Traffic crashes are one of the leading causes of preventable death in the United States. Nearly 20% of these roadway fatalities are people who were hit and killed while walking or bicycling. Pedestrian deaths increased by 46% between 2009 and 2016. Despite these troubling statistics, there has not been a sustained and widespread public call to action to improve road safety. Researchers and advocates are increasingly focused on how traffic crashes are reported in the media, and whether existing editorial patterns contribute to victim-blaming and distract from systems-level solutions. However, no previous study has examined whether editorial patterns in traffic crash coverage actually influence perceptions. This study conducted an experiment in which 999 subjects were randomly assigned to read one of three versions of a news article describing a traffic crash involving a pedestrian. After reading the description, subjects were asked to apportion blame, identify an appropriate punishment for the driver, and assess various approaches for improving road safety. In comparing the three groups, even relatively subtle differences in editorial patterns significantly affected readers' interpretation of both what happened and what to do about it on nearly every measure. Shifting from pedestrian-focused to driver-focused language reduced victim-blaming and increased perceived blame for the driver. A thematic frame significantly increased support for infrastructure improvements. This study provides strong evidence that efforts to change public perceptions of road safety should include a focus on improving editorial patterns in traffic crash reporting.