Charlotte's High Injury Network identifies streets with a history of fatal and serious-injury crashes. It helps the city decide where to focus safety improvements. For residents, it can also provide useful context about a familiar road—provided the map's dates, boundaries, and purpose stay attached to the information.

Being on the network does not explain every crash on a street, and being outside it does not mean a road is free of hazards. The network is a planning tool, not a finding about an individual driver's conduct.

What the city's report actually says

The City of Charlotte's 2025 Vision Zero Annual Report, page 14, describes a network based on crash data from 2020–2024. The report says the network represents 13% of Charlotte's streets and accounts for approximately 80% of fatal and serious-injury crashes citywide. It separately reports that 74% of fatal crashes in fiscal year 2025 occurred on network streets.

Those statements use different periods and outcomes. The 74% figure concerns fatal crashes in one fiscal year; it should not be substituted for the broader fatal-and-serious-injury measure. The report connects the network to prioritizing safety investments rather than ranking a person's likelihood of crashing on a particular trip.

Check the version before comparing streets

Start with the city's Vision Zero page, which links to the High Injury Network and the city's dashboard. Use the legend and information supplied with the selected map. A saved image or older article may describe a different reporting period.

  • Dates: Note the years included and the date you viewed the map.
  • Location: Identify the actual segment or intersection, including its endpoints. A street name alone may cover a much longer road.
  • Measure: Check whether a figure counts crashes, people injured, deaths, or a combined severity category.
  • Filters: Preserve any selected geography, road-user group, year, or severity setting with your notes.
  • Changes: Keep later road work, new crossings, signal changes, and other current conditions separate from the historical data.

A list described as the “most dangerous roads” needs a stated method and period. A corridor's appearance on a historical network does not, by itself, establish its current ranking, risk per mile traveled, or conditions along its entire length.

Turn a local concern into a specific observation

If you notice a problem near your home, school, workplace, or regular route, describe the location and what you actually observed. For example, “the pedestrian signal on the east side was dark at 7:20 a.m.” is more useful than assuming that the signal system is defective because the street appears on a safety map.

Record the date, time, direction, lane or crossing, conditions, and any photograph taken safely. Do not enter traffic or delay an emergency call to gather information. Our guide to reporting a traffic-signal concern in Charlotte explains the separate reporting task and the information that helps identify a concern.

Keep crash evidence separate from corridor history

After a collision, questions about what happened require the specific scene, vehicles, movements, signals, visibility, witnesses, photographs, video, and other available records. A historical concentration of crashes does not identify which signal a driver faced or which actions contributed to this event.

The same distinction applies to road conditions. A map can prompt a question about a location, but a conclusion about design, maintenance, causation, or legal responsibility needs the relevant records and qualified analysis. Medical findings, insurance coverage, and losses are separate questions as well.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides information about legal help after a Charlotte car accident. A consultation about a particular crash can focus on those facts without treating a network label as proof of fault or a prediction about the claim.