Nah, come to Baltimore. It ain't even on this list

I don't think any of these rates are really high enough to warrant deciding where you go

I don't really choose my travel destinations based on traffic safety.

By the same logic, I should travel to Nigeria as often as I can because there are a lot fewer moose attacks there than where I live.

A single metric should not determine a travel destination

If you are walking the streets of Phoenix on your vacation then you are fucking regarded.

ok hear me out. yeah chicago is double new york on this but we got the obama center. although its like sold out till the fall.

I would say it's better to visit NYC just because it's just better than those other 3 cities, unless you visiting in the winter, then maybe go South.

Come to Philly: everyone hates us and we don't care. Also, good food.

Grue dag

All of those top cities full of sprawl with high speed strodes. High speed strodes are famous for being more dangerous. They’re basically a highway with a sidewalk.

I usually only look for amount of princes willing to give me money as a metric, but i guess it would be better to add amount of moose attacks as a metric as well, thanks!

Also the only Rodin Museum outside of France

You can see Rodin copies and casts at dozens of places all around the world.

New York, eww

If you're outside walking about in the southwest, especially summertime you're a fucking idiot in the first place.

I mean really, walk around in cities where it's 110 degrees.

Bold of you to assume those cities hold even a flicker of interest as a destination

Serious question? Has there been any study into why the stats are higher there?

I'd be tempted to say it's because giant trucks that cowboys tend to prefer have both a) lower pedestrian visibility, and b) higher mass, leading to greater damage in a collision with something soft and fleshy like a human.

However...I'm the first person to admit that correlation is not causation. Was just wondering if studies have been done.

While true, that doesn’t change the validity of my statement at all.

Right? Some percentage of pedestrian deaths in TX and AZ are probably just heat stroke lol

Finally something Florida is good at and none of our cities are listed.

Straight open roads, not enough protected crossings. People cross at night and get hit by drivers who can't see someone on a perfectly lit, perfectly visible road.

After having walked a bit in Dallas, I can’t help but wonder how many people willingly jumped into traffic to try and get the fuck out of there.

I lived in Dallas for 3 years. Traffic was bad. I was lucky to live 3 miles from work and cycled. I had to pass through a meth infested neighborhood and streets with 6 lanes of traffic with 45 mph speed limits. Top 2 things to do when vacationing in Dallas is leave, and never come back.

I lived in Dallas for 20 years. It is because nobody walks there. Cross walks are rare and even if there is one nobody minds them. Downtown Dallas is not like you typical grid system. There are winding roads, all sorts strange merges. So many intersections where 3 lanes turn into 2 and other stuff like that.

Plus you have highways galore that cut right through. North and South you have I-35, Dallas North Tollway, and Hwy 75/I-45 all with speed limits upwards of 70 MPH. East and West you have I-20 and I-30, plus a 1 miles stretch where pretty much every single one of these roads merge with each other.

Then once you get outside of the downtown area you have massive 4-6 lane roads, where once again drivers are never watching for pedestrians. It was a city 100% built around the car.