A Journey That Should Be Simple
Walking is one of the most basic forms of human mobility. It requires no fuel, expensive equipment or special training. Yet, in many Indian cities, walking from home to a bus stop, crossing a road or reaching a nearby market can become a serious challenge. Footpaths may be blocked by parked vehicles, construction materials, shop extensions or uneven surfaces. At some locations, pedestrians have to share space with fast-moving traffic because a continuous, usable footpath is missing.
These problems are often treated as minor inconveniences. In reality, they concern public safety, accessibility, health and equality. A city may build wider roads and modern flyovers, but if people cannot walk safely to their destinations, its transport system remains incomplete.
Delhi offers an important example of this contradiction. The city depends on walking for access to buses, Metro stations, markets, schools, workplaces and residential neighbourhoods. However, pedestrians can remain vulnerable even when they use the space that is supposed to protect them. Understanding this problem requires looking beyond individual accidents and examining how streets are designed, maintained and managed.
This article explores pedestrian safety through documented incidents, reported data and the broader question of who gets to use urban space safely.
When the Footpath Becomes a Danger Zone
A footpath is intended to separate pedestrians from moving vehicles. Its purpose is straightforward: people should be able to walk without entering the carriageway and exposing themselves to traffic. However, the existence of a footpath does not automatically make a street pedestrian-friendly.
A footpath may be too narrow for two people to pass, interrupted by poles or trees, covered by construction debris, or occupied by vehicles. Missing ramps and broken surfaces can make it difficult for wheelchair users, older adults and people with limited mobility. At road junctions, pedestrians may encounter missing crossings, faded markings or long waiting times that encourage risky decisions.
When these conditions occur together, people are often forced to make an unfair choice: walk on an obstructed footpath or move closer to traffic. The danger is not limited to one type of road user. Children, students, workers, older adults and people carrying goods can all be affected.
Pedestrian safety therefore cannot depend only on telling people to be careful. Caution matters, but it cannot compensate for a street that fails to provide a continuous and usable walking route.
Real Incidents: When Everyday Space Fails
News reports from Delhi illustrate how vulnerable people can be even when they are on a footpath.
In July 2025, The Indian Express reported that an Audi struck five people sleeping on a footpath near Shiva Camp in Vasant Vihar, South Delhi. One of the people affected, a labourer identified as Sabami, described being awakened by the sound of a vehicle before it drove towards them. The report also described the injuries suffered by members of his family and the financial uncertainty created by the incident (Pragynesh, 2025).
This account is significant because it demonstrates that a footpath is not merely a space for walking. For people experiencing housing insecurity, it may also be a place where they sleep or shelter. Their vulnerability is shaped by several overlapping factors, including exposure to traffic, limited access to safe accommodation and the consequences of serious injury. The published account does not, by itself, establish every cause of the crash; it does show the potentially devastating human consequences when a vehicle enters a pedestrian space.
Another reported incident in Chanakyapuri, Delhi, in August 2025 involved a Thar vehicle striking two people on or near a pavement. One person died, and the other was injured, according to The Indian Express (The Indian Express, 2025). The incident again drew attention to the vulnerability of people in spaces intended to provide some separation from traffic.
These cases must not be treated as proof that every pedestrian accident has the same cause. Each crash requires its own investigation. Nevertheless, they raise an important public question: how can pedestrian spaces be made safer, and how can roads be designed and managed so that a mistake by a driver does not have catastrophic consequences?
The people involved in these incidents were not merely entries in a news report. They were individuals whose lives, health, families and livelihoods were affected. A useful discussion of road safety must preserve that human dimension while remaining careful about what the available evidence actually establishes.
What the Numbers Tell Us
Individual incidents show the human consequences of unsafe roads. Official statistics help indicate the scale of the problem.
According to figures attributed to the Delhi Traffic Police and reported by The Pioneer in January 2026, Delhi recorded 2,192 pedestrian accidents during 2025. These accidents resulted in 649 pedestrian deaths and 1,738 injuries (The Pioneer, 2026). The figures underline the seriousness of pedestrian safety in the capital.
The distinction between accidents, deaths and injuries is important. An accident is an incident; a fatality is a person who died; and an injury is a separate outcome. These figures should not be used interchangeably. Nor should they be interpreted as proof that every accident was caused by poor footpath design. They demonstrate the scale of harm involving pedestrians, while identifying the causes of particular incidents requires more detailed evidence.
The statistics also raise questions about prevention, enforcement and accountability. How many dangerous locations are identified before someone is injured? Are footpaths inspected regularly? Are crossings accessible to people with disabilities? Do road designs protect pedestrians at junctions, near public transport stops and in residential areas? And when a footpath becomes unusable, which authority is responsible for restoring it?
Numbers become useful when they lead to questions that public institutions can investigate and answer. Without action, annual figures risk becoming a recurring record of preventable suffering rather than a basis for change.
The Unequal Cost of an Unwalkable City
Unsafe streets do not affect everyone equally. A person who owns a car may be able to travel from one protected space to another. Someone who depends on walking and public transport must encounter the street directly, often several times a day.
For students, a dangerous route may mean a stressful journey to college. For daily-wage workers, an injury may threaten income that cannot easily be replaced. For older adults, uneven surfaces and inadequate crossing time can make routine errands difficult. For wheelchair users and people with visual impairments, a route that appears passable to others may be completely inaccessible.
Women and other people who feel unsafe in public spaces may also have to consider lighting, isolation, traffic speed and the availability of alternative routes. These concerns should not be reduced to a single explanation: pedestrian safety and personal security are related, but they are not identical problems. Both require public spaces designed around the people who use them.
