Grand Jury Calls Friant-Shepherd Fresno’s Most Dangerous Intersection, Disputes Mayor’s Safety Claims

A Fresno County Civil Grand Jury report designated the intersection of Friant Road and Shepherd Avenue as the most dangerous in Fresno and demanded additional safety measures from city officials. The report cited 21 crashes between 2020 and 2024, including two crashes that occurred within three days of each other.

Mayor Jerry Dyer disputed the characterization. “It was the number one unsafe intersection in Fresno. Today, it’s not in the top 10,” Dyer stated, attributing the change to city actions already taken.

The city committed $2.5 million toward intersection improvements. Dyer claimed those efforts produced positive results but offered no data supporting the ranking he cited.

The grand jury recommended increased police enforcement, design changes to the intersection, and additional traffic signal signage. The report referenced videos from the YouTube channel “Friant Roulette,” which documents crashes at the site, as evidence of recurring red-light violations.

The city has 90 days under state procedures to formally respond to the findings. City Manager Georgeanne A. White stated officials are reviewing the report and will respond within that timeline. “Pedestrian and traffic safety remains a priority for the City of Fresno,” White said in a written statement.

Dyer emphasized driver behavior. “What we really want to do is stress to motorists to be careful,” he said, citing e-bikes and scooters as additional concerns.

The Breakdown

• The Fresno County Civil Grand Jury identified Friant Road and Shepherd Avenue as Fresno’s most dangerous intersection based on crash data from 2020 to 2024.
• The city already allocated $2.5 million for improvements at the site.
• The grand jury’s recommendations include increased police enforcement, intersection design changes, and additional traffic signal signage.
• The city must respond to the report’s findings and recommendations within 90 days under state law.

What This Means for You

The Civil Grand Jury report concluded that city safety measures at this intersection were insufficient and more needs to be done. The city’s response, which the mayor and city manager will shape and which city officials will work with the city council to evaluate, becomes a record of whether elected officials treated the findings seriously or dismissed them. Voters weighing the current administration’s handling of traffic safety now have a documented disagreement: the grand jury says the intersection remains dangerous enough to warrant further action; the mayor says it’s no longer in the top 10 most dangerous but provided no data backing that claim. How the city responds in 90 days — whether it adopts the recommendations, disputes the findings with evidence, or offers something in between — will show whether this administration prioritizes independent oversight or its own narrative.

What to Watch

The city committed $2.5 million to this intersection, but the grand jury concluded more is needed. The most direct question: what did that $2.5 million actually buy, and why wasn’t it enough? The mayor claimed the intersection dropped out of the top 10 most dangerous but cited no study, no data, no comparison period — a reader has no way to verify that claim or even know what metric he’s using. If the formal response due in 90 days doesn’t produce numbers showing the work’s actual effect, that’s a problem worth noticing.

The second issue is enforcement. The grand jury specifically called for increased police enforcement of red-light violations, which the report linked to recurring crashes. Whether the city commits resources to that — or continues relying on driver PSAs and infrastructure tweaks — will show how seriously it takes the behavioral side of the problem. A pattern worth watching: when a government official disputes an accountability report’s conclusions without producing data of their own, the gap between the claim and the evidence is itself the story.