Pedestrians face a far higher serious-injury rate per mile than car users in Northern Ireland
DfI data puts the 2025 pedestrian KSI rate at 41 per 100 million kilometres travelled, compared with four for car and van users.
Northern Ireland’s latest road-safety figures show just how differently risk is distributed between road users once the distance travelled is taken into account.
For 2025, DfI recorded a pedestrian killed-or-seriously-injured rate of 41 per 100 million kilometres walked.
The equivalent rate for car and van users was four per 100 million kilometres travelled.
That does not mean an individual pedestrian journey is guaranteed to be dangerous. It is an exposure-adjusted population statistic designed to compare road-user groups more fairly than raw casualty totals alone.
Why raw numbers can mislead
People collectively travel vastly more kilometres in cars and vans than they do on foot. If we only compared total casualties, the huge difference in exposure could hide the vulnerability of pedestrians when a collision actually occurs.
Rates per distance travelled help correct for that imbalance.
Pedestrians are physically unprotected
A person on foot has no seatbelt, airbag, crumple zone or vehicle structure around them. Even at urban speeds, the difference in mass between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle is enormous.
That vulnerability is one reason pedestrian safety depends heavily on speed management, crossing design, visibility and driver attention.
The figures do not prove who was at fault
A KSI rate says nothing about blame in an individual collision. Some pedestrian collisions involve driver error, some involve pedestrian behaviour, some involve road layout or visibility, and many involve a combination of factors.
It would be wrong to turn a population-level risk figure into an accusation against either motorists or pedestrians as a group.
How pedestrians compare with other road users
DfI’s 2025 exposure-based rates were four KSIs per 100 million kilometres for car/van users, 41 for pedestrians, 63 for pedal cyclists and 344 for motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists therefore had by far the highest rate, while pedestrians and cyclists were also substantially above enclosed-vehicle users.
Why this matters for drivers
For motorists, the practical message is that small mistakes around vulnerable road users can have disproportionate consequences.
Extra care around crossings, schools, bus stops, parked vehicles and poorly lit streets is not simply courtesy; it is a response to the physical vulnerability shown in the casualty data.
And for pedestrians?
Visibility, predictable road-crossing behaviour and avoiding distraction around traffic can all reduce risk, but responsibility for safety is shared across the road system.
No pedestrian should be expected to compensate for dangerous driving, and no driver should assume a pedestrian will always behave perfectly.
Urban design changes the level of exposure
Pedestrian risk is not determined only by individual behaviour. The distance between safe crossings, vehicle speeds, lighting, pavement continuity and whether people have to cross multiple lanes all affect how often pedestrians and vehicles come into conflict.
This is why two streets with the same nominal speed limit can feel very different to someone trying to cross on foot.
Modern cars can help, but technology has limits
Many newer cars include autonomous emergency braking systems capable of detecting pedestrians in some situations. These systems can reduce collision severity or avoid an impact, but performance varies with speed, lighting, weather and the specific system fitted. Drivers should never assume a safety system will spot every pedestrian.
The best protection remains a combination of attentive driving, appropriate speed, good road design and predictable behaviour from everyone using the road.
Source
Department for Infrastructure, Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy to 2030 Annual Statistical Report 2025.
