[kilburn]

I completely agree with you, but also make a distinction between red-crossing and green-crossin pedestrians.

1. Law-abiding pedestrians are the top priority to save because they opted for the lowest possible risk offered in our society.

2. Car occupants com second, because they accepted the inherent risk of a faster transport method, but otherwise complied with the rules set to minimize such risks.

3. Red-crossing pedestrians have willingly taken the risk to be run over. If someone must be hurt, it should be them.

[Unman]

I disagree on that distinction. Pedestrians have not introduced the primed-handgrenade of the automobile into the situation. All dangerous consequences that flow from that introduction are the responsibility of the introducer.

Many highway codes explicitly recognize this principle: drivers are supposed to conduct their vehicle as though someone or something may run out in front of them at any stage.

It is true that in practice this implicit morality which reflects the widespread outrage which greeted the introduction of the motor car is now ignored, but that is at the base of many the codes.

[scatters]

> Red-crossing pedestrians have willingly taken the risk to be run over.

That's unlikely; usually, when pedestrians cross without a green light, it's because they've judged there to be a sufficient gap in traffic for them to cross safely, so unless the vehicle has not only failed brakes but also an accelerator stuck on full throttle (in which case it's more important for the car to attempt to forcibly halt itself as soon as possible) it's more likely that the pedestrians believed themselves to be crossing safely.

This could happen if e.g. the lights are faulty or badly designed (too short a cycle, or showing a misleading aspect), if the pedestrians are physically disabled or have an injury such that they failed to make it across during the green cycle, if they have mental health issues or dementia, or simple accident (e.g. tripping, dropping an item in the crosswalk).