The road is familiar enough to drive without thinking. Muscle memory takes over: the gentle pressure on the accelerator, the instinctive easing at bends, the quiet hum of late-night traffic thinning into silence. Headlights stretch forward into a dark corridor of asphalt. Then, without warning, a shadow detaches itself from the roadside and cuts across the beam.

A man, walking, not running. Not even looking.

Above him, barely visible in the dark, a pedestrian bridge arches across the road, steel and concrete suspended like an afterthought. The driver brakes, and the moment passes. The man reaches the other side, disappearing into the city’s unlit edges. The bridge remains unused, looming over a road that refuses to belong to those on foot.

This is not an anomaly. It is a pattern which is often dismissed with a single, convenient word: jaywalking.

Bridges to Nowhere

Cities like Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad are not short of infrastructure. Flyovers slice through neighbourhoods, underpasses burrow beneath intersections, and pedestrian bridges rise at regular intervals, signalling an apparent commitment to order and safety. Yet beneath this architecture lies a contradiction: infrastructure that exists in form but fails in function.

The presence of a bridge does not guarantee its use. A crossing built too far from a pedestrian’s path, or one that demands an inconvenient detour, becomes irrelevant. The decision to cross is a practical one: when the shortest path lies across the road rather than above it, the road wins.

In Islamabad, this contradiction is embedded in the city’s very design. The sectoral planning model, often celebrated for its order, fragments mobility into isolated units. The metro may drop workers at the edge of a sector, but what follows is an unspoken assumption: ab aap khud dekh lo. The burden of navigating the final stretch falls entirely on the pedestrian, often across wide, fast-moving roads designed with vehicles in mind first.

Even where pavements exist, they are frequently obstructed: claimed by construction, encroached upon by vendors, or rendered unusable through neglect. The city builds pathways but does not protect them. It designs crossings, but does not align them with “desire paths”, the natural routes people actually take.

This produces a system that only gestures toward pedestrian inclusion while implicitly excluding them.

The Majority That Moves on Foot

There is a persistent illusion in Pakistan’s urban imagination: that the city belongs to cars. It is an illusion reinforced by policy, planning, and the visual dominance of roads designed for speed rather than access.

Yet the numbers tell a different story.

In cities like Lahore, a significant majority of commuters walk at some point in their journey. Although the pedestrian is the system’s backbone, they remain largely invisible in how cities are built and governed.

Globally, pedestrians account for a disproportionate share of road fatalities: nearly two-thirds of deaths in traffic crashes involve those on foot, with road accidents claiming over a million lives annually. In low- and middle-income countries, where infrastructure prioritises vehicular flow over human safety, the imbalance becomes even starker. These regions host a fraction of the world’s vehicles, yet bear the overwhelming majority of road deaths.

The pedestrian does not reject the system. The system rejects the pedestrian.

Nearly a third of pedestrian crashes in urban environments are linked to informal crossings. But to frame this as reckless behaviour is to ignore the conditions that produce it. When safe crossings are inaccessible or poorly integrated into daily routes, the choice is not between safety and risk; it is between efficiency and exclusion.

Asphalt and Authority

Movement in the city is political, not just physical. Who moves easily, who hesitates, and who must negotiate their way across asphalt speaks to hierarchies embedded in urban life.

Those who move within vehicles experience the city as a continuous flow: protected and prioritised. Those on foot encounter a different reality filled with interruptions, barriers, and exposure. Crossing the road is a daily negotiation with speed and risk, a fight to claim space.

Lower-income pedestrians, often with limited access to alternative modes of transport, are more likely to cross informally. This decision is not out of disregard but out of necessity: financial constraints narrow choices, forcing reliance on walking even in environments that are hostile to it. Meanwhile, higher-income individuals, buffered by access to private vehicles or safer mobility options, are less likely to be placed in such situations.

The road has become a marker of class.

Even behaviour on the road reflects this divide. Groups, particularly families, tend to cross more cautiously, their movement shaped by collective responsibility. Individuals, especially younger men, are more likely to take risks, moving faster, hesitating less, occupying space with a confidence that is as much social as it is physical. In a region where public space is unevenly distributed across gender and class, even the act of crossing carries embedded expectations of who belongs where.

Raasta sab ka hai, the saying goes. But in practice, some claim it more easily than others.

Learning to Break the Rules

Jaywalking is often framed as a failure of discipline, a collapse of rule-following behaviour. However, behaviour does not emerge in isolated silos; it is shaped, reinforced, and normalised through repeated exposure.

When one person crosses against the flow, others follow. Disobedience, once visible, becomes contagious. In crowded urban spaces, where time is compressed and movement is constant, the influence of a single “model” can ripple outward quickly.

People make decisions based on perceived control, social norms, and immediate rewards. If crossing directly saves time, and if others are doing the same, the behaviour becomes both efficient and acceptable. Over time, it shifts from a conscious decision to a habit, a default response embedded into daily routines.

Environmental factors intensify this tendency: longer waiting times at crossings, crowded sidewalks, and adverse weather each add pressure, nudging pedestrians toward quicker, riskier choices. The calculation is rarely explicit, but it is always present: kitna time lagega? The risk of a dangerous crossing often outweighs making it to work late for a daily labourer. In such a system, compliance becomes the exception, not the rule.

Cities That Whisper Another Possibility

Elsewhere, the relationship between pedestrians and roads unfolds differently.

There are cities where crossings align with natural movement, and waiting times are calibrated to human patience because walking is treated as a central mode of mobility, not an afterthought. In such places, the street actively offers passage rather than demand negotiation.

The difference reflects a choice to prioritise people over speed, and access over flow. It acknowledges that streets are not just conduits for vehicles, but shared spaces where multiple forms of movement coexist.

In contrast, the prevailing model in many Pakistani cities remains anchored in an older paradigm, one that equates development with scale and the uninterrupted movement of cars. Flyovers become symbols of progress, and signal-free corridors promise efficiency, but beneath these markers lies a question: efficiency for whom?

A Failure of Imagination

At its core, the issue is how cities imagine themselves. Are streets public spaces, or are they corridors reserved for vehicles? Who is considered in their design, and who is expected to adapt?

The struggle between pedestrians and motorists is not new. It has shaped urban life for over a century, redefining streets from shared social spaces into regulated channels of movement. But in contexts like Pakistan, this transformation remains incomplete, caught between planning and practice.

Islamabad’s wide highways and segmented sectors, Lahore’s signal-free avenues, Karachi’s fragmented pedestrian infrastructure, all point to a model that privileges expansion over accessibility. Even interventions intended to improve flow, such as underpasses replacing signalised crossings near universities, often shift risk onto those least equipped to bear it.

Meanwhile, the pedestrian continues to improvise. To cross where they must, and to navigate a system that was never designed for them.

So the question lingers, if a bridge stands empty while people cross below it, is the failure one of behaviour, or of urban design? If the majority of a city moves on foot, yet remains marginal in its planning, what does that say about whose needs are being served?

And if development continues to rise in concrete and steel, while the human experience of the street grows more precarious, then what, exactly, are these cities being built for?

---

---