I didn't miss the point. That's an entirely separate argument. The OP's argument is that you could blame the pedestrian for failing to carry technology on thei

I didn't miss the point. That's an entirely separate argument. The OP's argument is that you could blame the pedestrian for failing to carry technology on their person. Your argument is that you could blame the tech. Those are separate. Blaming the tech in a viable defense is blaming the infrastructure for being insufficient which in some cases is legitimate (i.e. this crossing should be a signaled/puffin crossing because it's inherently unsafe). Blaming the tech as not being responsible for them however is not and no even half reasonable judge or jury would accept it. And if the tech is broken, it really should gracefully degrade/fail or in a sense it is to some degree at fault. And even in that case, you are almost always still at fault even if you hit a pedestrian who is crossing the street without using a crosswalk so it's not like it changes the situation at all from the legal status quo.