As long as the act was accidental I don't see any need to assign blame or guilt to anyone. This need for regulation simply dosn't apply to pedestrians, and str

As long as the act was accidental I don't see any need to assign blame or guilt to anyone. This need for regulation simply dosn't apply to pedestrians, and strict rules just seem extreme and uneccessary. There simply isn't the evidence that pedestrian behaviour is a cause of death and injury among drivers. So why bother inflicting unpleasant rules and laws on people? Especially when the pedestrian themselves is likely to be the only person injured or killed. Of course some places do have jay walking laws, and I would agree that people should follow the law. But those laws exist solely for the benefit of motorists and not the safety of pedestrians. I just don't see any strong moral case for those sort of rules to exist. I think that cars create a uniquely weird set of circumstances. We impose a set of rules and restrictions on people that are more aggressive than would normally be acceptable. They are completely against free will and liberty. They are a total drag. And people reactively assume that the same rules should be applied to other road users. But that is categorically unfair and uneccessary. Should drunk walking be banned? Should kids cycling to school be banned? Should we have a law that punishes careless walking? No, that is ridiculous. But we have to have those laws for drivers.