[pdonis]

> A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle.

This is true today, so how do such cases get handled today in jurisdictions where jaywalking is illegal?

Note that I am not proposing changing the current presumptions of guilt if there has been an accident, only the rule about what cops are allowed to write a ticket for if there hasn't been an accident.

> You could also argue that the driver has assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make before getting behind the wheel.

And you could argue that pedestrians have assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make when they choose to walk on public sidewalks and cross public roads. I don't see that this helps either way.

[VRay]

if a car hits a pedestrian, the car doesn't get destroyed but the pedestrian's body does

other than that, sure, you're right

[pdonis]

> if a car hits a pedestrian, the car doesn't get destroyed but the pedestrian's body does

See my response to mulman downthread where I talk about a large disparity in costs.

Also, as I said before, this is the case today, under our current legal regime where jaywalking is illegal. So how are cases like this handled today?