Distracted by ‘distracted pedestrians’? My newest article is available via open access here: https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S2590198220300294

There are 3 main empirical findings:

1) 1/3 of transport practitioners believe distracted walking is a LARGE problem, responsible for roughly 40% of ped deaths

2) We find evidence of windshield bias. That is, practitioners were more concerned about distracted walking if they primarily use a car and spend little time in ped areas.

3) Problem framing profoundly shapes preferred solutions. Practitioners who worried about distracted peds prefer to address ped deaths with individual-level solutions (like educational campaigns and bans on distracted walking). They were less likely to support speed reduction.

BUT education & enforcement are less effective, are susceptible to police bias, and are inconsistent with Vision Zero. If our approach is to chastise distracted peds, streets will remain unsafe for children, the elderly, & blind people (who each face risks similar to distraction)

Beyond our empirical results, we make three other contributions.
1) The evidence base for distracted walking is VERY WEAK. People *definitely* walk distracted. But how unsafe is it? Crash statistics are incomplete & experiments/observational studies provide mixed results.

Do distracted peds look right and left less often?
Do they miss opportunities to cross?
Do they walk more slowly?
Do they get ‘hit’ in simulators more often?

Despite several studies, the answers remain unclear.

2) Alternative explanations for the rise in ped deaths:
Driving & walking are up.
Distracted DRIVING continues unabated
SUVs (which are far more dangerous for peds than standard cars) are ever more prevalent.
The fastest-growing US states are MUCH riskier for peds

Plus, while the CHANGE in ped deaths over time garners considerable attention, it is worth noting that 61,000 pedestrians were injured and 4,784 were killed in car crashes in 2006, a year before the smartphone was introduced.

There were certainly fewer distractions then...

3) Despite the weak evidence base, people buy into the idea of distracted walking bc it is an intuitive idea that has garnered considerable press. Thanks to the illusory truth effect, we tend to believe ideas that get repeated over and over.

Plus, both the automotive industry & transport practitioners have strategic reasons to embrace the idea of distracted walking: it narrows the call to action.

If distraction is the cause of ped deaths, we don’t have to address oversized SUVs or fundamentally rethink road design.

In short, distracted walking is a catchy concept, but is responsible for an unknown, but almost certainly small, share of ped deaths.

Don’t buy into the hype.

Instead, tackle the known killers of peds: high speeds, distracted/impaired driving, and unsafe road design.