I could only access the one article you linked https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... which mentions: “With miles of broken or missing sidewalks, inadequate outdoor lighting, distracted drivers and wide streets that facilitate speeding, Gulfton could also be Exhibit A in what has become an alarming nationwide increase in pedestrian fatalities in recent years, disproportionately concentrated in the neighborhoods of people of color with low incomes.”
On reflection, I wonder whether there is any component of cause and effect because black people could be harder to see at night: “Pedestrian fatalities occur mostly in urban areas, at night in dark lighting conditions”, “In 2015, 74 percent of pedestrian crashes happened in the dark”.
I also assume survivability is strongly affected by age and disability.
> I do kind of question your intent or at least motivation here.
In this case I simply used poor search terms. You are violating the site guideline to “Assume good faith” when you write that. I had thought that my examples supported your paraphrased point of discriminatory death. For anti-discrimination, sometimes men and drunk people (as you rightfully reiterate) are not seen as targets.
I am generally curious about causes and effects. It is difficult to tease out the underlying reasons why we measure some clearly unfair and biased outcomes.
I heartily agree we should aim for streets to be safe for all pedestrians, whether: drunk, impoverished, man or woman, PoC, children, etcetera.
