Protecting the Vulnerable: Why Nigeria Must Reform Laws for Pedestrians and Cyclists

How Nigeria’s Transport System Fails Pedestrians and Cyclists

Walking and cycling have long been central to everyday mobility in Nigeria, particularly in rural and peri-urban communities. Historically, a large share of the population depended on non-motorised transport (NMT) for access to work, education, and basic services. However, rapid urbanisation and accelerating motorisation have steadily displaced this tradition. In Lagos alone, a population exceeding 20 million, growing at an estimated 6 per cent annually, has driven transport policy decisively towards private motor vehicles, while legal and planning frameworks for NMT have been persistently overlooked.

Although isolated political gestures have occurred—most notably the promotion of cycling by the Minister of Transport, Ojo Maduekwe, during the 2001 fuel crisis—these efforts were not sustained. Meaningful policy recognition of walking and cycling emerged only between 2018 and 2024, largely at the sub-national level. This neglect has deep historical roots. Colonial and early post-colonial road planning prioritised vehicular movement, largely excluding pedestrians and cyclists from design considerations. As a result, pavements, safe crossings, and cycle lanes remain scarce, and road space continues to favour fast-moving vehicles.

The consequences are severe. Pedestrians and cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users in Nigeria. Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) data indicate that approximately 32 per cent of road traffic fatalities involve pedestrians and cyclists. By mid-2025, more than 3,800 pedestrian casualties had been recorded, with 56 per cent involving children or the elderly. Nigeria records an average of 5,000 road deaths annually, equivalent to 21.4 deaths per 100,000 population—well above global averages.

Beyond the human toll, social and economic costs are substantial. Walking and cycling are widely perceived as unsafe or as modes of last resort, reinforcing social exclusion and limiting independent mobility, particularly for children, women, and older persons. Chronic congestion wastes fuel and time, while road traffic crashes account for an estimated annual loss of up to 5 per cent of national GDP. Weak data systems, poor compliance with traffic rules, and inconsistent enforcement further amplify these risks.

Despite the existence of traffic laws prohibiting sidewalk parking, illegal stopping, and failure to yield to pedestrians, the physical environment often makes compliance impossible. Many major roads lack pavements, footpaths, or safe pedestrian crossings, forcing pedestrians and cyclists into direct conflict with motor traffic. Between January and June 2024, the FRSC recorded over 323,000 traffic arrests nationwide, reflecting enforcement activity but also persistently low compliance, particularly with rules intended to protect non-motorised road users.

Institutional capacity remains constrained. The FRSC operates nationwide with approximately 18,000 personnel, while Nigeria has only about 34,000 registered engineers and 2,333 town planners. Local governments, which control many urban and peri-urban roads, generally lack dedicated NMT units or technical expertise. Consequently, roads continue to be designed primarily for vehicles, speed limits are frequently ignored, and enforcement is uneven.

Non-motorised transport—walking and cycling—thus remains essential yet structurally neglected. This persists despite Nigeria’s international commitments, including the UN Decade of Action on Road Safety, and national strategies such as the National Road Safety Strategy II (NRSS II). Implementation gaps in law, infrastructure, and institutional coordination leave millions of Nigerians exposed to daily risk.

Taken together, the evidence points to an urgent need for legal and policy reform. A large segment of the population relies on walking and cycling, existing laws and standards fail to provide adequate protection, and the costs of inaction—measured in lives lost, economic waste, and social exclusion—are unacceptably high. There is therefore a clear and pressing need to examine how law and policy can more effectively promote, protect, and normalise walking and cycling in Nigeria.

The Policy Case for Non-Motorised Transport

Non-motorised transport is central to safe, inclusive, and sustainable mobility, yet remains under-invested despite its proven benefits.

What the Evidence Shows

• Costs and Returns of NMT Investment

  • pavements: ₦25–₦60m per km

  • Cycle lanes: ₦30–₦70m per km

  • Complete Streets: ₦120–₦250m per km

• Strong economic payoff: ₦8–₦12 saved for every ₦1 invested.

• Proven feasibility: Successful pilots in Lagos, Abuja, and Kano.

