can of worms but... should pedestrians take some responsibility for their safety on the roads?

[mumnosbest]

Just watching a discussion on one of our favourite daytime tv shows. A young girl was hit on a dark country lane by a responsible driver, driving safely under the speed limit. The insurers are arguing she should have made herself more visible (torch/high-vis jacket).
What do we think. In this day and age do we need a change in the law making pedestrians more responsible?

All a pedestrian can do is make sure they're visible and vigilant.

As someone who is more often a pedestrian than a passenger (I don't drive) I would appreciate it if drivers indicated, because I'm not a bloody mind reader, drove at a sensible speed along our village roads, put their mobile phones away for the 30 seconds it takes them to drive from their home to the offy, didn't park their cars so far across the pavement that I'm forced to walk on the road with the boys and didn't use the pavement for 37 3 point turns about 5 feet in front of DS1 who is unable to compute that a moving car on the pavement is as likely to run him over as one on the road, so keeps on walking.

I think pedestrians should take more responsibility. We teach are children to be very careful near roads, yet many people grow up with a "cars aren't allowed to run me over, so I'll just walk here" attitude.

A woman was run over and killed in a road where I used to live.

She was crossed the road without checking sufficiently for traffic.

The driver was speeding, long straight road at 6.30 am. (Most drivers do go over 30mph on this road IME)

The driver was given a two year prison sentence.

I can't help thinking if the woman had looked both ways, she wouldn't have been run over. I know lots of people who know the place where it happened think two years was a harsh sentence.

But then you obviously can't be allowed to just go around running people over.

I read this one in the DM yesterday.

True, the girl was listening to her ipod - but she was walking on the verge

the driver was doing 50 - on an unlit winding country lane - & swerved onto the verge when he saw an oncoming car

he might have been legally within the limit but he was driving too fast

Churchill are being very shifty about paying up

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274372/Churchill-insurance-appeals-1m-payout-girl-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html\granted the details could be wrong as it's the DM but on face value, both the driver & insurer are at fault}

Of course pedestrians should take responsibility for their safety on the road. On a personal level.

But there should be no legal requirement for them to do so and no liability should be attached to any failure to do so.

It is disgusting that Churchill are trying to get out if paying that girl's compensation.

A person walking on a grass verge should not be expected to protect themselves from being hit by speeding hunks if metal.