> in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal
This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?
The law recognizes reality; a motor vehicle, even one driven by a "perfect" driver, has far fewer degrees of freedom in any given situation than a pedestrian. The vehicle has momentum, limitations on the braking force that can be applied to this momentum, limitations on the ability of the steering system to change the direction that the vehicle mass is traveling in, and sensory limitations for the driver that can decrease the reaction time available. A pedestrian can not move as fast or as far in reaction to such a situation, but they can change direction of travel far more quickly and have a better ability to hear or see the oncoming vehicle.
In a place and time where the motor lobby had not been so successful, the law would probably recognize this reality by imposing strict limitations on the use of machinery which, as you describe it, is so intrinsically dangerous. Locomotive Acts, for example
This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?