Beyond Safety: The Broader Payoffs of Active Mobility

• Economic: Fewer crashes, less congestion, lower fuel and healthcare costs.

• Health: Reduced obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other non-communicable diseases.

• Environmental: Lower carbon dioxide emissions.

What Reform Will Take

Delivering these gains demands legal reform, targeted enforcement, institutional capacity building, and sustained public awareness. Opposition from contractors, informal parking interests, transport unions, and urban elites must be managed through transitional arrangements and coalition-building with health, environmental, and citizen groups.

Why Inaction Is No Longer Tenable

Prioritising pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, mapping accident hotspots, and enforcing existing laws are not optional reforms. They are essential steps to protect vulnerable Nigerians and to secure the economic, health, and environmental dividends of non-motorised transport.

International Experience and Lessons for Nigeria

Comparative experience shows that enabling laws and policies significantly boost walking and cycling.

In the Netherlands, 28% of daily trips are by bike, supported by national cycling strategies since 1975 and the 2022–2025 “Tour de Force” program. Dutch law prioritises pedestrians and cyclists, and roads follow a user-hierarchy design.

Denmark reports 15% of trips by bike, with 41% of residents cycling weekly. Copenhagen invests in cycle superhighways, traffic calming, and subsidised bike parking, while laws favour cyclists with right-of-way rules and low urban speed limits.

Bogotá, Colombia, enshrined cycling in Law 1811 (2016), giving pedestrians and cyclists priority, banning parking in bike lanes, requiring 1.5 m passing distance, and incentivising cycling through paid leave for commuters. The city also maintains 540 km of bike lanes and weekly car-free streets.

Key lessons for Nigeria:  Legal mandates for infrastructure, right-of-way, and speed limits, coupled with enforcement, incentives, behaviour-change programs, funding, and institutional coordination, are essential to normalise active mobility.

Policy Recommendations

To protect pedestrians and cyclists, mitigate road fatalities, and advance equitable urban mobility, Nigeria should implement the following recommendations:

1. Legislate for Active Mobility

   • Action: Embed NMT protection in transport and road safety laws; mandate pavements, cycle lanes, and “Complete Streets” standards.

   • KPIs: Enact federal NMT law; adopt national policy; update design manuals.

   • Timeline: 1–2 years (draft/amend laws), 3–5 years (legislation and policy adoption).

   • Responsible Agencies: Federal Ministry of Transportation (lead), Federal Ministry of Justice, FRSC, State Ministries of Transport/Works.

   • Risk: Legislative delays, political resistance.

   • Mitigations

• Embed NMT provisions within existing transport, road safety, and urban planning legislation, reducing the need for entirely new statutory instruments.

• Advance reforms through ministerial regulations, executive orders, and updated design manuals while primary legislation is underway.

• Frame active mobility explicitly as a road safety, economic efficiency, and child-protection issue, rather than as an environmental or lifestyle agenda, to broaden political support.

• Secure early buy-in from state governments through the National Council on Transport to minimise centre–state friction and encourage parallel subnational adoption.

2. Build Safe Infrastructure

   • Action: Continuous pavements, protected cycle lanes, traffic-calmed zones; pilot and scale in Lagos, Abuja, Kano.

   • KPIs: Expand pavements/cycle lanes; reduce pedestrian/cyclist crashes by 25%; increase active mobility from 15% to 25–30% in 5 years.

   • Cost: Pavements ₦25–60M/km; cycle lanes ₦30–70M/km; Complete Streets ₦120–250M/km.

   • Responsible Agencies: Federal/State Ministries of Works, city transit agencies, FRSC.

   • Risk: High upfront costs; motorist and vendor resistance; maintenance challenges.

   • Mitigations:

• Phase implementation, prioritising high-risk corridors and pilot cities before nationwide scale-up to manage fiscal exposure.

• Integrate pavements, cycle lanes, and traffic-calming measures into routine road rehabilitation and maintenance projects, avoiding stand-alone capital costs.

• Use temporary and low-cost interventions (markings, bollards, barriers) to demonstrate benefits before permanent construction.

