When the DGT blames those who walk
The Directorate General of Traffic has launched an advertising campaign under the slogan ‘You look at your phone so you don't miss anything and you end up missing everything’. The video shows a pedestrian being run over at a crosswalk and builds an unequivocal narrative: the fault lies with the pedestrian who is distracted looking at their mobile phone. From Sineu en Bici i a Peu we want to explain why this campaign is not only wrong, but points in the exact opposite direction to what we need if we want safer streets for people.
The data refutes the campaignBetween 2014 and 2023, 1,047 people died after being run over in a pedestrian crossing and 8,353 were seriously injured. 75% died after being run over in pedestrian crossings in urban areas. That is to say, 792 people were crossing correctly according to the National Road Safety Observatory of the DGT itself.
Who dies after being run over? They are not young people distracted by their mobile phones. 66% of pedestrians run over on urban roads in 2024 were 65 years or older, according to the DGT's urban accident report. The people who use mobile technology the least are the ones who most often die after being run over. And the driver's distraction, present in one-fifth of urban accidents, according to the same body, is the factor that systematically appears in the statistics. Furthermore, no scientific study published to date has demonstrated that pedestrian distraction with a mobile phone is the determining cause of a fatal accident or one with serious injuries, as collected by the Network of Walking Cities.
A contradiction enshrined in lawThe logic of blaming the pedestrian is neither new nor accidental. Let's look at the General Traffic Regulations (RGC): Article 65: the driver has the obligation to give way to the pedestrian at the pedestrian crossing, and not doing so is a serious infraction. However, Article 124.1.c: the pedestrian “may only enter the roadway when the distance and speed of approaching vehicles allow it to be done safely”. That is to say: the pedestrian has priority, but must wait for the car to decide whether to stop. The contradiction is flagrant: the responsibility for the accident falls on the walker, not on the driver.
The DGT campaign is not some isolated communication error. It is the reflection of a legal norm that needs to be reviewed. In fact, the DGT's own Road Safety Strategy 2030 includes among its measures the modification of the RGC to improve the protection of vulnerable groups, which includes pedestrians. Launching this campaign while that reform is being prepared is, to say the least, contradictory.
Physics does not deceiveThe WHO data, collected by the magazine Tráfico y Seguridad Vial from the DGT and the Pan American Health Organization, establish it clearly: at 30 km/h, the probability of death in a pedestrian accident is 10%. At 50 km/h it rises to 80%. Therefore, the probability of death is multiplied by eight when the speed goes from 30 to 50 km/h.
In other words: the difference between life and death, in many pedestrian accidents, is not whether the pedestrian was looking at their mobile phone, but the speed at which the car was traveling.
The model that works: change the system, not the peopleVision Zero, born in Sweden in 1997 and adopted by the majority of European countries, starts from a simple and radical premise: people will always make mistakes, because we are human. The system must be designed so that these mistakes do not cause deaths. It is not about finding culprits, but about designing environments that protect even when someone is distracted.
In our country, we have the case of Pontevedra: since 2011, no pedestrian deaths on urban roads. It highlights the 30 km/h limit and lower when pedestrians have priority, raised pedestrian crossings, and the reduction of vehicle traffic in the urban center. Collisions went from 69 in 1998 to only 4 in 2013, according to data from the City Council.
In these cases, the system has changed, not the pedestrians. They have assumed that people will be distracted, that children run, that the elderly walk slowly, and they have designed the streets for people.
And it's not about expensive works: narrowing a lane with street furniture, creating sinuosities in the layout with alternating parking on both sides, raised pedestrian crossings, and speed bumps are measures that reduce speed by design, without the need for any fine.
For a more extensive analysis, with all the data, sources, and complete bibliography, you can consult the full document here.