> One of the first lessons you should learn as a driver is to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead, if you do that then the chances of having to swearve to avoid people walking in the lane or having to think about the consequence of killing a mother and child are practically nil.

You can get a ticket for "creating a hazardous situation" and judged as partially at fault even if the accident is technically the other party's fault. For example, behaving unpredictably like arbitrarily slamming on your brakes and getting rear-ended. I know this for a fact because it happened to a friend - she slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a dog, was rear-ended, and was shocked to be assigned 50% of the liability. The other 50% was assigned to the vehicle behind her for not keeping enough distance.

I don't think you'll find judges very sympathetic to that, nor to a person who wanders onto a freeway daring traffic to dodge him.

Besides, it simply is stupid to tempt fate, whether you're right or not. Being DEAD right is not a happy outcome.

> A situation cannot be simultaneously dangerous and not dangerous.

I didn't say that. I said her actions were dangerous. It was in response to your comment: > If I felt it was so dangerous that I needed to stop and offer unsolicited advice to someone I didn't know, I would feel responsible for their safety if I didn't offer them a lift.

If there is a sidewalk she can safely walk on, that is a not-dangerous situation, and and there is no need to offer her a lift. If she chooses to instead walk in the middle of the road, that changes the situation.

> the driver of a vehicle is the one in charge of a potentially lethal machine

Agreed. Again, there is nothing in this thread stating otherwise.

My point is that pedestrians need to walk responsibly as well.

> the chances of having to swearve to avoid people walking in the lane or having to think about the consequence of killing a mother and child are practically nil.

I think you are being too optimistic here.