• Engage roadside vendors, transport unions, and motorists through consultation, coupled with designated loading, parking, and vending zones.

• Assign clear maintenance responsibility to specific agencies, with performance benchmarks linked to budget releases.

3. Enhance Enforcement

   • Action: Clear pavements, enforce yield rules, vehicle-free paths, and update the Highway Code for NMT rights.

   • KPIs: Reduce urban vehicle speeds to 30–40 km/h in high-pedestrian zones; cut pedestrian/cyclist fatalities by 25% in 5 years.

   • Responsible Agencies: FRSC, Nigeria Police (Traffic), State Traffic Management Authorities.

   • Risk: Popularity challenges, corruption, and inconsistent enforcement.

   • Mitigations:

• Begin enforcement in high-pedestrian locations such as schools, markets, and transit hubs to deliver visible safety gains and public acceptance.

• Pair enforcement with clear public communication on new rules, penalties, and implementation timelines.

• Deploy technology—speed cameras, body-worn cameras, and digital ticketing—to reduce discretionary enforcement and limit corruption.

• Establish formal coordination protocols among FRSC, the Nigeria Police, and state traffic authorities to ensure uniform standards and consistency.

• Measure enforcement success by reductions in injuries and fatalities, not by the volume of arrests or fines.

4. Change Behaviour and Public Perceptions

   • Action: Media campaigns, school road safety programs, pilot events (open streets, cycling rallies), incentives (bike subsidies, tax breaks).

   • KPIs: Double positive perception of walking/cycling; increase children walking/cycling to school to 35–40%.

   • Responsible Agencies: Ministries of Education, Health, Information, FRSC, civil society.

   • Risk: Slow uptake; needs parallel infrastructure improvement.

   • Mitigation:

• Coordinate campaigns with infrastructure improvements, ensuring pavements, cycle lanes, and safe crossings are in place before or alongside public outreach.

• Use pilot events to demonstrate benefits of walking and cycling, making changes tangible for communities.

• Engage local stakeholders (schools, parent associations, transport unions) early to build trust and participation.

• Phase messaging to match infrastructure rollout, so enthusiasm is supported by safe, practical options.

5. Institutional Coordination & Data Systems

   • Action: Create Active Mobility Task Force; systematic crash data collection; allocate 2–5% of transport budgets to NMT; monitor progress annually.

   • KPIs: Task Force operational; nationwide NMT data reporting established within 2 years.

   • Responsible Agencies: Federal Ministries of Transportation, Education, Health; FRSC; local governments.

   • Risk: Institutional fragmentation; funding gaps.

   • Mitigations:

• Establish the Active Mobility Task Force through a formal inter-ministerial directive with defined authority, roles, and reporting lines.

• Designate a single lead agency for NMT coordination, with other institutions bound by clear mandates and timelines.

• Ring-fence the proposed 2–5% NMT budget allocation within transport spending to protect funds from reallocation.

• Standardise crash and mobility data collection, using FRSC as the central repository for nationwide reporting.

• Require annual public reporting on NMT spending and outcomes to reinforce accountability and continuity.

TARGETED HIGHWAY CODE AMENDMENTS

🚶🏼Pedestrian Priority
 Pedestrians & cyclists take precedence over motor vehicles

↔️Safe Passing Rule
 Minimum 1.5 m distance when overtaking cyclists

🚫Clear Pavements
 No parking or stopping on pavements, crossings, or cycle lanes

⏱️Safer Urban Speeds
 30 km/h limits in high-pedestrian zones

Conclusion

Nigeria’s road system systematically endangers pedestrians and cyclists, disproportionately affecting the poor, children, and the elderly. Legal recognition of non-motorised transport (NMT), investment in safe infrastructure, rigorous enforcement, and culture change are urgent.

Pedestrian and cyclist protection must be enshrined in law and supported by consistent enforcement and well-designed infrastructure. Prioritising active mobility is essential not only for public safety but also for health, equity, and sustainable urban transport. Immediate, decisive legal and institutional reforms will reduce fatalities, ease congestion, cut emissions, and secure safe, inclusive mobility for all citizens.