🚀 go-pugleaf

"Donna Whitman" <NSBooklady@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1o8i251f2trh4nb92b2n28lglf69vv502s@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:31:35 GMT, "JD" <me@home.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Donna Whitman" <NSBooklady@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1q7g259fpcfdld8n3g67g6ooea9m8enhja@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:51:29 -0300, Brian Smith
>>> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Corvis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "may be" about it.....it's the law ....look it up.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to look it up, I am well aware of what the  law states.
>>>>However I am also aware of the fact that the law isn't adhered to 100%
>>>>of the time. For a person walking to believe that the law is going to
>>>>protect him or her is foolhardy at best. Using common sense and allowing
>>>>self preservation to protect oneself makes one safer than any law can
>>>>ever do for a person.
>>>
>>>
>>>  It's against the law to murder another person but you can't go
>>> walking around late at night in a known violent area and expect the
>>> law will protect you. Knowing that the person who killed you would be
>>> committing an illegal act won't help.
>>>
>>> Same thing with the crosswalk situation. It's against the law not to
>>> yield to someone already in a crosswalk but you have to be vigilant
>>> when crossing because some drivers don't follow the law and being
>>> alive trumps being right every time.
>>>
>>
>>That may be right.  But, it is NOT the predestrian's fault.  If the driver
>>breaks the law, its the driver's fault.
>>
>>By that logic, perhaps we should all stop driving Friday and Saturday 
>>nights
>>because there are more drunk drivers on the road, and it would be our 
>>fault
>>if one of them killed us.
>
>
>
> No, by that logic we need to drive defensively if on the road at a
> time when there are usually more drunks out and about. Look for people
> driving erratically, etc.
>
> You keep harping on fault and NO ONE is debating that a driver who
> hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk is at fault. All that's being  said
> is that pedestrians have to exercise "defensive walking" when crossing
> the street.
>
> If you KNOW there is a risk and you ignore the risk and suffer
> consequences, then you have to accept some responsibility for what
> happens.
>

No.  Brian said the pedestrian was completely at fault.  That is what I am 
arguing against.  No disputing the pedestrian will lose every time, but the 
pedestrian is not at fault here.