Dangerous by design


Pedestrian fatalities are stagnating in US, as they are in NZ. Bridget Burdett, Accessibility Specialist and Principal Researcher at TDG, reminded the fact lately, saying that “whatever we are doing, we are doing it wrong”.

The 2 countries are comparable by a strongly car-oriented environment. In the US, some 4,600 people die every year while walking, struck and killed by a driver. The inequity is strong, with poor communities experiencing comparatively more dangerous environments, relying more on walking as a cheap transport mode, but also having lower rates of insurance coverage, and suffering therefore higher consequences of crashes.

People walk along these roads despite the clear safety risk. This is not user error. Rather, it is a sign that these streets are failing to adequately meet the needs of everyone inĀ  community.

Dangerous by Design 2016 is Smart Growth America’s review of the epidemic of crashes involving pedestrians, in the US, and the cities’ and states’ action.

Without surprise, the recommendation is to (finally) take pedestrians into account, in the planning, design, and redesign. On major arterial roads (NZ has a lot of them, cutting through towns, neighborhoods and communities), they recommend better footpaths, better and safer crossings, and lower speeds.




Need permission

In Auckland, in the busy/trendy Newmarket neighborhood, with bunches of shops and restaurants, you have free parking*, and as a pedestrian, you need to ask the permission to cross the parking entrance/exit! This is also meters from the light rail station but obviously traffic still has right of way.


* Of course, there’s no such thing as free parking, it has land, building, maintenance and operation costs, that need to be covered by someone. And this someone is often everyone, through taxes. So if you don’t drive, you are basically subsidizing those who do!

Donald Shoup became a rockstar studying parking and its perverse effects (yes that’s possible!), highly recommended reading. Here you’ll find his brilliant free dessert analogy and info about his publications.

All equal?


I would like to think so. Fact is, though, the left hand side moves along with a 2-t privacy bubble, possibly at speed, possibly threatening the right hand side, and possibly also using the public space and altering the environment for other users (if it was parked, and a child was to cross the street, he/she would have no visibility until stepping on the carriageway, for instance).

(Picture from unknown source)

Speed vs humans


The evidence is over-whelming: speed kills. All residential areas, everywhere, should have max speed limit 30Kph/20Mph or less. No excuses. – Gil Penalosa

And lower speeds also allow people to cross the street and interact more easily, and provide environments that feel safer for cycling (and again, accessing the school, shop, or friends’ house).

Think pink

Two lanes, and two parking lanes. “Free” parking is a whole subject on its own, but for now, let’s just look at these lanes. A-ma-zing-ly wide… 14.5m, says Google.


So let me see… 2x 2m park lanes, + 2x 3.5m circulation = 11m, and a full 3.5m open to your imagination! Along the street it could be cycle lanes, some urban greening, pocket parks… And at the intersections, more space for pedestrians, allowing them to see better the oncoming traffig and reducing the distance to cross…