[chrisseaton]

> Do you also agree that "A human being driving around and crossing a red light with some basic looking both ways is not a danger to anyone."?

No.

> Both can create danger to each other.

Absolute nonsense.

The person on foot is no danger to anyone. For example, two people on foot are no danger to each other. It's only when you add a car that there's any danger at all. The entire cause of any danger whatsoever is the car. Therefore it's the car's responsibility to keep things safe and to keep out of people's way.

(Of course if the car isn't given reasonable opportunity to stop then that's the pedestrian's fault - there's always a reasonableness test.)

Basically if a human being wants to cross then of course cars should stop for them, no matter if there's a crossing or not.

[manigandham]

If you don't agree then your argument is logically inconsistent. Cars are not living things. It's humans vs humans. Two humans travelling on foot can collide and cause injury to each other, meanwhile two humans in cars can easily avoid each other even in cross traffic.

If you want to argue that its about cross-modalities then why have train crossings? Just let cars drive across the tracks if they think its safe. Now surely you can see why that might be an issue?

The whole point of these laws is to create safety by reducing unpredictable events. Again, it doesn't mean you can't safely ignore the laws (even most of the time), but that's not what the law is for. It's ironic that you mention reasonableness and yet have a completely unreasonable understanding of the rules.