Pedestrians Should Not Have the Right of Way

1. Credibility The issue with credibility comes with my opponent trying to twist the words I have used in my arguments to sound different then what was actually said. The first example of this is the claim that I state the drivers of the cars who hit pedestrians should have to pay medical bills, which was never stated. The second example of this comes from the quote he argues "the driver has responsibility to prevent these type of accidents from occurring. ", which was said after I claimed was a stipulation of having a drivers license. However I will still refute these points using the original meaning.2. DefinitionIn his last speech my opponent challenged my definition of cross walk. Pedestrians have infinite right of way while within the confines of a crosswalk, this is the only place where. I was not defining the phrase "right of way", and it should be common knowledge of the right of way in crosswalks. If you take away the right of way of pedestrians then there can be no crosswalks, which was a part of one of my disadvantages. Crosswalks allow the pedestrian to walk freely at anytime across the street with full right of way. If a pedestrian runs out in front of a car in the street it is not the drivers fault but it is the pedestrians fault. Even while crossing the street outside an intersection and they are hit doesn't automatically constitute the drivers fault. If the driver has no possibility of stopping, it's the pedestrians fault. There are laws put into place against this inadvertent walking across the street known as "Jay-Walking".3. LawsuitsIn my lawsuit disadvantage, I never stated the driver should pay for the medical bills. I simply stated that if the pedestrian could be seen at fault for the accident then the driver could sue, which would put the pedestrian at a significant disadvantage monetarily. This adds to the fact that a driver could intentionally disregard the brake leading to an accident in order to gain money. 4. Red LightsThis seemed to be the topic of discussion in the last argument so I'll hit it. If a light is red the pedestrian should no doubt have the right of way. A red light indicates STOP, not "slow down" or "speed up". The driver is not permitted to cross an intersection once the light is red and if they hit a person they should be at full fault. Taking this away would contradict the law requiring a driver to stop at a red light5. Driver ResponsibilityThis was misinterpreted in the last argument of my opponent. By saying it was the drivers responsibility to prevent those type of accidents, I was using it as a connection to the drivers license. Pedestrians don't have to have a license to walk, as walking is an ability and is unrestricted to anyone. Driving however, is a privilege provided by Federal and State governments. When you are given a drivers license you are expected to be able to stay aware and keep both yourself and others safe while you are driving. This is why some driving test include simulators of a person in the road or a kid crossing the street. They want to make sure you are able to react fast and stop the car should that happen while driving on the road.6. ConclusionI have won this debate for 2 reasons. The first is I have successfully refuted all of the Pro's contentions and arguments. The second is I have provided credible arguments as to why the pedestrian should have the right away. Pedestrians should have the right away because it keeps crosswalks intact, prevents inhumane actions and lawsuits, and it is the drivers responsibility to keep his/herself and others around them safe, by receiving a drivers license.