On August 1, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law were struck by a car while crossing a street near their home in Anaheim, California. Fortunately, neither were hurt badly. However, their injuries could have been worse. The Mercedes-driver who hit them apologized profusely, then drove away without exchanging information or waiting for police. This event is outrageous. But it is not only the driver's poor judgement that's especially appalling. While, based on what occurred after the accident, the driver apparently knew she was at fault (yet she still fled), the real culprit here is the careless, stupid way in which our cities are designed. The car is king, and pedestrians are ignored.

Public policies subsidize the pollution-intensive single-occupancy vehicle usage required in our urban/suburban areas. Developers extract the advantage of this system by obtaining land on the outskirts of metropolitan areas. Zoning laws require segregation of commercial from residential areas, and street layouts virtually require automobiles for safe, timely transportation. Sprawl effectively prohibits mass-transit. People pay by providing increasingly wider and faster thoroughfares to and from developments and by maintaining fleets of dependable automobiles. They also pay with their health: adopting car-dependent, time-deprived, sedentary lifestyles; breathing air pollution generated by so much driving; and enduring pedestrian/automobile encounters, where the pedestrian always loses.

The flight to suburbia was fueled in part by the desire of some to enhance their own personal safety. Ironically, the "safety" gained by living in insular subdivisions, isolated by design to require automobiles to get to shops and services, is an illusion. Statistically-speaking, safety from violent crime is likely offset by the increased chances assumed by driving more miles, on more congested roads. Also, more time behind the wheel means less time for healthy activities like exercise, which decreases disease risk. And if a suburban resident should decide to try to walk to a nearby shopping area, best of luck to that individual.

Paul Hawken, the author of The Ecology of Commerce, points out "good design can release humankind from its neurotic relationship to absurd acts of destruction." And Bill McKibben, who wrote The End of Nature, notes "It doesn't work to just tell people to get out of their cars. Instead, we need to encourage them to ride a bike. It's elegant. It's fun. It makes you feel better." Our cities are badly designed, and our relationships with them are neurotic. Cities characterized by better design, with better availability of alternative transportation, are needed.

We shouldn't have to endanger our lives to walk from our homes to get an ice cream cone. It doesn't have to be that way. But we must require that our leaders consider the long-term consequences of development and transportation policy. That means they must avoid the all-too-typical (and short-term) mindset that development is by definition good. We deserve real (functionally-diverse, not residentially-zoned homogeneity), safe neighborhoods, and effective, comprehensive mass-transit.