Pedestrians Should Not Have the Right of Way

Disadvantage 1: No Cross-Walks If there is no pedestrian right of way there can be no crosswalks. The C.R.S., define a crosswalk as: “. . that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections or any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other marking onthe surface.” Within this "crosswalk" pedestrians have the legal right of way to be able to cross the street. So if pedestrians can not have the right of way; therefore, they can not have the ability to have a cross walk If there are no crosswalks, civilians would be stuck on sidewalks at intersections unable to travel. The ability to use a road as travel shouldn't be limited to just motor vehicles, and it is not. Roads were created to promote travel by bikes, people, non-motor vehicles, and motor vehicles. When crosswalks are eliminated there will be almost no opportunity for a pedestrian to legally cross the street. When drivers know they will not have to slow down to prevent hitting a pedestrian, they won't, and the result of this will be an instilled fear into people who have to walk. Many people don't have access to a vehicle to transport them to their destination so they have to rely on their feet. Knowing that they could be hit at anytime anywhere on the street and the result would be their fault, would cause them to stay on the sidewalk. At a four way intersection even when a light becomes red, more than likely someone will be turning right on red or engaging in some action that blocks all intersections. Using the no right of way for pedestrian logic, there will be no opportunity for them to travel within this means. And if cars do have the right away, a pedestrian must wait until the street is completely clear of cars before they can proceed, which in larger cities is practically illogical. Disadvantage 2: Wrongful Lawsuits Prized possessions. Outside of having a home and a child in the home, a car is more than likely the single most expensive thing many people owe. If a pedestrian is hit because a car had the right of way, more than likely a person would try and sue to repair damages to their car. This would NOT be right. The pedestrian hit would more than likely have serious injuries and have possibly died. They should not have to worry about paying money to fix another persons car. Increased expenses. If person was hit and seriously injured or killed, as stated above, they shouldn't have to worry about paying for ones car. Assuming they are insured medically the bills for the hospital when the emergency room, ambulance(if needed), and doctors fees come into play will reach at least 5000$ out of pocket expenses. When the automobile driver sues for their car, this 5000$ can reach 10000$ depending on the damage. This would be taking away money from a person who is at more risk to be killed in this type of accident. This is not a perfect world. People these days like to take advantage of a system and how it is put into place, especially laws. If someone is tired of their car, some car insurance companies can go as far to allow a person to get a car one model year never than the one damaged in an accident not deemed their fault. So the person knowing that they wouldn't be at fault if they don't slow down and come to a stop so the pedestrian can pass, they can get a new car, they could be willing to take full advantage of this, at the expense of the person/people walking. Pro-topic : Maneuverability. The first issue with arguing maneuverability comes when you look at the fact that the cars have the potential to be seen as a deadly weapon towards a pedestrian, but the pedestrian shouldn't be seen as a weapon towards the driver. When a driver is given a license and the ability to drive legally on streets in a state, they have passed a test that shows they have the ability to maneuver the car and drive it in a safe manor. Driving is a privilege and it comes with great responsibility. One of those responsibilities is to yield to pedestrians who cross the street, so they don't harm them. Walking is not a government provided privilege. There is no obligated responsibility, but when crossing the street one does happen to know to look left and right before crossing.Issues with the example provided under maneuverability. The main issue with the example provided involving the train and the car, are that a train runs on tracks. With these tracks comes intersections for cars and people. There are swing arms that come down preventing travel of cars and to warn travel of people across tracks. There are no swing arms on sidewalks that prevent pedestrians from walking. What this means is that even though a person is more maneuverable than a car and a car is more maneuverable than a train, this example cannot be used, because there is nothing to physically keep a person from crossing the street.Pro-Topic: AwarenessOnce again, here comes the issue of the responsibilities given to a driver when they are handed a license. A person when they have this license, has the responsibility to pay attention to many things at one time, in order to control the car. They have to be able to be at high awareness, and see forwardly and through their peripheral vision. The fact of the matter is that everyone does not have 20/20 vision. When in the process of getting your license, a person is given a vision test. If they pass this vision test, there is no reason their vision should hamper them anymore than a person walking with the same eyesight. Awareness is key and is the very reason they tell people to not use cell phones while driving and to make sure they are always looking forward. The speed limit usually driven is around 40 miles per hour in cities. It has been proved that at 40 mph it takes 118 feet to stop. A person who is paying attention to the road and their surroundings while driving, should be able to recognize a person or at least a silhouette of a person at around 3 times this length(a football field) by this time the person in the car should have slowed down and recognized a person or at least been able to slam on the brakes(in a needed situation). To Conclude: The pedestrian should be given the right away, because without the right away, crosswalks are going to be removed, wrongful lawsuits will happen, and the driver has responsibility to prevent these type of accidents from occurring.