A speeding automobile struck a horse in downtown Boston. The animal panicked and injured itself, fatally, as it turned out.

The response by many has been to blame not the automobile but the horse. "Horses don't belong in downtown Boston," said one commentator. "Streets are for cars, not horses," said another. Proposals have been floated to move the horse-drawn buggies elsewhere or to ban them altogether from the city. Animal rights activists have seized on the incident to press their own agenda.

One is tempted to note that those same concerned nay-sayers have not proposed banning bicycles or pedestrians from the city, even though they are at much greater risk and run an accident and mortality rate far higher than the equine set.

Automobiles and trucks have an uncomfortable relationship with creatures of flesh and blood. They go much faster, are built of harder materials and in a collision usually emerge the victor. Boston was built in an era when streets were built for pedestrians and horses. That is plainly not the case today. Cars rule. We try to ban horses, limit bicyclists and push pedestrians off streets and onto sidewalks or specially made pedestrian bridges. The city's largest — indeed, the world's largest — public works project involves building even more roads and bridges to handle the never-ending stream of vehicles entering and leaving the city.

Yet for all that, Boston is a city that, more than most, is still friendly to pedestrians. That is part of its charm. It also helps define the city as a community that is of a far different character than those cities, like Los Angeles, that have chosen to let themselves be defined by the automobile. The fact that Bostonians don't have to be dependent upon the automobile is perhaps the single most important characteristic that differentiates city living from suburban living.

The city's government is now pushing hard for approvals to build a pedestrian bridge over Congress Street. Congress is the street that runs between City Hall and the Quincy Marketplace. Thousands of pedestrians cross the street each day and city planners fear for their safety. The bridge would take pedestrians from City Hall Plaza to Faneuil Hall.

The debate over the pedestrian bridge or even horse-drawn buggies needs to be understood in the context of Boston's relationship with the automobile. Is it right that patiently trotting horses should be struck by a hit-and-run during the midday? Of course not. Is it right that pedestrians risk injury from left-turning cars as they cross Congress Street? Again, of course not. But why do we in effect blame the victim by proposing solutions that get rid of the horses or put the pedestrians off the street and onto a bridge?

A group called WalkBoston (anyone else?) has proposed that the city shelve its plans for the bridge and instead more a series of comprehensive changes to city streets that would systematically address the concerns all pedestrians in downtown have. Its ideas would slow traffic somewhat and cost a fair amount (although not more than a pedestrian bridge as it turns out). So far the city's Transportation Department has done little but raise objections to the scheme.

Part of the reason for this has to do with the nature of the grants the city receives that pay for street improvements. Grants from the state or the federal government for city streets are made in order to improve vehicular transportation on those streets. Other goals — such as beautifying those streets, slowing down traffic to make them better for pedestrians, or designing them so that they integrate better with the communities in which they are situated — are not eligible for those grants. As a result, the automobile and its needs have primacy.

It's the wrong approach. Grant money is great, but it shouldn't drive city planning. Automobiles may not be the enemy, but neither are pedestrians, bicyclists or horses. Cars and trucks should required to accommodate to their needs, not the other way around. Rather than dreaming up new objections to "no-build" schemes such as that proposed by WalkBoston, the city should dedicate itself to making such ideas work.