[Planktonne]

In distracted driving cases, you're behind the wheel of a vehicle that is capable of harming others; that's why it leads to legal liability. In situations where you are not likely to cause harm, "act[ing] in a reasonable fashion to mitigate risks for yourself and others" does not require anything from you.

[jmyeet]

All of this is really making my point. Being a pedestrian does not absolve you of all responsibility to mitigate harm. If you cycled at all you’d quickly learn just how entitled and oblivious so many pedestrians act.

Cyclists do stupid and dangerous things too. Believe me I am aware. I have to anticipate those too.

But, in my experience, nobody acts with more carelessness and selfishness than pedestrians. And I say that as one of them too.

[Planktonne]

A pedestrian walking in a place where pedestrians are expected is not endangering cyclists. We're not talking about cycle lanes or crosswalks: we're talking about places where cyclists aren't supposed to be.

There is no requirement to mitigate all potential harms caused to unexpected hostile sources by the direct actions of unexpected hostile sources.

[fc417fc802]

> you’d quickly learn just how entitled and oblivious so many pedestrians act.

Well yes, they are indeed entitled to what they are doing. It is you who is acting entitled here - cyclists are not entitled to having pedestrians dodge them.

Your earlier vehicle example is wholly misplaced. Divers have a legal responsibility to maintain awareness of their surroundings at all times. Pedestrians do not have that. Notice that many disabilities can legally disqualify you from driving.

[whycome]

With greater powers come greater responsibilities.

[fsckboy]

ride defensively, don't travel at high speed when you can see that there are pedestrians ahead who might very well turn and take a step into your lane. slowing down is not going to kill you, speed up when the way is clear.