People experiencing homelessness face a particularly serious form of vulnerability. When someone has no secure place to sleep, exposure to traffic and other environmental hazards may become part of everyday life. A pedestrian-safety strategy cannot solve homelessness on its own, but urban policy should recognise that street design, safe shelter, public health and social support can intersect.
An inclusive city must therefore consider more than the average commuter. It must ask whether children, older adults, people with disabilities, low-income workers and people without secure housing can use public space safely and with dignity.
Why Temporary Fixes Are Not Enough
When a dangerous location attracts attention, authorities may respond with a temporary barrier, a repair or a traffic-enforcement drive. Such measures can be useful, but they do not replace a long-term plan for safe walking.
A continuous footpath needs regular maintenance. Construction sites must not leave pedestrians without a safe alternative route. Vehicles should not be allowed to turn pedestrian space into informal parking. Crossings need clear markings, adequate visibility and enough time for people to cross. Roads near schools, markets and public transport stops should be assessed for the risks faced by people on foot.
Responsibility is often distributed across several agencies, including traffic police, municipal bodies, road-owning authorities and development agencies. The precise responsibility depends on the location and the type of road. This makes coordination and clear accountability essential.
The Government of India has discussed road safety and pedestrian infrastructure through official policy communications, including a Press Information Bureau release published in July 2026 (Press Information Bureau, 2026). Such policy material can help explain the institutional context, but the existence of a policy announcement should not be confused with proof that a particular street has become safer. Implementation and outcomes need to be assessed separately.
A city should measure success not only by the number of roads repaired or projects completed but also by whether people can walk along those roads safely, continuously and independently.
Reimagining the Everyday Walking Route
Making a city safer for pedestrians does not always begin with an expensive project. Some improvements involve identifying existing problems and ensuring that they are corrected.
First, footpaths should be continuous and kept clear. Where construction or repairs interrupt a route, a safe temporary alternative should be provided rather than forcing pedestrians into moving traffic.
Second, crossings should reflect the needs of actual road users. Clear markings, appropriate signals, accessible kerb ramps and sufficient crossing time can make a significant difference. At locations with high pedestrian movement, road design should encourage slower vehicle speeds and improve visibility.
Third, maintenance should become routine rather than reactive. Broken paving, damaged ramps, blocked drains, and faded crossing markings should be reported, assigned to a responsible agency and tracked until they are addressed.
Fourth, public transport planning should include the journey to and from a bus stop or Metro station. A transport service is not fully accessible if passengers cannot reach it safely on foot.
Finally, citizens should be able to report hazards through clear and accessible channels. Local authorities can publish information about complaints, repairs and inspection schedules. This would help residents understand whether a problem has been acknowledged and what action has followed.
These measures should be evaluated through evidence. A repaired footpath is an output; a route that people can use safely is the outcome that matters.
A Simple Research Method for Better Streets
A practical way to understand local pedestrian conditions is to conduct a structured walking audit. This is a small observational study that can be undertaken by students, residents or community groups, provided it is carried out safely and responsibly.
A walking audit can examine a selected route between a residential area, a public transport stop, a market or an educational institution. Observers can record whether a footpath exists, whether it is continuous, whether obstacles block it, whether a crossing is available, whether kerb ramps are present and whether pedestrians have to enter the carriageway.
The observations should be recorded systematically. For example, the route can be divided into short sections and each section assessed using the same checklist. Photographs may document physical barriers, provided the observers remain in a safe location and respect people's privacy. The date, time and general location should be noted so that the findings can be interpreted properly.
A simple audit should distinguish direct observation from interpretation. “A parked vehicle blocks approximately half the footpath” is an observation. “The vehicle caused an accident” is a causal claim that cannot be established by that observation alone.
Researchers can also speak to willing pedestrians about their experiences, but consent and accuracy are essential. Participants should be told the purpose of the conversation, and personal details should not be published without permission. Their words must be recorded faithfully, and the writer should never invent a quotation or present a hypothetical response as a real interview.
Such a study cannot establish citywide accident rates from a small sample. Its value lies in identifying specific hazards, documenting everyday barriers and providing concrete information that can be shared with the relevant authorities. Repeating the audit after repairs could help assess whether the route has improved.
The Right to Move with Dignity
A city is often judged by its skyline, transport network, commercial districts and new infrastructure. Yet its character is also revealed by the experience of a person walking to work, a child crossing a street or an older adult trying to reach a nearby shop.
The documented incidents in Delhi and the reported pedestrian accident figures for 2025 show why pedestrian safety deserves sustained attention. They do not mean that every crash has a single cause. Instead, they point towards a responsibility to investigate incidents carefully, improve road design, maintain pedestrian infrastructure and evaluate whether safety measures are working.
Walking should not require extraordinary courage. A usable footpath, a safe crossing and an accessible route are not luxuries; they are basic components of a city that serves its residents.
The question is not simply whether a city has built enough roads. It is whether people can use its streets without being pushed aside by traffic, infrastructure failures or unequal access to public space. A city that remembers its pedestrians is one that recognises their lives, their time and their right to move with dignity.
References:
- Pragynesh. (2025, July 14). “Days after Audi injures 5 sleeping on a footpath in Vasant Vihar in South Delhi, driver granted bail.” The Indian Express.
https://indianexpress.com - The Indian Express. (2025, August). “Thar hits two people walking on pavement in Chanakyapuri; one dies.”
https://indianexpress.com - The Pioneer. (2026, January 17). “649 pedestrians killed in road accidents in 2025.”
https://dailypioneer.com - Press Information Bureau, Government of India. (2026, July 27). Official press release on road safety and pedestrian infrastructure.
https://www.pib.gov.in