Michael J. Smith lives in the West End.

As of this year, Portland is my hometown. So maybe it’s too soon to complain. It is, after all, a great place to live.

Except for the streets.

One of the things I like is walking to the grocery store, the library and so on, and much of Portland is very walkable; certainly my nook of it is. Most people would also say that Portland is a very “progressive” city, whatever you mean by that term, and whether you like it or not.

But I’m sorry to say that Portland’s street regimen is stuck in the 1950s. Our streets still reflect the dogma that the purpose of streets is to move as many cars as possible, as fast as possible, and everybody else — especially walkers — is an afterthought at best.

The result, for us walkers, is a hostile and frightening street environment. Yes, even in cool, laid-back Portland.

Street design sends a message. Portland’s streets send the message that drivers matter and walkers don’t. Both groups get the message, loud and clear. And drivers, in particular, behave accordingly.

I won’t get too technical here, because driver-first engineering has many aspects. But the main thing is design choices that allow, and encourage, drivers to drive faster.

For example:

• Multi-lane one-way streets (High and State are horrors; Congress is more nearly sane).
• Intersection design that allows for a nice, fast, wide turn, rather than a sharp, slow one.
• Traffic light timing and sequencing that makes walkers wait more than drivers do, and won’t let walkers walk when drivers, going in the same direction, can drive.

There’s lots of other stuff too, but you get the point.

People who study this topic will tell you — and they can back it up — that as car speed increases, crashes (we shouldn’t call them “accidents”) become not only more likely, but significantly more severe. Particularly when a driver hits a walker.

But all the engineering sins I mentioned, and a hundred others, are committed precisely in order to enable faster driving.

Now drivers enjoy driving fast, and it’s more convenient for them, no doubt, if they can shave two or three minutes off their trip by doing so. But walkers also enjoy sauntering along without looking over their shoulders, and we don’t like overlong red lights either.

Driver-first engineering sacrifices the convenience of walkers to the convenience of drivers, and worse, sacrifices the safety of walkers to the convenience of drivers.

It’s not quite a zero-sum game, drivers vs. walkers. A rational street regimen that considers the convenience of walkers as important as that of drivers, and considers the safety of walkers considerably more important than the driver’s extra two minutes on the road — this is possible, and it doesn’t mean banning cars.

But we must recognize that more safety and convenience for walkers, starting at the lopsided, driver-centered state we’re in now, will entail less fun and convenience for drivers — though no less safety, and in fact, more safety, because fast driving is dangerous for drivers too.

There are trade-offs. And in my new hometown, which I like very much, we walkers are still trading off too much, so the drivers can drive faster.