By Professor Michael Lewyn*
Over the past decade, the number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles has increased by over 40 percent, while similar fatalities in Europe have become less common. Why are American streets so dangerous?
In an article[1] soon to be published in the Iowa Law Review, Sara Bronin of the University of Connecticut’s law school blames overcentralization of power. Prof. Bronin points out that across the nation, streets are designed according to standards set by small groups of private experts, whose work is usually not subject to input from the general public. These groups usually have no training in urban planning, and their work is often designed to make motor vehicle traffic run as smoothly and rapidly as possible. Their codes are often so expensive as to be inaccessible to the general public; for example, one widely adopted traffic planning manual costs $310 for a digital copy.
For example, 42 states have adopted the International Fire Code, promulgated by a private group. This code requires residential streets to be 20 feet wide (excluding parking) to accommodate fire trucks.
What’s wrong with that, you may ask? Wide streets encourage cars to travel more rapidly, thus increasing the risk of fatal crashes. Because far fewer Americans die in fires than in car crashes, it seems probable that these rules actually make Americans less safe. (Only about 3700 Americans a year die in fires[2]; ten times that many are killed by motor vehicles[3]).
Similarly, most states have adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD allows cities and counties to set speed limits at the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic – even if that speed is high enough to lead to instant death for anyone struck by a vehicle. This provision risks creating a vicious circle of increased speed leading to higher speed limits leading to more speed: as speed limits become more generous, drivers go faster, causing the 85th percentile of speed to increase, justifying even higher speed limits. Moreover, high speeds are especially harmful to pedestrians and bicyclists, because they suffer harm from high speeds but (unlike drivers) get none of the benefits.
At the end of her paper, Bronin makes two proposals. First, the general public should be allowed to participate in any design standards that are used by government. Bronin writes that as long as government adopts standards set by private trade associations, it should “require [those] associations to include nondrivers’ perspectives at the drafting level” or otherwise create a “more robust public vetting process.” Second, states should clarify the law of sovereign immunity. As I have written (and as Bronin notes) local governments are probably immune from liability for negligent street design if they design streets to be safer for pedestrians.[4] However, not every state’s law is equally clear on this point, and Bronin suggests that states adopt immunity statutes clarifying the law.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3754146
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/376703/us-civilian-fire-deaths/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20there%20were%203%2C704,by%20fires%20in%20the%20country.
[3] https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20an%20estimated%2038%2C800,2%25%20decrease%20over%202018%20figures.
[4] https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=scholarlyworks
*Michael Lewyn teaches property, land use and environmental law. Originally from Atlanta, he graduated from Wesleyan University and received his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. After clerking for two federal judges and practicing law for several years, he began his teaching career. Most of Professor Lewyn’s scholarship focuses on urban and suburban development, and in particular the question of “sprawl”: why some cities are walkable and full of vitality, while others have been overshadowed by suburbs where car ownership is a necessity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.