Pedestrians vulnerable

Xiu Yangfeng (cnhubei.com): I have searched the Internet and found there are only few cases where pedestrians have caused casualties. One example was a man in Shanghai who crossed a street and brought on a tragedy where a motorcyclist ran into a truck in 2006. It was the first reported case of a pedestrian causing another's death in China.

My finding shows such accidents happen only infrequently. Therefore, should we rewrite relevant legal stipulations just for a rare event? Is it rational and legitimate? For instance, it is the same not removing all the telegraph poles in a city just because one caused a pedestrian's death.

I don't want to embarrass the lawyer who made the proposal. I just want to stress that we should not exaggerate the harm of pedestrians' road abuse. Arbitrary street crossings are not that civilized; legally, we should give those offenders the punishment they deserve. But criminal responsibility is too much. I'm afraid it will make pedestrians more vulnerable.

Compared to the threat of high-speed vehicles, pedestrians do little harm to drivers.

While an "auto society" is coming, I strongly believe that pedestrians should shoulder least responsibility for what happens on roads. So the media and law enforcement departments should pay more attention to restrictions on vehicles.

Wang Xuetang (Yangcheng Evening News): Can legal punishment stop rule-breaking pedestrians? It's quite difficult!

On one hand, most people know that arbitrary street crossings are against traffic rules. But just the same as drunken drivers, they have a sense of chance.

Laws have both the functions of education and punishment, and punishment is just one method of education. For instance, some migrant workers do not adjust to complicated urban transport systems well, and they may think it is acceptable to cross streets at will. Of course, they are breaking the law, but it is understandable.

The most important reason is that most pedestrians do not fully predict the harm of their violation. In such cases, the blameworthy pedestrians often end up injured or even dead. Therefore, they can hardly shoulder any legal liability. If a driver hits a pedestrian crossing a street illegally, should the dead pedestrian still pay for the driver's loss?

Laws cannot solve every problem. If we want to solve the problem of arbitrary street crossings, a lot more work should be done to raise people's awareness of risk and improve road safety facilities.

Guo Wenjing (Yangcheng Evening News): In most countries in the world, rule-breaking pedestrians do not have to take criminal responsibility for causing traffic accidents. Most of them are punished by administrative punishment or a mark against their credit record. Singapore is one of a few exceptions, where first-time violators of street crossing rules will be fined and those violate the rules more than once will be sentenced to imprisonment of six months to a year.

But we should take note of the fact that Singapore has a unique road culture in that it generally keeps the use of highways for vehicles and pedestrians balanced. First, it builds zebra crossings and sidewalks reasonably to make people's crossing more convenient. Second, time limits for traffic lights are intelligent, and red lights do not last more than a minute and a half. Also, it particularly emphasizes pedestrians have the right of way when they use zebra crossings. So no matter whether there is a red light or not, vehicles must stop for zebra crossings and give way to pedestrians.

It is this unique culture that creates respect between drivers and pedestrians. But in China, there is not such a culture yet. Regardless of correct use of roads, even zebra crossing offences are frequent. On most occasions, drivers never think of the rights of others. Failing to treat pedestrians equally, we can hardly expect mutual respect. My conclusion is that China is not yet ready to convict pedestrians for arbitrarily crossing streets.