Report shows pedestrian crash deaths in Austin have not decreased 10%

By Jo Clifton10%

10/23/2025, 2:51:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 42.4% saturation with 258 hits. Analysis detected 1,190 faulty-reasoning hits from 608 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.2% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,898 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.90% of the article peer group.

Although Austin has fewer overall automobile crashes than other major Texas cities, the percentage of crashes involving serious injury or death of a pedestrian is still at the same rate  27.9 percent– as other large Texas cities. 
That is one conclusion of the special report from the Austin City Auditor’s Office. 
Council members Zo Qadri and Paige Ellis requested the report to try to understand how Austin police officers respond to crashes, especially those involving pedestrians and enforcement of the Lisa Torry Smith Act. 
The law was passed in response to the death of Smith, who was killed while walking her child to school in a crosswalk in 2017. 
Under the law, officers in Texas are required to file a special report within 10 days for crashes that involve injury, death or $1000 or more in property damage. 
Between September 2021 and July 2025, auditors reported that there were more than 52,000 crash reports in Austin. 
Although pedestrians were involved in only about 3 percent of those crashes, about 28 percent of those that involved pedestrians resulted in serious injury or death. 
Members of the audit report team compared data involving pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. 
They found that Austin had the highest percentage of crashes that involved a pedestrian at 3.2 percent. 
Transportation and Public Works staff told auditors that they thought one reason for the higher level of pedestrian involvement in crashes may be because Austin has more pedestrian activity than the other Texas cities. 
According to a recent study released by Vision Zero, “Austin continues to have the lowest per capita serious injury and fatality rate” among large Texas cities. 
But that study also found that Austin still has too many pedestrian deaths. 
Auditors looked at convictions under Lisa Torry Smith Act for Travis, Dallas, El Paso, Tarrant, Harris, and Bexar counties. 
Travis County has seen one conviction and one case is pending. 
Bexar County reported one conviction, one dismissal and one case still pending. 
According to the report, only Dallas County has reported a significant number of formal charges under the act. 
Dallas County has nine cases pending, with two convictions, one dismissal and two cases rejected by prosecutors or a grand jury. 
Harris County has one case pending, one rejected by the grand jury and one dismissed. 
Both Tarrant County and El Paso County showed no convictions or pending cases. 
The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office said their officers investigate all crosswalk crashes they respond to and in some instances the District Attorney’s Office may also help collect evidence at the scene. 
Auditors said, “More training and coordination between police and prosecutors in Dallas may explain why they have filed more charges under the Act” compared to peer cities. 
Based on 911 call data, auditors said. 
APD responded to more than 85,000 calls related to traffic crashes between September 2021 and July 2025. 
They noted that officers did not file a crash report in more than half of those cases. 
Auditors noted that prosecutors can file criminal charges under a number of statutes and let a jury decide which are the most appropriate based on evidence. 
Staff from APD and the Travis County District Attorney’s Office told members of the audit team it can be difficult to prove because of the way the law is written. 
“It states that the driver must have acted ‘with criminal negligence.’ 
Witness testimony or video footage that shows the driver was speeding or on their phone, for example, can help prove criminal negligence,” the report says, but they noted that such evidence is not always available. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%Jo Clifton: 2.1%Austin Monitor: 1.5%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 3.1%Jo Clifton: 0.5%Austin Monitor: 1.2%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 8.4%Jo Clifton: 2.9%Austin Monitor: 1.7%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Jo Clifton: 0.2%Austin Monitor: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias1.2%This article: 5.9%Jo Clifton: 5.7%Austin Monitor: 4.6%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 1.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.3%Jo Clifton: 1.1%Austin Monitor: 2.1%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.3%Austin Monitor: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 1.7%Austin Monitor: 2.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Jo Clifton: 2.2%Austin Monitor: 1.2%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 14.5%Jo Clifton: 4.2%Austin Monitor: 5.5%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 10.2%Jo Clifton: 2.2%Austin Monitor: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 5.6%Jo Clifton: 0.9%Austin Monitor: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.6%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 1.0%Austin Monitor: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Jo Clifton: 1.6%Austin Monitor: 1.2%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.6%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Jo Clifton: 8.4%Austin Monitor: 3.2%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Jo Clifton: 1.0%Austin Monitor: 3.0%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 1.2%Jo Clifton: 0.2%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Red Herring1.2%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.7%Austin Monitor: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.1%Jo Clifton: 2.5%Austin Monitor: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.6%Jo Clifton: 2.9%Austin Monitor: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.5%Jo Clifton: 3.1%Austin Monitor: 0.6%Burden of Proof14.5%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Jo Clifton: 0.7%Austin Monitor: 0.3%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 42.4%Jo Clifton: 7.2%Austin Monitor: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)42.4%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.0%Jo Clifton: 2.0%Austin Monitor: 0.8%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 8.7%Jo Clifton: 1.5%Austin Monitor: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 2.8%Jo Clifton: 0.5%Austin Monitor: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 4.5%Austin Monitor: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 0.0%Austin Monitor: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jo Clifton: 1.1%Austin Monitor: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

608 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers25%attributed speech453writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageZo Qadri • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTransportation and Public Works • 34 words • 0.0% coverageVision Zero • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDallas County District Attorney’s Office • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAPD • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Vision Zero

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words17% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+94.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Vision Zero: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-16.1 ptsWriter: 16.1%Vision Zero: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Vision Zero: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.