{"id":3083,"date":"2014-09-11T13:09:25","date_gmt":"2014-09-11T17:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.roadtrafficsigns.com\/blog\/?p=3083"},"modified":"2026-03-10T06:47:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T10:47:12","slug":"americans-dont-walk-lazy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.roadtrafficsigns.com/blog\/americans-dont-walk-lazy\/","title":{"rendered":"Americans don’t walk – but it’s not because we’re lazy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Most Americans don\u2019t walk for one reason: In most communities, walking is both inconvenient and unsafe. At least that\u2019s what F. Kaid Benfield, Special Counsel for Urban Solutions, Natural Resources Defense Council, argues in a recently published excerpt<\/a> from his book of essays, People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities<\/a>. Americans lose out on the health, environmental and other benefits of walking because of infrastructural decisions that leave pedestrians at risk.<\/p>\n

\"urban<\/a>

From Joshua Kehn<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

Benfield’s sources include the National Geographic Greendex<\/a>, which ranks, among other factors, walking and transit use (Americans came in “dead last” on both of those two); as well as U.S. Census data<\/a>, which reveals that only 6.5 percent of Americans commute to work by walking. The figures are more astounding when compared to walking rates in other parts of the world: While 34 percent of Americans reported walking to destinations, such as shops, schools, and jobs, that rate doubled for people in Spain and Germany. Even Britain, Canada and Sweden — commonly known for their less-than-friendly climes — had higher walking rates than the U.S. The U.S. came in last on bicycling rates as well.<\/p>\n

Why don\u2019t Americans get out and walk? Benfield claims it\u2019s due to inconvenience and danger, both of which are often the unfortunate result of number of poor infrastructure decisions. He explains, \u201c[F]or most Americans in most places, walking \u2013 that most basic and human method of movement, and the one most important to our health \u2013 is all but impossible. Maybe not literally impossible, but inconvenient at best, and tragically dangerous way too often.\u201d Aside for downtown areas, there are few communities that have destinations within walking distance of people’s homes — many American communities were specifically planned around car use.<\/p>\n

Startling statistics highlight just how unsafe it is to walk in this country. Smart Growth America stats<\/a> show that more than 47,000 pedestrians were killed in the U.S. from 2003 through 2012, or, as Benfield notes, \u201cthe equivalent of a jumbo jet full of passengers crashing roughly every month. On top of that, more than 676,000 pedestrians were injured over the decade, a number equivalent to a car or truck striking a pedestrian every eight minutes.\u201d<\/p>\n

As we’ve reported before (check out posts on America’s least crossable street and on car-dependent towns<\/a>), this country\u2019s roads are replete with dangerous obstacles. Poor road design may be to blame, according to Benfield. Take Woodbridge, Virginia, suggests Benfield. The community has a mega mall, a Marine Corps base, and, says Benfield, \u201cseveral auto dealerships and automobile service facilities, some single-family homes, some apartments, a trailer park, and a self-storage facility. All seem sort of plopped down by happenstance.\u201d There are only the “crudest accommodations for walking” in this area — no sidewalks and no crosswalks except for those at “long-distance intervals.”<\/p>\n

Woodbridge\u2019s car-friendly design encourages vehicle use, but is a danger to any pedestrians brave enough to attempt walking here. Case in point: \u201cIf you were, say, an employee at the Pep Boys auto parts store on the west side of Route 1… and you wanted to grab a sandwich for lunch at Wendy\u2019s right across the street, you\u2019d have to walk nearly a mile, round trip, to cross the road with the benefit of a traffic signal.\u201d The trip would eat up a half-hour of your lunch, and 50-percent of the trip would involve no sidewalks. Many, if not most, would attempt to cross the street using the “shortest and most direct route” regardless of oncoming traffic. Plus, if the pedestrian is hit while doing so, under Virginia law, he or she — not the driver — is at fault.<\/p>\n

There are <\/em>solutions to the problem of un-walkable communities, but these favor more developed areas. City planner and advocate Jeff Speck<\/a> offers a 10-step plan<\/a> to create ped-friendly urban areas in suburban regions, including such steps as restricting free parking, encouraging bike use, and including more housing downtown. Yet non-urban areas like Woodbridge, argues Benfield, \u201cthe tragedy is that [such areas are] \u2018urbanized\u2019 enough to have some foot traffic, but not urban enough to protect it.\u201d Over time, economic development may help bring pedestrian-friendly design to areas like these, but it won\u2019t happen overnight.<\/p>\n

Other solutions include those used in Orlando, FL, one of the most dangerous regions for pedestrians: new sidewalks, increased traffic calming measures, modified bus stops, building overpasses, improved lighting, and new audible pedestrian signals. Yet Benfield doesn\u2019t delve into the question of personal choice, which also has a positive impact on pedestrian safety. One positive example? As Speck notes<\/a>, the age of suburban sprawl is drawing to a close, as millennials now largely opt for living in urban areas and choosing mass transit, biking or walking over car ownership.<\/p>\n

\n

Like this topic? Check out our related products:<\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n