained in the show, the number of pedestrian fatalities has dropped significantly over the years (IIRC, we are down about 75% from the peak). Not only that, but car safety devices are not solely intended to protect occupants. Many cars have back up cameras and collision warning systems that are designed, at least in part, to keep you from hitting a pedestrian. In fact, by 2018, all cars must have backup cameras (or similar devices) for the express purpose of protecting pedestrians.

        And yes, I am ok with blaming someone who stumbles out into traffic between two parked cars because they are too drunk or too distracted to follow the law. In most places, even NYC, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians where possible, but it is not always possible to do so, and often the reason it is not possible to do so is because the pedestrian is doing something stupid. When that is the case, it is the pedestrian’s fault, not the driver’s.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
    • Zack says:

      Your second point gets at the exact point that was trying to be made (or should have been at least). Too often we view “accidents” as momentary lapse of attention, and assume they are innocent. But when you’re driving a multi-ton vehicle around more vulnerable road users (or anyone else for that matter) you need to be paying attention the entire time. Looking down to check that latest text has the same potential to kill (and arguably much more, since you could kill multiple people) as firing a gun in the air. It’s criminal negligence in either case and deaths that result from it need to be prosecuted accordingly. While you may be right that tougher penalties don’t always change behavior, changing the perception of them can. It used to be that drunk driving didn’t have the same stigma it rightfully does today. With that change has brought a decrease in the levels of drunk driving. By taking distracted, inattentive driving seriously and not just seeing it as innocent “lack of attention”, we can change that behavior as well.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
    • denise says:

      “..a momentarily lapse of attention…”

      Even “lapse” is more judgmental a word than I would use.

      We know that multitasking is impossible. Even a driver who has nothing distracting going on in his own car, or in his own head, has to be constantly shifting attention between things in front, behind, to the right and to the left. You can actually only be focused on one thing at a time. The bicycle that just drove into your blind spot; the car in front of you going at erratic speeds suggesting the driver is on the phone or texting; the pedestrian on the corner who might or might not be about to step into the crosswalk; the jaywalker darting out from the opposite corner; the skateboarder going 10 mph towards the crosswalk from halfway down the block; the car behind you who’s following too closely; the bus that might be about to pull out from the stop; the lights; the signs; people honking; your itinerary…..

      I’ve had near-accidents any number of times because my attention was captured by one thing for a second too long and I didn’t see another thing fast enough. I don’t think this is a lapse. There’s just a lot going on.

      And then, on top of all this, are the lapses of attention for which the driver really is responsible.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
    • Giu says:

      I think you are right about #1. That is it, though. I also take issue with your (and everyone else’s) repeated use of the word “accident” as I feel it minifies from the responsibility and avoidability of these collisions.

      In response to #2, at least in my own opinion, a “momentarily (sic) lapse of attention” -is- something “tremendously stupid” while operating a 3,000lb death machine.

      In response to #3, sufficiently harsh and sufficiently common punishments may reduce vehicle use (for rational fear of being prosecuted). Even without that, drawing sufficiently harsh punishments may increase media coverage, increase awareness, etc. There may be better solutions, but the current “almost no punishment” and definitely no “always aware of it” punishment is pretty bad.

      In response to #4, I disagree here too: the drunk pedestrian might not have the awareness to avoid the collision, he might even do something stupid that would increase his probability of being involved in a crash. What responsibility does he have to avoid being killed by your death machine? In my opinion, again, if you are controlling a dangerous instrument, you take all the responsibility.

      On the ski hill, the person up hill is expected to be in complete control all the time such that if someone below you does something stupid, you can avoid hurting them.

      At the range, the person with the gun is expected to be in complete control 100% of the time, such that even if someone stupid runs across the range, he doesn’t get shot.

      Even on a bicycle, when interacting with pedestrians, you are expected to ride very slowly and in complete control. I would expect you to leave a wide enough gap that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY a pedestrian’s action can cause a collision.

      The person operating the dangerous tool should take ultimate responsibility for all parties safety.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  8. John says:

    I can’t seem to download nor stream this episode. I’m technically literate and have tried three devices and three programs, including attempts to stream/download from the link on your site. I’m omw to take a tough biology final and really wanted it for my commute. I’ll muddle through somehow 😉 and I’m sure it will get figured out! Love you guys! Thanks for what you do!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Dave says:

      They don’t make it easy to download, do they? They want to steer traffic to iTunes where there’s money to be made. For anti-dark side (that is to say anti-Apple) people who abhor iTunes: What works for me (in Firefox) is click on the RSS Feed link, right click on the Play Now link, and click Save Link As. The .mp3 is then downloaded.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0