When I lived in the Los Angeles area, I commuted to work three miles—six miles round trip—as a pedestrian. I certainly buy the data shown here, though it feels like it may merely reflect the number of people walking versus the number of drivers. I suspect in the central-northern part of the country, there just aren't a whole lot of pedestrians out and about to be injured in the first place.

Back in Los Angeles, I was most surprised by the resistance I received from the local city council when I asked for additional protections for pedestrians at obviously-problematic intersections. There was one crossing on my route where the cross-traffic speed limit was 40 MPH, meaning the real-world speed was 45 to 50 MPH, sometimes lower depending on traffic congestion. Only the intersecting street I was followjng had a stop, and as a result, the 45 MPH opposing traffic also had essentially zero expectation of having to stop for a pedestrian.

I asked the city to consider modifying the intersection into an all-way stop.

They promptly rejected the idea and instead simply painted thicker lines on the crosswalk. Thicker lines. That was what the city thought would save me and other pedestrians from cars traveling ~45 MPH on a street where no one ever expects a pedestrian to be crossing. Needless to say, I avoided crossing there for all the years I walked to work, even though doing so made my route less convenient. They claimed it had something to do with nearby train tracks, but that argument did not hold any water.

So it comes as no surprise that California has high pedestrian traffic fatalities.